As we move into Obama's sixth month in office, and almost a year of influence on the markets and other societal forces, I can't help but wonder what the liberals would be saying had a Republican been elected president with the same results. The world is falling apart, the markets are limping, and unemployment continues to climb toward record levels. Imagine if the president were Sarah Palin. They would be calling her all kinds of names and blaming her for everything that is going wrong, but not with Obama.
Well, thing will continue to get worse-- much worse. At some point the libs will start to critisize. Some already are critisizing, but they are bloggers that have little influence. If they had any real influence, they'd be fired.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
"Open invitation here to meet me face to face so I can beat the shit out of you."
This was the response I received from a liberal who claimed to be gay in response to my point that homosexuals' biggest problem is not bigotry. Indeed, their problems start with their own behavior. I also pointed out that most gay bashing is done by other gays.
In response to his wanting to "meet me face to face so [he] can beat the shit out of me", I wrote:
As to the person who wants to "beat the shit out of me". You prove my point about who the violent individuals really are. Hopefully you have no children or wife, if so, Family Protective Services should probably look into their wellbeing.
He then responded:
No, asshole, I am not married and do hot (sic) have kids. I am GAY. And I'm tired of being dumped on by bigots like yourself. And yes, I'd love to show you what a gay man can do, namely kick your ass.
I pointed out that his threats are federal felonies. He wrote back and said he could "have worded it better." Bill Gates, are you listening? We need a new feature on word, it can operate like spell checker, it's called threat checker. It's for people who mistakenly type "I'm going to beat the shit out of you", when really what they mean is "I'm going to beat the shit out of you".
In response to his wanting to "meet me face to face so [he] can beat the shit out of me", I wrote:
As to the person who wants to "beat the shit out of me". You prove my point about who the violent individuals really are. Hopefully you have no children or wife, if so, Family Protective Services should probably look into their wellbeing.
He then responded:
No, asshole, I am not married and do hot (sic) have kids. I am GAY. And I'm tired of being dumped on by bigots like yourself. And yes, I'd love to show you what a gay man can do, namely kick your ass.
I pointed out that his threats are federal felonies. He wrote back and said he could "have worded it better." Bill Gates, are you listening? We need a new feature on word, it can operate like spell checker, it's called threat checker. It's for people who mistakenly type "I'm going to beat the shit out of you", when really what they mean is "I'm going to beat the shit out of you".
Monday, June 29, 2009
New feature-- Critique of the news anchors
I've spoken to the editors, and they think it's a great idea. I'm going to watch Katie Couric tommorow -- I know, it goes against my maxim, but this is for the cause of humanity. Then I'm going to expose her show for the boring, talentless waste of public airwaves that it is. Stay tuned.
I welcome your input.
I welcome your input.
Texas officials want investigation of gay bar raid
You've got to read this article. It's about how a county commissioner wants to be sure a group wasn't being singled out for prosecution - the group-- gays.
Where was this commissioner when CPS, known for being manned by lesbians and homosexuals, singled out religious organizations and conspired to deny them their rights?
The world has gone completely mad.
Oh, by the way, Michael Jackson was not a great man. If you think so, you need to read my article on delusion.
Where was this commissioner when CPS, known for being manned by lesbians and homosexuals, singled out religious organizations and conspired to deny them their rights?
The world has gone completely mad.
Oh, by the way, Michael Jackson was not a great man. If you think so, you need to read my article on delusion.
Michael Jackson should not be honored at all
The reason the media wants us to believe Michael Jackson was a great man is because he wasn’t a great man. He promoted through his music the very activities that are causing the great health care crisis we are going through today. And he profited from those activities.
If you notice, the inane TV shows you are addicted to are funded by two, main products: drugs, and trucks. The media wants you to be sick. It actually makes money by making you sick. Michael Jackson’s influence is responsible for many deaths, illnesses, broken families, and broken lives—including, it turns out, his own. He, of course, was not the mastermind behind his negative influence. He was more or less a sickly puppet on a string—a puppet that would have been better off in an insane asylum. He should not be honored at all.
