"A God that can be understood is no God. Who can explain the Infinite in words?" ~ W. Somerset Maugham
OK, so it's been a while since I published a blog entry, but it's not because Hurricane Irene swept us out to sea or anything like that. It's just that nothing out of the ordinary has inspired me to write something.
For the record, we are fine here in Virginia. We suffered no damage to speak of in either the earthquake or the storm, other than a somewhat uncomfortable period of about 13 hours (total) of a power outage.
There is no shortage of subjects on which I could expound of course, but just nothing much that creates such passion in me that I feel compelled to express an opinion.
I will say this, however:
What the heck was Michele Bachmann thinking when she joked about the earthquake and the hurricane being some sort of judgment from God? Is she not aware that the Democrat attack machine (otherwise known as the Media) would be waiting with bated breath for any opportunity to ambush her? She had to know the attack would be inevitable if she made any mention at all of God in conjunction with the two natural disasters.
It's not her statement in itself that will end up haunting her. It's the fact that she even made the statement in the first place that will cast doubt upon her judgment.
I like Bachmann. I think she'd make a good President, but it's missteps like this that could cost her the nomination and/or the Presidency.
The deck is stacked against her already. She is a Conservative with outspoken views against all of the left's pet causes. That's more than enough for the Liberals in America to hate her.
Even after the Liberal media have admitted they realize her statement was a joke, there are still leftists out there pointing to that statement as proof of her fundamental nuttiness.
Perception becomes reality, especially when compounded by the tendency of the media to blow every little thing out of proportion (except where Obama is concerned).
Ms Bachmann would do well to learn from what others have endured from the Democrat attack machine.
Take Sarah Palin for example. The media and the Liberals have tried with all their might to besmirch Palin's reputation. They have, among other things, pored through all her e-mails, both private and public, searching for any and every morsel of malfeasance or immorality to use against her, to take her down, to destroy her reputation.
They found nothing. They filed multiple frivolous lawsuits, made multiple unfounded accusations against her, to no avail.
She is squeaky clean.
There are no skeletons in Sarah Palin's closet.
But there is this:
She quit.
It makes no difference why she quit. she could have been forced to resign under threat of her entire family being held at gunpoint. If the Libs had threatened to nuke Alaska, killing the entire population off if she didn't quit, the Liberal Democratic attack machine would still use the fact that she quit as evidence that she can't be trusted to handle the stress of a Presidency.
As far as these natural disasters being some kind of judgment or statement from God almighty:
If God wants to send a warning to America, I assure you, it will be far less subtle than these two little events. The idea that these two minor weather events could be a sign from God almighty is preposterous. If it's God sending a message, believe me, we will get the message in no uncertain terms. There will be no doubt of it's origin.
And, while I'm on the subject, why only America?
Why do Americans seem to assume the United States of America is somehow more important to God than--say--Israel? Or any other country for that matter?
Or, more blessed?
Or, more cursed?
How often have we heard, in an eschatological scenario, speculation that the Anti-Christ will be an American?
Are we not all His children? Are we not all His creation?
God is God of all Creation. Not just the U.S.A. If He decides to send us a message of warning in the form of great "earthquakes... in divers places, and famines, and pestilences", it will effect the entire world, not only a relatively small area of the United States.
And, politicians shouldn't attribute such minor inconveniences to God, even as a joke.
Well, Democrats should, so Republicans can attack them.
OK, so I do have some passion left, after all.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Thursday, August 25, 2011
A Good Quote
"If Obama would leave DC and return to Chicago, he would raise the aggregate I.Q. of both locations." ~ Me
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On
"Come on over, Baby. Whole lotta shakin' goin' on." ~ Jerry Lee Lewis
So, have you heard about the earthquake here in Virginia?
If you haven't, you must live in a cave with no contact with the outside world.
I have the dubious honor of being possibly one of a few bloggers who lives close to the epicenter of yesterday's earthquake. Already news media are calling it "The DC earthquake", but in reality it was closer to Richmond, although there are some who claim they felt it all the way to New York, Boston, and even Maine.
Our house is located within 40 miles of Mineral, Virginia, which, in turn, is about 9 miles from the reported center of the quake. My wife's dentist's office is located in Mineral.
Don't ask me why she drives that far to go to the dentist. She's never given me a satisfactory explanation, either.
I was actually browsing Facebook at the time the quake began. It started as a deep rumbling sound. I described it as like a freight train or a low flying aircraft. Immediately after that, the shaking started. My wife said she thought, at first, that the washer was out of balance, but then she quickly remembered the washer wasn't running.
Panicked, she ran out into the backyard, and I got up from my chair and started walking down the hallway, which by then had started rolling in a side-to-side motion. It was like surfing the floor. I stopped at the doorway between the utility room and the hallway where I could see my wife in the back yard through the back door, and stood there until the shaking stopped.
It lasted between 20 and 30 seconds, and then it was over. Kind of exciting for those of us who had never experienced an earthquake before, but nothing--dare I say?--earth shattering.
So, I walked back into our computer room (as we call it) and posted the experience on my Facebook status. Then I looked up the following videos on Youtube and posted them:
Then the other comments started appearing on Facebook. One friend wrote simply, "What's shakin'?"
I wrote, "It's God punishing us for electing Obama."
Comments that followed included, "Obama will blame Bush", "First an earthquake and a hurricane on the way. Well, Obama promised change", "Too bad a big azz crack didn't suck up a few of them in DC!", "It's Obama's new stimulus program to redistribute Earthquakes!", Our forefathers diggin their way out to show us how it's done probably", and, "The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves"
This morning, I signed onto Facebook and saw this:
BREAKING NEWS: President Obama has just confirmed that the DC earthquake occurred on a rare and obscure fault-line, apparently known as "Bush's Fault". Obama also announced that the Secret Service and Maxine Waters continue an investigation of the quake's suspicious ties to the TEA Party. Conservatives however have proven that it was caused by the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.
All you readers who live outside the tremor zone, don't be fooled. What the media said and what actually happened are two very different things. As I observed later last evening, "20 seconds of event followed by 24 hours of news coverage"
I'm also wondering if some of those reports from New York and further about feeling the quake there aren't a bit overblown. I'm thinking either they are imagining the feeling or they want so badly to be a part of breaking news they simply say they felt it when they didn't.
I can remember more than one instance when a quake struck in a neighboring state, and reports started flowing in about how the tremors were felt in my state, and I never felt anything.
There was no mistaking what we experienced yesterday.
It couldn't have been anything else.
Blogger buddy Tug lives in North Carolina, and he says he felt nothing yesterday, while people in South Carolina claim they did.
Incidentally, We live in a 60 year old house less than 40 miles from the epicenter, yet we sustained no damage or injuries whatsoever.
Oh, a clock fell off out kitchen wall and the battery was dislodged. A portable mini-stereo fell off a cabinet, also in our kitchen, and the kitchen trash can fell over. That was all. An hour or so afterwards, I found a plastic tube of Mary Kay face cleanser floating in our toilet bowl, but my wife says that is my fault.
So, kids, what have we learned from all this?
So, have you heard about the earthquake here in Virginia?
If you haven't, you must live in a cave with no contact with the outside world.
I have the dubious honor of being possibly one of a few bloggers who lives close to the epicenter of yesterday's earthquake. Already news media are calling it "The DC earthquake", but in reality it was closer to Richmond, although there are some who claim they felt it all the way to New York, Boston, and even Maine.
Our house is located within 40 miles of Mineral, Virginia, which, in turn, is about 9 miles from the reported center of the quake. My wife's dentist's office is located in Mineral.
Don't ask me why she drives that far to go to the dentist. She's never given me a satisfactory explanation, either.
I was actually browsing Facebook at the time the quake began. It started as a deep rumbling sound. I described it as like a freight train or a low flying aircraft. Immediately after that, the shaking started. My wife said she thought, at first, that the washer was out of balance, but then she quickly remembered the washer wasn't running.
Panicked, she ran out into the backyard, and I got up from my chair and started walking down the hallway, which by then had started rolling in a side-to-side motion. It was like surfing the floor. I stopped at the doorway between the utility room and the hallway where I could see my wife in the back yard through the back door, and stood there until the shaking stopped.
It lasted between 20 and 30 seconds, and then it was over. Kind of exciting for those of us who had never experienced an earthquake before, but nothing--dare I say?--earth shattering.
So, I walked back into our computer room (as we call it) and posted the experience on my Facebook status. Then I looked up the following videos on Youtube and posted them:
Then the other comments started appearing on Facebook. One friend wrote simply, "What's shakin'?"
I wrote, "It's God punishing us for electing Obama."
Comments that followed included, "Obama will blame Bush", "First an earthquake and a hurricane on the way. Well, Obama promised change", "Too bad a big azz crack didn't suck up a few of them in DC!", "It's Obama's new stimulus program to redistribute Earthquakes!", Our forefathers diggin their way out to show us how it's done probably", and, "The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves"
This morning, I signed onto Facebook and saw this:
BREAKING NEWS: President Obama has just confirmed that the DC earthquake occurred on a rare and obscure fault-line, apparently known as "Bush's Fault". Obama also announced that the Secret Service and Maxine Waters continue an investigation of the quake's suspicious ties to the TEA Party. Conservatives however have proven that it was caused by the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.
