Nuggets of Wisdom

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Scare Words from the Left-Wing (And What They Really Mean)

This is a parody and response to Scare Words from the Right-Wing (And What They Really Mean) by Matthew Desmond. The first half of this piece will consist of words and issues, how liberals view them, and what they really mean. The second half will consist of labels (or rather insults) liberals use against their opponents, followed by what liberals really mean when they use them.

What they want you to think it means:
White Christian heterosexual property-owning men who fear change and distrust anyone who isn't one of them.
What it really means: Individuals who want change to happen naturally and gradually (rather than radically) and who base their lives on traditional values and principles which have been tested by both history and experience, rather than on theories which have not been tested, or if they have, have been proven to fail.

What they want you to think it means:
Immature teenagers (mainly from privileged white middle-class families) who, because of their naivety and lack of real-world experience, want the government to abandon all laws, regulations, and taxes, thereby allowing them to do whatever they please—provided they have the money. (In other words: anarchy for the rich!)
What it really means: People who believe in liberty—more specifically, that everyone has, as the Declaration of Independence states, "certain unalienable rights" such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and that it is the sole duty of government to protect those rights. Therefore, laws and regulations should be restricted to protecting individuals and their rights, while preventing other individuals from infringing on those rights. They want individuals to live their own lives and make their own decisions according to their own self-interests without unnecessary government coercion.

What they want you to think it means:
An evil, corrupt economic system which exploits the poor through slave wages in order to increase the wealth of the rich. (In other words, "the rich get rich and the poor get poorer!)
What it really means: An economic system based upon a free market where consenting individuals engage in voluntary trade and labor according to their own self-interests, thus increasing wealth and raising living standards for everyone—rich or poor.

What they want you to think it means:
An economic system where the means of production and distribution of goods are controlled by the state through public ownership. Because all goods, services, and industries are administered through public ownership (thus eliminating private property), they can be used to serve the common good of society rather than the profit-seeking self-interests of the bourgeoisie.
What it really means: A failed economic system where, because profit is no longer a motivation and everyone is treated "equally" regardless of labor or effort, there is no incentive to innovate or prosper, thus stagnating wealth and promoting complacency. This is why socialist countries (such as Greece and Iceland) have become bankrupt. (In the words of Penn Jillette, socialism is where "no one really tries to win, so everyone ends up an equal ass**** loser and everything suck for everyone.")

What they want you to think it means:
A political-economic system based upon Karl Marx's ideal of a stateless, classless society where all citizens are treated equally and all wealth is held in common, thus allowing everyone to benefit from society, and thus ending all forms of oppression and inequality.
What it really means: A totalitarian ideology where private property is abolished and wealth is forcibly redistributed by a centralized government. Because it is based upon romanticized ideals and unrealistic goals, every Communist society has been an utter failure, becoming a totalitarian dictatorship rather than the sparkling utopia that Marx had envisioned.

Tea Party
What they want you to think it means:
A mob of racist Rednecks (mostly white Christian heterosexual property-owning men—with the occasional woman or minority suffering from "Stockholm Syndrome") manipulated by corporations and Fox News into hating Obama simply for being black.
What it really means: A populist, grassroots movement inspired by the Ron Paul Revolution (not by the corporations or Fox News) and featuring Americans (mostly Republicans, but also Independents and disenfranchised Democrats) who are more concerned with Obama's failed policies (such as his economic stimulus and bank bailouts) rather than his skin color (though there are a few questionable signs).

Fox News
What they want you to think it means:
The evil corporate propaganda machine of the Republican party. Run by the neo-nazi Rupert Murdoch, its sole purpose is to propagate talking points, lies, and misinformation meant to deceive the public and corrupt democracy.
What it really means: The only news network with a right-wing bias—a network that only exists because of the prevalent left-wing bias in the rest of the mainstream media, be it subtle ("MSNBC" and "The New York Times") or open ("MSNBC" and "The Huffington Post").

