Article from the NYT
Our empress has spoken lol.
*
The Queen-of-Vacationing-on-the
Taxpayer’s-Dime-in-the-Middle-of-a-Depression Speaks.
You need a shovel for this article.
*
Just gag me ....
These cretins are truly from an alternative universe.
*
Her "rudder" appears to be growing. Given a little encouragement it could morph into one of those "Serengeti shelfasses" that you can sit a pot of coffee on.
*
To paraphrase: She used to be a bi*#h who wanted to do her own thing but now she is a bi*#h who will do what she is told
*
The woman publicly expressed hatred for me and has not yet recanted. If she wants to remain a bitch that is fine. I don’t care what she thinks, says, or does. She is irrelevant to me.
*
It is neither evolved, nor is it a lady.
Title is utter BS trash.
*
Liberals profess how lovely Moochelle is.
But when I look carefully at her face, I see ugly to the bone. Makes me shudder.
*
And my mother thought Jackie Kennedy was bad. I’m glad she didn’t see this.
*
Amazing & sickening.
And oh, BTW, Michelle thinks white America is sitting around just waiting for a black woman to screw up. What an enormous chip she has on her shoulders.
Note to FLOTUS: Your skin color is irrelevant. It’s your commie-red values that bother us.
*
She’s not one of us.
*
"one day I asked my sister, who in the world thinks Michelle Obama is appealing. I expected my sister, who works for a large school system,to laugh along with me and say nobody she knew. However, she said to me in all seriousness that most of the women she worked with loved Michelle Obama. They thought she was glamorous and interesting. I could not believe it. I guess I live in a cave."
What do you expect from people who work in a school system? My sister in law used to be fairly conservative. She became employed in a school system and after a few years became an arrogant, ignorant, insufferable, liberal idiot. I no longer speak to her. It’s waste of time and effort.
*
Mochelle brings to the White House, all the class of a racist welfare queen (who moonlights as a bar bouncer).
Doubt that? Just take a really good look at her and her speec and behavior.
Mrs. Gimmie Gimmie or what?
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Jim Robinson: Taking stock of our dwindling conservative inventory
This is a vanity post by the founder of FreeRepublic, Jim Robinson, asking the community which candidate they should endorse.
His message ends with: But if we don't land on one soon and raise him up over Romney, guess who we're going to be stuck with? And it ain't going to be pretty. And if abortionist/statist/progressive Romney (or moonbat Paul) is the one, might as well get used to four more years of Obama. I won't vote for or support either one of those two.
I'd suggest that we all stop trying to tear down the other conservative candidates in the race and instead concentrate on trying to build up our own personal favorites. Who knows? May even discover an acceptable conservative (if not a great conservative) in the bunch. We've never had a perfect conservative yet. Not even the magnificent Ronald Reagan. We and they all have warts.
But we do want to have a candidate with at least an actual CONSERVATIVE record and not an out and out liberal progressive RINO. So let's compare their records and their actual conservative accomplishments but not try to destroy them personally.
God bless and may the best CONSERVATIVE be our nominee.
The comments:
I’m sticking with Gingrich to the end. He’s the only one with the political experience, the longevity, and knowledge of the system to route out, and squash all the Leftist bug larvae infesting the corpse that is what’s left of our government today.
Renew America while we still have some of it.
*
I like Santorum but it’s gonna take a Newt Gingrich to roll everything back pre FDR.
If we can just get Newt in then the only way that he could be prevented from restoring a constitutional republic is impeachment...he has already indicated he will not be constrained by the courts.
At this late date we require a pissed-off bull in the china shop to fix this mess. I can see no other avenue of escape. Can you?
*
A lot of this is being orchestrated by the GOP establishment. They put out soundbites and tidbits trying to show how XYZ conservative has departed from the true faith in some case, and then they use this to dismantle the candidate in the eyes of conservatives. All the while, they don’t want you to notice that they are doing it to push through what would be the most liberal GOP Presidential nominee since Nixon.
*
I’m convinced that Newt Gingrich is the junkyard dog we need to rip Obama a new one and send him running back to his Chicago cesspool with his tail between his legs. Newt has DC experience, executive ability, and his silver tongue is razor sharp. He delivers his messages straight up and he can also be very witty. His work with American Solutions was very impressive in that he was able to spell out principles around which the vast majority of Americans agree. He also has plenty of practical ideas for making government work better for the taxpayers. Is Newt pure as the driven snow? No. Whatever Newt’s “baggage”, it’s miniscule compared to Obama’s load and Newt is 100% American. Newt is like Larry the Cable Guy: Send him to DC and he’ll “Git ‘er done”. Junkyard dogs are not show dogs, but they’ll save your bacon.
*
"What we REALLY need to be worrying about is how to split up Paul’s base."
I don't think his base is real.
In polls, his base is a bunch of spam monkeys.
In Iowa and soon to be other primaries/caucuses, his base is cross-over liberal voters.
My theory: His numbers are fake.
*
I’m sure Santorum is a perfectly nice guy.
This just isnt a nice guy election.
Newt is the most fearless guy to run for the white house since Reagan. He knows how to fight and does not need time to train and get up to speed.
*
Good post. While it looks like "Mitt" at this stage the actual elections are yet to come. "Mitt" will probably take New Hampshire but Newt is certainly a big force in South Carolina and Florida.
I take the view that Iowa was a defeat for "Mitt" as the anybody but Romney vote was the majority.
Hopefully we can keep the "Eleventh Commandment" for the remaining primaries.
--- LOL I love this logic.
*
There are lots of flaws among these conservative candidates but a Romney vs. Obama race means America goes socialist forever. Whatever their flaws Santorum, Gingrich or Newt would reverse this.
*
I’m not certain just what can be done. Free and fair elections are clearly a thing of the past. The media is central to the problem. Fox is about as bad as the others now.
What is clear is that anyone even remotely viewed as conservative will be savaged as soon as they show signes of strength. The Republican elite has joined forces with the progressives. The country can not stand a second Obama term as he is now intent on ruling by himself. Romney is no alternative. Occupy will trash any direct appeal and the control of the Internet seems at hand.
*
People complain that Newt is a bomb thrower. IMHO, given washington and the mess we’re in as a country, I wish him luck and will happily assist in crafting bombs to throw.
It would be nice if the Republican Party had even a smidge of sense. The so-called elite are not only out-of-touch...
they are downright sinister in their ignorant mediocrity.
*
Some people have poor up-bringing. I read a post calling Gingrich a “scumbag” and I asked - how conservative is that kind of language?
And the reply I got was totally clueless to what my point was.
Thanks Hollywood!
*
"Why not Gingrich & Condeleeza Rice in 2012?
OR Santorum & Rice in 2012?
Putting Rice in the veep slot takes a LOT of wind out of Demoncrat sails. It may split the black vote on the other side and think of the disaffected women in the ranks of the RATS who'd jump at the chance to make history once again."
I read where Condi supports murdering innocent babies in the womb, if that is true then she’s a non-starter.
*
I’d turn that around and put Santorum at the top of the ticket, with Newt playing a Cheney-type role. Can you imagine Newt suddenly presiding over the Senate? I can. I think he would relish it.
*
"Newt is the most fearless guy to run for the white house since Reagan."
Couldn't agree more. We need a fearless, patriotic fighter to represent us now. Look at what we're up against. This country has never seen anything like Obama before.
It's going to take someone who puts on his war paint every morning to galvanize the base and defeat him.
*
Well said, but I fear we are victims of a biased media who is largely responsible for fomenting personal attacks on the candidates rather than focus on issues — their candidate’s weakness.
Think about it, we know more about Santorum, Cain, Perry, and others in this race than we know about Obama. Perry’s college grades were released. Where’s Obama’s? Cain may have had a few flings. Did Obama? We hear about Newt’s writings and positions in the past, where are Obama’s writings from the Harvard Review?
I am optimistic that the American people have had enough of Obama, and will vote him out regardless who we nominate. That said:
Gingrich - Santorum 2012
*
I have been guilty. I have been very guilty on the Perry thread. Well I am not doing it anymore. Your article is correct. I can go with Santorum, Newt, Perry. I am leaning towards a Newt/Santorum ticket because Santorum is young enough to be President in 8 years and after the two of them transforming our country, we will be in good shape for another 4-8 years of a Republican President. So if we go with this ticket it is possible that we have the Presidency until at least January 2029.
*
Well said Jim! I hear you and it’s pretty frightening, to say the least. Romney is essentially “Odrama lite” which is why the MSM is pushing him....
God in heaven needs to hear our prayers and help people get it together enough to support someone decent. Or maybe He needs to open some people’s eyes.
*
Gingrich didn't serve, but his ENTIRE family going back 100 years did, unlike that degenerate scumbag from Kolob Romney.
That glad handing non chicken skin eating douchebag will NEVER be POTUS, and third party candidates to stop him could include Palin , Gingrich, and Trump.
Better to let the communists own the collapse than put some blue blood corporate raider crypto-crony capitalist bourgeois con man in the White House.
Obama reelected only speeds up the inevitable collapse and reset.
The US Federal Government post Civil War has turned into a criminal enterprise run by lawyers and bureaucrats for their own perpetual enrichment at the expense of the productive class.
It has also ceased to be a representative Republic and has turned into a sure to fail Democracy.
The Founders didn't put a right to vote into the Constitution for a very simple reason; they didn't want imbeciles, those under 21, and lazy parasites to be enfranchised, in fact warned against it, leaving the States to determine who could cast ballots.
This government must be reset with all Amendments other then the original Bill of Rights repealed.
The franchise must be limited and determined by the states.
Incorporate term limits, rotate the Capital amongst the States, and ensure dueling is legal so big mouth politicians will think twice before telling outrageous lies and slanders.
*
Jacob was a cheater, Peter had a temper, David had an affair, Noah got drunk, Jonah ran from God, Paul was a murderer, Gideon was insecure, Miriam was a gossiper, Martha was a worrier, Thomas was a doubter, Elijah was moody, Moses stuttered, Zaccheus was short, Abraham was old, Lazarus was dead.... God doesn’t call the qualified, He qualifies the CALLED!
jus sayin.