All you readers who live outside the tremor zone, don't be fooled. What the media said and what actually happened are two very different things. As I observed later last evening, "20 seconds of event followed by 24 hours of news coverage"
I'm also wondering if some of those reports from New York and further about feeling the quake there aren't a bit overblown. I'm thinking either they are imagining the feeling or they want so badly to be a part of breaking news they simply say they felt it when they didn't.
I can remember more than one instance when a quake struck in a neighboring state, and reports started flowing in about how the tremors were felt in my state, and I never felt anything.
There was no mistaking what we experienced yesterday.
It couldn't have been anything else.
Blogger buddy Tug lives in North Carolina, and he says he felt nothing yesterday, while people in South Carolina claim they did.
Incidentally, We live in a 60 year old house less than 40 miles from the epicenter, yet we sustained no damage or injuries whatsoever.
Oh, a clock fell off out kitchen wall and the battery was dislodged. A portable mini-stereo fell off a cabinet, also in our kitchen, and the kitchen trash can fell over. That was all. An hour or so afterwards, I found a plastic tube of Mary Kay face cleanser floating in our toilet bowl, but my wife says that is my fault.
So, kids, what have we learned from all this?
Sunday, August 14, 2011
A Good Quote
It's not that Conservatives aren't compassionate. We just don't let our compassion get in the way of rational thought. ~ Me
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
What Entitlement Spending Has Spawned
"That's what we're creating" ~ Judge Judith Sheindlin
Monday was the first day of the month. The first day of the month is the day retired people get their Social Security checks. It is the day Welfare recipients get their Welfare checks.
On the first day of the month, those with the entitlement mentality go out and walk (and shop) among us.
I've seen the first of every month come and go for years, but this past Monday was the first time I really noticed how forcefully the addiction to entitlements has negatively affected our society.
I've mentioned this several times on this and other blogs. I've pointed out how lines of people park their cars in the fire lanes at retail stores instead of in the designated parking spaces. I've pointed out how this is a demonstration of the entitlement mentality at work. They park where they want because it's closer to the door. It's more convenient to walk a few feet than it is to walk a few dozen feet.
Unless they are stopping there momentarily to let some handicapped passenger off, I don't know what else to attribute this to other than they feel somehow entitled to park their cars illegally.
This past Monday, I witnessed an extension of this phenomena firsthand.
I was in WalMart talking to an electronics associate, questioning him on GPS devices. A man walked up and rudely interrupted our conversation to demand where the Virgin Mobile phone cards were located. The associate excused himself to me, and replied the store doesn't sell Virgin Mobile phone cards. The man gruffly retorted, "You sold 'em two weeks ago!" After some more contentious conversation the associate helped the man locate the Virgin Mobile broadband-to-go cards, and explained that since the store doesn't sell the phones, he couldn't say for certain whether the broadband cards would work with the phones.
Instead of thanking the associate for his help, honesty, and patience, the man stalked wordlessly and angrily out of the area.
As I was standing before the register preparing to purchase my selection, a family consisting of a man, a woman, and a daughter walked up and demanded to be checked out first and, partly because I was in no hurry, and partly because I wanted to alleviate any possible contention between the associate and his "customer", I courteously allowed the associate to take them ahead of me.
As the associate tried in vain to initiate a friendly short discussion, the family stood unresponsive to his pleasantries and scowling. Then, they started complaining about the price, which, incidentally, was already marked down below list price.
Meanwhile, the daughter occupied herself by picking up various items, looking at them briefly, and then dropping them wherever she happened to be standing, regardless of whether that's where the items belonged. Not once did her parents request that she keep her hands off things or reprimand her.
Irresponsibility begets irresponsibility.
After they left, I made the observance to the associate that there seemed to be an abundance of rude, classless customers in the store that day.
He replied, "It happens the first of every month."
The welfare checks go out that day, and the recipients descend upon the merchants in hordes, spending their checks on luxuries, entertainment, alcohol, cigarettes, and other items that do nothing to lessen their debt, or help pay their rent.
All the while pushing, demanding, insisting, they get everything they want at the absolute lowest prices, and if the items they want are not exactly what they expect, the merchants can count on them to raise a loud, boisterous objection.
This is what the Welfare state in this country has spawned.
And, it will only get worse. In fact, our Government encourages the addiction. In our altruistic hope to help poor people afford living expenses, as well as the expense of giving birth and providing for the children born as a result of their promiscuous behavior, we are creating the perception that it thus becomes a reward for breeding and multiplying.
Their progeny inherits this entitlement addiction from the equally addicted parents.
And so it goes.
Where will it end?
Will it end?
Who knows?
The Democrats insist that increasing entitlement spending will increase demand and decrease unemployment.
How is that possible?
The Government (We, the people) has not shown any inclination to put a stop to this self-destructive cycle.
If we the people don't, who will?
Monday was the first day of the month. The first day of the month is the day retired people get their Social Security checks. It is the day Welfare recipients get their Welfare checks.
On the first day of the month, those with the entitlement mentality go out and walk (and shop) among us.
I've seen the first of every month come and go for years, but this past Monday was the first time I really noticed how forcefully the addiction to entitlements has negatively affected our society.
I've mentioned this several times on this and other blogs. I've pointed out how lines of people park their cars in the fire lanes at retail stores instead of in the designated parking spaces. I've pointed out how this is a demonstration of the entitlement mentality at work. They park where they want because it's closer to the door. It's more convenient to walk a few feet than it is to walk a few dozen feet.
Unless they are stopping there momentarily to let some handicapped passenger off, I don't know what else to attribute this to other than they feel somehow entitled to park their cars illegally.
This past Monday, I witnessed an extension of this phenomena firsthand.
I was in WalMart talking to an electronics associate, questioning him on GPS devices. A man walked up and rudely interrupted our conversation to demand where the Virgin Mobile phone cards were located. The associate excused himself to me, and replied the store doesn't sell Virgin Mobile phone cards. The man gruffly retorted, "You sold 'em two weeks ago!" After some more contentious conversation the associate helped the man locate the Virgin Mobile broadband-to-go cards, and explained that since the store doesn't sell the phones, he couldn't say for certain whether the broadband cards would work with the phones.
Instead of thanking the associate for his help, honesty, and patience, the man stalked wordlessly and angrily out of the area.
As I was standing before the register preparing to purchase my selection, a family consisting of a man, a woman, and a daughter walked up and demanded to be checked out first and, partly because I was in no hurry, and partly because I wanted to alleviate any possible contention between the associate and his "customer", I courteously allowed the associate to take them ahead of me.
As the associate tried in vain to initiate a friendly short discussion, the family stood unresponsive to his pleasantries and scowling. Then, they started complaining about the price, which, incidentally, was already marked down below list price.
Meanwhile, the daughter occupied herself by picking up various items, looking at them briefly, and then dropping them wherever she happened to be standing, regardless of whether that's where the items belonged. Not once did her parents request that she keep her hands off things or reprimand her.
Irresponsibility begets irresponsibility.
After they left, I made the observance to the associate that there seemed to be an abundance of rude, classless customers in the store that day.
He replied, "It happens the first of every month."
The welfare checks go out that day, and the recipients descend upon the merchants in hordes, spending their checks on luxuries, entertainment, alcohol, cigarettes, and other items that do nothing to lessen their debt, or help pay their rent.
All the while pushing, demanding, insisting, they get everything they want at the absolute lowest prices, and if the items they want are not exactly what they expect, the merchants can count on them to raise a loud, boisterous objection.
This is what the Welfare state in this country has spawned.
And, it will only get worse. In fact, our Government encourages the addiction. In our altruistic hope to help poor people afford living expenses, as well as the expense of giving birth and providing for the children born as a result of their promiscuous behavior, we are creating the perception that it thus becomes a reward for breeding and multiplying.
Their progeny inherits this entitlement addiction from the equally addicted parents.
And so it goes.
Where will it end?
Will it end?
Who knows?
The Democrats insist that increasing entitlement spending will increase demand and decrease unemployment.
How is that possible?
The Government (We, the people) has not shown any inclination to put a stop to this self-destructive cycle.
If we the people don't, who will?
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
More Stupid Liberals
"It is better to confess ignorance than provide it." ~ Homer Hickam
Newsbusters has published a video featuring George Lopez, comedian and talk show host under the headline, "George Lopez: If Sarah Palin Becomes President ‘I Will Move to Canada’.
While that, in itself, is a typically stupid statement by a typical wacko Hollywood Liberal, it isn't the first time one of these nuts has threatened to move out of the USA if certain Republicans get elected.
Robert Altman, big time Hollywood director, once famously said, "If George W. Bush is elected president, I'm leaving for France."
He didn't, by the way. He still lives in America.
Here's the video:
But, what astounds me even more than that statement about moving to Canada, is this statement: "I like my politicians to actually have a political background, to be politically -- to know politics, to actually have inherited something from working in the political world."
This completely amazes me.
This is from a guy that (presumably) voted for a community organizer over a career politician in 2008. And now, apparently he thinks that a background of being a Mayor and a Governor, not to mention a candidate for Vice President, somehow isn't political experience.
Then, he carried it even further by saying (You can't make this stuff up), "Or do we elect somebody by their smile instead of by their content?"
Just how does he think Obama got elected? My God, Obama is the poster boy of no content!