What they want you to think it means:
Evil, corrupt businesses run by greedy, selfish tycoons who smoke cigars, wear top hats and monocles, and carry big money bags. Existing merely to exploit the poor and pollute the environment, they must be controlled through higher taxes and increased regulations.
What it really means: Large businesses which only have the power and influence they have because of government intervention in the marketplace. Because the government has the power to intervene through taxes and regulations, corporations often lobby the government so that regulations and taxes benefit them and hurt their competition. This creates a tilted playing field (which would not exist in a true free market) that favors corporations and hurts small businesses. Corporatism is therefore a symptom, rather than the problem.

What they want you to think it means:
The money siphoned by greedy, selfish CEOs—often at the expense, and through the exploitation, of the workers—in order to line their pockets so they can buy yachts and fancier mansions. If businesses and services weren't motivated by profit, they would be better motivated to contribute to the common good and thus better society.
What it really means: The income left over after expenses are deducted from revenue. Sometimes used to benefit the business owner, but oftentimes invested in innovating and improving the business, thus lowering costs and prices and increasing wealth for all involved. If businesses and services weren't motivated by profit, there would be no incentive to innovate and prosper, thus promoting complacency and stagnating wealth.

What they want you to think it means:
A synonym for the vice of selfishness which allows individuals (especially the greedy and corrupt) to think only of themselves rather than others—especially the poor, needy, and less fortunate. This type of thinking leads to a society where it is literally every man for himself.
What it really means: Individuals being free to make their own decisions and live their own lives according to their own goals, motivations, and aspirations without government coercion.

Tax Cuts
What they want you to think it means:
Giving money to the richest 2%—and only richest 2%—so they can buy yachts and fancier mansions, while the remaining, less fortunate population feed on table scraps.
What it really means: Giving money back to taxpayers—regardless of income, especially the "richest 2%" (who carry most of the tax burden!)—so that they may spend money according to their needs and, therefore, stimulate the economy.

Government Programs
What they want you to think it means:
Programs (like welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) which benefit the poor, needy, and less fortunate in society, and which are only opposed by greedy, selfish bastards who could care less about the poor and needy ("f*** the poor!).
What it really means: Failed programs which do very little to help the poor and needy, and have instead made them dependent on the government, thereby making it impossible to escape poverty on their own.

Free Healthcare/Education/Etc.
What they want you to think it means:
A service (healthcare/education/etc.) provided to all citizens—regardless of their income—without charge.
What it really means: A service (usually a state-run bureaucratic monopoly where the average citizen has no say and no choice in how it's run or operated) provided to all citizens with taxpayers receiving the tab.

Gun Rights
What they want you to think it means:
An excuse by gun-toting rednecks so they can carry weapons wherever they want and shoot up the place. The reason why there is increased violence and homicide in the country, if not the world.
What it really means: Allowing law-abiding citizens—rather than only the police and criminals—to own and carry guns so they can defend themselves and keep the government in check.

What they want you to think it means:
A movement dedicated to protecting the unalienable right of women to their own bodies and to make decisions concerning their reproduction. Anyone who does not support this is a misogynist who wants women to be the cattle of the state.
What it really means: A movement dedicated to allowing women to abort their unborn children (or as they describe it: a clump of cells no different than a tumor) on demand for any reason they desire—even if it's not to protect their own health or lives. (As the ever witty Ann Coulter put it, abortion is "the right to have sex with men you don't want to have children with!")

Global Warming/Climate Change
What they want you to think it means:
The scientific fact (accepted by the majority of scientists, of course!) that the earth's climate is growing warmer due to increased carbon emission. This fact is often denied by big oil companies and corporations who seek to earn higher profits, and, therefore, scam uneducated illiterates into thinking it's a scam so they can vote against regulations—especially cap and trade.
What it really means: The misconception that increased carbon in the atmosphere has increased temperature when, in reality, temperature often rose before carbon. The earth's climate has fluctuated throughout history, regardless of man's activity; and even if it was proven that man is causing recent climate change, even the most drastic of solutions would only reduce the earth's temperature by a fraction of a percent.