*
"I agree with all you say, except Romney is still quite a bit better than Obama."
NO HE IS NOT.
*
"Really? You can’t think of 3 ways Romney is better than Obama?
#1
I’m not aware that Romney has surrounded himself with avowed communists. Maybe he has and I’m open to correction on that issue. Obama is surrounded by hard communists who want to turn America into Italy on its way to Vietnam."
-- 1: Look up the history of his close friends Ted Kennedy in south/centeral America and John Vietman Kerry and reask the question.
"#2
Obama is a Muslim who bowed to the Saudi King and has assisted the consolidation of power of fundamentalist Islam in Egypt, Lybia and Tunisia, and he is trying in Syria and Yemen. Really, Do you really think Mormon Romney would promote the spread of radical fundamentalist Islam abroad?"
-- 2. Did we think before Obama was elected he’s do the kind od damage in ME relations he has?
"#3
Obama has limitless funds for destruction from George Soros. Romney has no such benefactor."
-- 3: Liberals with control of Treasury Dept are proven to proint whatever cash required
"#4 Obama has an army of support from ACORN and SEIU to engage in widespread voter fraud. Romney has no such army of support."
-- 4: Sure he does. He’s a liberal too.
"#5
Obama has a complicit media to cover up his scandals and
damaging policies. A president Romney would be held in check by a left-wing socialist media."
-- 5: he is a liberal left wing socialist too. RE ROMNEYCARE. GUN CONTROL etc.
"#6 Romney, to my knowledge, never ran guns to the Mexican cartels in a manipulation ploy to pass gun control laws."
-- 6: Nor has Romney - but he’s not President. Yet. See “Left wing socialist who hates guns and may well use it like Obama did to drum up anti-gun hysteria.)
"#7 Romney hasn’t tried to destroy the US coal industry."
-- 7: Yes he has. Hes a global warmist.
"#8 Romney did not nationalize banks and car companies in Massachusetts."
-- 8: He nationalized (relatively speaking) ROMNEYCARE
"More than any single reason why WE MUST DEFEAT OBAMA is to repeal Obamacare. Obamacare kicks in right after the election and 4 years later will see it entrenched with no hope of ever repealing it. Romney would not lead the fight to overturn Obamacare, but he could be dragged kicking and screaming to “compromise” and repeal it by a determined House and Senate that sends him a repeal and dares him to veto it."
ROMNEYCARE. What part of “NO ROMNEY NO WAY” is a problem. In Jim somehow someone people here feel free to ignore?
*
I don’t blame you but I’ve decided to go down with the ship. I want to escape from California, but I’ll make my last stand in Virginia, and if it means going down in the USA, then I go down in the USA. I can’t leave my nation. There is simply no place better to go. As bad as we are becoming, there is no place better to go.
Here is a simple test.
Think of any country you might want to flee to. Imagine that country.
Now imagine going target shooting in that country with an M1 Garand rifle, or an AR15.
Now imagine using the country’s head of state for that target practice. In public.
Now you tell me what nations on earth where you can do that any day of the week and live to tell the tale, not thrown in some hellhole dungeon for crimes against the state.
Simple test.
I’m going down with the ship. My last stand will be in Virginia. Damn the torpedos... uh, commie bastards!
-- Wait... is this guy saying that the best way to test if you're in the best country in the world is whether or not you can assassinate the head of state without getting thrown into a dungeon? or am I misreading that? Anyone?
*
Gingrich has too much baggage, IMO. After he gets done savaging Romney with ads, he ought to drop out and leave the field to Santorum.
One on one Santorum can beat Romney. We have to clear the field for him. He's the last one standing.
*
“I know its a dead horse, but Palin not running was a sad loss for us and the nation.”
Amen to that. If things get bad enough, and the nomination process fails us, maybe she still will.
By the end of the thread, Jim Robinson was banning anyone who questioned the anti-Romney stance.
On a side note, yesterday, the number of unique visitors to this blog quadrupled, with no discernible reason. They appear to be visitors who came here directly, rather than via a link or a search engine. Does anyone have any explanation for that? My numbers went back to normal today.
His message ends with: But if we don't land on one soon and raise him up over Romney, guess who we're going to be stuck with? And it ain't going to be pretty. And if abortionist/statist/progressive Romney (or moonbat Paul) is the one, might as well get used to four more years of Obama. I won't vote for or support either one of those two.
I'd suggest that we all stop trying to tear down the other conservative candidates in the race and instead concentrate on trying to build up our own personal favorites. Who knows? May even discover an acceptable conservative (if not a great conservative) in the bunch. We've never had a perfect conservative yet. Not even the magnificent Ronald Reagan. We and they all have warts.
But we do want to have a candidate with at least an actual CONSERVATIVE record and not an out and out liberal progressive RINO. So let's compare their records and their actual conservative accomplishments but not try to destroy them personally.
God bless and may the best CONSERVATIVE be our nominee.
The comments:
I’m sticking with Gingrich to the end. He’s the only one with the political experience, the longevity, and knowledge of the system to route out, and squash all the Leftist bug larvae infesting the corpse that is what’s left of our government today.
Renew America while we still have some of it.
*
I like Santorum but it’s gonna take a Newt Gingrich to roll everything back pre FDR.
If we can just get Newt in then the only way that he could be prevented from restoring a constitutional republic is impeachment...he has already indicated he will not be constrained by the courts.
At this late date we require a pissed-off bull in the china shop to fix this mess. I can see no other avenue of escape. Can you?
*
A lot of this is being orchestrated by the GOP establishment. They put out soundbites and tidbits trying to show how XYZ conservative has departed from the true faith in some case, and then they use this to dismantle the candidate in the eyes of conservatives. All the while, they don’t want you to notice that they are doing it to push through what would be the most liberal GOP Presidential nominee since Nixon.
*
I’m convinced that Newt Gingrich is the junkyard dog we need to rip Obama a new one and send him running back to his Chicago cesspool with his tail between his legs. Newt has DC experience, executive ability, and his silver tongue is razor sharp. He delivers his messages straight up and he can also be very witty. His work with American Solutions was very impressive in that he was able to spell out principles around which the vast majority of Americans agree. He also has plenty of practical ideas for making government work better for the taxpayers. Is Newt pure as the driven snow? No. Whatever Newt’s “baggage”, it’s miniscule compared to Obama’s load and Newt is 100% American. Newt is like Larry the Cable Guy: Send him to DC and he’ll “Git ‘er done”. Junkyard dogs are not show dogs, but they’ll save your bacon.
*
"What we REALLY need to be worrying about is how to split up Paul’s base."
I don't think his base is real.
In polls, his base is a bunch of spam monkeys.
In Iowa and soon to be other primaries/caucuses, his base is cross-over liberal voters.
My theory: His numbers are fake.
*
I’m sure Santorum is a perfectly nice guy.
This just isnt a nice guy election.
Newt is the most fearless guy to run for the white house since Reagan. He knows how to fight and does not need time to train and get up to speed.
*
Good post. While it looks like "Mitt" at this stage the actual elections are yet to come. "Mitt" will probably take New Hampshire but Newt is certainly a big force in South Carolina and Florida.
I take the view that Iowa was a defeat for "Mitt" as the anybody but Romney vote was the majority.
Hopefully we can keep the "Eleventh Commandment" for the remaining primaries.
--- LOL I love this logic.
*
There are lots of flaws among these conservative candidates but a Romney vs. Obama race means America goes socialist forever. Whatever their flaws Santorum, Gingrich or Newt would reverse this.
*
I’m not certain just what can be done. Free and fair elections are clearly a thing of the past. The media is central to the problem. Fox is about as bad as the others now.
What is clear is that anyone even remotely viewed as conservative will be savaged as soon as they show signes of strength. The Republican elite has joined forces with the progressives. The country can not stand a second Obama term as he is now intent on ruling by himself. Romney is no alternative. Occupy will trash any direct appeal and the control of the Internet seems at hand.
*
People complain that Newt is a bomb thrower. IMHO, given washington and the mess we’re in as a country, I wish him luck and will happily assist in crafting bombs to throw.
It would be nice if the Republican Party had even a smidge of sense. The so-called elite are not only out-of-touch...
they are downright sinister in their ignorant mediocrity.
*
Some people have poor up-bringing. I read a post calling Gingrich a “scumbag” and I asked - how conservative is that kind of language?
And the reply I got was totally clueless to what my point was.
Thanks Hollywood!
*
"Why not Gingrich & Condeleeza Rice in 2012?
OR Santorum & Rice in 2012?
Putting Rice in the veep slot takes a LOT of wind out of Demoncrat sails. It may split the black vote on the other side and think of the disaffected women in the ranks of the RATS who'd jump at the chance to make history once again."
I read where Condi supports murdering innocent babies in the womb, if that is true then she’s a non-starter.
*
I’d turn that around and put Santorum at the top of the ticket, with Newt playing a Cheney-type role. Can you imagine Newt suddenly presiding over the Senate? I can. I think he would relish it.
*
"Newt is the most fearless guy to run for the white house since Reagan."
Couldn't agree more. We need a fearless, patriotic fighter to represent us now. Look at what we're up against. This country has never seen anything like Obama before.
It's going to take someone who puts on his war paint every morning to galvanize the base and defeat him.
*
Well said, but I fear we are victims of a biased media who is largely responsible for fomenting personal attacks on the candidates rather than focus on issues — their candidate’s weakness.
Think about it, we know more about Santorum, Cain, Perry, and others in this race than we know about Obama. Perry’s college grades were released. Where’s Obama’s? Cain may have had a few flings. Did Obama? We hear about Newt’s writings and positions in the past, where are Obama’s writings from the Harvard Review?