You know? I've been thinking lately that I've been wrong about Sarah Palin. I think she'd make a great President.
If, for no other reason, electing her President will make stupid Hollywood Celiberals move out of the country.
Newsbusters has published a video featuring George Lopez, comedian and talk show host under the headline, "George Lopez: If Sarah Palin Becomes President ‘I Will Move to Canada’.
While that, in itself, is a typically stupid statement by a typical wacko Hollywood Liberal, it isn't the first time one of these nuts has threatened to move out of the USA if certain Republicans get elected.
Robert Altman, big time Hollywood director, once famously said, "If George W. Bush is elected president, I'm leaving for France."
He didn't, by the way. He still lives in America.
Here's the video:
But, what astounds me even more than that statement about moving to Canada, is this statement: "I like my politicians to actually have a political background, to be politically -- to know politics, to actually have inherited something from working in the political world."
This completely amazes me.
This is from a guy that (presumably) voted for a community organizer over a career politician in 2008. And now, apparently he thinks that a background of being a Mayor and a Governor, not to mention a candidate for Vice President, somehow isn't political experience.
Then, he carried it even further by saying (You can't make this stuff up), "Or do we elect somebody by their smile instead of by their content?"
Just how does he think Obama got elected? My God, Obama is the poster boy of no content!
You know? I've been thinking lately that I've been wrong about Sarah Palin. I think she'd make a great President.
If, for no other reason, electing her President will make stupid Hollywood Celiberals move out of the country.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Who's Holding The Gun?
"If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion." ~ George Bernard Shaw
Trader Rick has asked me to post another blog entry, and although I am not feeling particularly passionate at this time about anything other than Obama's ongoing destruction of America, the moral decline in our country, and the continual media love affair with Obama and all things Democrat, I have blogged on those things ad infinitum.
What more can I say?
The only thing everyone is talking about right now is the question of whether raising the debt ceiling would be beneficial in solving the economic crisis or economic suicide.
I don't know.
I consider myself woefully inadequately educated, economically speaking, to address this subject with any kind of expertise.
I try to be objective but, I've heard both sides of the issue explained, and they all sound feasible in different ways, so instead of clarifying the issue for me, I am left further confused than before.
I just watched this video:
I've always made it clear that I am no economist. I don't understand economics. I'm sure if I did, I'd have more money in my bank account.
All I can do is relate the economic crisis is this country to my own economic situation. Throughout 40+ years of having to balance my income against my outgo, I have some practical experience with which to draw some (what I consider to be ) common sense conclusions.
Coincidentally, America's economic problems appear to be remarkably similar to my own, to wit:
Too much debt, and not enough money to pay it off.
Obama says Republicans are "holding a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners."
(and, by the way, isn't he one of the ones who blamed Republicans for the incendiary rhetoric that resulted in the shooting of that Democratic Congresswoman in Tucson, Arizona? I guess when you're the President, or at least a Democratic President, you can be as insensitive as you want)
Personally, I don't see it that way. The way I see it, Obama is the one holding the gun. He has been suggesting the Republicans want to take away senior citizen's social security, medicare, and medicaid if they succeed in not allowing him to raise the debt ceiling.
I don't believe for one minute that would be the consequence.
But, I admit, I don't know.
What I do know is this:
Raising the debt ceiling would simply increase the amount of debt we owe. That makes it harder to pay off. (duh!)
Example: If I have reached my limit on my credit card, and the credit card company offers to raise my debt limit so I can continue to charge more purchases to my account, eventually, I am going to be expected to repay that money. If the credit card company continues to raise my debt ceiling over and over again, I will come to the point where I can no longer make those payments. Then, I will default.
It's inevitable.
The Democrats insist we will be in default if we don't raise the debt ceiling, but in my experience, we will reach default status if we do.
The more we borrow, the more we are expected to pay back.
If we raise our debt to the point where our income cannot keep up with the pace of the increasing interest on our debt, how will we ever pay the debt back?
Especially if Obama wants to continue his reckless spending (and there is no evidence that he intends to stop). As I said, I don't know economics, but it seems logical to me that one cannot spend his way out of debt.
If we want to reduce the debt, we must stop spending so much, stop borrowing, and start living within our means.
Just as it works in my personal life.
Trader Rick has asked me to post another blog entry, and although I am not feeling particularly passionate at this time about anything other than Obama's ongoing destruction of America, the moral decline in our country, and the continual media love affair with Obama and all things Democrat, I have blogged on those things ad infinitum.
What more can I say?
The only thing everyone is talking about right now is the question of whether raising the debt ceiling would be beneficial in solving the economic crisis or economic suicide.
I don't know.
I consider myself woefully inadequately educated, economically speaking, to address this subject with any kind of expertise.
I try to be objective but, I've heard both sides of the issue explained, and they all sound feasible in different ways, so instead of clarifying the issue for me, I am left further confused than before.
I just watched this video:
I've always made it clear that I am no economist. I don't understand economics. I'm sure if I did, I'd have more money in my bank account.
All I can do is relate the economic crisis is this country to my own economic situation. Throughout 40+ years of having to balance my income against my outgo, I have some practical experience with which to draw some (what I consider to be ) common sense conclusions.
Coincidentally, America's economic problems appear to be remarkably similar to my own, to wit:
Too much debt, and not enough money to pay it off.
Obama says Republicans are "holding a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners."
(and, by the way, isn't he one of the ones who blamed Republicans for the incendiary rhetoric that resulted in the shooting of that Democratic Congresswoman in Tucson, Arizona? I guess when you're the President, or at least a Democratic President, you can be as insensitive as you want)
Personally, I don't see it that way. The way I see it, Obama is the one holding the gun. He has been suggesting the Republicans want to take away senior citizen's social security, medicare, and medicaid if they succeed in not allowing him to raise the debt ceiling.
I don't believe for one minute that would be the consequence.
But, I admit, I don't know.
What I do know is this:
Raising the debt ceiling would simply increase the amount of debt we owe. That makes it harder to pay off. (duh!)
Example: If I have reached my limit on my credit card, and the credit card company offers to raise my debt limit so I can continue to charge more purchases to my account, eventually, I am going to be expected to repay that money. If the credit card company continues to raise my debt ceiling over and over again, I will come to the point where I can no longer make those payments. Then, I will default.
It's inevitable.
The Democrats insist we will be in default if we don't raise the debt ceiling, but in my experience, we will reach default status if we do.
The more we borrow, the more we are expected to pay back.
If we raise our debt to the point where our income cannot keep up with the pace of the increasing interest on our debt, how will we ever pay the debt back?
Especially if Obama wants to continue his reckless spending (and there is no evidence that he intends to stop). As I said, I don't know economics, but it seems logical to me that one cannot spend his way out of debt.
If we want to reduce the debt, we must stop spending so much, stop borrowing, and start living within our means.
Just as it works in my personal life.
Friday, July 08, 2011
Responding To More Liberal Idiocy
"False words are not evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." ~ Plato
In a comment at Joe's Blog, one particularly annoying, persistent Liberal posted this link (be patient, for some reason the web page loads painfully slow), ostensibly, I guess, to make some point. I have quite forgotten the point he was trying to make, as Liberals usually make such stupid points, they really aren't worth taking the time and effort to consider.
Even so, I tried to read the article he linked to--I really did-- but I couldn't get past the following exercise in absurdity:
"Take the enormous amount of misinformation that is taken for truth by Fox audiences: the belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that he was in on 9/11, the belief that climate change isn't real and/or man-made, the belief that Barack Obama is Muslim and wasn't born in the United States, the insistence that all Arabs are Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists, the inexplicable perceptions that immigrants are both too lazy to work and are about to steal your job."
I then responded to the Lib's comment by telling him I could easily refute the lies spouted by the author of the linked article but I highly doubt the aforementioned commenter really believed that tripe himself.
He responded by challenging me to "go to it".
I didn't (not there, anyway), because as Lone Ranger has noted, ad infinitum, "Liberals not only refuse to learn from their mistakes, they refuse to admit them."
However, I will now attempt to refute the false charges leveled against Fox news, one by one, right here, right now, on my blog:
First falsehood: "the belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."
Saddam Hussein did indeed have weapons of mass destruction, as Iraqis unfortunately found out the hard way when he used them against his own citizens. Not only did he have WMD, but even the Democrats admitted to that fact.
This is not opinion. It is historical fact. All one needs to do is look it up.
Second falsehood: "[H]e (Saddam Hussein) was in on 9/11."
This charge is probably the closest to the most accurate, but still way off base. There is no evidence that Hussein wasn't in on the conspiracy to attack the USA, but there is a suggestion that he may well have known about the impending attacks in advance. At any rate, if Hussein did not invite al Qaida to come to Iraq to conduct their terrorists training camps, he certainly didn't discourage them, or ask them to cease and desist, and he celebrated the terrorist attacks on 9/11 right along with bin Laden.
Also, I don't recall ever hearing Fox news make that particular charge, except in a speculative way, which is a far cry from deliberate misinformation. So, the statement that Fox misinformed their viewers in that regard is in itself, false.
Third: "the belief that climate change isn't real and/or man-made."