Arizona Immigration Bill
What they want you to think it means:
A draconian bill that allows state law-enforcers—especially racist, bigoted, xenophobic law enforcers—to stop anyone who appears to be Hispanic and arrest them for being "illegal immigrants," thus turning Arizona into a fascist state akin to Nazi Germany.
What it really means: A bill that, due to increased illegal immigration, takes federal immigration laws and applies it to the state level. Law enforcers can only question people about their immigration status during a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest" and cannot be based solely on race.

The following words are labels (or rather insults) often used by liberals against their opponents—mostly conservatives and libertarians. The first description is what liberals claim to be arguing against. The second description is what they are really saying.

What they claim to be saying (and want you to think):
Mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals (more specifically, white Christian heterosexual property-owning men) who hate progress, change, and social justice, and who want to drag society back to the Stone Age.
What they are really saying: Individuals (mostly conservatives and libertarians) who want progress, change, and social justice, but want it to come naturally and gradually through the will of the people rather than radically though the force of government coercion. They also wish to preserve traditional values and principles which have been proven by both history and experience, while rejecting theories which (though they are called "progressive") have not been tested, or if they have, have been proven to fail. (To quote C.S. Lewis: "We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.")

What they claim to be saying (and want you to think):
Inbred, toothless hicks (normally white Christian heterosexual property-owning men) from Red states who, because of their lack of education and literacy, are racist, bigoted, xenophobic, homophobic, and easily misled by the Republican party and corporations into voting against their own interests.
What they are really saying: Those from the South who are not liberal or Democrats. (In other words, most of the South!)

What they claim to be saying (and want you to think):
Uncivilized bigots (normally white Christian heterosexual property-owning men) who hate and fear people of different skin color, and who wish to reinstate slavery and Jim Crow laws.
What they are really saying: People who believe that African-Americans (and other minorities) deserve equal rights, but not special privileges. They do not believe that African Americans should be given "reparations" simply because their ancestors were brought here as slaves, nor given special consideration during employment, nor have any crimes committed against them judged more harshly, nor viewed as victims of an "oppressive, racist society."

Chauvinists/Misogynists/Women Haters/Male Pigs
What they claim to be saying (and want you to think):
White Christian heterosexual property-owning men who hate women and wish for them to be subservient housewives who do nothing but cook, clean, and bear children. They especially hate women who have control over their bodies through contraception and abortion. They want women to be nothing more than sperm receptacles and incubators for their children.
What they are really saying: People who believe that women deserve equal rights, but not special privileges. They do not believe that women should be allowed to have abortions for any reason they desire (unless it's to preserve their health or life), nor looked down upon for choosing traditional roles, nor given special consideration during employment, nor have any crimes committed against them judged more harshly, nor viewed as victims of an "oppressive, patriarchal society."

What they claim to be saying (and want you to think):
White nationalists and racists (especially skinhead KKK members and Minutemen) who believe that America is only for white Christian heterosexual property-owning men like themselves, and therefore, possess an irrational fear of foreigners and immigrants—especially Hispanics!
What they are really saying: People who, recognizing that America is a melting pot built by immigration, welcome and encourage immigrants to come into this country, provided they do so legally and with proper documentation. Therefore, they seek stronger borders and regulations that prevent immigrants from entering illegally and remaining undocumented. They believe that immigrants who want to live in this country should learn English, pay taxes, obey the law, and assimilate into our American culture.

What they claim to be saying (and want you to think):
The irrational belief (held by flag-waving, pledge saying, "God Bless America" singing simpletons) that America is the best country in the world (when in reality, it is the worst!) and that anyone who believes otherwise and criticizes America is an unpatriotic traitor.
What they are really saying: The rational belief that America, regardless of its faults and past mistakes, is a great country because of its dedication to ensuring liberty, freedom, and opportunity to all of its citizens, and thus for being an example to other countries. While America is not perfect (and never will be), it is better than most other countries. On occasion, those who truly love their country and believe in what it stands for should openly criticize it when it fails to meet its own expectations (not just the expectations of other countries—especially socialist, European countries).

What they claim to be saying (and want you to think):
Unenlightened simpletons (usually rednecks with—or without—a high school education) who believe everything they are told—unless it is from an expert (like Noam Chomsky) who knows better than them.
What they are really saying: People who are openly skeptical and do not believe everything they are told, even if it's from someone (more notably an ideologue) with a PHD (and agenda).

