I really, really understand the impulse driving them to do this, I applaud the moral fortitude, I applaud the youthful courage, and I repudiate the solutions that are being put forward. Yes, of course, the general population has been raped and pillaged by the financial sector, but what is astounding to me…[is that these protestors] know that the government has been complicit in all of this stuff, they know that the government is dependent upon the financial institutions for money to continue to bribe the general population into getting votes, they know that the government has started unjust wars and have been responsible in America for the murder of hundreds of thousands of foreigners and tens of thousands of Americans, they know that the government kidnaps people and throws them in jail for non-crimes like having unpopular bits of vegetation in their pockets, they know all of this about the government, and what is their damn solution to the problem of financial corruption? Let’s have the government do something about it. Let’s have the government put a tax on financial transaction. Let’s have the government…repeal the repeal on Glass-Steagall. Let’s have the government swoop in and do all of this wonderful stuff because these financial institutions are like wayward children who have eaten too much candy and the government, like a parent, needs to come in and take away all the Halloween bags. It’s completely insane!
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Case in point:
The smart rich know they can only build the gate so high. And, sooner or later history proves that people, when they've had enough, aren’t going to take it anymore. And much better to deal with it nonviolently now, through the political system, than what could possibly happen in the future, which nobody wants to see.Sure, it’s subtle enough. He’s not really threatening violence against the rich, nor is he instigating violence towards them. He’s just saying that, unless the rich do what he and other libtarded moonbats want them to do, there will be blood.
How is this any different than when Sharon Angle said that “if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies”? She says that, and the moonbats accuse her of instigating violence; Moore says something similar, and they barely bat an eye.
But then again, that would be comparing the left to the right, and according to moonbats, that would be false equivalency.
That good ol' left-wing "okay if we do it, terrible if they do!" never fails!
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
The problem with America isn’t that it’s lost its way or that it doesn’t pray enough or anything like that. It’s far simple, almost intrinsic: it’s just too big….While America may not have physically grown, it’s fiscally grown hugely while its government have remained essentially the same size.
The concept was summed up way back by President Eisenhower, the military man, as “beware, the military industrial complex.” Now when he said that, he wasn’t talking about bombs or guns or anything, but a concept. You see, once an industry gets to a certain size, a critical mass so to speak, as with the trillion or so dollar military budget, they can effectively spend merely one part of a thousandth of their budget, that’s a billion dollars, to convince a relatively small government of some 500 or so people in Washington that it’s worth spending a “tiny-fraction” more on their military.
I mean, just so we’re clear on the numbers, a billion dollars would equate to $20 million per ever member of Congress. $20 million! Just to put that in perspective, for a fairly regular-sized politician like Rick Perry here, that’s three times his weight in gold.
I mean think about that: if the military with its billion dollars can convince Washington to increase the military spending by merely one part in a thousand, that would constitute a financial win for them, whether it’s done in plain sight or through schemed loopholes by the back door so to speak. Those are the macroscopic numbers. That’s what I mean when I said it’s just too big: the financial pressure that can be levied by a big industry for self-interest is far more intensive in America.
[The] cause [of their protest], though, in specific terms, was virtually impossible to decipher. The group was clamoring for nothing in particular to happen right away — not the implementation of the Buffett rule or the increased regulation of the financial industry. Some didn’t think government action was the answer because the rich, they believed, would just find new ways to subvert the system.Kudos to the guy who wanted to enlighten (or as the newspaper suggested, “indoctrinate”) the protesters with some Milton Friedman and Ron Paul. Maybe if he’s able to reason with some of them, he can convince them to take I-95 south until they reach the real source of the problem: the Federal Reserve.
“I’m not for interference,” Anna Katheryn Sluka, of western Michigan, told me. “I hope this all gets people who have a lot to think: ‘I’m not going to go to Barcelona for three weeks. I’m going to sponsor a small town in need.’ ”
Some said they were fighting the legal doctrine of corporate personhood; others, not fully understanding what that meant, believed it meant corporations paid no taxes whatsoever. Others came to voice concerns about the death penalty, the drug war, the environment.
“I want to get rid of the combustion engine,” John McKibben, an activist from Vermont, declared as his primary ambition.
“I want to create spectacles,” Becky Wartell, a recent graduate of the College of the Atlantic in Maine, said.
Having discerned the intellectual vacuum, Chris Spiech, an unemployed 26-year-old from New Jersey, arrived on Thursday with the hope of indoctrinating his peers in the lessons of Austrian economics, Milton Friedman and Ron Paul. “I want to abolish the Federal Reserve,” he said.
The group’s lack of cohesion and its apparent wish to pantomime progressivism rather than practice it knowledgably is unsettling in the face of the challenges so many of its generation face — finding work, repaying student loans, figuring out ways to finish college when money has run out. But what were the chances that its members were going to receive the attention they so richly deserve carrying signs like “Even if the World Were to End Tomorrow I’d Still Plant a Tree Today”?
One day, a trader on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, Adam Sarzen, a decade or so older than many of the protesters, came to Zuccotti Park seemingly just to shake his head. “Look at these kids, sitting here with their Apple computers,” he said. “Apple, one of the biggest monopolies in the world. It trades at $400 a share. Do they even know that?”
Of course, if there’s anyone out there living near New York City who’s well-versed in Austrian economics, feel free to drop by the protests and try talking some sense into these protesters. Don’t be upfront or confrontational. Just kindly ask them how much they think the rich pay in taxes, or whether regulation has been increasing or not, or whether deregulation caused the economic crisis, or how much the Koch Brothers donate to political contributions.
Then again, this is all assuming that these tofu-eating, pot-smoking libtarded moonbats actually have the mental cognition to be reasoned with—which they
Monday, September 26, 2011
Hundreds of libtarded moonbats have been protesting Wall Street since September 17, and they plan to continue doing so until their one demand is met. And what is their one demand? Well, not even they’re sure what it is.
According to its website, Occupy Wall Street is supposed to represent “The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%.” But what specific problems concerning the corporate greed and corruption of Wall Street do these protesters want to address, and how do they suggest fixing these problems? What are their goals? What are their solutions? What is their one demand? Again, even they don’t seem to know what it is.
One article on its website suggested several one demands from ending wealth inequality and joblessness to ending capital punishment and police intimidation. The same article even suggested that “America was at war with the world” (even though America is currently involved in only three military conflicts) and claimed that their one demand was to “end the modern gilded age”—whatever the hell that is!
If a protest is to be successful, not only do the protesters need to know what the hell they’re protesting, but they also need to have specific coherent demands that they want to see implemented and not just spout vague ideas like "end poverty" or “end corporate greed”; otherwise, they’re just protesting for the sake of protesting—which is what libtarded moonbats seem to do best. (“What do we want? We don’t know! When do we want it? Now!”)