I am optimistic that the American people have had enough of Obama, and will vote him out regardless who we nominate. That said:
Gingrich - Santorum 2012
*
I have been guilty. I have been very guilty on the Perry thread. Well I am not doing it anymore. Your article is correct. I can go with Santorum, Newt, Perry. I am leaning towards a Newt/Santorum ticket because Santorum is young enough to be President in 8 years and after the two of them transforming our country, we will be in good shape for another 4-8 years of a Republican President. So if we go with this ticket it is possible that we have the Presidency until at least January 2029.
*
Well said Jim! I hear you and it’s pretty frightening, to say the least. Romney is essentially “Odrama lite” which is why the MSM is pushing him....
God in heaven needs to hear our prayers and help people get it together enough to support someone decent. Or maybe He needs to open some people’s eyes.
*
Gingrich didn't serve, but his ENTIRE family going back 100 years did, unlike that degenerate scumbag from Kolob Romney.
That glad handing non chicken skin eating douchebag will NEVER be POTUS, and third party candidates to stop him could include Palin , Gingrich, and Trump.
Better to let the communists own the collapse than put some blue blood corporate raider crypto-crony capitalist bourgeois con man in the White House.
Obama reelected only speeds up the inevitable collapse and reset.
The US Federal Government post Civil War has turned into a criminal enterprise run by lawyers and bureaucrats for their own perpetual enrichment at the expense of the productive class.
It has also ceased to be a representative Republic and has turned into a sure to fail Democracy.
The Founders didn't put a right to vote into the Constitution for a very simple reason; they didn't want imbeciles, those under 21, and lazy parasites to be enfranchised, in fact warned against it, leaving the States to determine who could cast ballots.
This government must be reset with all Amendments other then the original Bill of Rights repealed.
The franchise must be limited and determined by the states.
Incorporate term limits, rotate the Capital amongst the States, and ensure dueling is legal so big mouth politicians will think twice before telling outrageous lies and slanders.
*
Jacob was a cheater, Peter had a temper, David had an affair, Noah got drunk, Jonah ran from God, Paul was a murderer, Gideon was insecure, Miriam was a gossiper, Martha was a worrier, Thomas was a doubter, Elijah was moody, Moses stuttered, Zaccheus was short, Abraham was old, Lazarus was dead.... God doesn’t call the qualified, He qualifies the CALLED!
jus sayin.
*
"I agree with all you say, except Romney is still quite a bit better than Obama."
NO HE IS NOT.
*
"Really? You can’t think of 3 ways Romney is better than Obama?
#1
I’m not aware that Romney has surrounded himself with avowed communists. Maybe he has and I’m open to correction on that issue. Obama is surrounded by hard communists who want to turn America into Italy on its way to Vietnam."
-- 1: Look up the history of his close friends Ted Kennedy in south/centeral America and John Vietman Kerry and reask the question.
"#2
Obama is a Muslim who bowed to the Saudi King and has assisted the consolidation of power of fundamentalist Islam in Egypt, Lybia and Tunisia, and he is trying in Syria and Yemen. Really, Do you really think Mormon Romney would promote the spread of radical fundamentalist Islam abroad?"
-- 2. Did we think before Obama was elected he’s do the kind od damage in ME relations he has?
"#3
Obama has limitless funds for destruction from George Soros. Romney has no such benefactor."
-- 3: Liberals with control of Treasury Dept are proven to proint whatever cash required
"#4 Obama has an army of support from ACORN and SEIU to engage in widespread voter fraud. Romney has no such army of support."
-- 4: Sure he does. He’s a liberal too.
"#5
Obama has a complicit media to cover up his scandals and
damaging policies. A president Romney would be held in check by a left-wing socialist media."
-- 5: he is a liberal left wing socialist too. RE ROMNEYCARE. GUN CONTROL etc.
"#6 Romney, to my knowledge, never ran guns to the Mexican cartels in a manipulation ploy to pass gun control laws."
-- 6: Nor has Romney - but he’s not President. Yet. See “Left wing socialist who hates guns and may well use it like Obama did to drum up anti-gun hysteria.)
"#7 Romney hasn’t tried to destroy the US coal industry."
-- 7: Yes he has. Hes a global warmist.
"#8 Romney did not nationalize banks and car companies in Massachusetts."
-- 8: He nationalized (relatively speaking) ROMNEYCARE
"More than any single reason why WE MUST DEFEAT OBAMA is to repeal Obamacare. Obamacare kicks in right after the election and 4 years later will see it entrenched with no hope of ever repealing it. Romney would not lead the fight to overturn Obamacare, but he could be dragged kicking and screaming to “compromise” and repeal it by a determined House and Senate that sends him a repeal and dares him to veto it."
ROMNEYCARE. What part of “NO ROMNEY NO WAY” is a problem. In Jim somehow someone people here feel free to ignore?
*
I don’t blame you but I’ve decided to go down with the ship. I want to escape from California, but I’ll make my last stand in Virginia, and if it means going down in the USA, then I go down in the USA. I can’t leave my nation. There is simply no place better to go. As bad as we are becoming, there is no place better to go.
Here is a simple test.
Think of any country you might want to flee to. Imagine that country.
Now imagine going target shooting in that country with an M1 Garand rifle, or an AR15.
Now imagine using the country’s head of state for that target practice. In public.
Now you tell me what nations on earth where you can do that any day of the week and live to tell the tale, not thrown in some hellhole dungeon for crimes against the state.
Simple test.
I’m going down with the ship. My last stand will be in Virginia. Damn the torpedos... uh, commie bastards!
-- Wait... is this guy saying that the best way to test if you're in the best country in the world is whether or not you can assassinate the head of state without getting thrown into a dungeon? or am I misreading that? Anyone?
*
Gingrich has too much baggage, IMO. After he gets done savaging Romney with ads, he ought to drop out and leave the field to Santorum.
One on one Santorum can beat Romney. We have to clear the field for him. He's the last one standing.
*
“I know its a dead horse, but Palin not running was a sad loss for us and the nation.”
Amen to that. If things get bad enough, and the nomination process fails us, maybe she still will.
By the end of the thread, Jim Robinson was banning anyone who questioned the anti-Romney stance.
On a side note, yesterday, the number of unique visitors to this blog quadrupled, with no discernible reason. They appear to be visitors who came here directly, rather than via a link or a search engine. Does anyone have any explanation for that? My numbers went back to normal today.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Santorum and black people
From various articles, including one about the NAACP blasting him in response.
This is just standard Republicans-are-hardhearted-monsters fare. Because they don’t want to steal from one person and give it to someone else, they’re cold, unfeeling ogres who don’t care about the “poor.” Democrats, however, are warmhearted, loving, feeling people who just want to redistribute all the illgotten gains the nasty, evil rich have acquired dishonestly. And since many minorities are also poorer than the rest of Americans, keeping stolen er redistributed money from them is racist. What’s wrong with a little theft er redistribution? (smirk)
*
TOTAL SONS OF BITCHES IN THE US MSM ARE NOW STARTING ON THIS CRAP AGAIN, THIS TIME AGAINST SEN. SANTORUM BECAUSE HE IS GETTING SOME TRACTION. THEY ARE TRYING FULL COURT PRESS TO DETERMINE OUR NOMINEE TO SCURRILOUS ENDLESS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION ATTACKS. They did this on Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, then Gingrich, now they will start on Santorum. They will leave gloves off Paul or Romney...until just the right time. Bastards. The people are just about fed up with this.
*
I just watched it about 6 times, he appears to say "...I don't want to make lives, people's lives better by giving them others peoples money". Inserting the word 'black' before 'peoples lives better' would make little sense in the context of what he was saying, nor in an Iowa primary.
*
Whatever it was... it wasn’t anything like Obama stumbling and saying that he wanted a “Jew” tax rate.
*
I do not want to MAKE anyone live a better life... I want to offer them the opportunity for a better life... but America can no longer pay the way for those that refuse to do what it takes to have a better life.
*
He ABSOLUTELY DID NOT SAY the word black. He caught himself mid sentence and wanted to say people’s lives, but instead mumbled, “blives... people’s lives”... PERIOD!!
*
"My two cents: it’s impossible that he said “black people’s lives.” If he had, the audience would have gasped—not clapped."
why would they have gasped?
Is it wrong to suggest there is a better way to help them?
*
It is going to be ugly — no matter what. The Repub candidate is going to have thousands of decks of race cards played on him. And every critical remark about the horror story in the Oval Office with be called “RACIST” -— it will be sickening pile of liberal crap.
*
Funny thing is, I thought he said black and I agreed with his comment. Look at the percentage of the population that is black and look at how many welfare recipients are black.
What he said was a reasonable thing to say, though not as PC as it could have been. And I like that!
*
"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money."
What's the problem here? Not PC enough? Personally I'm sick of the tired old bullshit that anyone that doesn't agree with me and my alternative reality denial is a racist.
*
Why is it racist to say you don’t want to give black people other peoples’ money? I would hope Rick would also not want to give white people other people’s money, but maybe in PA where he is from, it is mostly black people screaming for their handouts. I don’t know. I do know in most of the country, there are at least as many white people screaming for their handouts as there are black people.
*
Jealous has a point. It is "outrageous" to think black people's lives will be better by giving them other people's money. We all know that welfare dependency is a crutch used by liberals to keep black people enslaved to a liberal lower class subpar existence.
*
The problem with Rick and all the other republicans, except for Sarah Palin, is that they will apologize and backtrack for speaking the truth. He needs to stand by what he said and explain it more fully to the idiots who don’t understand.
*
I listened to it full volume a few times and I didn’t get “black” out of it. It sounds garbled to me. At best he said “Blah” as he was shifting thoughts or words.
I believe that the MSM and Media Matters have been scouring tapes for moments like this to paint the doubt of racism on Conservatives.
*
This discussion reminds me of an old ethnic/racist joke:
Q. Why are so many [insert group of choice] on welfare?
A. Too lazy to steal.
*
These next two comments are, to me, particularly hilarious since they address the same comment with two exclusive talking points.
*
“I agree with Santorum’s larger point, but he could have made the point better without singling out any particular group of people.”