How can a theory that is unproven and unprovable be the subject of misinformation? Climate Change, or Global Warming, as it was originally called before real scientists (you know, the ones without an agenda) proved the earth was not warming but cooling, has never been proven, nor is there any evidence that it is any more than a theory, and a completely implausible theory at that.
Fourth: "T]he belief that Barack Obama is Muslim and wasn't born in the United States"
Fox news never made that claim. They did, however, report that others have made that claim, but they never made that claim themselves, and that usually in conjunction with a disclaimer that the opinions expressed by guests on their commentary programs are not necessarily the official opinions of Fox News. As any good news outlet should, they simply reported what others have said, and let the viewers decide.
In fact, it is the Liberal media outlets, such as MSNBC, CNN, and others who have propagated that misinformation under the guise of claiming Fox News is the culprit.
Fifth: "Arabs are Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists"
No one--not Fox news--not anyone, has ever, EVER made such an obvious stupid generality about Muslims and Arabs. Some Arabs are Christians. Some are atheists, and some are probably other religions as well.
Likewise, no one--certainly not Fox News-- has ever said all Muslims are terrorists. In fact, they have always clearly stated that, although most terrorists are Muslims, all Muslims are not terrorists. This fifth charge against Fox news is patently false and quite frankly, created out of whole cloth. It's difficult (to say the least) to believe anyone, even a moronic Liberal, would make such a stupid and irresponsible accusation.
It's equally unbelievable to believe anyone, even a moronic, kool-aid drinking, dyed in the wool, lemming mentality, bleeding heart Liberal sob sister would believe such a ludicrous statement.
And last, but not least: "the inexplicable perceptions that immigrants are both too lazy to work and are about to steal your job."
The author of the article, as all Liberals continually do, conveniently left out the one word that defines the crux of the illegal immigration argument:
"Illegal".
But, to respond directly to the false allegation, Fox news has never created a perception that immigrants are lazy or "about to steal" anyone's job. Just the opposite, Fox news has repeatedly stated that, for the most part, legal immigrants are hard-working, responsible, upstanding, law abiding people, and that those who have become naturalized citizens usually love America as much, and sometimes even more than the average natural born citizen.
However, any perceptions about illegal aliens who have illegally entered our country, have mostly been the result of their own disregard for our nation's laws and sovereignty.
You know, I'm just an ordinary guy, but even I can easily refute these ridiculous, slanderous accusations. Imagine what Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh could do with them.
In a comment at Joe's Blog, one particularly annoying, persistent Liberal posted this link (be patient, for some reason the web page loads painfully slow), ostensibly, I guess, to make some point. I have quite forgotten the point he was trying to make, as Liberals usually make such stupid points, they really aren't worth taking the time and effort to consider.
Even so, I tried to read the article he linked to--I really did-- but I couldn't get past the following exercise in absurdity:
"Take the enormous amount of misinformation that is taken for truth by Fox audiences: the belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that he was in on 9/11, the belief that climate change isn't real and/or man-made, the belief that Barack Obama is Muslim and wasn't born in the United States, the insistence that all Arabs are Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists, the inexplicable perceptions that immigrants are both too lazy to work and are about to steal your job."
I then responded to the Lib's comment by telling him I could easily refute the lies spouted by the author of the linked article but I highly doubt the aforementioned commenter really believed that tripe himself.
He responded by challenging me to "go to it".
I didn't (not there, anyway), because as Lone Ranger has noted, ad infinitum, "Liberals not only refuse to learn from their mistakes, they refuse to admit them."
However, I will now attempt to refute the false charges leveled against Fox news, one by one, right here, right now, on my blog:
First falsehood: "the belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."
Saddam Hussein did indeed have weapons of mass destruction, as Iraqis unfortunately found out the hard way when he used them against his own citizens. Not only did he have WMD, but even the Democrats admitted to that fact.
This is not opinion. It is historical fact. All one needs to do is look it up.
Second falsehood: "[H]e (Saddam Hussein) was in on 9/11."
This charge is probably the closest to the most accurate, but still way off base. There is no evidence that Hussein wasn't in on the conspiracy to attack the USA, but there is a suggestion that he may well have known about the impending attacks in advance. At any rate, if Hussein did not invite al Qaida to come to Iraq to conduct their terrorists training camps, he certainly didn't discourage them, or ask them to cease and desist, and he celebrated the terrorist attacks on 9/11 right along with bin Laden.
Also, I don't recall ever hearing Fox news make that particular charge, except in a speculative way, which is a far cry from deliberate misinformation. So, the statement that Fox misinformed their viewers in that regard is in itself, false.
Third: "the belief that climate change isn't real and/or man-made."
How can a theory that is unproven and unprovable be the subject of misinformation? Climate Change, or Global Warming, as it was originally called before real scientists (you know, the ones without an agenda) proved the earth was not warming but cooling, has never been proven, nor is there any evidence that it is any more than a theory, and a completely implausible theory at that.
Fourth: "T]he belief that Barack Obama is Muslim and wasn't born in the United States"
Fox news never made that claim. They did, however, report that others have made that claim, but they never made that claim themselves, and that usually in conjunction with a disclaimer that the opinions expressed by guests on their commentary programs are not necessarily the official opinions of Fox News. As any good news outlet should, they simply reported what others have said, and let the viewers decide.
In fact, it is the Liberal media outlets, such as MSNBC, CNN, and others who have propagated that misinformation under the guise of claiming Fox News is the culprit.
Fifth: "Arabs are Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists"
No one--not Fox news--not anyone, has ever, EVER made such an obvious stupid generality about Muslims and Arabs. Some Arabs are Christians. Some are atheists, and some are probably other religions as well.
Likewise, no one--certainly not Fox News-- has ever said all Muslims are terrorists. In fact, they have always clearly stated that, although most terrorists are Muslims, all Muslims are not terrorists. This fifth charge against Fox news is patently false and quite frankly, created out of whole cloth. It's difficult (to say the least) to believe anyone, even a moronic Liberal, would make such a stupid and irresponsible accusation.
It's equally unbelievable to believe anyone, even a moronic, kool-aid drinking, dyed in the wool, lemming mentality, bleeding heart Liberal sob sister would believe such a ludicrous statement.
And last, but not least: "the inexplicable perceptions that immigrants are both too lazy to work and are about to steal your job."
The author of the article, as all Liberals continually do, conveniently left out the one word that defines the crux of the illegal immigration argument:
"Illegal".
But, to respond directly to the false allegation, Fox news has never created a perception that immigrants are lazy or "about to steal" anyone's job. Just the opposite, Fox news has repeatedly stated that, for the most part, legal immigrants are hard-working, responsible, upstanding, law abiding people, and that those who have become naturalized citizens usually love America as much, and sometimes even more than the average natural born citizen.
However, any perceptions about illegal aliens who have illegally entered our country, have mostly been the result of their own disregard for our nation's laws and sovereignty.
You know, I'm just an ordinary guy, but even I can easily refute these ridiculous, slanderous accusations. Imagine what Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh could do with them.
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Not Guilty
"The sword of justice has no scabbard." ~ Antione De Riveral
I admit I didn't watch the trial of Casey Anthony. I didn't hear the testimony. I didn't weigh the evidence. All I know is part of what the news outlets reported.
It seems the general opinion of the people who did watch the trial in it's entirety is that Casey Anthony is guilty as charged. And, from what I've heard, she probably is.
Despite the verdict handed down by the jury.
But, I have all I need to know to opine on the results.
I've heard the attorneys offer their points of view. I've heard journalist's analyses. We have all heard the opinions of the observers.
What I haven't heard is the juror's opinions. And, in the end, it's really only the jury's opinion that matters.
Perhaps many people don't understand the singular responsibility of a jury. Juries are charged to make a judgement on the facts of the case only.
Not on emotion. Not on feelings. Not on public opinion. Not on some sense of fairness.
Just the Facts, Ma'am.
But, above all, the judgement of the jury is dependent on whether or not guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Throughout any court trial, jury members are continuously charged by the Judge, in no uncertain terms, before, during, and after all testimony and evidence is presented:
There must be no doubt of guilt, or the defendant must be found "not guilty".
The States attorney has the burden of proof. If he cannot prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must reach a verdict of "not Guilty".
The Casey Anthony jury therefore have discharged their solemn and sacred duty in the way the American Justice system intended.
It could well be, and probably is, that the jury members believed in their hearts that Casey Anthony was guilty of murder in the first degree.
But, in their minds, the States attorney failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and they voted accordingly. And, I feel confident, when the interviews with the jury members are published, that is exactly what they'll say.
No doubt the state attorney wanted a guilty verdict, but unfortunately, he should have done a little more homework, sealed the evidence down more tightly, and done whatever was necessary to remove any semblance of doubt about the guilt of Casey Anthony.
Obviously, as far as the jury was concerned, he failed to accomplish that goal.
This is the way the American Justice system is intended to work.
Like it or not. The system works.
I admit I didn't watch the trial of Casey Anthony. I didn't hear the testimony. I didn't weigh the evidence. All I know is part of what the news outlets reported.
It seems the general opinion of the people who did watch the trial in it's entirety is that Casey Anthony is guilty as charged. And, from what I've heard, she probably is.
Despite the verdict handed down by the jury.
But, I have all I need to know to opine on the results.
I've heard the attorneys offer their points of view. I've heard journalist's analyses. We have all heard the opinions of the observers.