If you notice, the inane TV shows you are addicted to are funded by two, main products: drugs, and trucks. The media wants you to be sick. It actually makes money by making you sick. Michael Jackson’s influence is responsible for many deaths, illnesses, broken families, and broken lives—including, it turns out, his own. He, of course, was not the mastermind behind his negative influence. He was more or less a sickly puppet on a string—a puppet that would have been better off in an insane asylum. He should not be honored at all.
Sotomayor overturned
What's significant about this case? Souter dissented. Therefore, Sotomayor will likely have no real impact on the makeup of court. Check back for legal analysis.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Are you deluded?
As I was “debating” an issue with some liberals on a liberal blog, I couldn't help but notice the lack of rationale for their position. Indeed, they had no rationale, and were not even attempting to muster one. All they could mutter was insults—of me, whom they don’t even know. I began to seriously wonder, is that person drunk? Are they blogging from an insane asylum? What is the nature and character of their condition? Are they as physically violent as they are verbally violent? If so, are their children safe? Is their wife safe-- their husband? There seems to be many of them.
I remember years ago as a teenager working construction in a poor section of town. The apartments I was working on had gas stoves. And the stoves had vents. And because the stove in the unit I was working in had been removed, the vent was wide open. As I worked, I could clearly hear into the upstairs unit. All the occupants did was swear at each other and call each other names. That impoverished, angry, and insane segment of society now has the Internet, and some of them keep themselves occupied by swearing at others in the blogs. They hold positions, but no reason for them. And they refuse to listen to any logic.
I recently and accidentally ran across a word that defines the nature and character of this condition commonly displayed by liberals. The word is “delusional”. In psychiatry, the noun form is defined as a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. Many liberals are delusional. And one cause of their condition is a difficulty they have distinguishing fiction from reality.
Shows like “Hung” glamorize the life of a male prostitute by omitting the realities of the "profession" such as early onset Alzheimer’s, testicle cancer, anal cancer, high tax-rates for everyone, anal cancer of the wife, blind babies, abortions, blurred vision, heart troubles, prostate failure, impotence, herpes, genital warts, liver disease, prison, bankruptcy from medical bills, early death, and other myriad problems that plague all prostitutes. Mention these omissions, and the deluded individual stubbornly resists the intrusion into his fraudulent view of reality. They are loyal to the delusion to the degree that they want to harm anyone shattering it-- sometimes by simple name-calling. They want others to share in the delusion. It is as if they are angry at reality.
So the answer to my question can be determined by whether you name-call in response to my articles.
I remember years ago as a teenager working construction in a poor section of town. The apartments I was working on had gas stoves. And the stoves had vents. And because the stove in the unit I was working in had been removed, the vent was wide open. As I worked, I could clearly hear into the upstairs unit. All the occupants did was swear at each other and call each other names. That impoverished, angry, and insane segment of society now has the Internet, and some of them keep themselves occupied by swearing at others in the blogs. They hold positions, but no reason for them. And they refuse to listen to any logic.
I recently and accidentally ran across a word that defines the nature and character of this condition commonly displayed by liberals. The word is “delusional”. In psychiatry, the noun form is defined as a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. Many liberals are delusional. And one cause of their condition is a difficulty they have distinguishing fiction from reality.
Shows like “Hung” glamorize the life of a male prostitute by omitting the realities of the "profession" such as early onset Alzheimer’s, testicle cancer, anal cancer, high tax-rates for everyone, anal cancer of the wife, blind babies, abortions, blurred vision, heart troubles, prostate failure, impotence, herpes, genital warts, liver disease, prison, bankruptcy from medical bills, early death, and other myriad problems that plague all prostitutes. Mention these omissions, and the deluded individual stubbornly resists the intrusion into his fraudulent view of reality. They are loyal to the delusion to the degree that they want to harm anyone shattering it-- sometimes by simple name-calling. They want others to share in the delusion. It is as if they are angry at reality.
So the answer to my question can be determined by whether you name-call in response to my articles.