Hate Radio
What they want you to think (and want you to think):
Any radio show or program (notably Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck) that spews bigoted, hateful, racist, and ignorant messages meant to divide the country and incite hate and violence.
What they are really saying: Any radio show or program (notably Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck) that supports conservative or libertarian politics rather than liberal politics.

Violent Rhetoric
What they want you to think (and want you to think):
Violent, divisive language spewed by bigoted hatemongers in order to divide the country and incite violence against politicians (as was clearly the case with the Tucson shooting, which was inspired by Sarah Palin's political map with crosshairs over Democratic districts, and by her tweet "Don't retreat, reload!")
What they are really saying: Overtly exaggerated metaphors, imagery, and language which, while violent in nature, are not meant to be taken literally. The only people who take such rhetoric as serious threats are hypersensitive, politically-correct types who fail to understand figure of speech.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

My 24th Birthday

Today is a special day for me: my birthday! Today, I turn 24! Hard to believe that, in a few years, I’ll be 30.

In other news, last week, liberal loudmouth Keith Olbermann resigned from MSNBC, ending his show Countdown. And the world became a saner place to live in! I’ll consider that an early birthday present from the universe to me.

Here’s an old video from when Olbermann was suspended last November (but was quickly brought back). I think it’s just as applicable for his current situation.

Friday, January 21, 2011

Malloy Excuses His “Violent Rhetoric”

Ever since the Tucson shooting, people like Keith Olbermann have been begging both parties to tone down their “violent rhetoric.” By both parties, of course, they mean the right-wing—more specifically, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. The left-wing is perfectly justified when they use “violent rhetoric” because they are enlightened gods while those on the right-wing are mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who wish to drag civilization back to the Stone Age. In other words, the right-wing deserves it; the left-wing does not!

Such is the logic behind far-left radio host Mike Malloy, who bashed Olbermann for including him in his Special Comment Monday.

Malloy begins by labeling the Tuscon shooting a “bloodbath caused by right-wing talk radio and television.” Never mind that the shooter Jared Lee Loughner didn’t listen to talk radio (left or right) or watch the news.

He then conveys his astonishment over being included in Olbermann’s Special Comment:

During, uh, Olbermann’s program tonight on MSNBC right towards the end, he had a Special Comment, and, um, he, uh—he made some very good points about how nobody has taken responsibility—for—the public discourse, and the fact that it’s been shredded and made violent…And Olbermann—um—listed eight or ten people, I don’t know why he had me in that list, but, uh, who had not repudiated violence.
Why did he add you, Malloy? Oh, I don’t know! Could it be because you wanted someone to hang Matt Drudge with Republican entrails? Could it be because you hoped Glenn Beck would commit suicide? Could it be because you wished that Rush Limbaugh would “choke to death on his own throat fat”? Could it be because you wanted Beck to “blow his brains out,” Limbaugh to overdose on Viagra, and O’Reilly to drink poison? Could it be because you said Dick Cheney needed “a stake through the heart”?

But rather than take responsibility for his “violent rhetoric,” Malloy decides to make excuses for it:

And I’m—I’m not sure how to respond to that. Um, not that anyone cares what my response is, but—um, the only thing I can say the rhetoric that comes from me is rhe—the rhetoric of rage. And—um—have there been violent images? Of course. Uh, Rush Limbaugh choking on his throat fat. Uh, that, you know, to me, that is not a treat. I wish I could, but I can’t reach into his throat, and jiggle up his throat fat so that he suffocates. I can’t do it.
You heard right, folks: it’s a-okay to wish death on people you don’t like, provided you wish they die from natural causes! So Ann Coulter wanting to put rat poison in a Supreme Court Justice’s coffee? Bad! Malloy wanting Rush Limbaugh to choke on his throat fat? Good!

But let’s not forget that (in the examples I listed above) Malloy did want someone to hang Drudge, or someone to drive a stake into Cheney’s heart, or Beck to shoot himself. If those aren’t death threats, I don’t know what is?