What I haven't heard is the juror's opinions. And, in the end, it's really only the jury's opinion that matters.
Perhaps many people don't understand the singular responsibility of a jury. Juries are charged to make a judgement on the facts of the case only.
Not on emotion. Not on feelings. Not on public opinion. Not on some sense of fairness.
Just the Facts, Ma'am.
But, above all, the judgement of the jury is dependent on whether or not guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Throughout any court trial, jury members are continuously charged by the Judge, in no uncertain terms, before, during, and after all testimony and evidence is presented:
There must be no doubt of guilt, or the defendant must be found "not guilty".
The States attorney has the burden of proof. If he cannot prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must reach a verdict of "not Guilty".
The Casey Anthony jury therefore have discharged their solemn and sacred duty in the way the American Justice system intended.
It could well be, and probably is, that the jury members believed in their hearts that Casey Anthony was guilty of murder in the first degree.
But, in their minds, the States attorney failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and they voted accordingly. And, I feel confident, when the interviews with the jury members are published, that is exactly what they'll say.
No doubt the state attorney wanted a guilty verdict, but unfortunately, he should have done a little more homework, sealed the evidence down more tightly, and done whatever was necessary to remove any semblance of doubt about the guilt of Casey Anthony.
Obviously, as far as the jury was concerned, he failed to accomplish that goal.
This is the way the American Justice system is intended to work.
Like it or not. The system works.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
On Media Bias
"All of us who professionally use the mass media are the shapers of society. We can vulgarize that society. We can brutalize it. Or, we can help lift it onto a higher level." ~ William Bernbach
My newest Blogroll addition, Wintery Knight, has posted an interesting entry on media bias.
I copied his links and posted them, one by one, to my Facebook status in hopes that my Liberal Doctor nephew will see them, read them, and learn something about the media. He actually sees no bias in mainstream media reporting, except, of course, for FOX News, which he claims is basically the propaganda arm of the Republican party.
I find this interesting, to say the least, since he is a Professor of Media Studies at Eastern University in Pennsylvania. He has even earned a Doctorate in the field.
How can someone who is considered an expert in media not recognize obvious bias? It's not like it's subtle.
Giving my nephew the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he is too close. He can't see the forest for the trees. His blindness reminds me of Edgar Allen Poe's short story, "The Purloined Letter". The object of his search is in plain sight and in the open for all to see, if they merely open their eyes and look.
Of course, that would require objectivity, and being a Liberal, that isn't possible.
In any case, I believe posting some articles about anything concerning media should attract his attention, and perhaps even hold it long enough for him to learn something he may have previously dismissed.
We can only hope.
My newest Blogroll addition, Wintery Knight, has posted an interesting entry on media bias.
I copied his links and posted them, one by one, to my Facebook status in hopes that my Liberal Doctor nephew will see them, read them, and learn something about the media. He actually sees no bias in mainstream media reporting, except, of course, for FOX News, which he claims is basically the propaganda arm of the Republican party.
I find this interesting, to say the least, since he is a Professor of Media Studies at Eastern University in Pennsylvania. He has even earned a Doctorate in the field.
How can someone who is considered an expert in media not recognize obvious bias? It's not like it's subtle.
Giving my nephew the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he is too close. He can't see the forest for the trees. His blindness reminds me of Edgar Allen Poe's short story, "The Purloined Letter". The object of his search is in plain sight and in the open for all to see, if they merely open their eyes and look.
Of course, that would require objectivity, and being a Liberal, that isn't possible.
In any case, I believe posting some articles about anything concerning media should attract his attention, and perhaps even hold it long enough for him to learn something he may have previously dismissed.
We can only hope.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Father's Day 2011
"And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." ~ Ephesians 6:4
When I was a teenager, I was convinced my father was the stupidest man in the world. When I was in my twenties, with kids of my own, I was surprised how much the old man had learned in only about 10 years.
He is in Heaven now.
Today, in my late 50's (very late. I'm 59), with my 5 kids all grown up and with kids of their own, I realize that I am much more like my father than I ever thought or wanted to be.
But, it's OK. I kind of like myself now.
And, I love my father.
Happy Father's Day to all of you fathers out there in Blogland.
When I was a teenager, I was convinced my father was the stupidest man in the world. When I was in my twenties, with kids of my own, I was surprised how much the old man had learned in only about 10 years.
He is in Heaven now.
Today, in my late 50's (very late. I'm 59), with my 5 kids all grown up and with kids of their own, I realize that I am much more like my father than I ever thought or wanted to be.
But, it's OK. I kind of like myself now.
And, I love my father.
Happy Father's Day to all of you fathers out there in Blogland.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Palin Is Vindicated
"Though the vicious can sometimes pour affliction upon the good, their power is transient and their punishment certain; and that innocence, though oppressed by injustice, shall, supported by patience, finally triumph over misfortune!" ~ Ann Radcliffe
So, the Liberal Media hounds have pored through countless pages of Sarah Palin's e-mail documents ravenously looking for anything they could use to damage her reputation. Over 24,000 of them.
And what did they find?
The e-mails show that Sarah Palin is of stalwart character, a conscientious and effective Governor who actually did place the interests of her constituency and her state over her self interests. They showed a working mom who successfully balanced her time between her high pressure and highly scrutinized job with her personal time with her family.
A quote from this story: "Whether you like her or not is up to you, but the one big surprise coming out of an examination of 24,000 email messages is that there really is no surprise, no shocking inside story.
What you see with Palin is generally what you get."
What didn't they find?
No corruption. No dirt. No malfeasance. Not a smirch. Not one blot on her record out of 24,000 pages.
And, keep in mind this is only what the left wing Liberal media reported they found. What they said they found are simply snippets of the volumes of records they studiously and voraciously examined with a fine tooth comb. How many more records do you suppose they found that showed her to be even more intelligent and capable than anyone once thought?
Believe me, if there were any evidence at all of anything negative, you can be sure they would have gleefully announced it to the world, and by now, every single man woman and child in the world would know every detail.
In seeking to embarrass Palin, they have only managed to embarrass themselves. If it weren't so pathetic (and predictable)The Left wing Liberal State-run Media has egg on their faces, but I'll bet they won't apologize or even admit they are wrong about her. A perfect example of Liberal truth number 8:
Liberals cannot be embarrassed. They lack the gene to blush.
It surely must be a dark day in Liberal land today.
So, the Liberal Media hounds have pored through countless pages of Sarah Palin's e-mail documents ravenously looking for anything they could use to damage her reputation. Over 24,000 of them.
And what did they find?
The e-mails show that Sarah Palin is of stalwart character, a conscientious and effective Governor who actually did place the interests of her constituency and her state over her self interests. They showed a working mom who successfully balanced her time between her high pressure and highly scrutinized job with her personal time with her family.
A quote from this story: "Whether you like her or not is up to you, but the one big surprise coming out of an examination of 24,000 email messages is that there really is no surprise, no shocking inside story.
What you see with Palin is generally what you get."
What didn't they find?
No corruption. No dirt. No malfeasance. Not a smirch. Not one blot on her record out of 24,000 pages.
And, keep in mind this is only what the left wing Liberal media reported they found. What they said they found are simply snippets of the volumes of records they studiously and voraciously examined with a fine tooth comb. How many more records do you suppose they found that showed her to be even more intelligent and capable than anyone once thought?
Believe me, if there were any evidence at all of anything negative, you can be sure they would have gleefully announced it to the world, and by now, every single man woman and child in the world would know every detail.
In seeking to embarrass Palin, they have only managed to embarrass themselves. If it weren't so pathetic (and predictable)The Left wing Liberal State-run Media has egg on their faces, but I'll bet they won't apologize or even admit they are wrong about her. A perfect example of Liberal truth number 8:
Liberals cannot be embarrassed. They lack the gene to blush.
It surely must be a dark day in Liberal land today.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Moron Liberal Stupididty
"Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments when he was merely stupid." ~ Heinrich Heine
(ol' Heinrich must know Chris Matthews personally)
Apparently, according to Chris "Obama sends a chill up my leg" Matthews, if you are outraged by Democrat Representative Anthony Wiener sending pictures of his namesake to young women through Twitter, you are "culturally backwards":
Obviously, Matthews is another one of the elite Liberal intelligentsia, who know better than us poor dumb Americans what's proper behavior.
This guy is shameless. So is Wiener. So is just about every Liberal.
Now, let's all sit back and enjoy as Jim and other psychotic Liberals try to defend this idiot.
(ol' Heinrich must know Chris Matthews personally)
Apparently, according to Chris "Obama sends a chill up my leg" Matthews, if you are outraged by Democrat Representative Anthony Wiener sending pictures of his namesake to young women through Twitter, you are "culturally backwards":
Obviously, Matthews is another one of the elite Liberal intelligentsia, who know better than us poor dumb Americans what's proper behavior.
This guy is shameless. So is Wiener. So is just about every Liberal.
Now, let's all sit back and enjoy as Jim and other psychotic Liberals try to defend this idiot.
Thursday, June 09, 2011
More Liberal Stupidity, With A Twist
"Deviant: Different from what is considered to be normal or morally correct." ~ Webster's Dictionary
In a Facebook discussion about the entrance of Rick Santorum into the 2012 Presidential race, I learned something new about Liberals. That is, how low Liberals will stoop to attack their ideological opponents.