Friday, June 26, 2009
If macho is dying, it's time for assisted suicide
The article in Salon begins “[w]hat centuries of feminist protest didn’t accomplish, the global recession will—the death of macho.
It’s easy to classify the Salon article as anti-men, but it is, more precisely, an illogical emotional outburst by one of those delusional protesting feminists, and it is generated by hatred for families. It celebrates the loss of jobs for men as if that somehow helps women—and maybe it does help pining, divorcees who sit at home making their living writing hate speech against men, but as a protesting feminist, you’d think the author would have considered that maybe those jobless men will simply take the women’s jobs. They are, after all, macho. Maybe they’ll become journalists.
Key to the article’s premise is the definition of “macho”. The article is, after all, about its death. Conveniently, the author defines it in the article. So we needn’t speculate. It is defined as "aggressive, risk-seeking behavior." Aside from the obvious grammatical problem with the definition being a noun and not an adjective, there is another problem. It defines liberalism.
Remember Barney Frank? I’m sure you do. He’s the congressman from Massachusetts who hired a male prostitute – hey, maybe that’s the basis for the new show Hung. Now that might be worth watching. Now I understand why it’s a comedy. Who would play Barney Frank? But I digress. Barney Frank, and others engage in, promote, and, indeed, legislate aggressive, risky behavior. So if macho is dying, it’s time to pull the plug.
It’s easy to classify the Salon article as anti-men, but it is, more precisely, an illogical emotional outburst by one of those delusional protesting feminists, and it is generated by hatred for families. It celebrates the loss of jobs for men as if that somehow helps women—and maybe it does help pining, divorcees who sit at home making their living writing hate speech against men, but as a protesting feminist, you’d think the author would have considered that maybe those jobless men will simply take the women’s jobs. They are, after all, macho. Maybe they’ll become journalists.
Key to the article’s premise is the definition of “macho”. The article is, after all, about its death. Conveniently, the author defines it in the article. So we needn’t speculate. It is defined as "aggressive, risk-seeking behavior." Aside from the obvious grammatical problem with the definition being a noun and not an adjective, there is another problem. It defines liberalism.
Remember Barney Frank? I’m sure you do. He’s the congressman from Massachusetts who hired a male prostitute – hey, maybe that’s the basis for the new show Hung. Now that might be worth watching. Now I understand why it’s a comedy. Who would play Barney Frank? But I digress. Barney Frank, and others engage in, promote, and, indeed, legislate aggressive, risky behavior. So if macho is dying, it’s time to pull the plug.
What the country needs, a comedy about gigolos
In an apparent attempt to improve society by encouraging more male stars to get anal cancer -- to offset the sexist anal cancer of Farah, a new show targeting a liberal audience, and progressively named Hung, glamorizes male prostitution. It’s about a gigolo, of all things, a gigolo frequented by female clients – well, it is fiction. They can’t show what male gigolos really do—“not that there’s anything wrong with that.” Well, apparently there is, because their gigolo has no male clients. I haven’t watched the show, and probably never will, but from the advertisements, it seems the show portrays being a gigolo as an exciting career opportunity for young skulls full of mush. When society needs cops, they run cop shows, lawyers, legal shows, male gigolos—I think Hollywood has a conflict of interest. My guess is the show has few episodes covering the gigolo in his more ghonorreal moments – like hours on the toilet with massive diarrhea, bouts with lipodistrophy, hundred pound weight loss, not the kind you want, but the kind that brings you down to 60 pounds, the blindness of his children, his early onset dementia, and, of course, a slow, ugly death from anal cancer that has spread to his liver. It’s a comedy. Now that’s funny.
My censored Huffington Post comment
I tried to post this on the Huffington Post at Huffingtonpost.com, but it was censored by the state. I was pointing out how ironic it is that we are “mourning” the loss of Farrah Fawcett from anal cancer, and right next to our “mourning” article, there’s an article inviting us to “Watch: Bruno strips for Conan”.
In a few years we may be “mourning” Bruno, and those who follow him. One of these days it will hit you, sick means sick.
In a few years we may be “mourning” Bruno, and those who follow him. One of these days it will hit you, sick means sick.