How? What Santorum stated is the absolute truth! One of the major “tenets” of the Obama Administration is “giving inordinately to Blacks.” With Obama’s election, Blacks “singled out” the rest of us. They’ve been inculcated with the notion that they are still “disadvantaged” and need, therefore, to have additional “care” from the rest of us. The real racists today are the blacks who see everything through the prism of skin color. I mean Obama is more white than black, but he looks black, and that’s all they need to vote for him. They are depending on him to share the fruits of others labor with them.
*
"I agree with Santorum’s larger point, but he could have made the point better without singling out any particular group of people."
Santorum did NOT single out any particular group of people.
What he said:
"I don't want to make people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."
What CBS reported:
"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."
There is video that proves Santorum did not say "black people's lives". The racial component is a total fabrication by CBS.
This is just standard Republicans-are-hardhearted-monsters fare. Because they don’t want to steal from one person and give it to someone else, they’re cold, unfeeling ogres who don’t care about the “poor.” Democrats, however, are warmhearted, loving, feeling people who just want to redistribute all the illgotten gains the nasty, evil rich have acquired dishonestly. And since many minorities are also poorer than the rest of Americans, keeping stolen er redistributed money from them is racist. What’s wrong with a little theft er redistribution? (smirk)
*
TOTAL SONS OF BITCHES IN THE US MSM ARE NOW STARTING ON THIS CRAP AGAIN, THIS TIME AGAINST SEN. SANTORUM BECAUSE HE IS GETTING SOME TRACTION. THEY ARE TRYING FULL COURT PRESS TO DETERMINE OUR NOMINEE TO SCURRILOUS ENDLESS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION ATTACKS. They did this on Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, then Gingrich, now they will start on Santorum. They will leave gloves off Paul or Romney...until just the right time. Bastards. The people are just about fed up with this.
*
I just watched it about 6 times, he appears to say "...I don't want to make lives, people's lives better by giving them others peoples money". Inserting the word 'black' before 'peoples lives better' would make little sense in the context of what he was saying, nor in an Iowa primary.
*
Whatever it was... it wasn’t anything like Obama stumbling and saying that he wanted a “Jew” tax rate.
*
I do not want to MAKE anyone live a better life... I want to offer them the opportunity for a better life... but America can no longer pay the way for those that refuse to do what it takes to have a better life.
*
He ABSOLUTELY DID NOT SAY the word black. He caught himself mid sentence and wanted to say people’s lives, but instead mumbled, “blives... people’s lives”... PERIOD!!
*
"My two cents: it’s impossible that he said “black people’s lives.” If he had, the audience would have gasped—not clapped."
why would they have gasped?
Is it wrong to suggest there is a better way to help them?
*
It is going to be ugly — no matter what. The Repub candidate is going to have thousands of decks of race cards played on him. And every critical remark about the horror story in the Oval Office with be called “RACIST” -— it will be sickening pile of liberal crap.
*
Funny thing is, I thought he said black and I agreed with his comment. Look at the percentage of the population that is black and look at how many welfare recipients are black.
What he said was a reasonable thing to say, though not as PC as it could have been. And I like that!
*
"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money."
What's the problem here? Not PC enough? Personally I'm sick of the tired old bullshit that anyone that doesn't agree with me and my alternative reality denial is a racist.
*
Why is it racist to say you don’t want to give black people other peoples’ money? I would hope Rick would also not want to give white people other people’s money, but maybe in PA where he is from, it is mostly black people screaming for their handouts. I don’t know. I do know in most of the country, there are at least as many white people screaming for their handouts as there are black people.
*
Jealous has a point. It is "outrageous" to think black people's lives will be better by giving them other people's money. We all know that welfare dependency is a crutch used by liberals to keep black people enslaved to a liberal lower class subpar existence.
*
The problem with Rick and all the other republicans, except for Sarah Palin, is that they will apologize and backtrack for speaking the truth. He needs to stand by what he said and explain it more fully to the idiots who don’t understand.
*
I listened to it full volume a few times and I didn’t get “black” out of it. It sounds garbled to me. At best he said “Blah” as he was shifting thoughts or words.
I believe that the MSM and Media Matters have been scouring tapes for moments like this to paint the doubt of racism on Conservatives.
*
This discussion reminds me of an old ethnic/racist joke:
Q. Why are so many [insert group of choice] on welfare?
A. Too lazy to steal.
*
These next two comments are, to me, particularly hilarious since they address the same comment with two exclusive talking points.
*
“I agree with Santorum’s larger point, but he could have made the point better without singling out any particular group of people.”
How? What Santorum stated is the absolute truth! One of the major “tenets” of the Obama Administration is “giving inordinately to Blacks.” With Obama’s election, Blacks “singled out” the rest of us. They’ve been inculcated with the notion that they are still “disadvantaged” and need, therefore, to have additional “care” from the rest of us. The real racists today are the blacks who see everything through the prism of skin color. I mean Obama is more white than black, but he looks black, and that’s all they need to vote for him. They are depending on him to share the fruits of others labor with them.
*
"I agree with Santorum’s larger point, but he could have made the point better without singling out any particular group of people."
Santorum did NOT single out any particular group of people.
What he said:
"I don't want to make people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."
What CBS reported:
"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."
There is video that proves Santorum did not say "black people's lives". The racial component is a total fabrication by CBS.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Surprise! Santorum: birth control harms women and society
As with many positions that are considered far right, I threw in some more reasonable responses here.
What about us married folks who just don't want any more children, Rick???
*
This election is not going to be decided on birth control. Santorum made it clear that he was voicing his personal belief and not proposed policy.
While I don’t agree with Santorum on this, he is certainly correct to point out that there is a downside to contraception.
*
A real Catholic doesn’t support birth control. That makes sense as a rule that benefits society. Societies who don’t reproduce die out. When you have an enemy culture like the Muslims reproducing at a much more rapid rate, you hurt your society in the long run by being overrun by them. We can see how it’s happening in Europe with collapsing birthrates among whites and massive Muslim immigration and reproduction.
Low birthrates also hurt the economy as we’ve seen in Japan and Europe. They make a society weaker, less productive and gradually smaller.
God didn’t intend to make it easy for people not to have children. Sex was not created for human gratification, it was created to be a functioning process for reproduction. Birth control perverts the process in a completely unnatural and unintended way. The introduction of widespread birth control massively changed society and it’s difficult to see any of those changes as improvements.
*
Attempting to divorce the sex act from pro-creation is one of our more modern perversions.
*
“However, there is no sin in sex within marriage and there’s no sin for committed couples to use birth control that doesn’t endanger any children who do result and who would never consider abortion for serendipitous pregnancies.”
If children are a gift from God, you are saying, no God, don’t bless me with children. You are supposed to embrace God’s blessings, not reject them.
*
"(Married people:) the year is 2012, not 1612, go see a doc, he can fix you in about five minutes. "
Apparently mutilating yourself is ok these days.
*
“If you don’t want any more kids, then exercise a tiny bit of self-control and make use of the woman’s naturally occurring infertile periods, rather than mutilating yourself chemically or surgically.”
I agree. I have many friends who use chemical contraceptives (which is against their pronounced faith), and it annoys me. I, however, have never lectured them on what they’re doing since they don’t care to listen anyway. I instead like to talk about how wonderful it is to rear a child, and how grateful I am to have the experience. It’s the only way I know to testify without brow beating their personal choice (to which they already have been taught the consequence).
*
While you are at it, try not using any medicine, because you are perverting natural events used to thin out the human population and prevent us from living too long
*
"Low birthrates also hurt the economy as we’ve seen in Japan and Europe. They make a society weaker, less productive and gradually smaller.
God didn’t intend to make it easy for people not to have children. Sex was not created for human gratification, it was created to be a functioning process for reproduction. Birth control perverts the process in a completely unnatural and unintended way. The introduction of widespread birth control massively changed society and it’s difficult to see any of those changes as improvements."
Nailed it!
And in society it has a disparate impact. Stupid women don't practice effective birth control but smart women do.
Just visit a high school or college to see the inevitable results.
*
It’s not about birth control. It’s not about abortion. The real issue is a culture and tax structure that discourages middle-class women from wanting lots of kids.
---Somehow I find this even morn insulting than a lot of the pro-life arguments. Like, "oh, hello middle class lady, you don't want kids? poor you, your little mind just doesn't *know* you want a lot of babies!!!"
*
As a married person who doesn't want any more children, so what?
Just because it is convenient and it is something I want doesn't translate to it being right or good. And no, I am not Catholic.
Birth control is a cornerstone of both the sexual revolution and the modern 2.4 children lifestyle. Both have had large negative effects on Western society.
*
This is Rick’s personal opinion.
Every politician has personal opinions - the question is...what will they do in office?
Our current president thinks abortion should be available up to the day of birth.
He thinks infants who survive abortion should not have to be given medical treatment.
Heck..he has alot of frightening opinions.
Which person is preferrable as a president?
*
“[[response to someone saying the Muslims and Mexicans are outbreeding Freepers]]
The large litters you speak of tend to be on govt support - something I won’t do.”
What an ignorant & baseless comment. Exactly WHOM are you speaking of when you say “large litters”? I know many, many Catholic families of 5+ children who do not receive ANY gov assistance.
*
“Treating women like breeding machines is far more harmful to society. It is also reminiscent of the attitude towards women-as-cattle in Islamic countries.”
Who here is advocating that we treat women as breeding machines? You sound more like a Feminazi who is resentful of her ability to bear & mother children.
Perhaps you ought to read the Catholic Church’s teachings on AUTHENTIC feminity, not that garbage peddled by the women’s rights movement & Cosmopolitan magazine.
*
"Who here is advocating that we treat women as breeding machines? You sound more like a Feminazi who is resentful of her ability to bear & mother children."
ROFLMAO! Every sperm is sacred!
Actually, I've found motherhood to be the most rewarding job I've ever had. But the more children you have, the less time can be devoted to each of them.
"Perhaps you ought to read the Catholic Church’s teachings on AUTHENTIC feminity, not that garbage peddled by the women’s rights movement & Cosmopolitan magazine."