Rick Santorum
One commenter in the thread said he wished Santorum would change his name, which prompted me to ask why. He responded that I should Google the name, "Santorum".
Well, I did as he suggested, and was appalled and sickened by what I found.
Is there a depth to which Liberals won't sink to disparage people?
From what I learned, an immoral, soulless, disgusting, perverted Sodomite named Dan Savage, feigned outrage at Former Senator Rick Santorum after he stood up for family values, and attacked the Senator by creating an alternative definition of the word, "santorum".
Disgusting little Pervert
As is typical of the Liberal mindset, Savage's hateful response to Santorum's somewhat innocuous statement was extremely disproportional to the alleged offense.
I use the words "alleged" and "feigned" purposely, because typically, these Liberals really know the truth but choose to deny the facts.
This is the sort of person who would have us accept his aberrant filthy, disgusting, immoral, deviant lifestyle as normal, and even worse, natural!
Do you think a mind capable of creating such a vile, disgusting, synonym for anyone's name is a natural, normal mind? Or is it a deviant mind?
A perverted mind-in-the gutter like that is the only sort of mind that could conceive such an absolutely revolting concept.
There is no love in this "man", and I use the term loosely. There is no honor. There is no respect. He is a vile, disgusting, little pervert. I cannot conceive the amount of self-loathing this deviant little creature possesses.
He is appropriately named.
Savage's entire biography reads like a litany of perversion.
He is nothing more than a savage. He is everything that is evil in the world and nothing that is good. He is evil incarnate.
And, like every other Liberal, he is unbelievably stupid.
In a Facebook discussion about the entrance of Rick Santorum into the 2012 Presidential race, I learned something new about Liberals. That is, how low Liberals will stoop to attack their ideological opponents.
Rick SantorumOne commenter in the thread said he wished Santorum would change his name, which prompted me to ask why. He responded that I should Google the name, "Santorum".
Well, I did as he suggested, and was appalled and sickened by what I found.
Is there a depth to which Liberals won't sink to disparage people?
From what I learned, an immoral, soulless, disgusting, perverted Sodomite named Dan Savage, feigned outrage at Former Senator Rick Santorum after he stood up for family values, and attacked the Senator by creating an alternative definition of the word, "santorum".
Disgusting little PervertI use the words "alleged" and "feigned" purposely, because typically, these Liberals really know the truth but choose to deny the facts.
This is the sort of person who would have us accept his aberrant filthy, disgusting, immoral, deviant lifestyle as normal, and even worse, natural!
Do you think a mind capable of creating such a vile, disgusting, synonym for anyone's name is a natural, normal mind? Or is it a deviant mind?
A perverted mind-in-the gutter like that is the only sort of mind that could conceive such an absolutely revolting concept.
There is no love in this "man", and I use the term loosely. There is no honor. There is no respect. He is a vile, disgusting, little pervert. I cannot conceive the amount of self-loathing this deviant little creature possesses.
He is appropriately named.
Savage's entire biography reads like a litany of perversion.
He is nothing more than a savage. He is everything that is evil in the world and nothing that is good. He is evil incarnate.
And, like every other Liberal, he is unbelievably stupid.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Obama Is Stupid
"Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything." ~ Frank Dane
The second of my posts about how the leftists treat Conservatives as opposed to how they treat their own:
If Sarah Palin was really wrong about Paul Revere, her gaffe would still be less of a stupid idiotic statement than this one:
And yet, no Liberal so-called journalists dare admit the obvious.
Paul Revere's famous ride occurred over 225 years ago, during a time when the media was limited to writing, by hand, about events that transpired, after the fact, and before witnesses, and rarely were the events actually witnessed first hand by those who reported them in the newspapers of the day.
What Sarah Palin said was in response to a reporter asking her what she had learned about history on her stop in Boston.
She already knew what all the rest of us did, that Revere rode through the towns, alerting the people that the regulars were coming, but she had learned something else that day. She learned he also warned the British soldiers that the American patriots were ready to defend themselves.
Now, after 225 years plus, Sarah Palin knows more about the events on that day than Barack Hussein Obama knew about the current geographical boundaries of the United States of America!
And the Libs say she's stupid!
Well, if she's stupid for knowing facts that the reporters don't know, how stupid does that make Obama?
I mean, she has an excuse for possibly being slightly mistaken about something that happened 225 years ago.
Obama has no excuse.
He's just an imbecile.
And so are the rest of the Liberals.
The second of my posts about how the leftists treat Conservatives as opposed to how they treat their own:
If Sarah Palin was really wrong about Paul Revere, her gaffe would still be less of a stupid idiotic statement than this one:
And yet, no Liberal so-called journalists dare admit the obvious.
Paul Revere's famous ride occurred over 225 years ago, during a time when the media was limited to writing, by hand, about events that transpired, after the fact, and before witnesses, and rarely were the events actually witnessed first hand by those who reported them in the newspapers of the day.
What Sarah Palin said was in response to a reporter asking her what she had learned about history on her stop in Boston.
She already knew what all the rest of us did, that Revere rode through the towns, alerting the people that the regulars were coming, but she had learned something else that day. She learned he also warned the British soldiers that the American patriots were ready to defend themselves.
Now, after 225 years plus, Sarah Palin knows more about the events on that day than Barack Hussein Obama knew about the current geographical boundaries of the United States of America!
And the Libs say she's stupid!
Well, if she's stupid for knowing facts that the reporters don't know, how stupid does that make Obama?
I mean, she has an excuse for possibly being slightly mistaken about something that happened 225 years ago.
Obama has no excuse.
He's just an imbecile.
And so are the rest of the Liberals.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Taking Off The Gloves
"Women should be obscene and not heard." ~ Groucho Marx
Since my last post, I am still fuming over the treatment of Sarah Palin by so-called journalists and their mindless Liberal drones.
And, it's not just Sarah Palin. It's anyone who espouses Conservative values.
These reporters follow Palin around like vultures, hoping their victim will accidentally drop a tiny tibit of meat they can jump on and devour.
The recent video taken of Sarah Palin on her bus tour is only the latest example of the feeding frenzy that dogs her every move. And frankly, every highly visible Conservative has the same problem. She stumbled over her words (something all of us have done from time to time, by the way) while talking about the role Paul Revere served in the days before the outbreak of the War of Independence. Within minutes after her unfortunate choice of words were uttered, the video went viral and every Liberal in America was labeling her stupid, incompetent, and uneducated.
But, she was not wrong. What she said was historically accurate. It just didn't come out the way she intended (this happens sometimes, particularly when she isn't reading the words verbatim off a teleprompter). But the reporters didn't care. It sounded wrong to them, and that was enough.
The hounds were loosed.
This is the same playbook that is always used by Liberals:
Attack the messenger and don't address the message.
I don't know when it started, but this is the treatment all high profile Conservatives have received for as long as I can remember. I can remember how Richard Nixon was attacked. During the famous debates between he and JFK, the press never talked about the merits of his argument. They were too focused on his physical appearance. As if physical appearance has anything to do with ability.
If physical appearance is synonymous with stupidity, then Helen Thomas must be the stupidest person on earth.
Wait...
Since then, every Republican President and Presidential candidate has been ridiculed by the left. All of them have been described as stupid, ignorant, moronic, etc. They called Gerald Ford, an all star college athlete, stupid and clumsy. Ronald Reagan was forgetful, senile, too old, and yes, stupid. George H. W. Bush was stupid and a liar. We are all too familiar with the insults leveled at George W Bush; Stupid, a war criminal, a chimpanzee.
Through it all, Republicans and Conservatives have borne it all with grace and aplomb. We haven't sunk to their level. We have been far too noble. For the most part, we have steadfastly defended our leaders without resorting to ad hominen, vitriolic, hateful, personal attacks.
Basically, the same tactics the left have always used against us.
Well, I've had it with them.
From now on, I'm going on the offensive. I can play this game, too. I'm fighting fire with fire. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
And, I'm starting with this following clip:
My God, Barbara Walters is an idiot! Listen to her stumble over her words (kind of like Sarah Plain did)and accidentally say, "If Sarah Palin can still ride around in her bus and be considered to the possible president, this man can override this, stay in Congress, and just hope there's another scandal..."
What? Hope there's another scandal? You think that will solve ol' Weiner boy's problems, you dumb broad? Boy, what a moron this BaBa WaWa is! What a waste of oxygen! She needs to just shut up, and let people think she's stupid instead of opening her mouth and removing all doubt!
Oh, and By the way, Anthony Wiener is a pervert.
But that's not a personal attack. It's a fact.
Since my last post, I am still fuming over the treatment of Sarah Palin by so-called journalists and their mindless Liberal drones.
And, it's not just Sarah Palin. It's anyone who espouses Conservative values.
These reporters follow Palin around like vultures, hoping their victim will accidentally drop a tiny tibit of meat they can jump on and devour.
The recent video taken of Sarah Palin on her bus tour is only the latest example of the feeding frenzy that dogs her every move. And frankly, every highly visible Conservative has the same problem. She stumbled over her words (something all of us have done from time to time, by the way) while talking about the role Paul Revere served in the days before the outbreak of the War of Independence. Within minutes after her unfortunate choice of words were uttered, the video went viral and every Liberal in America was labeling her stupid, incompetent, and uneducated.