It's official, adultery is part of the liberal platform
Yes, adultery is a part of the liberal platform. Now before you call me an asphalt- ass – assphat, or a wingnut, you need to read an article on Salon. The link to the article says “The Moralizing Right: They’re Just Liberals in Drag.”
As I’ve written in an earlier column, My Hit Counter is Going Through the Roof, liberals are using senator Stanford, or is it mayor – No, wait, he’s a governor. I’ve never heard of him before, and will probably never hear of him again; but somehow he justifies all of liberal policy. And the reason he justifies it--the big argument he presents for liberalism, is that he committed adultery, therefore, we are all liberals and we all support liberal policy, and liberal policy is right.
And liberals get upset when I draw a connection between anal cancer and the Hollywood lifestyle.
The first paragraph of the article speaks about how Republicans are supposedly repeatedly caught with their “zipper undone”. After a few sentences of amateur psychoanalysis on all of Republica, the second paragraph concludes, “They’re just liberals in drag.” The conclusion is undeniable. In order to be a liberal, you must commit adultery. In order to be a liberal in drag, you must commit adultery, and speak against it publicly.
Surely there’s a third option.
As I’ve written in an earlier column, My Hit Counter is Going Through the Roof, liberals are using senator Stanford, or is it mayor – No, wait, he’s a governor. I’ve never heard of him before, and will probably never hear of him again; but somehow he justifies all of liberal policy. And the reason he justifies it--the big argument he presents for liberalism, is that he committed adultery, therefore, we are all liberals and we all support liberal policy, and liberal policy is right.
And liberals get upset when I draw a connection between anal cancer and the Hollywood lifestyle.
The first paragraph of the article speaks about how Republicans are supposedly repeatedly caught with their “zipper undone”. After a few sentences of amateur psychoanalysis on all of Republica, the second paragraph concludes, “They’re just liberals in drag.” The conclusion is undeniable. In order to be a liberal, you must commit adultery. In order to be a liberal in drag, you must commit adultery, and speak against it publicly.
Surely there’s a third option.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Two stars dead from liberalism
My initial reaction to Michael Jackon's death is that he died of skin cancer-- that is to say he died of an overdose of pain medication necessary because of skin cancer. We may never know the truth, but sometimes it can be gleaned from the earliest reports.
Farah Fawcett died of anal cancer.
Both skin cancer and anal cancer have strong associations with illicit sexual behavior. What we are seeing is the inevitable effect the Hollywood lifestyle has on Hollywood personel. I expect a rapid growth in the early deaths of celebrities from the 70s and 80s. Many are dying now, but they don't let it out.
Farah Fawcett died of anal cancer.
Both skin cancer and anal cancer have strong associations with illicit sexual behavior. What we are seeing is the inevitable effect the Hollywood lifestyle has on Hollywood personel. I expect a rapid growth in the early deaths of celebrities from the 70s and 80s. Many are dying now, but they don't let it out.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
My hit counter is going through the roof!
My hit counter is going through the roof. You all probably want to know what I think about Stanford—or is it Sanford. As involved as I am in politics, I’ve never heard of him.
It seems he is a Republican that had an affair, and the liberals are using this to justify the stimulus package, rampant unemployment, socialized medicine, Barney Frank, hyperinflation, war in Iraq, torture, leniency on North Korea, Lewinski, late-term abortion, Sotomayor, Clintongate, the collapse of the dollar, and a nebulous position on Iran. What was his name again? Oh yeah, Sanford.
I’m thinking and writing, check back.
It seems he is a Republican that had an affair, and the liberals are using this to justify the stimulus package, rampant unemployment, socialized medicine, Barney Frank, hyperinflation, war in Iraq, torture, leniency on North Korea, Lewinski, late-term abortion, Sotomayor, Clintongate, the collapse of the dollar, and a nebulous position on Iran. What was his name again? Oh yeah, Sanford.
I’m thinking and writing, check back.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Are you using Firefox? Then you must be from Salon.