But it’s okay for Malloy to say those things. The people he directs them towards clearly deserve it, in his opinion:

I don’t pick obscure government officials and try to demonize them because they’re working for social justice, or trying to, uh, well to use a quaint term: help people out (chuckle). You know, that’s, uh, that’s not why I do. So I respectfully disagree with, uh, Keith Olbermann. I don’t think I deserve a place on his list at all.

Um, the rhetoric that comes from me is rhetoric that is inspired by—the rage that generates in me because organizations like Keith Olbermann’s employer—not Olbermann, but his employer, NBC, or ABC, or CBS, I mean, they’re all guilty—refuse, refuse to do anything except try to find false equivalency. And his employer NBC would rather, I don’t know, drink a vat of, uh, baby vomit than actually publicize the anti-war movement—the peace movement—in this country.

And when some freak like Brietbart and the rest of these swine produce a video—with some white guy cari—uh, doing a caricature of a black pimp from some 70s blaxploitation movie, and the result of that is an attack on ACORN, and Keith Olbermann’s employer and boss NBC doesn’t treat that with the contempt it deserves, then I react, and I scream, and I bitch and I yell, and I use outrageous language, and I cuss, and I say things that make people say “well, I’m never going to listen to him again!”
Liberal double standards at their best, folks (or rather, worse)!

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Jack Hunter: Conservatives' Military-Industrial Complex

A video by Jack Hunter (a.k.a.: the Southern Avenger) from The American Conservative:

Many Conservatives like to play lip service to "limited government," yet apply their skepticism of "big government" only to government programs (such as Social Security and Medicare) and to divisions such as education and healthcare. But they rarely apply their skepticism to the military, which receives the most taxpayer money—often w...asting it with fruitless endeavors

Those who cherish limited government (be they conservative or liberatrian) must reject all forms of big government and wasteful spending, especially when it comes to the military-industrial complex.

Demotivational Poster: Violent Rhetoric

No sooner had Jared Lee Loughner shot congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords did the left take aim at the right for inciting the incident with “violent rhetoric.”

Never mind, of course, that Loughner was inconsistent in his political views (he was a fan of both Mein Kampf AND the Communist Manifesto). Never mind that he was a registered Independent who didn’t vote in the 2010 election. Never mind that a friend of his claimed he never watched the news or listened to talk radio (so how could he be exposed to “violent rhetoric”?). Never mind that Arizona authorities admit violent rhetoric had nothing to do with the shooting. And never mind that few Americans blame violent rhetoric for the shooting.

So ignoring the facts (as liberals often do), the left blamed “violent rhetoric” for the Tucson shooting—more specifically, they blamed Sarah Palin and her political map marked with targets over Democratic districts (one of which was Giffords’). Yes, it didn’t matter if Loughner supported Palin or not (and considering the facts, he probably didn’t), Palin was clearly responsible for inciting violence against her political opponents, and thus responsible for the Tucson shooting.

What the left forgets to mention is that Democrats had a similar map back in 2004—only with bull’s-eyes over Republican districts. Of course, try explaining that to a liberal, and they will come up with some excuse as to why the Democrats’ map is not the same as Palin’s (they’ll probably point out the bull’s-eyes!).

And they will probably accuse you of using “False Equivalency”—that you’re claiming that both sides are equally bad with “violent rhetoric.” Because as we all know, when the left uses “violent rhetoric” (like when Mike Malloy wants Glenn Beck to commit suicide, or Ed Shultz wants to use Dick Cheney’s heart as a football), it’s always justified because liberals are enlightened gods and conservatives are knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.

False Equivalency: meet Strawman argument!

Because when people point out the Democrats’ map, they’re not saying that both sides use “violent rhetoric” equally, or that both sides are equally insane or violent (liberals are clearly more so). They are saying that both sides tend to use “violent rhetoric”, and that if you’re calling out the rhetoric on the other side, you might as well criticize your side when they use it.

Otherwise, pot, meet kettle!

Friday, January 14, 2011

Bill Maher On Leno: Go To Rhetoric For Right Wing Is "Wouldn't It Be Fun To Kill The People We Disagree With"

Sometimes I wonder why I bother listening to Bill Maher. I guess I must be a masochist.