But, she was not wrong. What she said was historically accurate. It just didn't come out the way she intended (this happens sometimes, particularly when she isn't reading the words verbatim off a teleprompter). But the reporters didn't care. It sounded wrong to them, and that was enough.
The hounds were loosed.
This is the same playbook that is always used by Liberals:
Attack the messenger and don't address the message.
I don't know when it started, but this is the treatment all high profile Conservatives have received for as long as I can remember. I can remember how Richard Nixon was attacked. During the famous debates between he and JFK, the press never talked about the merits of his argument. They were too focused on his physical appearance. As if physical appearance has anything to do with ability.
If physical appearance is synonymous with stupidity, then Helen Thomas must be the stupidest person on earth.
Wait...Since then, every Republican President and Presidential candidate has been ridiculed by the left. All of them have been described as stupid, ignorant, moronic, etc. They called Gerald Ford, an all star college athlete, stupid and clumsy. Ronald Reagan was forgetful, senile, too old, and yes, stupid. George H. W. Bush was stupid and a liar. We are all too familiar with the insults leveled at George W Bush; Stupid, a war criminal, a chimpanzee.
Through it all, Republicans and Conservatives have borne it all with grace and aplomb. We haven't sunk to their level. We have been far too noble. For the most part, we have steadfastly defended our leaders without resorting to ad hominen, vitriolic, hateful, personal attacks.
Basically, the same tactics the left have always used against us.
Well, I've had it with them.
From now on, I'm going on the offensive. I can play this game, too. I'm fighting fire with fire. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
And, I'm starting with this following clip:
My God, Barbara Walters is an idiot! Listen to her stumble over her words (kind of like Sarah Plain did)and accidentally say, "If Sarah Palin can still ride around in her bus and be considered to the possible president, this man can override this, stay in Congress, and just hope there's another scandal..."
What? Hope there's another scandal? You think that will solve ol' Weiner boy's problems, you dumb broad? Boy, what a moron this BaBa WaWa is! What a waste of oxygen! She needs to just shut up, and let people think she's stupid instead of opening her mouth and removing all doubt!
Oh, and By the way, Anthony Wiener is a pervert.
But that's not a personal attack. It's a fact.
Friday, June 03, 2011
Family Feud?
"I didn't leave the Democrat party. The Democrat party left me." ~ Ronald Reagan
Tonight, I went too far, it appears. On Facebook, my lovely niece, who unfortunately, is an avid Obama supporter and a "progressive", posted a link to the following video with the accompanying comment, "Um.....Haha???" on her brother's (my Liberal Doctor nephew) wall:
Afterward, her Liberal friends posted these comments:
"Her ignorance is astounding!! I feel dumber just hearing her jabber :-D" -- (This from a woman who is a "Christian minister". Real Christian, eh?)
Then another comment from my niece: "Haha...me too! She was just making it up as she went along...she should really not speak to people when she's in public."
The last comment came from my nephew: "Maybe she should have written the Paul Revere poem on her hand?"
(Note to myself: Maybe my learned nephew should study his history instead of simply taking what amounts to poetic license as fact)
I couldn't resist responding. I posted a comment (without even viewing the video first) pointing out that their hero, Barack Hussein Obama once remarked that the United States has 60 states. He said, and I'm sure my two readers will remember, he had been in 57 states with one left to go and that he wanted to go also to Alaska and Hawaii, but his people wouldn't let him. That makes 60 states in all. I then wrote something like "everyone makes mistakes, but the difference between Obama and Palin is that Obama hates his country, and Palin doesn't."
I say I said "something like" because later, when I checked back, I found my comment had been deleted.
I later posted a link to the article linked below, but that,too was deleted.
I guess I went too far. I don't want to anger my relatives, of course, but they drew first blood, so to speak. I must admit I was a bit surprised that no one attempted to argue with me, and instead, took the cowardly way out. It embarrasses me to admit that these are my blood relatives, with college degrees (My nephew even has a PhD), and they display this type of ignorance.
So, since I obviously wasn't going to be allowed to post further comments there, I posted my thoughts in my own status. But not until after I found this story.
After I watched the video she posted, I became angry, to say the least. This is what I wrote on my status, along with the above article:
"I get really sick of "progressives" launching hateful, vitriolic, ad-hominen attacks against Conservatives. These cowards can't refute the message so they attack the messenger. Sarah Palin is a patriot. Their "hero" is a Marxist. They can't deny either of these facts."
I had more, but I went over the word limit, so I added a couple of comments to my comment, to wit:
"Can they point to anything Sarah Palin has ever said that indicates she hates America? No, but we can point to quote after quote that indicates Obama does. Does this make "Progressives" anti-American? Not necessarily, but it certainly makes them look ignorant. Now, we have proof that Palin was historically correct, and the egg is on the "progressives" faces. Payback's a bitch, aint it?"
And, lastly:
"Is there anyone who can tell me what exactly is it about Sarah Palin that so frightens Liberals? Is it because she loves America? Is it because she believes in God? Or is it because she proudly speaks the truth about the Marxists who are trying to destroy our country? What is it? I really want to know."
Still feeling righteously indignant, I continued with another post, with another link to accentuate my point:
"More on the media's lies about Sarah Palin. Are the Liberal's embarrassed to be proven wrong yet again? No. They lack the gene to blush."
I fear I have created a rift in my family. I may never be invited to Christmas Dinner again.
But, I can't sit back and take it. And, I won't.
Tonight, I went too far, it appears. On Facebook, my lovely niece, who unfortunately, is an avid Obama supporter and a "progressive", posted a link to the following video with the accompanying comment, "Um.....Haha???" on her brother's (my Liberal Doctor nephew) wall:
Afterward, her Liberal friends posted these comments:
"Her ignorance is astounding!! I feel dumber just hearing her jabber :-D" -- (This from a woman who is a "Christian minister". Real Christian, eh?)
Then another comment from my niece: "Haha...me too! She was just making it up as she went along...she should really not speak to people when she's in public."
The last comment came from my nephew: "Maybe she should have written the Paul Revere poem on her hand?"
(Note to myself: Maybe my learned nephew should study his history instead of simply taking what amounts to poetic license as fact)
I couldn't resist responding. I posted a comment (without even viewing the video first) pointing out that their hero, Barack Hussein Obama once remarked that the United States has 60 states. He said, and I'm sure my two readers will remember, he had been in 57 states with one left to go and that he wanted to go also to Alaska and Hawaii, but his people wouldn't let him. That makes 60 states in all. I then wrote something like "everyone makes mistakes, but the difference between Obama and Palin is that Obama hates his country, and Palin doesn't."
I say I said "something like" because later, when I checked back, I found my comment had been deleted.
I later posted a link to the article linked below, but that,too was deleted.
I guess I went too far. I don't want to anger my relatives, of course, but they drew first blood, so to speak. I must admit I was a bit surprised that no one attempted to argue with me, and instead, took the cowardly way out. It embarrasses me to admit that these are my blood relatives, with college degrees (My nephew even has a PhD), and they display this type of ignorance.
So, since I obviously wasn't going to be allowed to post further comments there, I posted my thoughts in my own status. But not until after I found this story.
After I watched the video she posted, I became angry, to say the least. This is what I wrote on my status, along with the above article:
"I get really sick of "progressives" launching hateful, vitriolic, ad-hominen attacks against Conservatives. These cowards can't refute the message so they attack the messenger. Sarah Palin is a patriot. Their "hero" is a Marxist. They can't deny either of these facts."
I had more, but I went over the word limit, so I added a couple of comments to my comment, to wit:
"Can they point to anything Sarah Palin has ever said that indicates she hates America? No, but we can point to quote after quote that indicates Obama does. Does this make "Progressives" anti-American? Not necessarily, but it certainly makes them look ignorant. Now, we have proof that Palin was historically correct, and the egg is on the "progressives" faces. Payback's a bitch, aint it?"
And, lastly:
"Is there anyone who can tell me what exactly is it about Sarah Palin that so frightens Liberals? Is it because she loves America? Is it because she believes in God? Or is it because she proudly speaks the truth about the Marxists who are trying to destroy our country? What is it? I really want to know."
Still feeling righteously indignant, I continued with another post, with another link to accentuate my point:
"More on the media's lies about Sarah Palin. Are the Liberal's embarrassed to be proven wrong yet again? No. They lack the gene to blush."
I fear I have created a rift in my family. I may never be invited to Christmas Dinner again.
But, I can't sit back and take it. And, I won't.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Thoughts From A Left Field Perspective
"I'm not sure I want popular opinion on my side -- I've noticed those with the most opinions often have the fewest facts." ~ Bethania McKenstry
I've been busy/lazy lately. I have a day off today, so I've decided to offer my thoughts on a couple of things that have recently dominated the news, while I have time.
First, the Harold Camping "end of the world" fiasco. Of course, we all knew this was ridiculous. As soon as he decided on the exact day and hour the world would end, people who actually read the Bible (let alone understand it)automatically knew it wouldn't happen on May 21, 2011 at 6:00 P.M. EST.
It was a self defeating prediction.
If God had originally planned to end it all on that particular date and time, He would have simply changed His plans, right?