But perhaps the main problem with Occupy Wall Street is that the protesters are protesting the wrong people. The problem of corporate greed and corruption stems not from capitalism, but from crony capitalism—not from Wall Street, but from Pennsylvania Avenue tilting the playing field for its cronies in Wall Street through corporate welfare, tax loopholes, subsidies, bailouts, and regulation. If these protesters are serious about fighting the real problem, they’d take Cobra Jones’ advice and follow I-95 South until they hit where the problem lies—but that would be giving these protesters too much credit, as it would suggest that they have the mental cognition to do so.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Also reported by the AP: the sky is blue!
The only people who will be surprised by this fact check are those who have been mindlessly regurgitating the “tax the rich” talking point; everyone else who’s been paying attention to government data and statistics, especially from the Congressional Budget Office and Tax Policy Center, won’t be.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Welcome to another edition of Pony Saturday. As I mentioned in a previous post, I started Pony Saturdays as a way to take a break from politics. I get easily depressed having to blog about all the crap happening in my country: foreign wars being waged overseas without end, the Patriot Act being extended for the umpteenth time, passengers being forced through virtual strip searches in order to board a plane, an unconstitutional “Super Committee” being formed without our consent or vote, union thugs threatening class warfare, the media ignoring Ron Paul and fawning over Rick “Bush 2.0” Perry, more and more young people losing faith in God, and the list goes on!
But even when times are tough, there are two things that are guaranteed to cheer me up: My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic and Carameldansen—and wouldn’t you know it, combining the two makes for an instant mood lifter! Rainbow-colored ponies and Swedish pop songs are guaranteed to restore any Pinkamena back into a Pinkie Pie!
So what do you all think? Did this brighten your day? What cheers you up when you feel down?
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
So I’m off on hiatus. See you all in the next few weeks. Wish me good luck, as well!
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Koch Brothers Vs Labor Unions by ~BlameThe1st on deviantART
David and Charles Koch are the hell spawn conceived from a threesome among Satan, the Anti-Christ, and the Beast. They feast upon aborted fetuses and drink the tears of Holocaust survivors. They have no hearts, and where their hearts should be, there exists only a black hole which attracts all the suffering and misery in the world. They do not feel. They do not love. Their only desire is to take over America—followed by the entire world, and these megalomaniacs are willing to stoop to any low to accomplish this goal, even if it means breaking into your house late at night to rape your grandmother with a condom made from a freshly-slaughtered infant. This sociopathic duo make Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader look like Boy Scouts in comparison.
Of course, this image of the Koch Brothers exists solely in the minds of paranoid far-left bloggers. In reality, the Koch Brothers are billionaire entrepreneurs who—when not funding the fine arts and medical research—donate to political causes, just like their left-wing counterpart George Soros. They are self-proclaimed libertarians who hate George Bush, support stem cell research and gay marriage, and oppose the Iraq War, Patriot Act, and (ironically enough) crony capitalism; but because they also oppose over-taxation and regulation, they are maligned by the far-left as Hitler and Mussolini reincarnate. Just mentioning their name will cause any libtarded moonbat to scream in fear, piss and crap their pants, and collapse from a near-fatal heart attack.
But how big of a threat are the Koch Brothers? Over the past twenty years, Koch Industries has donated $9,831,715 in political contributions (mostly to Republicans, of course), and while that seems like a large sum, it only ranks them as #85 on the list of top all-time political donors.
So who outspends the Kochs? Of the top ten donors (all of which—including ActBlue at #1—contribute heavily to Democrats), six are labor unions including the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees ($45,820,853, #2), the Service Employees International Union ($37,151,289, #5), the National Education Association ($36,433,925, #6), the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ($33,824,355, #8), the Laborers Union ($31,640,067, #9), and the American Federation of Teachers ($31,342,403, #10).
Other unions that outspend the Kochs include the following:
#11: Teamsters Union ($30,858,309)
#12: Carpenters & Joiners Union ($30,629,437)
#13: Communications Workers of America ($29,952,424)
#15: United Auto Workers ($27,344,832)
#16: United Food & Commercial Workers Union ($27,094,834)
#18: Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union ($26,747,874)
#19: National Association of Letter Carriers ($22,188,393)
#26: AFL-CIO ($19,487,579)
#28: Sheet Metal Workers Union ($18,955,848)
#29: International Association of Fire Fighters ($18,533,507)
#31: Plumbers & Pipefitters Union ($18,128,935)
#36: Operating Engineers Union ($17,133,140)
#44: United Transportation Union ($14,794,360)
#47: United Steelworkers ($14,632,651)
#48: Ironworkers Union ($14,459,298)
#52: American Postal Workers Union ($13,669,853)
#56: National Active & Retired Federal Employees Association ($11,351,500)
Combining the figures above, these labor unions donate over $500 million dollars to political contributions, making the Koch’s contribution of roughly $10 million look like chump change! If the Koch Brothers are trying to take over America, they’re clearly losing to the unions.
And before the far-left Koch-haters start whining, these statistics were obtained, not from a right-wing Koch-funded think tank, but from Open Secrets, a website run by the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-profit, non-partisan research group—one of its major donors being the Open Society Institute. That’s right: one of George Soros’ foundations is funding an organization which runs a website that contains a list of figures that indirectly defend his right-wing arch-rivals! How’s that for bitter irony?
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Welcome to my first installment of “Pony Saturday.” The first episode of Season 2 premiered this morning. Since I don’t get The Hub—let alone wake up that early, I’m just going to have to wait until the episode is leaked onto YouTube to watch it. It’s another two parter—just like the first two episodes of the first season. And considering that it features John de Lancie (aka: Q from Star Trek) voicing the main villain, it sound like a great episode. Can hardly wait!
Anyway, following my announcement yesterday, I received many comments (specifically on deviantART) explaining how shocked some of you were to discover that someone like myself—let alone any guy in his 20s—was a fan of My Little Pony. I guess I shouldn’t be too shocked. The “brony” subculture is a rather new and small one here on the internet, so many people may still be unaware that there are, indeed, male fans of MLP. So allow me to explain.
I myself got hooked on the series the same way many other “bronies” did: by running across fan videos and internet memes. This sparked my interest in the series, and I wanted to see what all the hype was about. So I watched one full episode on YouTube, followed by another, and another, and another. Next thing I knew, I had watched the entire first season and had become a full-fledged brony!
I guess the main reason why men like myself like the new series is because its produced by the legendary Lauren Faust, an animator who’s been involved with such cartoons as The PowerPuff Girls and Foster’s Home For Imaginary Friends. She said that she wanted to turn the series into something everyone could enjoy, not just little girls. Even she was surprised that the series has attracted such a broad appeal, even 20-somethings like myself.
