Search This Blog

Saturday, October 31, 2015

Rebuttal to Why Liberals Identify with Criminals

I read and respect American Thinker. It's really a great resource for conservatives to gain new perspectives on current events from insightful conservative authors. With that said, occasionally I disagree wholeheartedly with a published in point this one:

Why Liberals Identify with Criminals

Liberals hate cops, honest citizens with guns, and hard sentencing laws because liberals identify with criminals.
If a liberal dislikes the police because he thinks they are unfairly targeting his “harmless” drug use it’s not a big step for him to assume that cops are racist and violent towards other “innocent” people. After all if a liberal believes that cops are “racist pigs” then it becomes clear that arresting “innocent” drug users is an act of fascist repression and that drug users are actually victims of the “police state” not criminals.

This antipathy towards the law because of drugs is not new. During Prohibition Americans who liked to drink lost respect for the police. Anyone who likes to do things that are illegal is going to develop a distaste for the men and women in blue who enforce the law. It’s a natural consequence of the fact that human nature is such that we usually try and rationalize our behavior by scapegoating someone else.
Like other criminals, liberals often believe that what they do doesn’t hurt others. Robbers will rationalize that they’re stealing from people who are rich only because the system is corrupt and that they, the robbers, are just getting what should be theirs, and anyway the “rich” they’re stealing from won’t miss what was stolen. Rapists will claim that the woman “asked for it” and that “no means yes”. Similarly liberals argue that their drug use doesn’t hurt anyone. Apparently liberals either don’t care or are unaware of the victims of their drug use.

So, Tom Trinko, (author of American Thinker article I'm rebutting,) smoking a joint is rape? Yes, that's what you said you ... you ... YOU FATUOUS JACKASS! What an incredibly asinine and amazingly risible fallacious argument you've left here like a steaming pile in the pasture. I refer you to's Strawman Fallacy. Please read it in its entirety and once you understand it completely...please reread (pick through) your own steaming pile that you unwittingly—or perhaps wittingly?—deposited on American Thinker readers.

It's not just liberals that think the [War on Drugs] is a war against Americans. You would be hard pressed to find very many people who didn't think that Prohibition was misguided, a resounding failure, the prelude to organized crime, and perhaps the single most idiotic, backwards, and asinine experiment in left-thinking tyranny that was ever passed by the many united states. It was in short an unmitigated disaster. And the conclusion that any rational thinking human being should reach is that people like to get high. We enjoy euphoria. God built us this way.
Drug use however does have many victims; the gang wars in our cities, the massive deaths of blacks in our cities, the chaos and death in Mexico are all fueled by the dollars of American drug users. Mexico is turning into a cesspool of violence and corruption because Americans want their drugs and they don’t care who suffers.

The river of drug money also leads to the corruption of the police that in turn causes the very sort of police misconduct that liberals excoriate.
Tom, Tom, Tom, it's as though you are completely retarded. I know you're not, but how, how I wonder, can somebody who communicates as articulately as you do, profess to believe such a giant load of horseshit? Are you effing serious!? I'm honestly left awestruck at your fawning ignorance—or is it your unprincipled duplicity? In short, are you a liar or an idiot? You do know that the river of drug money flows from the mammoth spigot that is the drug war itself, don't you? If marijuana was legal, and if you could grow it in your backyard garden next to the peas and the cucumbers, who would be paying $50.00 for seven grams of it? Who would be smuggling tons of it into the USA? Who would be robbing stores, shooting rival gang members, beating up little old ladies, to get a little more of it?

As Clinton himself might say: IT'S THE DRUG WAR, STUPID!

Chris Matthews doesn't understand Engrish

Herro Mr. Matthews!

We noticed that you think Rand Paul doesn't understand the Constitution. Here, let me quote from your Fortune magazine article:

Rand Paul doesn't understand the Constitution

One of the main talking points Paul used to argue against the bill was that the suspension of the debt limit, as opposed to the raising of the limit to a new, specific dollar amount, grants the President a blank check to spend the people’s money on whatever he pleases:

But this is just not true. With a debt-limit suspension, the Treasury can only borrow money for spending that has already been authorized by Congress. While it’s true that the main drivers of federal spending–Social Security and Medicare–are entitlement programs whose costs rise automatically without annual Congressional approval, they are still programs that were approved by Congress. And Congress can, if it wants to, cut spending on these programs and obviate the need for the Treasury department to borrow more.
I'm not a Rand Paul supporter. I like Ted Cruz, for too many reasons to list in this blog post. That said, I like Rand Paul's defiance of the establishment status quo. For too long, we the people have watched helplessly as the debt and its corresponding "debt limit" have been run up and up and up. Here's somebody who's standing athwart the tracks on which a runaway debt train is barreling out of control. He's going to be crushed, but still you have to admire him for being the only one trying to do something. Unfortunately—as my metaphor suggests—he doesn't stand a chance.

My wife and I once had neighbors and close friends named Christie and Todd. Todd was a police officer, and Christie was a stay at home wife and mother of two children. They were great, and always had fun stories about their world. Todd could talk for hours about the crazy things he saw everyday, the idiots who always think they're too smart to get caught and the excuses they'd use. Christie would talk about her children, life, news she saw online, hobbies, and the oddities of people in public as well as the weirdos at a late-night Wal-Mart.