Perhaps not. The way I see it, even if Camping had been correct, it doesn't mean he knew when it was going to happen. It would have only meant he guessed right. One second after the event, all the world would have known that Camping's prediction was merely a coincidence.
Nevertheless, we quoted the verse in Mark 13:32, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.", but most of us left out the next verse, which reads, "Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come."
It is in that context that I submit Camping did us all a service if, as the Bible says, "we have ears to hear".
I don't know about my two readers, but I have a renewed faith as a result of the "end of the world" thing. It has made me more cognizant of my responsibility to live and share my faith. By heeding the warning to be ready, we make more of an effort to try to be Christlike.
Camping has reminded us, in a bizarre, backwards kind of way, that we should live our lives as if Jesus is coming today. because, He just might.
I wish I could put it more clearly, but hopefully, my two readers will get my point.
Now, the entrance of Herman Cain into the 2012 Presidential race:
In the end, he probably won't be nominated to be the Republican candidate, but from my perspective (which, as my two long time readers may attest, is from about four rows back in the bleacher seats waaaaay out in left field), Herman Cain would have the best chance of all of the Republican hopefuls of defeating Obama in 2012.
Mind you, I do not say he is the best candidate. That remains to be seen. But, barring some revelation of malfeasance or impropriety or some other negative, besides being labeled an "Uncle Tom", an "Oreo", or a "house nigger" or some other racially tinged insult (because you know, the Democrats will make those charges and more), he can defeat Obama.
At this point, I believe the defeat of Obama is more important than putting the best Republican in the oval office.
Let's save the country first, then worry about improving it.
Here is the reason I say Herman Cain can defeat Obama:
96% of black voters voted for Obama in 2008. I saw a poll a couple of months ago (which I can't seem to find now. Perhaps a reader can have more success locating it than I did), which indicated that 96% of black voters still intend to vote for Obama in 2012.
Now, 96% of the black vote in 2008 can be a coincidence. Other conclusions can possibly be drawn from those numbers. There could well be some other reasons that so many black voters voted for Obama other than race. Even a white Democrat traditionally gets somewhere over 80% of the black vote regardless of his stance on the issues.
But, two years later, even after it became clear to black voters that Obama will not pay their mortgage, or buy them gas for their cars as he promised, the staggering percentage of blacks who would still vote for Obama makes it as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer that blacks overwhelmingly support Obama simply because he is, like them, black.
So, obviously, it doesn't matter that Obama has consistently betrayed the black voters in America. It doesn't matter that he has failed to keep any of the promises he made to his black constituency. It doesn't matter that many of his policies have been harmful rather than helpful to black Americans.
They will vote according to race.
He could be as discriminatory against blacks as the Ku Klux Klan, but because he is black himself, an overwhelming majority of blacks would still vote for him.
It is estimated that blacks make up approximately 12 to 13% of the United States' population. In the 2008 election, blacks turned out to vote in record numbers. Those black voters swept Obama into office. Without the black vote, McCain would have probably won.
Enter Herman Cain. A black man.
If Cain is the Republican nominee facing off against Barack Hussein Obama in the 2012 election, black voters will suddenly face a choice they have never had to make before.
They will have to choose between two black men for president.
And therefore, a dilemma.
The way I see it, there are more than two choices for blacks under this scenario:
1. A Democrat black candidate.
2. A Republican black candidate.
3. To vote for a black man who offers empty promises of "hope and change" but has failed to deliver.
4. To vote for a black man who offers real common sense solutions to the problems facing all Americans, including black Americans, and not just "bumper sticker" slogans..
5. Vote for a third party candidate.
6. Vote for a write-in candidate, or
7. Don't vote at all.
Recent polls (that I did find) indicate blacks are disappointed in Obama. Some estimate that as many as 15-20% of those who voted for Obama in 2008 do not approve of the job he's done thus far.
This doesn't necessarily mean they won't vote for him again in 2012.
However, if that disappointment manifests itself in the polls on election day, many of the above choices will no doubt be made.
If black voters make any of the above choices besides the first and third choices, Herman Cain can win in 2012.
Cross posted at American Descent
I've been busy/lazy lately. I have a day off today, so I've decided to offer my thoughts on a couple of things that have recently dominated the news, while I have time.
First, the Harold Camping "end of the world" fiasco. Of course, we all knew this was ridiculous. As soon as he decided on the exact day and hour the world would end, people who actually read the Bible (let alone understand it)automatically knew it wouldn't happen on May 21, 2011 at 6:00 P.M. EST.
It was a self defeating prediction.
If God had originally planned to end it all on that particular date and time, He would have simply changed His plans, right?
Perhaps not. The way I see it, even if Camping had been correct, it doesn't mean he knew when it was going to happen. It would have only meant he guessed right. One second after the event, all the world would have known that Camping's prediction was merely a coincidence.
Nevertheless, we quoted the verse in Mark 13:32, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.", but most of us left out the next verse, which reads, "Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come."
It is in that context that I submit Camping did us all a service if, as the Bible says, "we have ears to hear".
I don't know about my two readers, but I have a renewed faith as a result of the "end of the world" thing. It has made me more cognizant of my responsibility to live and share my faith. By heeding the warning to be ready, we make more of an effort to try to be Christlike.
Camping has reminded us, in a bizarre, backwards kind of way, that we should live our lives as if Jesus is coming today. because, He just might.
I wish I could put it more clearly, but hopefully, my two readers will get my point.
Now, the entrance of Herman Cain into the 2012 Presidential race:
In the end, he probably won't be nominated to be the Republican candidate, but from my perspective (which, as my two long time readers may attest, is from about four rows back in the bleacher seats waaaaay out in left field), Herman Cain would have the best chance of all of the Republican hopefuls of defeating Obama in 2012.
Mind you, I do not say he is the best candidate. That remains to be seen. But, barring some revelation of malfeasance or impropriety or some other negative, besides being labeled an "Uncle Tom", an "Oreo", or a "house nigger" or some other racially tinged insult (because you know, the Democrats will make those charges and more), he can defeat Obama.
At this point, I believe the defeat of Obama is more important than putting the best Republican in the oval office.
Let's save the country first, then worry about improving it.
Here is the reason I say Herman Cain can defeat Obama:
96% of black voters voted for Obama in 2008. I saw a poll a couple of months ago (which I can't seem to find now. Perhaps a reader can have more success locating it than I did), which indicated that 96% of black voters still intend to vote for Obama in 2012.
Now, 96% of the black vote in 2008 can be a coincidence. Other conclusions can possibly be drawn from those numbers. There could well be some other reasons that so many black voters voted for Obama other than race. Even a white Democrat traditionally gets somewhere over 80% of the black vote regardless of his stance on the issues.
But, two years later, even after it became clear to black voters that Obama will not pay their mortgage, or buy them gas for their cars as he promised, the staggering percentage of blacks who would still vote for Obama makes it as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer that blacks overwhelmingly support Obama simply because he is, like them, black.
So, obviously, it doesn't matter that Obama has consistently betrayed the black voters in America. It doesn't matter that he has failed to keep any of the promises he made to his black constituency. It doesn't matter that many of his policies have been harmful rather than helpful to black Americans.
They will vote according to race.
He could be as discriminatory against blacks as the Ku Klux Klan, but because he is black himself, an overwhelming majority of blacks would still vote for him.
It is estimated that blacks make up approximately 12 to 13% of the United States' population. In the 2008 election, blacks turned out to vote in record numbers. Those black voters swept Obama into office. Without the black vote, McCain would have probably won.
Enter Herman Cain. A black man.
If Cain is the Republican nominee facing off against Barack Hussein Obama in the 2012 election, black voters will suddenly face a choice they have never had to make before.
They will have to choose between two black men for president.
And therefore, a dilemma.
The way I see it, there are more than two choices for blacks under this scenario:
1. A Democrat black candidate.
2. A Republican black candidate.
3. To vote for a black man who offers empty promises of "hope and change" but has failed to deliver.
4. To vote for a black man who offers real common sense solutions to the problems facing all Americans, including black Americans, and not just "bumper sticker" slogans..
5. Vote for a third party candidate.
6. Vote for a write-in candidate, or
7. Don't vote at all.
Recent polls (that I did find) indicate blacks are disappointed in Obama. Some estimate that as many as 15-20% of those who voted for Obama in 2008 do not approve of the job he's done thus far.
This doesn't necessarily mean they won't vote for him again in 2012.
However, if that disappointment manifests itself in the polls on election day, many of the above choices will no doubt be made.
If black voters make any of the above choices besides the first and third choices, Herman Cain can win in 2012.
Cross posted at American Descent
Friday, May 20, 2011
Surprise! The Media Lies!
“In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” ~ George W. Bush
The AOL/Huffington Post says, the US has always supported the 1967 borders thing.
It is a lie.
Here's an article that says exactly opposite.
Obviously, Barack Hussein Obama hates Israel.
The AOL/Huffington Post says, the US has always supported the 1967 borders thing.
It is a lie.
Here's an article that says exactly opposite.
Obviously, Barack Hussein Obama hates Israel.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
A Funny Video
I love anything that's politically incorrect, except that horrible TV show of that name, which of course, was not politically incorrect at all.
Ladies, please understand. This is sarcastic comedy.
Ladies, please understand. This is sarcastic comedy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