Faust is very aware of her “brony” fanbase and even communicates with them on the internet, having her own deviantART account. This close relationship with her fans has allowed for a subtle influence on the show. For example, the fan-given name of background character Derpy Hooves—a gray, blond hair, cross-eyed pegasus—has been accepted as canon, and the character has been feature more prominently in episodes. Also, the music video Equestria Girls (a parody of Katy Perry’s California Girls) features the word “brony” in its lyrics.
So much more can be said of the “Brony” fanbase. For more information, I suggest either reading the Wired magazine article or watching the Know Your Meme episode.
Now if you excuse me, I need to track down “Return Of Harmony: Part 1” on YouTube.
Friday, September 16, 2011
I realize that I mostly blog about politics, usually focusing on the negative. Two years of blogging and indulging myself in politics has pretty much drained me of every ounce of faith in humanity and transformed me into quite the cynic.
So to add some variety (and spare my sanity), I’ve decided to start “Pony Saturdays” where I take a break from politics as usual and write a blog post about the new My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic series (and yes: if it isn’t obvious by this announcement, I am a brony—a male fan of My Little Pony!) For the most part, these posts will usually just be me sharing some fan art or videos. Expect the first post tomorrow.
And for those who are wondering why I chose Saturday, it’s because the new season premieres tomorrow—8 a.m. Saturday on The Hub.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Which is why I’m listing the policies I wish to see implemented in our country. These are things I believe every American, regardless of their political party, should stand for—anything else is against their best interests.
(I admit that some of these positions are rather vague, as I don’t know the specific details as to how they would be implemented. Then again, I have no intention of running for office. I, unlike most Americans, realize that I’m not smart enough to hold a political position.)
Noninterventionist Foreign Policy. Our country spends nearly $700 billion on the military—more than the next 17 countries combined! The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq alone cost the country $4 trillion. It is imperative that we end all foreign wars, withdraw all our troops and bases overseas, slash military spending, and focus our military effort on national defense rather than policing the world. Our foreign policy should seek to strengthen foreign relations and influence countries through diplomacy and free trade rather than through military action.
Protection of Civil Liberties. Benjamin Franklin once said that “those who trade liberty for security deserve neither.” The past decade has seen a decline in civil liberties for the sake of national security with policies such as the PATRIOT Act, waterboarding, body scanners, and the suspension of habeas corpus. The War on Terror should be seen as the quixotic quest it is and ended promptly, with all laws that violate constitutional rights repealed.
Flat Tax. Every American should pay their fair share in taxes. Unfortunately, most politicians, especially liberal Democrats, interpret this as raising taxes on the rich, who already pay the most in taxes (the richest 1% pay roughly 40% of the country’s total income tax and 28% of the total tax burden). We should replace our progressive tax system with a flat tax system where everyone pays at the same rate regardless of income, which would still allow the rich to contribute more in taxes.
Free Markets. Contrary to popular misconception, there is no free market. There has been no deregulation of the market, as regulation has increased, not decreased. Investor’s Business Daily claims that over three thousand new regulations are enacted every year, and that “a new federal rule hits the books roughly every 2 hours.” Is it really fair to claim that every one of those regulations is necessary? While there should be regulations that protect consumers (like regulations against lead paint in baby toys), regulation that hurts businesses, especially small and new businesses, should be repealed.
Entitlement Reform. While many Americans depend upon entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security, unless these programs are reformed, they will eventually run out. Medicare is expected to go broke by 2024; Social Security by 2036. The ideal solution would be to privatize both programs, as private pensions programs in other countries like Chile have proven to be hugely successful. However, a less controversial solution would be to reform both programs in order to prevent waste and fraud. In Medicare alone, $35 million had been allegedly given to 118 “phantom” clinics (illegal operations designed to defraud the system).
Affordable Healthcare. America offers the best healthcare in the world. The problem is not with quality, but with access, as most Americans cannot afford health insurance. This can easily be solved with minor legislation to the system without replacing it with socialized medicine. Laws that prevent people from buying insurance across state lines should be repealed. Health insurance should be independent of one’s employment, and healthcare decisions should be left to the individual and their doctors, not to their employers, the government, or insurance companies. The Food and Drug Administration should be reformed (even privatized) to more easily allow life-saving medicine into the market. The American Medical Association should be stripped of its monopoly power, allowing other organizations to license physicians, thus increasing the supply of doctors and decreasing medical costs.
Education Reform. Our public education system is broken. Politicians have suggested fixing it through increased funding, but unless that funding goes to reform, it will amount to little more than filling the gas tank to a broken car. The entire system needs to be reformed. Curriculum should focus on teaching phonics, critical thinking, and science. Parents should have the freedom to send their children to the school that will best meet their educational needs, be it public, private, parochial, charter, or home school. They should be offered vouchers if they choose to send their children to private school, and tax credits if they choose to home school them. Educational decisions should be left to the state and local governments rather than the federal government. Local communities should have the option to convert failing public schools to more efficient charter schools.
Legal Immigration. America is a country built upon immigration—a Great Melting Pot where people from different cultures come together to form a new stronger culture. We should gladly welcome immigrants into our country provided they come here legally with proper documentation, learn English, and assimilate into our culture. Not only should our border security be strengthened to prevent those coming in the wrong way, but our immigration laws should be relaxed to encourage those coming in the right way. Businesses that hire illegal immigrants should be fined by the government and boycotted by the market.
Drug Legalization. Prohibition in the 1920s did nothing to stop the sale and distribution of alcohol and everything to push it into the black market to be controlled by criminals. The same can be seen with the War on Drugs, which the Global Commission on Drug Policy has declared a failure. All recreational drugs, including marijuana, should be legalized, taxed, and regulated. Drug abusers should be treated as patients and not as criminals.
State Rights. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively.” States should be allowed to be “laboratories of democracy” where new laws are experimented with. If these laws succeed in one state, other states may feel free to adopt them. Therefore, states should be allowed to pass their own laws regarding issues such as gay marriage, gun control, drug legalization, minimum wage, and abortion.
“I don’t think we know where our most recent universal common ancestor was, but we know that for thousands of years all our ancestors lived in Africa, much longer than the time since they colonized outside of Africa. We can all lay claim to African ancestors if we go back far enough. Africa also contains the most genetic diversity, which is consistent with our long history as a species there. What most of us think of as African people are mostly people who had ancestors of the Bantu tribe, which developed a successful livestock culture and conquered, colonized, or displaced other tribes. The Khoisan, the pygmy, and some other tribal ancestries are still noticeable in modern Africans….Unfortunately, most people have no idea what their actual recent ancestry is. Someone who self-identifies as African-American or black may actually have multiple great-grandparents who were non-black. There are certain ’markers,’ usually called ‘lineage-specific markers,’ that distinguish European, East African, and Asian ancestries. Most people are a ‘mutt blend’ of these markers, regardless of what ethnicity they actually identify with. People always assume that the color of one’s skin is an easy indicator of the color of all the parents and grandparents. But skin color is just a phenotype determined by a few different [variables].”