Is the Internet browser war more political than technical? As I analyze my blog’s logs—Say that ten times fast -- I notice an intriguing trend, liberals, it seems, hate Bill Gates. I'm very technically familiar with the various browsers, and I know that IE is superior in every technical way. Nevertheless, liberals seem to use other browsers to a significant extent. The association between liberals, Firefox, and low technical knowledge should be studied further. I’ll keep you posted.
The evening news is going down the toilet. And I helped. You can too.
The ratings for the evening news programs for all three networks have hit record lows. I find that utterly fantastic. My blog is syphoning off many of their viewers, and I stopped watching the news about three months ago. Katie’s face is too distracting to watch, and the saying “what the hell is she doing there” keeps running through my head when I watch her. Charlie Gibson is unbearable after watching him with Sarah Palin. To me, he sounded a little gay in that interview, and since that, I can’t bear his ugly face. You wouldn’t see a woman that ugly anchor the evening news—talk about sexism. That all leads me to – I can never think of his name – James Bond? No, that’s not it. Oh yeah, Brian Williams. He's the news singer. He sings the news. And he acts as though he’s a gift to mankind. He, too, became unbearable. Once I started noticing the singing, I couldn’t listen anymore.
There are only about four stories on the news every night. And I can read them all in about thirty seconds. So why waste my time? I stopped, and I don’t miss it a bit. I rarely watch the local news. The best part of the local news is the weather. But why do we need to know all about the high pressure points, low pressure points, blah, blah, blah. Just give me the temps, wind, and whether it will rain. By the time they get through with the big explanation, I’ve forgotten what the weather is going to be. I can read in online in about ten seconds.
I love watching them sweat.
There are only about four stories on the news every night. And I can read them all in about thirty seconds. So why waste my time? I stopped, and I don’t miss it a bit. I rarely watch the local news. The best part of the local news is the weather. But why do we need to know all about the high pressure points, low pressure points, blah, blah, blah. Just give me the temps, wind, and whether it will rain. By the time they get through with the big explanation, I’ve forgotten what the weather is going to be. I can read in online in about ten seconds.
I love watching them sweat.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Censorship on the blogs
The liberal blogs engage in covert censorship more than most realize. Here is a list of the worst offenders from my own, personal experience:
NYTimes: -- Censors anything it doesn't like.
CBSNews: -- almost anything contrary to their postion in their story is never posted.
ABCNews: -- The soft-porn version of the news. This is where the real weirdos work. Just look at their "news" website. This site seems to be the biggest mainstream supporter of homosexuality, beastiality, and illicit sex generally. It censors the same as CBSNews.
Huffingtonpost: -- a bit overly sensitive. If you mention "black", expect your post to take some time to post. It seems to escalate your post to a higher censor. Also avoid "homosexual", and "African American."
Salon:-- not as bad as the others. But when something gets under Joan's skin, it's deleted, and so is the user. But she "regrets" it later.
The VAST MAJORITY of comments on all sites are juvenile, unintelligent, and, except for the fact that they are an unprecedented view into a liberal's mind, a waste of time. But once in awhile you'll find something worthwhile.
They would be better off leaving the contrary comments, and deleting the obscene comments. It would both strengthen their position, and make them more practiced in support of their position-- just a thought.
NYTimes: -- Censors anything it doesn't like.
CBSNews: -- almost anything contrary to their postion in their story is never posted.
ABCNews: -- The soft-porn version of the news. This is where the real weirdos work. Just look at their "news" website. This site seems to be the biggest mainstream supporter of homosexuality, beastiality, and illicit sex generally. It censors the same as CBSNews.
Huffingtonpost: -- a bit overly sensitive. If you mention "black", expect your post to take some time to post. It seems to escalate your post to a higher censor. Also avoid "homosexual", and "African American."
Salon:-- not as bad as the others. But when something gets under Joan's skin, it's deleted, and so is the user. But she "regrets" it later.
The VAST MAJORITY of comments on all sites are juvenile, unintelligent, and, except for the fact that they are an unprecedented view into a liberal's mind, a waste of time. But once in awhile you'll find something worthwhile.