They had a problem. Their problem was debt. Todd was injured while apprehending a suspect. He hurt his back and had to take some time off. He got workers compensation of course, and that sustained him for a while, as he tried to get back into working shape. Meanwhile his wife went just a little bit crazy. I found out about this later from my wife. (Women can keep secrets so much better than men, don't you think?)

Anyway, Christie found out that she could take out a quick loan at these places that offered something called a "payday advance." You'd go in, submit your information, get approved simply by having a checking account, and then you'd write them a check for $120.00. They'd hand you $100.00 cash and tell you that they'd be cashing that check in exactly seven days. If you later discovered that you didn't have $120 in the bank by that seventh day, you could stop by the store and hand them a twenty. That would reset the clock for another week.

She did this at about eight or nine different check cashing places. She'd get another one just to pay off the other seven she already had going! Can you imagine it? It's a juggling routine where if a ball drops your whole family's way of life is totally screwed. It was foolishness pure and simple, and she should have known better. When she was finally called out on it, she was completely unrepentant. She snapped back..."What was I supposed to do? Let the house get foreclosed on? Let them repossess our car? Let the children go hungry? What exactly was I supposed to do? I did what I had to, and I'd do it again!"

It's a completely alien way of thinking. You can perhaps understand it on some intellectual level, but at the same time you can't understand how a rational human being who grew up with the same educational opportunities, the same customs and society, the same experiences at home on television, at school, at church, et cetera, can't simply grasp the fact that while climbing down into your local zoo's lion habitat to retrieve a dropped purse might seem sensible economically, it's still completely insane!

Chris Matthews, if you think 19, 20, 30 trillion dollars of debt is going to end well, you should totally go to the zoo, you should say "herro!" to the lion, Chris ... and I invite you — no! I urge you! — to climb on down and pet him on his big cute head.


You might be wondering what my blog title has to do with the substance of my post ... I thought I'd pull a "Chris Matthews." (That's my own coined phrase that means: make an insane accusation, then disseminate it to millions of people, and then not bother to attempt proving it in the slightest.)

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Globull Warming Cat 6 Hurricane Annihilates Mexico!

Or Not...

This was the STRONGEST hurricane ever recorded! 245 MPH winds promised to overturn cars, trucks, and buildings, and leave nothing behind but swirling mud, and later when the waters receded, nothing left but dust in the wind. It was—in short—to be nothing less than POCKSECYLIPSE FULL OF PAIN!

I know how you feel. Everyday is harder than the next. For the first time in America's history the youth believe that their own lives will be harder than their parents. For the first time in America's history our children look at what we have and think to themselves that things will only get worse. And they're right. Not because of Globull Warming. Not because of racism. Not because of Homophobia. Not because of a "glass ceiling." Not because of Islamophobia. No! They know things will get worse because the American Dollar—the World's Reserve Currency, has been devalued systemically—and I would say treasonously—over the years until today a typical monthly power bill costs more than a new car used to cost. But whatever. That's my new mantra by the way: "Whatever." You raised taxes? "Whatever." You increased my health insurance premiums and lowered my benefits to the point where it no longer makes any economic sense to purchase health insurance? "Whatever."

The largest hurricane in the history of forever just hit Mexico? "Whatever."

I'm reminded of a stampede. What happens when the crowd allows fear, anger, happiness, or even curiosity to rule? Emotions and crowds are always a deadly combination. The demagogue uses both crowds and emotions to destroy those he hates. In history it's always been this way. From the French revolution to Nazi Germany to Barack Hussein Obama, the hater hates, and he uses crowds and emotions to enflame and destroy civilization.

There is an aphorism called Hanlon's Razor which states in essence: "Never attribute to malice, that which can be explained by stupidity." Yes, of course! They didn't mean to annihilate America completely both from within and from without, diabolically and completely. It was just a series of stupid mistakes that went on and on over the years ... perfectly.

Imagine—if you can—getting a zero on your Scholastic Aptitude Test. (the SAT) You'd have to successfully answer every single question incorrectly, starting with your own name. Is it possible? I'd say that it is, but I wouldn't attribute the zero score to anything like stupidity. It would take real brains to fail that completely.

So Thanks Obama! Thanks for Glubull Warming. Thanks for no health insurance. Thanks for a $300.00 per month power bill. Thanks for my 70 hour a week job. Thanks for everything you took, and thanks for the big fat zero you gave back. Thanks for less than nothing. A lot of people think you're a big fat zero, as in: Øbama, but I give you more credit than that. You took my bank balance and you multiplied it by -1. Thanks Obama, what could I do without you?

Saturday, October 10, 2015

The right of self-defense shall not be infringed

I got this topic today from my brother, Michael. Thanks bro.