For those who don’t live in Great Britain (or follow Coughlan616 like I do), the EDL is a hate group that protests, mostly through street marches, against the “Islamification” of England ("Those dang ragheads have Muslamic Ray Guns, after all!"). These protests have been known to become violent, and its leader Robinson had been charged with assault. He was released on bail but prohibited from attending EDL marches. He secretly attended a protest (disguised as a rabbi) to give a speech. When video footage was leaked on-line, Robinson was arrested.
The problem with Griffin's video? As Coughlan pointed out in his video Is the Party Over?, the media—including the Press Association, The Guardian, The Telegraph, and BBC—DID cover the story! (Also, Robinson was neither a political prisoner nor on a hunger strike.)
The painful irony is that Griffin once called the EDL a "Zionist front group," alluding to its support of Israel. As Coughlan asked, "If the EDL are, as Nick Griffin states, a Zionist front group, then why would the Jewish-controlled media ignore a story about the leader of a Zionist front group being arrested by the Zionist-controlled police at the behest of the Zionist-controlled government whilst he was dressed as a f***ing Rabbi?"
Well, you’d be wrong.
Yet-to-be released book “Maggie Goes On A Diet” is under fire by soccer moms arguing that the book may encourage eating disorders and bullying.
You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can never please soccer moms.
The following video by Zaunstar explains why this “controversy” is nothing but paranoia.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
I used to support the death penalty, but I don’t anymore for two reasons: first, as this story shows, it costs too much. Second, contrary to popular misconception, it doesn’t deter murder. The states where the death penalty is legal actually have the highest homicide rates. Reminds me of how cities with the strictest gun laws also have the highest violent crime rates. Capital punishment is to preventing murder what gun control is to preventing violent crime and what jackets are to preventing colds.
The only justification for supporting the death penalty is the moral reason: people who commit murder or several murders deserve to die (Eye for an eye; life for a life). That I have no problem with. But it’s a weak defense, especially when compared to the fact that the death penalty is costly and ineffective. In a economic crisis where we need to make cuts, the death penalty has got to go.
Monday, September 12, 2011
One of the recent attacks against Perry is that Texas high school graduation rates have fallen from 46th in the country to 50th under his rule.
PolitiFact ruled this accusation as “Half True.” While it is true that graduation rates have fallen under Perry, the decline has less to do with his policies and more to do with illegal immigration (among other factors).
Demographers and immigration experts say the state’s diversity weighs heavily on its ranking in regard to educational attainment.I know many of you out there, especially the libtarded moonbats, will interpret this analysis as “racist” and “xenophobic.” It’s not! This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture.
With nearly 4 million immigrants, Texas boasts the country’s fourth-largest foreign-born population. And, of those immigrants over the age of 25, 46.8 percent did not have a high school diploma in 2009, according to census figures, compared to 32.3 percent for the nation.
Most immigrants, both legal and illegal, didn’t drop out from Texas schools but instead arrived in the state as adults without high school diplomas, according to Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, a research organization in Washington, D.C.
"Texas has one of the less-educated immigrant populations," Camarota said. "Texas and a whole series of states in the Southwest have lower educational attainment rates than they would in the absence of the immigrant population."
Of the state’s native population, 12.9 percent did not graduate high school, according to census data provided by the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington-based agency that studies the movement of people, compared with 9.6 percent for the nation.
When you have a large group of people who don’t speak English and who haven’t fully adopted our way of life, they tend to have a less-than-positive impact upon our society, especially when they send their children into our educational system.
This isn’t to say that we kick these people out or prevent any more from entering the country, just that we encourage them to learn the language and assimilate into the culture. (But even that suggestion my be considered “racist.”)
To quote Coughlan000: “So F***ing Bullocking Wanking Titing-Well What?”
Needless to say, I found the following video by ZOMGitsCriss to be a form of catharsis for me, as it counters all the fallacious arguments recycled by these “race realists.”
Some of my favorite parts:
HeyRuka: To deny the existence of race is to betray who you really are, pretty much the only thing that matters in our pathetic existence.
ZOMGitsCriss: If you think that race is the only thing that matters then, yeah, your existence is truly f***ing pathetic!
ZOMGitsCriss: What they are trying to demonstrate here is that black people are genetically, mentally inferior with an inclination towards aggression and inherently less capable to succeed in our society than white people are. If this is not racism, then what the hell is?!
HeyRuka: IQ isn’t the end-all be-all, but I’m just throwing it out there that racial hierarchies do exist and IQ hierarchies do exist and, given what psychologists know about intelligence, we should be a little more concerned with IQ—not so much individual IQ, but, um, but that of a collective racial group.
ZOMGitsCriss: So, you see, she’s not saying upfront that black people are inferior. Oh no. She’s totally not saying that. She’s just saying that there’s a racial hierarchy out there and an IQ hierarchy and that IQ is generally determined by race. Yeah very subtle, very subtle indeed.
Now since this is obviously what she thinks, and she identifies it as a “problem” we should be concerned with in her own words, you may wonder “what’s her solution?” Because, I mean, when I identify a problem within society, I also try to think of ways to fix it.
For instance, if I think a group of people are being, I don’t know, bigots, I just try to convince them by reason and logic and so on to, well, stop being bigoted. So in this case HeyRuka, what is your solution to black people having lower IQs as a race? Because somehow I doubt you’re going to try to convince them by reason and logic to stop being black!
Personally, judging from the review, the movie doesn’t seem that bad. It was made in the 1930s, after all, back when movies had to comply with extremely strict standards. I could only imagine that if it was created 30 to 40 years later, it would have made for a more disturbing exploitation film.
And yes, the subject matter of child marriage is disturbing in and of itself; but again, this film was made in the 1930s when it may have been a social issue that needed to be addressed—sort of like segregation.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Four years later, we're not only still in Afghanistan and Iraq, but we're also in Libya. That’s not just breaking your promise, that’s doing the exact opposite of what you said you were going to do! That’s like saying you’re going to re-shingle the roof and instead drill holes in it.
And yet libtarded moonbats still support this guy.
Not Dennis Trainor, Jr. (aka: Davis Fleetwood of No Cure For That Productions)! He's holding Obama to his word by taking him to the bank—literally!
Many words have expressed the grief and sorrow Americans feel even to this day, and the hope that a better future lies upon the horizon, even in the darkest of times. Many more words, however, have dishonored and disrespected those lives lost in rhetoric that seeks to divide rather than unite, whether it be the far-left inciting hatred to bash America or the far-right inciting fear in order to trade liberty for security, whether it be “truthers” spreading conspiracy theories or Isamaphobes spreading blind bigotry.