Why is it that every time a woman wants to control some aspect of her reproductive life (through non-lethal means), she is called a Feminazi??? I maintain that those of you who would allow your wives to continue popping out baby after baby have no idea the of the physical or psychological cost to some women...nor would you even care. Thus, that mentality imho falls into the realm of animal husbandry, and not that of a human husband.
Therefore, the analogy to the Islamic view of femininity would seem to be correct.
*
Has the thought ever occurred that some married couples still like to have sex but have already had a family and don’t want to take on more children then they can afford?
Or is God against that too?
*
He's absolutely right on this topic. That said, if you believe that President Santorum would attempt to push legislation outlawing birth control, you're crazy.
People should opt out of birth control of their own free will because it's bad for them--particularly for women.
By the way, this might be one of my favorite posts in a while. I even had to leave out a complicated debate on whether use of condom/the pull-out method was Onanism and thus prohibited by God.
What about us married folks who just don't want any more children, Rick???
*
This election is not going to be decided on birth control. Santorum made it clear that he was voicing his personal belief and not proposed policy.
While I don’t agree with Santorum on this, he is certainly correct to point out that there is a downside to contraception.
*
A real Catholic doesn’t support birth control. That makes sense as a rule that benefits society. Societies who don’t reproduce die out. When you have an enemy culture like the Muslims reproducing at a much more rapid rate, you hurt your society in the long run by being overrun by them. We can see how it’s happening in Europe with collapsing birthrates among whites and massive Muslim immigration and reproduction.
Low birthrates also hurt the economy as we’ve seen in Japan and Europe. They make a society weaker, less productive and gradually smaller.
God didn’t intend to make it easy for people not to have children. Sex was not created for human gratification, it was created to be a functioning process for reproduction. Birth control perverts the process in a completely unnatural and unintended way. The introduction of widespread birth control massively changed society and it’s difficult to see any of those changes as improvements.
*
Attempting to divorce the sex act from pro-creation is one of our more modern perversions.
*
“However, there is no sin in sex within marriage and there’s no sin for committed couples to use birth control that doesn’t endanger any children who do result and who would never consider abortion for serendipitous pregnancies.”
If children are a gift from God, you are saying, no God, don’t bless me with children. You are supposed to embrace God’s blessings, not reject them.
*
"(Married people:) the year is 2012, not 1612, go see a doc, he can fix you in about five minutes. "
Apparently mutilating yourself is ok these days.
*
“If you don’t want any more kids, then exercise a tiny bit of self-control and make use of the woman’s naturally occurring infertile periods, rather than mutilating yourself chemically or surgically.”
I agree. I have many friends who use chemical contraceptives (which is against their pronounced faith), and it annoys me. I, however, have never lectured them on what they’re doing since they don’t care to listen anyway. I instead like to talk about how wonderful it is to rear a child, and how grateful I am to have the experience. It’s the only way I know to testify without brow beating their personal choice (to which they already have been taught the consequence).
*
While you are at it, try not using any medicine, because you are perverting natural events used to thin out the human population and prevent us from living too long
*
"Low birthrates also hurt the economy as we’ve seen in Japan and Europe. They make a society weaker, less productive and gradually smaller.
God didn’t intend to make it easy for people not to have children. Sex was not created for human gratification, it was created to be a functioning process for reproduction. Birth control perverts the process in a completely unnatural and unintended way. The introduction of widespread birth control massively changed society and it’s difficult to see any of those changes as improvements."
Nailed it!
And in society it has a disparate impact. Stupid women don't practice effective birth control but smart women do.
Just visit a high school or college to see the inevitable results.
*
It’s not about birth control. It’s not about abortion. The real issue is a culture and tax structure that discourages middle-class women from wanting lots of kids.
---Somehow I find this even morn insulting than a lot of the pro-life arguments. Like, "oh, hello middle class lady, you don't want kids? poor you, your little mind just doesn't *know* you want a lot of babies!!!"
*
As a married person who doesn't want any more children, so what?
Just because it is convenient and it is something I want doesn't translate to it being right or good. And no, I am not Catholic.
Birth control is a cornerstone of both the sexual revolution and the modern 2.4 children lifestyle. Both have had large negative effects on Western society.
*
This is Rick’s personal opinion.
Every politician has personal opinions - the question is...what will they do in office?
Our current president thinks abortion should be available up to the day of birth.
He thinks infants who survive abortion should not have to be given medical treatment.
Heck..he has alot of frightening opinions.
Which person is preferrable as a president?
*
“[[response to someone saying the Muslims and Mexicans are outbreeding Freepers]]
The large litters you speak of tend to be on govt support - something I won’t do.”
What an ignorant & baseless comment. Exactly WHOM are you speaking of when you say “large litters”? I know many, many Catholic families of 5+ children who do not receive ANY gov assistance.
*
“Treating women like breeding machines is far more harmful to society. It is also reminiscent of the attitude towards women-as-cattle in Islamic countries.”
Who here is advocating that we treat women as breeding machines? You sound more like a Feminazi who is resentful of her ability to bear & mother children.
Perhaps you ought to read the Catholic Church’s teachings on AUTHENTIC feminity, not that garbage peddled by the women’s rights movement & Cosmopolitan magazine.
*
"Who here is advocating that we treat women as breeding machines? You sound more like a Feminazi who is resentful of her ability to bear & mother children."
ROFLMAO! Every sperm is sacred!
Actually, I've found motherhood to be the most rewarding job I've ever had. But the more children you have, the less time can be devoted to each of them.
"Perhaps you ought to read the Catholic Church’s teachings on AUTHENTIC feminity, not that garbage peddled by the women’s rights movement & Cosmopolitan magazine."
Why is it that every time a woman wants to control some aspect of her reproductive life (through non-lethal means), she is called a Feminazi??? I maintain that those of you who would allow your wives to continue popping out baby after baby have no idea the of the physical or psychological cost to some women...nor would you even care. Thus, that mentality imho falls into the realm of animal husbandry, and not that of a human husband.
Therefore, the analogy to the Islamic view of femininity would seem to be correct.
*
Has the thought ever occurred that some married couples still like to have sex but have already had a family and don’t want to take on more children then they can afford?
Or is God against that too?
*
He's absolutely right on this topic. That said, if you believe that President Santorum would attempt to push legislation outlawing birth control, you're crazy.
People should opt out of birth control of their own free will because it's bad for them--particularly for women.
By the way, this might be one of my favorite posts in a while. I even had to leave out a complicated debate on whether use of condom/the pull-out method was Onanism and thus prohibited by God.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
A very special philosophical episode of Freep Impact
On Free Republic, there is a vanity section, where posters may create posts that link nowhere and instead just share their thoughts with other Freepers. Usually I skip over these because Freepers tend to write mini-novels in there, but sometimes the derpiness makes it worth it. Here is one such post, entitled "The Fear and Self-loathing of Liberals"
I've often pondered what makes a liberal, a liberal. They tend to do so much damage throughout history and are incredibly difficult to defeat. Figuring out what makes them tick would seem to be priority number one. As I thought about it recently I came to a revelation that others have discovered but never fleshed out to my satisfaction. That revelation is that liberals fear and loathe their own humanity. Liberals loathe their own humanity because well, being human means being naturally flawed or seemingly so. I personally think that if we weren't flawed there wouldn't be any real challenges in life in exceling beyond our limitations.
Liberals apparently can't handle these innate flaws that come with being human and deep down that hurts their pride. They are mortified when they look inward, when they feel racially insecure, or think a sexist thought or feel a need to be greedy. They loathe themselves because of these all too human feelings and because of their shame they feel they must stamp them out and control them in others. They have to feel like they are above their human emotions so they can feel worthy of praise. Liberals fear being judged on their natural feelings.
Liberals don't understand that regardless of the past, that they are no better than their ancestors deep down, that controlling ones negative tendencies gives one character and strength. Ignoring that we are flawed and taking away others' choice to control their own bad behavior leads to a society that lacks self-control and builds resentment and actually encourages bad behavior.
This bad behavior originates because of this lack of self-control and because the aura of "holy purpose" liberals give to their crusades. One need only accuse someone of not being a convert the the liberals' "religion" of political correctness and you risk ostricism in various spheres of life. And so the free-thinking man or woman, where all innovation springs is handcuffed and gagged. Scientific and economic advancement stagnate as a result.
This need to control and regulate, however, leads to a type of totalitarianism that more cynical people would harness to enrich themselves in both wealth and power just for that purpose. Totalitarianism is begun by the well-meaning liberal and then they, being unsophisticated in human nature because they won't look inward, are then manipulated by the more cynical and ambitious among us. This is how freedom ends. I think it's happening now.
Here are some replies:
Yes, there is certainly something wrong with liberals, and I believe clinical depression may be a root cause. But it goes far beyond that. Look, for example, at public policy and the so-called "culture war".
The differences in the way liberals and conservatives reach conclusions comes down to far more than simply differing opinions - - it actually comes down to entirely different thought processes. Conservatives tend to think linearly: “If this, then this”; “Here is what was attempted, here are the results”; “Based on experience, this works and this does not work”. Etc.
Liberals do not think that way. Liberals are easily conned, easily manipulated, and utterly unwilling to admit when they are wrong. (Their obsession with constantly attempting to elicit “apologies” from Republicans is an offshoot of these strained thought processes.) Liberals, when confronted with bare-bones truth that contradicts their irrational world view, will scrunch their eyes shut, shake their heads, and chant “nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah” until whatever truth it is they find offensive “goes away”, rather than revise their thoughts and beliefs to conform to a truth that is slapping them in the face. They simply do not have the capacity to revise their thoughts and beliefs to conform to the truth before their very eyes if that truth contradicts the foundation of the beliefs they irrationally hold onto as a weapon in the constant struggle against their own insecurity.
Certainly, there are notable exceptions such as David Horowitz, PJ O’Rourke, Bernie Goldberg, Michael Medved and others who were smart enough to lift themselves out of the mire of self-loathing liberal stupidity but these folks are, unfortunately, rare exceptions.