Obama's been stumping recently for more gun control, or perhaps a better term than gun control is gun confiscation. Liberals believe that if there are less guns then logically there will be less violence, less crime, less murder, less suicide. In liberal parlance, less guns means more peace. Are they right? It turns out that, actually, you don't have to guess! That's right! There was a time not too long ago in geological terms when there were no guns. Nope! It was peace and tranquility. It was lions laying down with lambs. It was THE DARK AGES YOU MORONIC DUNCE!... okay okay calming down now. I was channeling my inner Sam Kinison. And maybe that's why liberals hate guns. What if you're crazy? Who wants a lunatic crooning lullabies to his arsenal?

Did our forefathers put the right of self-defense in the Constitution? Here's the 2nd amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Liberals AKA Democrats AKA progressives AKA Barack Hussein Obama will argue that of all the people owning guns, very few indeed are part of any kind of "regulated Militia." They will also argue that in those times, "Arms" were black powder muskets, taking quite some time to load and shoot a single ball of lead. Nobody expected improvements in armaments. The musket was the most deadly thing on earth at the time. Our benighted founding fathers lacking any grounding at all in history were probably completely unaware that Arms got better and better as the years passed.

After all, for thousands of years people used rocks and sticks as "Arms", and for more hundreds of years they used bronze knives and later iron swords, and then even later for more hundreds of years it was armor and horses and lances and bows and cannons and trebuchet, and finally to top it all off it was finally muskets. Yes muskets. These modern day weapons represented the acme of technology. After pouring in the powder and ramming it down you put in your pellet of lead and touched it off with a match or something. Honestly, since the notion of "Arms" had never in the entire history of the world ever gotten more deadly, how, I ask you, HOW could our founding fathers have EVER expected anything perhaps even more deadly than a musket?

[By the way, the entire preceding paragraph was shrieked Sam-Kinison-style in an ever-louder ever shriller and ever more sarcastic tone. AH AHHH AHHHHHHHH!!!!]

We mustn't forget that part about a "well regulated Militia." Let's parse that phrase, shall we? If you read the statement logically, it says that because X is true, then Y is the law of the land. WHAT WHAT WHAT?! You say that X is false? It doesn't matter. You'll notice that the 2nd Amendment doesn't say While X continues to be true then Y is the law of the land. The founding fathers simply gave a reason for declaring that Y is the law of the land. They did not limit the right to bear arms, exactly the opposite was the case. They said ... "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

I would argue that since that constitution was ratified by the United States, the right to bear Arms has been infringed upon again and again and again. Recently Ben Carson has come under fire. He argued that if the seven million Jews in Nazi Germany had owned guns, history might have turned out differently. Alright Ben, I just going to come out and say it... THAT'S THE FACT, JACK!

And so now, we get down to brass tacks. Is it okay for you to defend yourself from an aggressor? Let's take a look at bullfighting for the answer. The bull is probably going to lose, but just to be sure, do they cut off its horns? That's stupid! If somebody attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.

You want to know what it was like before a man could load a pistol and confront his attacker on equal terms? Your forefather was most likely a peasant. He lived a life of starvation and hardship. Ninety percent of his crop was confiscated at sword point for his entire life. He faced an armored man wielding a sword and shield. Every knobby bone in his body stood out as he shivered in the cold. He didn't stand a chance.

If that sounds like world peace to you ... then you're too stupid to continue living, so do us all a favor, and shuffle off, already.

Sunday, October 4, 2015

Can't Touch This.

KABUL — The acting governor of Afghanistan's northern Kunduz province said Sunday that Taliban fighters had been routinely firing "small and heavy" weapons from the ground of a local hospital before it was apparently hit by a U.S. airstrike over the weekend. (snip...)
Schools, hospitals, and mosques, are considered "safe ground" by the enemy. They set up mortars and rocket launchers on "safe ground" so that when—inevitably—they are hit by counter-fire, they can immediately run to the main-stream media and scream in hysterical anguish and woe that the Great Satan has again crossed that fantastically ephemeral line between socially acceptably war, and the darkly evil genocide that all Muslims know is being perpetrated against all Muslims everywhere.

When you think of America, those four diabolical syllables should—if you've been properly programmed by your neighborhood leftwing public school—conjure thoughts of barbarity, carnage, fangs dripping blood, the routine flogging of slaves carrying burdens too heavy for any man to carry, soldiers firing their M-16s into screaming crowds of fleeing school children, rape, pillage, and horror unimaginable.
In an interview, Hamdullah Danishi said the Doctors Without Borders compound was “a Taliban base” that was being used to plot and carry out attacks across the provincial capital, Kunduz city.

“The hospital campus was 100 percent used by the Taliban,” Danishi said. “The hospital has a vast garden, and the Taliban were there. We tolerated their firing for some time” before responding.
<snark>Gosh! It seems to me that Doctors Without Borders is a really SUPER idea!</snark> They're doctors who don't care about politics; they just want to save lives. Yet...they continued doing their work knowing ... KNOWING!!! ... that rockets were being launched from their hospital "safe ground" and that these rockets were most likely killing people. Tens of people, hundreds of people, who knows how many people? What if rockets were being launched from the roof of the grounds where you worked? If your job was saving lives then I have a simple question Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), would you save more lives by running your hospital / "safe ground" or just packing up and going home? I ask this question most sincerely because it's a question you well-meaning—yet misguided—assholes have apparently never asked of yourselves.