The following is a selection of comments made concerning September 11 which I personally feel are the most disturbing.
11) Chris Crocker. For those of you who have been living under a rock for the past five years, or are otherwise unfamiliar with the internet, Chris Crocker is the gentleman (if you can call a man wearing mascara a gentleman) who received his 15-minutes of fame crying on camera, begging people to “Leave Britney Alone.” His video has received over 400 million views and has transformed him into a pop culture icon.
His other videos amount to little more than him moaning about how hard life is being a grown man wearing makeup. His more substantive videos include him repeating the phrase “Bitch, please!” and debating the life-altering question of whether it’s weirder to put salt on a salad or salt on a pancake.
Despite his lack of content, he manages to maintain an internet audience, as his channel has over 40 thousand subscribers. This is especially surprising considering his thoughts on 9/11.
On September 11, 2007, Crocker released a short video explaining that he couldn’t be bothered with the date because he can’t stop thinking about how poorly Britney Spears was being treated in the media.
I wish that was a joke.
“I can’t think about 9/11 while Britney Spears is going through what she’s going through,” he says. “Britney is a national treasure. Who cares about 9/11?”
Who cares about 9/11? How about the friends and relatives of the over three thousand people who died on that day? How about the Americans who witnessed these attacks either on television or in real life and can no longer feel safe knowing there are extremists who want to kill us? How about the people who realize that Britney Spears is not a “national treasure” but a washed-up hag who hasn’t released a good single in over a decade, and thus is less important than the anniversary of the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor?
As can be expected, this video was taken down after receiving a strong backlash of negative feedback. The video was re-uploaded by another user, but perhaps it would have been best if this video was forgotten—just like Britney Spears, and just like Chris Crocker should be.
10) Christian Weston Chandler. YouTube can be an entertaining place, but it often tends to be a virtual mental asylum that houses a variety of nutcases from Fred to Shane Dawson to Ray William Johnson. Perhaps the nuttiest mental patient is one Christian Weston Chandler—simply known as Chris Chan.
Chris is the infamous creator of the poorly-drawn comic Sonichu—the main character a hybrid between Sonic the Hedgehog and Pokemon’s Pikachu. He has also released some of the most embarrassing and disturbing videos of himself on YouTube, from admitting to have crapped his own pants to dry humping his Playstation 3 to drinking his own semen.
As can be expected, Chris receives a lot of ridicule and hatred, and unfortunately, he lacks the maturity to handle it. He often responds to his haters with temper tantrums and hissy fits, even going so far as to make death threats.
One particular video, “Twin Towers Falling,” has him threatening to take down one of his haters like the terrorists took down the Twin Towers. In the video, he points his camera at his computer monitor with an image of the Twin Towers.
"Well now, Mister Clyde," he says, addressing his hater, "Your time and riches, your fame and fortune shall fall just like these twin towers! They go crumbling down, with an airplane!"
He then moves his cursor towards the towers, imitating the airplane crashing into the towers.
“You are weak!” he boasts. “I am the strong one! You are going down Mister Clyde Cash!”
Not surprisingly, this video received a volume of negative comments, so much so that Chris was forced to take down the video (only for another user to re-upload it). One comment from the user Liquid Chris sums up everyone’s general reaction:
"HOW could You MOCK the ALMOST THREE THOUSAND PEOPLE who DIED in the Nine-Eleven Plane Attacks!?”
9) Eric Foner. Owning a PHD does not make one intelligent. There are plenty in academia who are educated idiots. Eric Foner is no exception.
Shortly after September 11, this noted historian, who’s been a history professor at Columbia University since 1982, pondered the following question: “I’m not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House.”
I have a basic high school and college education, having graduated without any honors and with no intention of attending graduate school, and even I know that the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans is worse than any “apocalyptic rhetoric” that came out of the Bush Administration.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, buts words can never hurt me—let alone take down the Twin Towers.
8) Rosie O’Donnell. Imagine that a burglar breaks into your house late at night with intent to kill you and your family. Knowing this, you take your rifle (assuming you have one) and shoot his brains out. Does that make you just as bad as the burglar? Of course not. By breaking into your home, the burglar initiated force against you and your family, and you defended yourselves against him.
Comparing yourself to the burglar would be a false equivalency. Of course, to Rosie O’Donnell, it very well could be a fair comparison.
O’Donnell has expressed some stupid opinions concerning the September 11 terrorist attacks, especially since she, like other Hollywood liberals like Charlie Sheen and Janeane Garofalo, believes the attacks were an inside job by the government. She displayed her stunning scientific illiteracy on The View by claiming that steel can’t melt.
“I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel,” she said. “I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7—building 7, which collapsed in on itself—it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes—7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.”
Never mind, of course, that it is perfectly and scientifically possible—especially under the conditions of the terrorist attacks, what with the heat of the fire intensified by the gallons of jet fuel from the airliners—for a steel building to burn and collapse on itself.
But that’s not even the most disturbing comment! The previous year, O’Donnell made this “brilliant” statement: “As a result of the [9/11] attack and the killing of nearly 3,000 innocent people, we invaded two countries and killed innocent people in their countries….Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America.”
Talk about false equivalency in more ways than one!
First off, Afghanistan had initiated force against us by allowing their terrorists to attack us, and we defended ourselves by declaring war against it. Granted, the war could have been better handled, and looking back in hindsight, the war in Iraq was an unnecessary mistake. And yes, many innocent civilians died in both wars (though civilian casualties are common in war). But does that make the United States just as bad as the terrorists? Of course not.
As far as radical Christianity being just as bad as radical Islam, while Christianity has its fair share of blood on its hands, its worst atrocities—the Crusades and Inquisition—occurred thousands of years ago, while Islam’s worst atrocities—9/11 and other similar attacks—occurred during this past decade.
Christianity, being an older religion that Islam, and having gone through a reformation and enlightenment here in the West, has become more moderate in time, as its militants—like the Westboro Baptist Church and Hutaree Militia—are on the fringe; in stark contrast, Islam, being a younger religion than Christianity, and having experienced no reformation or enlightenment in the East, has remained radical, as its militants—the Taliban and Al Qaeda—are in the mainstream. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists, especially from the Middle East, are Muslims, and pose a far greater threat than Christian terrorists (though when was the last time you saw a nun blow up a bus full of passengers?).
Of course, don’t expect Rosie to comprehend that. She still thinks steel can’t melt!
7) Islamophobes. There’s no doubt that the September 11 terrorist attacks were an example of the dangers of radical Islam, and when coupled with the multitude of other terrorist attacks, serves as proof that Islam is anything but a “Religion of Peace.”
They do not prove, however, that all Muslims are extremists who wish death upon America. Unfortunately, most Americans can’t comprehend nuance and instead choose to see the world in black and white—or rather, as Muslims versus the rest of us.