Being an unabashed liberal is a matter of character (or more accurately, lack of character). Liberals are generally humorless and bitter because, you see, everybody else is (richer, happier, luckier, prettier, fill-in-the-blank) than they deserve to be and that is just not “fair”. (Words like "fair", and phrases such as "social justice", are common favorites used by liberals.) Liberals are social duds who are either chronic malcontents or simply that guilt-ridden subset of white liberals who feel that their own good fortune (and by extension the good fortune of others) is somehow undeserved. In any event, liberals usually see themselves as "victims". They always see anybody beneath their station as "victims".
In this world, there are people (most people, in fact) who look at all other people as their equals in every way, as people who are capable of realizing their personal aspirations and doing the right things, as people who should be treated as equals. Alternatively, there are people who look up adoringly at people they view as somehow better than themselves. These are the same people who look loathingly down on other people they view as their lessers. Guess which kind of people liberals tend to be?
Interestingly, true liberals are often physically slow and unathletic. They were picked last for playground basketball games. They have no interest in competetive sports, especially team sports. “Competetive sports” is, in fact, very much an alien concept to them. To be blunt, true liberals (genuine socialists) are almost always clumsy oafs.
Additionally, true liberals are humorless. Seething, deep seated anger causes an entrenched bitterness that ends up defining them. The evidence of this abounds and can be seen on certain TV stations every day. The liberals have no Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter or Mark Steyn or Howie Carr or Dennis Miller or Ronald Reagan. They have Keith Olbemann and Helen Thomas and Ed Shultz and Lawrence O'Donnell and Barack Ubama.... there is simply not a lot of laughter there. Liberals, in fact, despise laughter. (What's there to laugh about? Look at all the suffering people in this horrible, unjust world.) True liberals don’t “get” jokes, even if they chuckle as if they do. (Test this for yourself - - try to tell a true liberal a joke. For additonal laughs, ask the liberal if he/she/it has a good joke.)
Liberals can appear to be normal people and are often able to handle their jobs and academic endeavors competently. They can usually fake normal socialization with other people, even if their self-centeredness prevents them from ever establishing true friendships. Liberals do not have true friends, merely acquaintances who can be used in some way, especially to affirm their own crazy political notions.
It is their sociopathic selfishness that is the most troubling thing about liberals. They see absolutely no problem with walking into the polling place on election day and voting for big government to confiscate more money - - from their neighbors! Normal people would view this behavior as boorish and rude, but liberals apparently convince themselves that they are somehow accomplishing something; perhaps the exercise soothes their irrational guilt under the tragic misbelief that they are somehow “helping” others (using other people’s money, of course), notably, “the poor”.
So, by voting for thuggish big government to take more money from their neighbors in order to enable their Democrat politicians to buy the votes of society’s losers, bums, and parasites, liberals feel better about themselves. (Don’t ask me about this mindset - - figuring out liberals would best be left to a team of very good psychiatrists.)
Anyway, I believe that the percentage of true liberals in this country is actually very low - - far less than a typical Democrat election-day turnout would indicate. The rats run a good con and there is no shortage of fools littering the countryside (not to mention the concentrated Democrat parasite nests known as "cities") who will continue to buy into the con.
Think about this - - how gullible did you have to be in 2008 to fall for a campaign that could have been formulated by a boardwalk psychic; a campaign based primarily on two essentially meaningless words, “hope” and “change”, words that sound so... positive... and that allow the smiling, naval-gazing listener’s imagination to turn them into whatever he or she wants? Unfortunately, in today’s soundbite world such a campaign can be (and was!) successful. And so we ended up with “community organizer” Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
Pray for America. In less than one year we shall see if Americans are insistent on committing national suicide.
*
You make some good points here. I would add that many liberals recognize (on some level) that the utopian perfectibility they crave so much is not possible by human effort alone, yet at the same time their ideology prevents them from (a) accepting that weakness and working with it or (b) acknowledging that moral standards come from outside human reason. So, they turn to institutions and causes, sometimes embodied in individuals (e.g. Obama) but more often existing as vagaries like “society” or “the global village” that they can ostensibly use to supersede flawed human effort. Perpetually larger and more powerful governments are a natural outgrowth of this tendency: if God is out of the equation, in other words, then Uncle Sam is the next best thing.
*
"Liberals don't understand that regardless of the past, that they are no better than their ancestors deep down..."
That struck a chord with me. It has been my experience with liberals that they have this (unfounded) sense of superiority. They seem to think they are smarter than their predecessors and contemporaries. This in spite of absolutely no supporting evidence. (other than self-agrandising and mutual admiration societies)
In fact, a case can be easily made that liberals are in fact not as smart as other people, past or present. For you liberal lurkers out there I'll spell it out: don't confuse education and technological advancement with basic intelligence.
In general, liberals tend to have several fundamental failings. They ignore the lessons of the past. Probably due to that self-serving attitude "Things will be different now, we're so much smarter/evolved than they were..." They fail to recognize their own limitations. This is particularly dangerous when they start thinking they should make decisions for the rest of us. They fail to acknowledge human nature. Their ideas and ideals, while stunningly beautiful in theory, fail just as stunningly in the real world, and always will. Finally, they have a remarkable capacity for self-delusion. Everything I've just written is obvious, yet they refuse to see it. Amazing.
*
My idea is that today’s liberal generation is to a large degree solipsistic. I think this is a result of television, whereby all events are subsumed into ones own psyche. Thus each person sees the world as a realm under his or her own control, and stands ready to pronounce judgement and prescription for it. I came to this idea from contemplation of the language habitually employed, which always has a cosmic cast. “We should” or “It should” do or be thus and such, as though the speaker had, as I say, a cosmic perspective. One rarely hears anyone speak in terms of their own interest, presumably because these interests are felt to be largely satisfied. I’ve come to think that it will be quite a shock when this ceases to be the case.
*
There are creatures in our country that walk around in human suits. They can speak our language and have studied our culture. Though they imitate humans, they do not like humans. This is because they are extremely narcissistic. These creatures feel that humans detract from them. Humans steal their living-space, recreation, food, sexual partners, wealth, power and attention from them. Knowing their own inadequacies, these creatures fear that they can never compete fairly to achieve their desires. With concern for only themselves, they feign compassion for others to mask their motives. “Look at this lovely noose,” they tell humans. “Wouldn’t this world be a better place if you and your children were gone? Of course it would. Here, I’ll help you put the noose around your neck and kill your children.” The creatures are known as liberals/socialists/progressives/communist/Nazis/Statist.
- blueunicorn6 (April 01, 2011) (minor edits)
BTW - please never call them liberals.
*
"Most liberals I know have an exaggerated superiority complex."
Yes socialist absolutely do. Look at the Global warming argument it assumes we are gods that we can unwillingly and willingly control the earths environment.
If you try and explain to them that we are not gods they look at you like you're crazy.
*
I think what goes along with this is imbalance in their childhood. Parents have two basic tools to guide children: the carrot (rewards/praise/etc.), and the stick (punishment). When parents don’t balance those two tools they can easily wind up with kids who grow into liberals.
If you only use the carrot approach, you wind up with a selfish, self centered, egotistical brat. If you only use the stick approach you get basically the same thing only with more of a rebelious approach to life.
I know in my own life, my older brother got too much punishment from my Dad (who, because of always working, was rarely home) and then got too much carrot from my Mom to make up for the punishment from my Dad. As a consequence he rebelled at everything that my Dad stood for.
One of the things that has kept him in the liberal camp is that he never became a Dad himself. (That and going to college and now teaching college.)
So I guess one of the causes for liberals being unbalanced is because they were raised that way.
*
The liberal mind has rejected God, rejected the fact that we all have a sinful nature (original sin). The liberal has set himself up as God (or the state or whatever he uses as a moral equivalent to God) so he can decide for himself what is moral or what is not (or the state or whatever “lawgiver”). To the liberal man is perfectible through education and mental discipline. And usually they think of themselves as “born-again” or perfected when they come to believe the religion of liberalism.
The liberal (commie/marxist/nazi/statist, etc) is unsaved!
Granted there are so called liberal Christians, however I’ve found that usually they have fallen away from the whole idea of “sin”. That can be a topic for another day.
*
Liberals embrace and live the Seven Cardinal Sins: wrath (always feel offended), greed (always scheming for OTHEE PEOPLE's MONEY), sloth (unathletic oafs), pride (so much better than all the "little people", lust ( in all its illicit manifestations), envy (of everyhting they don't have cuz "but I DESERVE that! not her!), and gluttony (always over-doing everything).
It is really as simple as that.
*
"For you liberal lurkers out there I'll spell it out: don't confuse education and technological advancement with basic intelligence."
I'm in absolute agreement with that. I've thought the same thing myself.
I've often pondered what makes a liberal, a liberal. They tend to do so much damage throughout history and are incredibly difficult to defeat. Figuring out what makes them tick would seem to be priority number one. As I thought about it recently I came to a revelation that others have discovered but never fleshed out to my satisfaction. That revelation is that liberals fear and loathe their own humanity. Liberals loathe their own humanity because well, being human means being naturally flawed or seemingly so. I personally think that if we weren't flawed there wouldn't be any real challenges in life in exceling beyond our limitations.
Liberals apparently can't handle these innate flaws that come with being human and deep down that hurts their pride. They are mortified when they look inward, when they feel racially insecure, or think a sexist thought or feel a need to be greedy. They loathe themselves because of these all too human feelings and because of their shame they feel they must stamp them out and control them in others. They have to feel like they are above their human emotions so they can feel worthy of praise. Liberals fear being judged on their natural feelings.
Liberals don't understand that regardless of the past, that they are no better than their ancestors deep down, that controlling ones negative tendencies gives one character and strength. Ignoring that we are flawed and taking away others' choice to control their own bad behavior leads to a society that lacks self-control and builds resentment and actually encourages bad behavior.
This bad behavior originates because of this lack of self-control and because the aura of "holy purpose" liberals give to their crusades. One need only accuse someone of not being a convert the the liberals' "religion" of political correctness and you risk ostricism in various spheres of life. And so the free-thinking man or woman, where all innovation springs is handcuffed and gagged. Scientific and economic advancement stagnate as a result.