Earlier this week, Bill Maher appeared on the Tonight Show and, like every other liberal in the media, blamed conservatives and gun nuts for the Tucson shooting (even though authorities admit that there is no evidence that violent rhetoric had anything to do with it).

Warning: Those with physical and mental complications are advised not to watch the following video or read the following transcript. May induce bouts of anger and insanity to the point of a heart attack or stroke—unless you’re far-left, in which case it will have no effect on you whatsoever.

Leno: Let me ask you about this, uh…your take on this tragedy in Arizona, this gunman shooting. I mean, you always have an interesting perspective on these things.
I agree with Leno: Bill Maher does have an interesting perspective—interesting in that it is far removed from reality!
Maher: Well, I mean, first of all, you know, we’re going to have to hear from the NRA a lot about how this shouldn’t stop anything that they want to do. First of all, the NRA should just change their name to the “Assassin’s Lobby.” Because that’s what they are. Yeah, you can applaud that. Somebody should applaud that.
Way to joke about the organization protecting our second amendment rights. No, obviously we should leave that to the ACLU, which couldn’t care less about gun rights. (“The right of the people to bear arms”? What’s that?!)

And you have to love how everything Maher says—whether it’s on his show or elsewhere—is followed by mindless applause. It’s like that one episode of American Dad, where a retired football player explains how a drunken crowd will applaud anything. (“I made a beer fart!” Wild applause.)
Maher: I’m—I’m—I’m so tired of hearing about the Second Amendment and the Constitution. If you love guns, just admit it like a—it’s a vice. It’s like alcohol, or drugs, or sex addiction, or gambling. It’s just a vice. It’s something you like. It’s not good for you or anybody else. You just like it. But stop the bull**** about the Second Amendment and the Constitution because nobody needs—nobody needs a gun that fires 31 rounds.
Funny how Maher mentioned guns along with alcohol and drugs. First of all, Maher—being a stoner himself—advocates legalizing marijuana and other drugs. You have to love the cognitive dissonance of moonbats like Maher who want to legalize pot but ban guns. Because as I mentioned in a former demotivational poster, prohibition didn’t work for booze, it doesn’t work for drugs, and it won’t work for guns. The government making anything illegal does not prevent it from being available, it only pushes it into the black market to be distributed and bought by criminals.

And once again, you have to love how the audience will applaud anything. (“I made a beer fart!” Wild applause.)
Maher: There’s a much bigger issue which is the psychology of this country which loves guns. It’s just a very armed country with a lot of crazy people which is not a great combination. And—and somebody also should tell all these people, these NRA types who think it’s great to be armed everywhere, Arizona has one of the loosest gun rules in the country. You can, I think, carry any weapon concealed without a permit. They want every drunk in a bar to be armed in case a fight breaks out.
Somebody should tell Maher that gun control doesn’t prevent gun violence; in fact, the cities with the strictest gun laws (Washington D.C., Chicago, London, etc) statistically have the highest homicide rates. But then again, facts are subjective to moonbats like Maher.

And it only gets worse as Maher moves from gun rights to “violent conservative rhetoric."
Maher: The right wing loves—the, the go to rhetoric for them is “wouldn't it be fun to kill the people we disagree with." You know, they try to put across this false equivalency…
And you have to love this part where the audience openly disagrees with Maher—for once, and only once! To which Maher replies thusly:
Maher: No? Really? Then do you read? Have you seen what people have said? Have you seen what Sarah Palin says? You know, she talks about “Don’t retreat, reload!” She says it like a pull-toy that’s broken. Every five minutes she says this. Uh, Michelle Bachmann says she wants Minnesotans armed and dangerous. Alan West, a new congressman says he wants his opponent to be afraid to leave his house. Left-wingers don’t talk that way.
Ha ha ha! Ho ho ho! Oh, wait, you mean that wasn’t a joke? He seriously thinks that left-wingers don’t use violent rhetoric? Well I guess he never heard Mike Malloy gloat about how he wants Glenn Beck to commit suicide, or how Ed Shultz wants to rip out Dick Cheney’s heart and use it as a football, or how Bill Maher himself wanted Democrats to treat Republicans the same way Tiger Woods treated his mistress (“Shut the f*** up, while I slap your face for making noise!”).