This was made blatantly apparent last year during the protests against the Ground Zero mosque. Never mind that it was being built on property only a few blocks from Ground Zero where Muslims had been worshipping since before the terrorist attacks. Never mind that the Imam was a moderate who preached against the radical tendencies within his own religion. Never mind that it wasn’t even going to be a mosque—let alone a “victory mosque”—but rather a community center which, along with a nondenominational prayer room, would contain a performing art center, swimming pool, library, basketball court, and even a memorial to the victims of 9/11. No, this mosque had to be a future training ground for radicals to further their secret Jihad against the West!
No image better portrays America’s Islamaphobia—its irrational fear of Muslims—than one which has been circulating around the internet of a pickup truck with a confederate flag in the window and a portrait of the Twin Towers airbrushed on the back with the message “Everything I know about Islam I learned on 9/11.”
Yes, clearly all one needs to know about a religion can easily come from a single incident of extremism committed by 19 radicals—all who obviously represent the mainstream of their religion rather than a fringe minority. By that standard, all one needs to know about Christianity one can learn from the Crusades and Inquisition.
Granted, most Islamic terrorists come from countries ruled by Sharia law where women are forced to wear hijabs and be escorted by men in public or else risk severe beatings, and where declaring oneself a homosexual or Christian is punishable by death. But those Muslims do not reflect the sentiments of those living in America, most of which are law-abiding citizens who wish to live their lives and worship their God in peace just like every other religious person. Most terrorists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are terrorists.
Such fear and bigotry isn’t just irrational, it’s dangerous! After Pearl Harbor, Americans feared that Japanese immigrants were spies, and as a result, thousands were detained in internment camps. During the Cold War, Americans feared that there were Communist spies living among them, and that fear led to the McCarthy Trials where hundreds of innocent Americans were blacklisted as Communists.
They say those who forget their pasts are doomed to repeat it. Nearly half a century later, it seems Americans have forgotten about the internment camps and McCarthyism, and have allowed their fears of an outside threat to hinder their judgment. Of course, nothing too bad has resulted from it, unless you count Gitmo, the Patriot Act, waterboarding and other torture practices, racial profiling, targeted assassinations, anti Sharia-law legislation, the Ground Zero mosque protests…
6) Mike Malloy. It’s no secret that progressive radio host Mike Malloy hates his conservative counterparts on Fox News (possibly because they receive more ratings than him), and he has no problem expressing his hatred of them. Live on the air of his own radio show, he has called for Rush Limbaugh to choke on his own throat fat, Glenn Beck to blow his brains out, and Bill O’Reilly to drink and choke on the “poison he spews out on America every night.”
And yet Malloy feels that his violent rhetoric shouldn’t be compared to that of conservatives. Such a comparison, according to him, would be a false equivalency.
“The ranting that I do at night,” he said, “is targeted against the bastards who would murder this country!”
Malloy has referred to Fox News as a “terrorist organization” and claimed that it “wants to burn the country down.” He even went so far as to accuse the network of causing the September 11 terrorist attacks.
“You crazy sons-of-bitches, you right-wingers,” he screamed. “Do you not understand that the people you hold up as heroes bombed your goddamn country? Do you not understand that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are as complicit of the September 11, 2001 terror attack as any one of those dumb-ass fifteen who came from Saudi Arabia? Don’t you get that?”
For those of you (obviously) confused, Malloy was referring to how Rupert Murdoch had negotiated with Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia to fund his Rotana Media company. According to Malloy’s twisted logic, that makes Fox News guilty of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Of course, if anyone from Fox News had said something similar, accusing MSNBC and the people who work there of committing the terrorist attacks, they would be lambasted by the liberal media. Yet no one says anything when Malloy does it. Odd, don’t you think?
5) Dylan Avery. In the opening credits, Dylan Avery dedicates his movie “to the lives we lost on September 11th, 2001.” This would be a touching sentiment, if not for the fact that his movie is the second edition of the documentary Loose Change, and one of the claims in the movie was that most of the victims didn’t really die.
Avery came up with the idea for the documentary while researching for a fictional screenplay based on the terrorist attacks. During his research, he believed there was enough evidence to support the idea that the attacks were actually an inside job by the government. So by doing research for a fictional movie, he was able to create an equally fictional documentary.
And what evidence did Avery have that the terrorist attacks were inside jobs? Why the same flimsy reasoning most 9/11 truthers use to support their conspiracy theory: the attacks on the Twin Towers looked like a controlled demolition; therefore, they must have been a controlled demolition! (You know, the same reasoning Ray Comfort uses to support young-earth creationism: the banana fits in the human hand; therefore, it was designed to fit in the human hand by an intelligent designer!)
According to Avery and other “truthers,” the fires in the Twin Towers couldn’t have been hot enough to melt the steel framework and bring the buildings down, as similar accidents in the past haven’t been able to take down skyscrapers; so the government must have planted explosives in the buildings.
Never mind, of course, that it is scientifically possible for a skyscraper to burn down and collapse in on itself, especially if the fire is fueled by hundreds of gallons of jet fuel, and that other skyscrapers never had similar results due to other factors. And never mind that it would have been nearly impossible to secretly plant bombs inside three of the busiest office buildings in the country without someone noticing.
But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the film isn’t that it’s propagating nutty conspiracy theories—most of which have been thoroughly debunked by scientists, skeptics, and even 9/11 truthers, but that it’s propagating nutty conspiracy theories involving the deaths of thousands of American citizens!
One of the claims made in the film is that Flight 93 never really crashed into the field in Pennsylvania—that it really landed in Cleveland Hopkins Airport and the passengers were taken to a secret government building.
Now imagine that you’re one of the relatives or friends of the victims on Flight 93. You watch this movie and listen to the narrator explain how your loved one didn’t really die in the crash in Pennsylvania, but was taken to a secret government bunker where they possibly still live today.
You also realize that over 50 thousand DVDs of this documentary have been sold. Profits have been made spreading lies about your loved one’s death. How does that make you feel? Heartbroken? Disgusted? Outraged?
This movie isn’t dedicated to the lives lost on 9/11; it’s created to exploit their deaths for profit!
4) Ward Churchill. It’s quite reasonable to debate America’s foreign policy and whether or not it may have helped instigate the 9/11 terrorist attacks. What’s unreasonable is to compare the World Trade Center victims to Nazis—unreasonable, that is, unless you’re Ward Churchill.
Shortly after September 11, Churchill, then a professor at the University of Colorado, released an essay “On the Justice of Roosting Chickens” in which he blamed the terrorist attacks on America’s foreign policy, especially its sanctions on Iraq during the Persian Gulf War.