They would be better off leaving the contrary comments, and deleting the obscene comments. It would both strengthen their position, and make them more practiced in support of their position-- just a thought.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
A Blow Job is Better Than No Job
A blow job is better than no job. It sounds like the closing pitch of some slimy pimp exploiting ghetto youths – and, in a way, it is. It’s the conclusion of an article in a pretentiously liberal blog, Salon. The blog pugnaciously stands for what it terms woman’s rights, equality, and, conveniently for those pushing prostitution, late term abortions. The article begins with the ostensibly difficult question “does [“sex” work] beat working at McDonalds?” The article concludes ambigiously, as if it had asked, is it better to work for Burger King or McDonalds?
Society as a whole has recognized the utter devastation that is caused by sex outside of the normal, marital bounds – disease, fatherless children, low self-esteem, poverty, drug addiction, violence, and death. But despite that, there has always existed perverse individuals who desire to pervert other individuals— often young women, often for monetary gain. They intentionally forget the devastation of such practices as prostitution, and they lack any compassion for those they entice into such practices. Those individuals today masquerade as liberals, and they are increasing in number, and will continue to increase in number until they are widely exposed for what they are.
[Update] I've recently had a blog encounter that somewhat explains the liberal point of view on prostitution (it's just another type of relationship). It is the left's view that the health problems experienced by prostitutes are nothing more than those experienced from eating junk food. Now remember, these are the same people running governent, schools, and universities-- and, soon, health, or so they think.
Society as a whole has recognized the utter devastation that is caused by sex outside of the normal, marital bounds – disease, fatherless children, low self-esteem, poverty, drug addiction, violence, and death. But despite that, there has always existed perverse individuals who desire to pervert other individuals— often young women, often for monetary gain. They intentionally forget the devastation of such practices as prostitution, and they lack any compassion for those they entice into such practices. Those individuals today masquerade as liberals, and they are increasing in number, and will continue to increase in number until they are widely exposed for what they are.
[Update] I've recently had a blog encounter that somewhat explains the liberal point of view on prostitution (it's just another type of relationship). It is the left's view that the health problems experienced by prostitutes are nothing more than those experienced from eating junk food. Now remember, these are the same people running governent, schools, and universities-- and, soon, health, or so they think.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Jimmy Fallon -- Lame
Huffpo did a story about Jimmy Fallon's "Rush Limbaugh Karaoke". The bit was lame. But what strikes me is Fallon. I've never watched him before. He stinks. He's awkward and unfunny. He reminds me of someone who's never really spoken in public before. He stutters, and he seems to have a speech impediment. In response to every line, he tries to force a joke. He has no sense of humor. Why does he have a show? Aren’t there plenty of stand up comics who would die at the chance to do a show? I guess this is what Television is like in communist Russia. Talent is replaced by the party line.
What would be funny, because it would be so utterly boring, is a Jimmy Fallon Karaoke. Audience members could sing to his monotonous, boring, unfunny words, then awkwardly concentrate trying to think of a joke. Watch it, and tell me what you think.
What would be funny, because it would be so utterly boring, is a Jimmy Fallon Karaoke. Audience members could sing to his monotonous, boring, unfunny words, then awkwardly concentrate trying to think of a joke. Watch it, and tell me what you think.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Dave has apologized again, and, again, he should be fired
Dave Letterman has just apologized—again. And again he doesn’t get it. He apologizes for being misunderstood: “It’s not your fault that it was misunderstood, it’s my fault that it was misunderstood.” No, Dave, the joke was wrong because you were viciously attacking Sarah Palin because she is a conservative. You viciously attacked her, and all women in America by using sexual innuendo against her children, and by degrading her, and women generally. That is not a misunderstanding. That was your intent. It's your pattern. It's your MO. You were simply being you. You are what is wrong. You should quit, or be fired summarily. It's time to quit wasting valuable airspace on damaging crap like your show.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Should Letterman be investigated by CPS?
Are Letterman’s children subject to greater risk, and lesser “protection” because he is a left wing hack? I can’t imagine any parents of 14 year old girls making similar remarks unless they are, in the words of Letterman, “knocking up” their daughter.