This need to control and regulate, however, leads to a type of totalitarianism that more cynical people would harness to enrich themselves in both wealth and power just for that purpose. Totalitarianism is begun by the well-meaning liberal and then they, being unsophisticated in human nature because they won't look inward, are then manipulated by the more cynical and ambitious among us. This is how freedom ends. I think it's happening now.
Here are some replies:
Yes, there is certainly something wrong with liberals, and I believe clinical depression may be a root cause. But it goes far beyond that. Look, for example, at public policy and the so-called "culture war".
The differences in the way liberals and conservatives reach conclusions comes down to far more than simply differing opinions - - it actually comes down to entirely different thought processes. Conservatives tend to think linearly: “If this, then this”; “Here is what was attempted, here are the results”; “Based on experience, this works and this does not work”. Etc.
Liberals do not think that way. Liberals are easily conned, easily manipulated, and utterly unwilling to admit when they are wrong. (Their obsession with constantly attempting to elicit “apologies” from Republicans is an offshoot of these strained thought processes.) Liberals, when confronted with bare-bones truth that contradicts their irrational world view, will scrunch their eyes shut, shake their heads, and chant “nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah” until whatever truth it is they find offensive “goes away”, rather than revise their thoughts and beliefs to conform to a truth that is slapping them in the face. They simply do not have the capacity to revise their thoughts and beliefs to conform to the truth before their very eyes if that truth contradicts the foundation of the beliefs they irrationally hold onto as a weapon in the constant struggle against their own insecurity.
Certainly, there are notable exceptions such as David Horowitz, PJ O’Rourke, Bernie Goldberg, Michael Medved and others who were smart enough to lift themselves out of the mire of self-loathing liberal stupidity but these folks are, unfortunately, rare exceptions.
Being an unabashed liberal is a matter of character (or more accurately, lack of character). Liberals are generally humorless and bitter because, you see, everybody else is (richer, happier, luckier, prettier, fill-in-the-blank) than they deserve to be and that is just not “fair”. (Words like "fair", and phrases such as "social justice", are common favorites used by liberals.) Liberals are social duds who are either chronic malcontents or simply that guilt-ridden subset of white liberals who feel that their own good fortune (and by extension the good fortune of others) is somehow undeserved. In any event, liberals usually see themselves as "victims". They always see anybody beneath their station as "victims".
In this world, there are people (most people, in fact) who look at all other people as their equals in every way, as people who are capable of realizing their personal aspirations and doing the right things, as people who should be treated as equals. Alternatively, there are people who look up adoringly at people they view as somehow better than themselves. These are the same people who look loathingly down on other people they view as their lessers. Guess which kind of people liberals tend to be?
Interestingly, true liberals are often physically slow and unathletic. They were picked last for playground basketball games. They have no interest in competetive sports, especially team sports. “Competetive sports” is, in fact, very much an alien concept to them. To be blunt, true liberals (genuine socialists) are almost always clumsy oafs.
Additionally, true liberals are humorless. Seething, deep seated anger causes an entrenched bitterness that ends up defining them. The evidence of this abounds and can be seen on certain TV stations every day. The liberals have no Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter or Mark Steyn or Howie Carr or Dennis Miller or Ronald Reagan. They have Keith Olbemann and Helen Thomas and Ed Shultz and Lawrence O'Donnell and Barack Ubama.... there is simply not a lot of laughter there. Liberals, in fact, despise laughter. (What's there to laugh about? Look at all the suffering people in this horrible, unjust world.) True liberals don’t “get” jokes, even if they chuckle as if they do. (Test this for yourself - - try to tell a true liberal a joke. For additonal laughs, ask the liberal if he/she/it has a good joke.)
Liberals can appear to be normal people and are often able to handle their jobs and academic endeavors competently. They can usually fake normal socialization with other people, even if their self-centeredness prevents them from ever establishing true friendships. Liberals do not have true friends, merely acquaintances who can be used in some way, especially to affirm their own crazy political notions.
It is their sociopathic selfishness that is the most troubling thing about liberals. They see absolutely no problem with walking into the polling place on election day and voting for big government to confiscate more money - - from their neighbors! Normal people would view this behavior as boorish and rude, but liberals apparently convince themselves that they are somehow accomplishing something; perhaps the exercise soothes their irrational guilt under the tragic misbelief that they are somehow “helping” others (using other people’s money, of course), notably, “the poor”.
So, by voting for thuggish big government to take more money from their neighbors in order to enable their Democrat politicians to buy the votes of society’s losers, bums, and parasites, liberals feel better about themselves. (Don’t ask me about this mindset - - figuring out liberals would best be left to a team of very good psychiatrists.)
Anyway, I believe that the percentage of true liberals in this country is actually very low - - far less than a typical Democrat election-day turnout would indicate. The rats run a good con and there is no shortage of fools littering the countryside (not to mention the concentrated Democrat parasite nests known as "cities") who will continue to buy into the con.
Think about this - - how gullible did you have to be in 2008 to fall for a campaign that could have been formulated by a boardwalk psychic; a campaign based primarily on two essentially meaningless words, “hope” and “change”, words that sound so... positive... and that allow the smiling, naval-gazing listener’s imagination to turn them into whatever he or she wants? Unfortunately, in today’s soundbite world such a campaign can be (and was!) successful. And so we ended up with “community organizer” Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
Pray for America. In less than one year we shall see if Americans are insistent on committing national suicide.
*
You make some good points here. I would add that many liberals recognize (on some level) that the utopian perfectibility they crave so much is not possible by human effort alone, yet at the same time their ideology prevents them from (a) accepting that weakness and working with it or (b) acknowledging that moral standards come from outside human reason. So, they turn to institutions and causes, sometimes embodied in individuals (e.g. Obama) but more often existing as vagaries like “society” or “the global village” that they can ostensibly use to supersede flawed human effort. Perpetually larger and more powerful governments are a natural outgrowth of this tendency: if God is out of the equation, in other words, then Uncle Sam is the next best thing.
*
"Liberals don't understand that regardless of the past, that they are no better than their ancestors deep down..."
That struck a chord with me. It has been my experience with liberals that they have this (unfounded) sense of superiority. They seem to think they are smarter than their predecessors and contemporaries. This in spite of absolutely no supporting evidence. (other than self-agrandising and mutual admiration societies)
In fact, a case can be easily made that liberals are in fact not as smart as other people, past or present. For you liberal lurkers out there I'll spell it out: don't confuse education and technological advancement with basic intelligence.
In general, liberals tend to have several fundamental failings. They ignore the lessons of the past. Probably due to that self-serving attitude "Things will be different now, we're so much smarter/evolved than they were..." They fail to recognize their own limitations. This is particularly dangerous when they start thinking they should make decisions for the rest of us. They fail to acknowledge human nature. Their ideas and ideals, while stunningly beautiful in theory, fail just as stunningly in the real world, and always will. Finally, they have a remarkable capacity for self-delusion. Everything I've just written is obvious, yet they refuse to see it. Amazing.
*
My idea is that today’s liberal generation is to a large degree solipsistic. I think this is a result of television, whereby all events are subsumed into ones own psyche. Thus each person sees the world as a realm under his or her own control, and stands ready to pronounce judgement and prescription for it. I came to this idea from contemplation of the language habitually employed, which always has a cosmic cast. “We should” or “It should” do or be thus and such, as though the speaker had, as I say, a cosmic perspective. One rarely hears anyone speak in terms of their own interest, presumably because these interests are felt to be largely satisfied. I’ve come to think that it will be quite a shock when this ceases to be the case.
*
There are creatures in our country that walk around in human suits. They can speak our language and have studied our culture. Though they imitate humans, they do not like humans. This is because they are extremely narcissistic. These creatures feel that humans detract from them. Humans steal their living-space, recreation, food, sexual partners, wealth, power and attention from them. Knowing their own inadequacies, these creatures fear that they can never compete fairly to achieve their desires. With concern for only themselves, they feign compassion for others to mask their motives. “Look at this lovely noose,” they tell humans. “Wouldn’t this world be a better place if you and your children were gone? Of course it would. Here, I’ll help you put the noose around your neck and kill your children.” The creatures are known as liberals/socialists/progressives/communist/Nazis/Statist.
- blueunicorn6 (April 01, 2011) (minor edits)
BTW - please never call them liberals.
*
"Most liberals I know have an exaggerated superiority complex."
Yes socialist absolutely do. Look at the Global warming argument it assumes we are gods that we can unwillingly and willingly control the earths environment.
If you try and explain to them that we are not gods they look at you like you're crazy.
*
I think what goes along with this is imbalance in their childhood. Parents have two basic tools to guide children: the carrot (rewards/praise/etc.), and the stick (punishment). When parents don’t balance those two tools they can easily wind up with kids who grow into liberals.
If you only use the carrot approach, you wind up with a selfish, self centered, egotistical brat. If you only use the stick approach you get basically the same thing only with more of a rebelious approach to life.
I know in my own life, my older brother got too much punishment from my Dad (who, because of always working, was rarely home) and then got too much carrot from my Mom to make up for the punishment from my Dad. As a consequence he rebelled at everything that my Dad stood for.
One of the things that has kept him in the liberal camp is that he never became a Dad himself. (That and going to college and now teaching college.)
So I guess one of the causes for liberals being unbalanced is because they were raised that way.
*
The liberal mind has rejected God, rejected the fact that we all have a sinful nature (original sin). The liberal has set himself up as God (or the state or whatever he uses as a moral equivalent to God) so he can decide for himself what is moral or what is not (or the state or whatever “lawgiver”). To the liberal man is perfectible through education and mental discipline. And usually they think of themselves as “born-again” or perfected when they come to believe the religion of liberalism.
The liberal (commie/marxist/nazi/statist, etc) is unsaved!
Granted there are so called liberal Christians, however I’ve found that usually they have fallen away from the whole idea of “sin”. That can be a topic for another day.