To Churchill, the attacks were justified retaliation against “ongoing genocidal American imperialism,” and the victims were the “technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire” responsible for it.
“Well, really, let's get a grip here shall we?” he wrote. “True enough, they [the 9/11 victims] were civilians of sort. But innocent? Give me a break.”
If that comment didn’t make you throw up a little in your mouth, this next comment will force you to vomit all over your computer screen.
“If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.”
Yes, folks, you heard that right: the three thousand Americans who died in the Twin Towers were all Nazis who deserved to die—each and every one of them!
His essay didn’t garner much attention until 2005 when he was asked to speak at Hamilton College. The controversy over it prompted an investigation into his previous work. Accused of research misconduct, including plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification, Churchill was fired. He filed a counter-lawsuit, claiming he was wrongly terminated due to his political views. He won the lawsuit and was awarded $1 in damages.
Churchill and his defenders argued that he had every right to express his opinions in his essay. And they’re right. He does have the right to free speech under the First Amendment, regardless of how unpopular, or rather repugnant, that speech is. What he doesn’t have, however, is the right to be respected or taken seriously, especially when he speaks ill of the dead only days after their deaths.
And while we’re on the subject of “speaking ill of the dead”…
3) Jerry Falwell. Most reasonable people would blame the terrorist attacks on the Islamic radicals who committed them. Unfortunately, Jerry Falwell, being an evangelical Christian, isn’t one of those reasonable people.
Following the terrorist attacks, Falwell appeared on his colleague Pat Robertson’s show The 700 Club where he claimed the attacks were God’s judgment.
“God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve,” he said.
Rather than rebuke Falwell for pretending to know the will of God, Robertson agreed with him. Then again, this is the same Pat Robertson who would later blame Hurricane Katrina on homosexuals and the Haitian earthquake on a pact with the devil.
“The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this,” Falwell continued. “And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’”
Granted, most Christians feel conflicted when a tragic event like 9/11 occurs, and express doubts as to how a benevolent and loving God could allow such pain and suffering to happen. Most assume it must be punishment for some sin. It’s perfectly fine to think that way; it’s not fine to express such views on national television, especially towards people who don’t share your particular religious beliefs.
It’s no wonder then that, because of these and other comments, which have branded him as one of the most hated evangelicals in America, he received little to no remorse after his own death six years later.
When atheist Christopher Hitchens was interviewed by Anderson Cooper, he was asked whether or not Falwell was in heaven.
“No,” Hitchens replied, “and I think it’s a pity there’s no hell for him to go to.”
Granted, this was a distasteful thing to say just days after Falwell’s death, but it was no more distasteful than Falwell claiming that three thousand American deaths were God’s punishment for homosexuals, abortionists, feminists, pagans, and the ACLU.
To quote Bill Maher: “I know you’re not supposed to speak ill of the dead, but I think we can make an exception because speaking ill of the dead was kind of Falwell’s hobby.”
Speaking of the devil…
2) Bill Maher. Comedian Bill Maher has been known to shoot his mouth off on his show Real Time; and being on HBO, he’s allowed to push his vitriol to its limits. To date, he has called Sarah Palin a “cunt” and “dumb twat,” called the Tea Party movement a cult, wished the Pentagon shooter had killed Glenn Beck, accused President Obama of not acting like a “real black man,” and suggested that Democrats treat Republicans like Tiger Woods wanted to treat his mistress.
Oh, and he also claimed that liberals aren’t as mean as conservatives!
To his credit, Maher has spoken out against the insanity of the 9/11 truthers and their irrational belief that the terrorist attacks were an inside job. He even endured the constant interruptions from the truthers in his audience asking him about Building 7.
“How big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours and then think, ‘Well, if you believe that was the cause’?” he asked during of his New Rules segment.
But the deluded ramblings of truthers pale in comparison to Maher’s own comments on the terrorists attacks. On his old ABC show Politically Incorrect, weeks after the attacks, one of his guests, Dinesh D'Souza, disputed Bush’s claim that the terrorists were cowards, arguing that they were warriors instead.
Maher agreed, and replied with the following: “We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.”
So let me get this straight: the brave men and women fighting the radicals overseas are cowardly, but those same radicals flying planes into the Twin Towers and Pentagon, killing nearly three thousand innocent Americans, aren’t?
Maher received so much backlash for those comments that his show was cancelled. Fortunately for him (though unfortunate for the rest of us), he received a new show on HBO. And the saddest part is that people still consider him funny.
1) Michael Moore. If one good thing came out of the terrorist attacks, it was that they brought us together as Americans. On September 10, America was divided with politics as usual; on September 12, it was united as one country.
After September 11, there were no Democrats or Republicans, no liberals or conservatives, no Blue states or Red states. There were only Americans. We were united as one against a common enemy. Granted, this unity led to some bad decisions (Gitmo, Patriot Act, Iraq War) and it didn’t last long (it ended around the Iraq War, to be divided once again with politics), but it helped remind us that we’re all Americans and we’re all in this together.
Michael Moore would have none of that. He hated Bush and the Republicans before September 11, and he hated them after September 11.
This sentiment was made perfectly clear when he posted the following message on his website shortly after the terrorist attacks: “If someone did this [9/11] to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes' destination of California -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush.”
It didn’t matter that three thousand Americans had recently lost their lives; For Michael Moore, it was politics as usual, and he was willing to exploit their deaths for the sake of making a smear against Bush.
Granted, Bush would exploit those deaths for the sake of politics as well, using them to justify unconstitutional measures such as the Patriot Act and waterboarding and preemptive war against a country that had no ties to 9/11, let alone WMDS. When Moore criticized Bush for those actions, he would be justified in doing so.
But what justification did Moore have in making these comments? What had Bush done—one year as president, mind you—that would have instigated 19 radicals to attack four locations and kill thousands of innocent Americans? How was anyone getting back at Bush by doing this?
As with Mike Malloy, if anyone on the right had said something similar, they would be lambasted by the liberal media as hatemongers. Yet Michael Moore says what he said, and his propaganda pieces continue to sell millions (a socialist profiting from capitalism? How ironic!)
That good ol’ left-wing "okay if we do it, terrible if they do!" never fails!
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
"This idea that libertarians can fix America is like saying you can fix bad breath with a urinal cake."
My first target is Zonation, otherwise known as machosauceproduction from Pajamasmedia. This will be the one and only time I target a conservative. The rest of my targets will be liberals.
Libertarian or Liberal-tarian? Are Independent Voters Just Lazy, Judgmental Liberals?