How did Joan Walsh perform on O'Reilly?
First, I want to say that O'Reilly's performance was formula. He doesn't really have time to do anything but formula. His grin at the end indicated that the formula worked accordingly. It did. I had to grin too. It is almost impossible for a guest to overcome the tremendous advantage a host has on one of these shows. O’Reilly is particularly practiced.
The comments, except for the cheerleaders who cheer even for fumbles, are generally negative toward Joan, even from those who support her. Joan, to me, looked like a typical talking head—a hired gun-- albeit one with a bit of insecurity about her position. She argued her position like any extremist would. You could put Tiller’s killer, or the Holocaust Museum murderer on O’Reilly and get similar results—a proud defense of a defenseless position spoken by someone with an ax to grind- lacking knowledge of the facts -- never a “you know, you could be right.”
Her lack of familiarity with the material presented by O’Reilly accentuated her stubbornness, and it highlighted the fact that her position is derived from ignorance. Overall, Joan came across as an ideologue that, for reasons unknown, wants to sound like Marilyn Monroe or Jackie O. Maybe if she used her at home with the children guttural voice—you know, the voice one would expect from a late term abortionist, she would have been more convincing. She wouldn’t have convinced me, but she would have convinced some of the 13 year olds that have been knocked up by late-night talk entertainers and others who frequent underage prostitutes.
The comments, except for the cheerleaders who cheer even for fumbles, are generally negative toward Joan, even from those who support her. Joan, to me, looked like a typical talking head—a hired gun-- albeit one with a bit of insecurity about her position. She argued her position like any extremist would. You could put Tiller’s killer, or the Holocaust Museum murderer on O’Reilly and get similar results—a proud defense of a defenseless position spoken by someone with an ax to grind- lacking knowledge of the facts -- never a “you know, you could be right.”
Her lack of familiarity with the material presented by O’Reilly accentuated her stubbornness, and it highlighted the fact that her position is derived from ignorance. Overall, Joan came across as an ideologue that, for reasons unknown, wants to sound like Marilyn Monroe or Jackie O. Maybe if she used her at home with the children guttural voice—you know, the voice one would expect from a late term abortionist, she would have been more convincing. She wouldn’t have convinced me, but she would have convinced some of the 13 year olds that have been knocked up by late-night talk entertainers and others who frequent underage prostitutes.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Do those who voted for Obama deserve to be unemployed?
The inevitable result of the socialization of a country’s economy is the dramatic increase in its unemployment. We are witnessing that in America today. And as I witness this tragedy of untold sorrows, I can’t help but ask, do those who voted for Barak Obama for president deserve to be unemployed?
Our nation’s history is full of wars fought precisely to keep Obama’s socialist agenda from moving to our shores. Indeed, we celebrate holidays in honor of the men and women who fought to keep the socialist agenda from being forced on us by military means. I’m half expecting Barak Obama to do a speech on Memorial day or Veterans day thanking American soldiers for saving this country in years past from the likes of him. I probably shouldn’t hold my breath.
As Obama’s policys destroy the economy, I’m suggesting a solution to the unemployment to come. Let those who voted for Obama give their jobs to those who didn’t vote for Obama. It’s only fair. We can implement a special cabinet position to assure everyone that those obtaining the jobs are as qualified as those giving the jobs up.
Our nation’s history is full of wars fought precisely to keep Obama’s socialist agenda from moving to our shores. Indeed, we celebrate holidays in honor of the men and women who fought to keep the socialist agenda from being forced on us by military means. I’m half expecting Barak Obama to do a speech on Memorial day or Veterans day thanking American soldiers for saving this country in years past from the likes of him. I probably shouldn’t hold my breath.
As Obama’s policys destroy the economy, I’m suggesting a solution to the unemployment to come. Let those who voted for Obama give their jobs to those who didn’t vote for Obama. It’s only fair. We can implement a special cabinet position to assure everyone that those obtaining the jobs are as qualified as those giving the jobs up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)