*
Liberals embrace and live the Seven Cardinal Sins: wrath (always feel offended), greed (always scheming for OTHEE PEOPLE's MONEY), sloth (unathletic oafs), pride (so much better than all the "little people", lust ( in all its illicit manifestations), envy (of everyhting they don't have cuz "but I DESERVE that! not her!), and gluttony (always over-doing everything).
It is really as simple as that.
*
"For you liberal lurkers out there I'll spell it out: don't confuse education and technological advancement with basic intelligence."
I'm in absolute agreement with that. I've thought the same thing myself.
It's time for a prediction thread, This time a 2fer!
Prediction Survey: So what will the Washington Post's Headline be the day BEFORE Election 2012? The day AFTER?
The day before “Obama in huge lead calls for (Republican Nominee) to conceed the election!”
The day after..”Obama says there was massive voting fraud in the election returns refuses to conceed election until ALL votes can be recounted)
*
Before: Obama surges.
After: Republican fraud suspected in 43 state landslide.
*
Before: Obama to Win by the Largest Margin in History!
After: Obama Loses by the Largest Margin in History!
*
Post: Careful reexamination of votes by Federal Election Commission has revealed unanimous endorsement of the Supreme Leader by the workers in all 57 states.
All Hail First Citizen Obama!
*
Before: Obama Confident of Victory Despite Sagging Election Eve Poll Numbers.
After: Refusing to Concede and Sighting Numerous Reports of Voter Suppression in Minority Precincts, Obama Calls on Supporters to "Take to the Streets"
*
Day After:
Racists defeat first Black President.
Intimidation of Voter ID used to Suppress the Vote.
*
Before: WE LOVE YOU, BARRY! LET'S GO, DEMOCRATS!
After: REPUBLICANS SWEEP! WOMEN AND MINORITIES MOST AFFECTED
*
Day Before: Palin Again Denies Affair with High School Hockey Player.
Day After: Madame President?!?
*
Well the November headline will be: Obama claims victory by courts after a close vote.
*
Who says Hussein will allow elections?
*
Washington Post's Headline be the day BEFORE Election 2012?
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION TO DECIDE ON NEW DATE FOR ELECTION
The day AFTER?
The premise for your question requires that we first have an election.
*
Before - Confident Obama Golfs on Election Day.
After - Obama wins only 3 states, CA, IL, & NY
The after prediction is serious.
*
Before: Obama Visits 12 Battleground States on last Day of 2012 Campaign.
After: Obama Won’t Conceed; Romney Sweeps 42 States.
*
POST:
Obama loses in a 42 state route. Riots break out in Detroit, Los Angeles, Newark and Washington, D.C.
*
After: Obama Defeated Amid Nationwide Temper Tantrum
Michelle: Hell no, we won’t go!
*
The Day Before - "TOO CLOSE TO CALL"
The Day After - "OBAMA REELECTED!"
100 Days After - "NATION REELS FROM MASSIVE RECESSION"
One Year After - "OBAMA DECLARES MARTIAL LAW"
*
November 6:
“Presidential Nominees from both parties nervously anticipating a close victory”
November 7:
“RED TIDE:GOP Pulls a hat trick, taking the House, Senate and Presidency!”
The day before “Obama in huge lead calls for (Republican Nominee) to conceed the election!”
The day after..”Obama says there was massive voting fraud in the election returns refuses to conceed election until ALL votes can be recounted)
*
Before: Obama surges.
After: Republican fraud suspected in 43 state landslide.
*
Before: Obama to Win by the Largest Margin in History!
After: Obama Loses by the Largest Margin in History!
*
Post: Careful reexamination of votes by Federal Election Commission has revealed unanimous endorsement of the Supreme Leader by the workers in all 57 states.
All Hail First Citizen Obama!
*
Before: Obama Confident of Victory Despite Sagging Election Eve Poll Numbers.
After: Refusing to Concede and Sighting Numerous Reports of Voter Suppression in Minority Precincts, Obama Calls on Supporters to "Take to the Streets"
*
Day After:
Racists defeat first Black President.
Intimidation of Voter ID used to Suppress the Vote.
*
Before: WE LOVE YOU, BARRY! LET'S GO, DEMOCRATS!
After: REPUBLICANS SWEEP! WOMEN AND MINORITIES MOST AFFECTED
*
Day Before: Palin Again Denies Affair with High School Hockey Player.
Day After: Madame President?!?
*
Well the November headline will be: Obama claims victory by courts after a close vote.
*
Who says Hussein will allow elections?
*
Washington Post's Headline be the day BEFORE Election 2012?
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION TO DECIDE ON NEW DATE FOR ELECTION
The day AFTER?
The premise for your question requires that we first have an election.
*
Before - Confident Obama Golfs on Election Day.
After - Obama wins only 3 states, CA, IL, & NY
The after prediction is serious.
*
Before: Obama Visits 12 Battleground States on last Day of 2012 Campaign.
After: Obama Won’t Conceed; Romney Sweeps 42 States.
*
POST:
Obama loses in a 42 state route. Riots break out in Detroit, Los Angeles, Newark and Washington, D.C.
*
After: Obama Defeated Amid Nationwide Temper Tantrum
Michelle: Hell no, we won’t go!
*
The Day Before - "TOO CLOSE TO CALL"
The Day After - "OBAMA REELECTED!"
100 Days After - "NATION REELS FROM MASSIVE RECESSION"
One Year After - "OBAMA DECLARES MARTIAL LAW"
*
November 6:
“Presidential Nominees from both parties nervously anticipating a close victory”
November 7:
“RED TIDE:GOP Pulls a hat trick, taking the House, Senate and Presidency!”
Rape Exception: Why Do We Kill Babies Instead of Rapists?
Article from Life News
Quick one for the first of the new year.
Excerpt: "I got into a debate with a pretty good friend about abortion the other day. She’s typically a pro-life gal, but she has adopted (no pun intended) the GOP’s ‘get out of a debate alive’ exception to the rule.
For some reason, she was completely dumbfounded that I don’t have exceptions to my pro-life stance. My argument is that I don’t need them.
As a former student at a medical college, I’ve taken the Hippocratic Oath in order to participate in clinicals. (Full disclosure: I quit that job in order to save America from idiotic ideas, much like this one.) Because of this, I know there is a “first do no harm” clause. So no, I don’t think doctors should have to let a mother die in order for their baby to live. I think that is up to the mother and her doctor—at least until Obamacare kicks in."
And yet rape is the reason that abortionist ALWAYS use to excuse killing babies.
*
I have to say that the exception for rape was a very difficult issue for me to overcome. Although I have never been raped, I did know someone who was, and who was also tortured. I felt a horror for the idea of carrying the child of a rapist. I believe that I am probably not alone in that.
I am grateful for all of those who argued the point here, and who convinced me that my feelings were wrong.
*
First off, that we can't kill the rapist is an error of justice, but one does fix errors by committing others.
To answer your question, why should the question be up to you? Why shouldn't it be up to the rape victim? Following the non-consensual rape, should the law force another suffering upon her, namely, to endure pregnancy and bear the child against her wishes? Then she would be raped once by the rapist, and once again by the law.
Furthermore, why should criminal rapists be rewarded with genetic offspring, particularly from unwilling mothers? Society would be better off without rapists (re: death penalty) and to the extent that any component of social malfunction is genetic, the "innocent" offspring is potentially a carrier.
*
You're right, of course. But people on our side would be be much better off deflecting the issue. It's a political loser. You wind up not saving the 10,000 rape babies or the several million others either.
*
Radical idea:
Like we have ample funds from vaccine taxes to compensate the unlucky few the are harmed by them (while society vastly benefits), why not have a generous fund to compensate the pregnancy and adoption costs for those victims of rape.
Killing the innocent product of the rape isn’t just.
Maybe we could fund the effort by a tax on birth control (Democrats love counter-intuitive taxes.)
Quick one for the first of the new year.
Excerpt: "I got into a debate with a pretty good friend about abortion the other day. She’s typically a pro-life gal, but she has adopted (no pun intended) the GOP’s ‘get out of a debate alive’ exception to the rule.
For some reason, she was completely dumbfounded that I don’t have exceptions to my pro-life stance. My argument is that I don’t need them.
As a former student at a medical college, I’ve taken the Hippocratic Oath in order to participate in clinicals. (Full disclosure: I quit that job in order to save America from idiotic ideas, much like this one.) Because of this, I know there is a “first do no harm” clause. So no, I don’t think doctors should have to let a mother die in order for their baby to live. I think that is up to the mother and her doctor—at least until Obamacare kicks in."
And yet rape is the reason that abortionist ALWAYS use to excuse killing babies.
*
I have to say that the exception for rape was a very difficult issue for me to overcome. Although I have never been raped, I did know someone who was, and who was also tortured. I felt a horror for the idea of carrying the child of a rapist. I believe that I am probably not alone in that.
I am grateful for all of those who argued the point here, and who convinced me that my feelings were wrong.
*
First off, that we can't kill the rapist is an error of justice, but one does fix errors by committing others.
To answer your question, why should the question be up to you? Why shouldn't it be up to the rape victim? Following the non-consensual rape, should the law force another suffering upon her, namely, to endure pregnancy and bear the child against her wishes? Then she would be raped once by the rapist, and once again by the law.
Furthermore, why should criminal rapists be rewarded with genetic offspring, particularly from unwilling mothers? Society would be better off without rapists (re: death penalty) and to the extent that any component of social malfunction is genetic, the "innocent" offspring is potentially a carrier.
*
You're right, of course. But people on our side would be be much better off deflecting the issue. It's a political loser. You wind up not saving the 10,000 rape babies or the several million others either.
*
Radical idea:
Like we have ample funds from vaccine taxes to compensate the unlucky few the are harmed by them (while society vastly benefits), why not have a generous fund to compensate the pregnancy and adoption costs for those victims of rape.
Killing the innocent product of the rape isn’t just.
Maybe we could fund the effort by a tax on birth control (Democrats love counter-intuitive taxes.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)