What is Libertarian? - Institute for Humane Studies
Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution
Global Commission on Drug Policy Report
Prostitution should be legal: the statistics prove it
Military spending: Defence costs - The Economist
Arguing with Idiots Theme Song
Imagine if a right-wing organization like FreedomWorks released a video game where players could shoot and kill zombified versions of liberals like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi (wearing only a brassiere), George Soros, and several union members. What do you think the response would be from the liberal media? Keith Olbermann would have listed the video game creator as Worst Person in the World, NOW would have denounced Pelosi’s appearance in the game wearing only a bra as sexist, and Media Matters would be running a campaign (courtesy of their Soros funding and tax-exempt status) to defund the organization that released the game.
Now let’s jump back to reality.
Recently, an on-line first-person shooter called Tea Party Zombies Must Die was released. The game allows players to shoot and kill zombified versions of conservatives like Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann (wearing only a brassiere), and the Koch Brothers, as well as other characters including “Pissed Off Stupid White Trash Redneck Birther” and “Factory Made Blonde Fox News Barbie Who Has Never Had A Problem In Her Life.”
No surprise, the game’s creator, Jason Oda, is a libtarded moonbat who has developed other politically-motivated games like Bushgame.com, described by Fox News as a game where “1980s television characters waged war against monstrous versions of officials in the Bush administration.”
This is how low our political discourse has fallen. It’s now perfectly acceptable to create a video game where you can kill politicians you hate. Sure, we’ve had plenty of “violent rhetoric” in the past, like when Sarah Palin marked her political map with crosshairs (which was no different than when Democrats marked their political map with bulls-eyes); but this really crosses the line of common decency. Marking cities on a map with targets is one thing, releasing a game where the objective is to kill political figures is quite another. You might as well say in bold letters “assassinate Glenn Beck!”
And the major problem isn’t the game itself, but that this game was released by a liberal—people who pride themselves as being civil, tolerant, and politically-correct while decrying the violent rhetoric of conservatives. Liberals have convinced (or rather, deluded) themselves that the incivility and violence in our political discourse is the fault of conservatives; liberals like themselves don’t act uncivil or violent.
When Jon Stewart held his Rally To Restore Sanity last year, an event dedicated to restoring civility to political discourse, he was criticized by liberals for (of all things!) criticizing liberals. To liberals like Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, and Chris Hedges, Stewart was wrong to compare the incivility of liberals to conservatives. Such a comparison was a “false equivalency” because liberals weren’t as violent or crazy as conservatives. Thus only conservatives should be scrutinized, not liberals.
In the wake of the Tucson shootings, liberals were quick to blame the violent act on the “violent rhetoric” of conservatives, especially Sarah Palin. Clearly right-wing talk radio was to blame for instigating Loughner, even though the registered Independent never listened to talk radio, let alone watched the news or even voted. And, of course, liberals like Bill Maher reassured everyone that liberals didn’t act violent or uncivil like conservatives do.
I’ve mentioned this over and over again in my blog: liberals don’t care about civility! Nope. Not one iota. They only care about incivility and “violent rhetoric” when it comes from conservatives. When it comes from their side, they ignore it; and when you point it out to them, they accuse you of playing “false equivalency”—of claiming liberals are the same as conservatives (which is obviously bogus: the left-wing is far worse, in both violent rhetoric and violent acts!).
This recent video game is proof. If this was a game where the objective was to kill liberal zombies, liberals would be outraged; but because the game targets “Tea Party Zombies,” liberals say nothing. Why should they? They hate the Tea Party. They blame if for everything wrong with this country, just like the Nazis blamed the Jews. During the debt ceiling debacle, Joe Biden referred to the Tea Party as “terrorists.” John Kerry said that the Tea Party should not receive any media attention. Maxine Waters said the Tea Party “can go straight to hell.” And just this Labor Day, Jimmy Hoffa advised that Obama should join him and his “army” of union thugs to “take these son of bitches out."
And yet it’s the Tea Party that’s filled with violent fascist Nazis? That good ol’ left-wing "okay if we do it, terrible if they do!" never fails!
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
That said, I agree with Steven Crowder’s recent video against raising taxes on oil companies. He’s dead on! Raising taxes won’t just affect the oil companies: it will affect everyone—from the gas pump to the grocery store to the entire economy. Of course, the “tax the rich” idiots fail to see that, showing how their blood lust for class warfare is a danger to us all and will only lead to an economic collapse.
I especially found this video interesting. Shows how far we have come as far as racism is concerned. And to think that libtarded moonbats nowadays consider the Obama Joker poster "racist." That's nothing compared to Bugs Bunny in black face!
Last week, he released a video criticizing Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and their position on the Catholic Church’s sex scandal (yes, even he admits that he’s late to the party), claiming that they only wanted to arrest the Pope for “crimes against humanity,” not because they cared about the children who were molested by priests and told to keep silent, but because they wanted to make a political statement against organized religion.
My favorite part was between 9:30 and 10:48, where Dawkins was asked how the Pope’s sex scandal qualifies as a crime against humanity, to which he explains that he’s not prepared to answer any “technical legal questions.” Matthew responds appropriately.
Matthew: [Defining “Crimes Against Humanity”] should be no problem. Richard Dawkins is going along with charging another human being with crimes against humanity. That is a very serious allegation and not something that anyone with any class or integrity would ever do lightly or on a political whim. So I’m sure he knows how this [the sex scandal] falls into the International Court’s definition of a crime against humanity and he’ll be able to answer her very reasonable question.
(cut to news clip)
Dawkins: You have to ask a lawyer about that. I specifically said when I agreed to do this interview that I wasn’t going to answer technical legal questions.
(news clip ends)
Matthew: (sputtering in disbelief) Technical legal question? What do you mean you’re not going to answer any technical legal questions? You’re charging him with this! You mean you’re just going along with charging someone with a serious crime and you don’t even know what it is? What Richard Dawkins is literally saying here is that he’s all for charging the Pope with crimes against humanity, but whether or not it is a crime against humanity is a technical legal question he’s not prepared to answer. Why does anyone like this guy? He sucks!
Monday, September 5, 2011
Why is it that people who criticize libertarianism the most have little to no idea what libertarianism actually is? Seems to me that most criticisms against libertarianism are solely grounded in ignorance. If that’s the case, allow me to provide some education to the anti-libertarians (who apparently can’t think) with my new video series. Coming Soon!
Videos in order of appearance:
People Who Piss Me Off: Libertarians
Libertarians = Morally Deficient Atheists
Anti Libertarian Rant
Why Libertarianism Is Wrong
Libertarian or Liberal-tarian? Are Independent Voters Just Lazy, Judgmental Liberals?
Arguing with Idiots Theme Song
Sunday, September 4, 2011
The following are 11 political YouTube users placed on a scale of zero to ten—ten being the intellectual lovechild of a three-way among Einstein, Hawking, and Sagan, and zero being a mentally-retarded chimp that masturbates into its own feces and proceeds to eat it. (I’m thinking of turning this scale into a meme. Might try it on some other people).
5: davisfleetwood (ncftTV)