(And Newsbusters lists other instances of violent rhetoric made by Maher and the guests on his show.)

And by the way, Bill, when Bachmann said she wanted Minnesotans “armed and dangerous,” she was implying that it was against an energy tax, not an actual political opponent or party.

And here’s his twisted reasoning behind why left-wingers are free to use violent rhetoric:
Maher: And also, left-wingers, even if they do sometimes make a gun analogy or something, they’re audience isn’t hysterical. They’re already talking, the right-wingers, to people who are hysterical and are irrational and are highly armed to begin with.
Oh, yes. Because the left-wing is composed of rational, sane individuals like Bill Ayers, Code Pink, Bash Back!, La Raza, the ELF, the ALF, the G20 Summit protestors, and PETA (speaking of which, Maher is a board member of PETA, which is infamous for funding eco-terrorists like Rodney Coronado).

Oh, and here’s an interesting tidbit: Westboro Baptist Church is run by Democrats!
Maher: Newt Gingrich, and by the way, among the right-wing douchebags I hate—I hate him the mostest, uh, because, he, and, I mean he says things, he said the Obama administration is as much a threat to us as were the Nazis and the Soviet Union. Now, it’s not just ridiculous, but when you, when you characterize the opposition—the political opposition—as not just the opposition, but the enemy, the Soviet Union and the Nazis were our enemies, of course you’re going to have borderline people who go and take this over the line.
If Maher is going to bring up politicians charactering the opposition as the enemy, what about the countless moonbats who characterized Bush as Hitler, or as a Nazi or fascist or war criminal? What about Jesse Jackson who compared conservatism in America to nazism and Apartheid? What about Senator Alan Grayson who called Fox News and the Republicans “the enemy of America”?

Once again, Maher makes an excuse for the left:
Maher: So, so stop telling me that the left and the right are both crazy. Yes, there are crazies on the left, but they are not the same, they’re not gun crazy, they’re not violent crazy. Who goes to gun shows? Who is for the War in Iraq? Who’s part of militias? You know, you know when you hear the phrase “armed compound in a secluded rural area,” what is that, a bunch of Democrats? Is that Dennis Kucinich out there?
The left isn’t gun crazy or violent crazy? Um, I don’t think so Bill!

I would like to remind Maher that the two assassination attempts in the last century were carried out by far-left moonbats. Kennedy was assassinated by a Communist, and I’m pretty sure Reagan wasn’t nearly shot by a die-hard Republican.

Also, the domestic terrorist attacks during Obama’s presidency were also carried out by moonbats. The pentagon shooter (whom, as Bill Maher suggested, should have shot Glenn Beck—talk about irony!) was a pothead Bush-hating 9/11 truther, and the man who crashed a plane into a Texas IRS building hated capitalism (“From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.”).

And let’s not forget the Tucson shooter: how many Tea Party protesters are stoner atheists who are fans of the Communist Manifesto?

(Once again, Newsbusters lists instances of left-wing violence.)

Now, I’m sure most of you—if you haven’t already vomited on your keyboard or fainted in sheer disbelief—have your heads spinning over Maher’s vitriol. Well, to cure this, I am providing a selection from satellite radio hosts Opie And Anthony who completely destroyed Maher and his moon-battery.


Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Changes In 2011

Happy belated new year, everyone! I hope everyone enjoyed the holiday season. I know I did. I also have my new year’s resolutions in order:

1) Lose weight.
2) Find a job.
3) Publish my novel.

That said, if I want to accomplish my resolutions this year (especially finding a job in this economy), they will have to take top priority, which means my blog (and my Deviantart and YouTube accounts) will be less of a priority. In other words, I won’t be publishing as many blog posts, demotivational posters, or YouTube videos as I used to. I will probably stick to publishing something major every week or so (preferably on Sunday), though I will occasionally share a news story or video on my blog now and then.

Anyway, I hope everyone has a happy new year, and I hope you fulfill your new year’s resolutions.