| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
With that haircut I assumed he was Secret Service.  ( why go for low hanging fruit?) (Message edited by aesquire on May 24, 2014) | ||
| Sifo |
Back to the lethal injection vs. abortion issue, I guess lethal injection is OK... As long as it's part of an abortion procedure.  New York Abortion Bill Allows Shooting Babies Through the Heart With Poison to Kill Them | ||
| Aesquire |
Current policy is abortion is legal through the 500th trimester. Law of the land, no sense in fighting it. ( that's what they tell you about Common Core, too ) True, reports are 1 in 3 babies in Detroit are aborted. Must be a failure in Obamacare to get free birth control out in a timely manner. And when the delayed provisions of Obamacare kick in, abortion for the elderly will begin in earnest. All in all a triumph for the Eugenics crowd. Planned parenthood is finally getting it's founders dream up to speed. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378397/trigg er-unhappy-jonah-goldberg Trigger warning: I am going to make fun of “trigger warnings.” Of course, if you’re the sort of person who takes trigger warnings very seriously, you probably don’t read this column too often. So maybe my mockery will miss its target, sort of like making fun of the Amish on the Internet — it’s not like they’ll find out. In fairness, the Amish are actually very impressive people. Even though some Amish communities are more tolerant of technology than the stereotypes suggest, their Anabaptist puritanical streak leaves me cold. On the whole, I like modernity. I may not love every new fad of the last few centuries, but mark me down as a fan of refrigeration, Netflix, modern dentistry, universal suffrage, the internal-combustion engine, and all that stuff. Here’s another thing about the Amish. They don’t expect everyone else to pussyfoot around them. You can’t say the same thing about the trigger-unhappy folks making headway on college campuses. Before I continue, I should explain what a trigger warning is. It started on left-wing and feminist websites. Like a spoiler alert in a movie review or a more specific version of the movie-rating system, trigger warnings are intended to alert very sensitive people that some content might set off, or trigger, their post-traumatic stress disorder or simply offend some people. According to most accounts, this was a conscientious accommodation of people who’d been raped or otherwise horribly abused. But soon the practice metastasized. Trigger warnings were provided for an ever-increasing, and ridiculous, list of “triggers.” For example, one website offers a trigger warning that it contains images of small holes, lest it terrify people suffering from trypophobia, which is — you guessed it — a fear of clusters of small holes. Another website warns visitors that it will not tolerate any debate over the validity of its trigger warnings for, among many other things, trypophobia, pictures from high places, audio of snapping fingers, or images or discussion of spiders, food, escalators, or animals in wigs. ........ Robert Heinlein called this "the crazy years" in his Future History series.... actually that was the 70's through 90's. We are just about ready for the religious dictatorship he wrote about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_History_(Heinlein) I've long refused to bow to Political Correctness. It's a Soviet concept to make people shut up. It's still not polite to call a Jew a "kike" or a dark skinned guy a "nigger", etc. etc. simply because those words were, and are, used to whip up hate at the Other and label someone less than human so you can exploit or kill them without bothering your pretty little souls. Oppressed people have often adopted such words for themselves as defiance against those who oppress them. So don't go bitching that some comedian or singer "uses a word you can't". You can use a word for your people. Don't got a good one? Aahhhhhh, gee, not oppressed enough? get over it. There's plenty of oppression on the way for everyone. Especially those white male Christians. ( hint, you'll be oppressed by white males claiming to be Christians, just better, more enlightened Christians than you ) | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/05/27/a-moment-of-co urage-glenn-praises-espn-commentators-bold-condemn ation-of-political-correctness/ Don't watch ESPN, usually. Steven A. Smith, you now have a fan. That took balls. The truth often does. I'd very much like to buy you a beverage of your choice. Right on. RANT WARNING. There's been a lot of crap out there on that old jerk who owns a sports team and told his mistress he didn't want to have her take Magic Johnson etc? to his game. I haven't bothered to listen to his crap. Don't really care. Old jerk. A cursory glance shows that this guy, the old rich team franchise owner, is a real piece of work. To be clear.... I already don't like the guy since he takes his mistress to games. Wife isn't happy, looks like? Jerk. I'd like to be more enlightened about this kind of thing, I just find this kind of rich so I get laid thing unpleasant. Maybe I'm too square. Don't like the guy without meeting him.  I'm all for old guy gets hot chicks thing... Do Not get me wrong! Love to be "the most interesting man..." dude from the beer ad. END RANT>>>>>>>> My rambling incoherent point? I think it's crazy that the issue is NOT that this old rich jerk had a private conversation taped by his mistress, and it's going to screw his family. WTF? Don't have all the facts here, myself, but isn't this the mistress that his Wife is suing to get back a house, and a bunch of cars that cost more than I make in a decade? This is a rerun of "Dallas", right? So she "outs" him and his family gets screwed? Serious issues of Privacy, Being recorded, and Don't You Ever Dare Say Anything Not PC Enough! Or Suffer The Wrath Of The Public! Don't you think? | ||
| Aesquire |
http://thedevilspanties.com/archives/9951 | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379097/dont- let-mass-killers-hold-culture-hostage-jonah-goldbe rg | ||
| Aesquire |
http://pjmedia.com/blog/too-rolling-stoned/?single page=true 3. Taxing The Rich Doesn’t Hurt Economic Growth. The best argument against this tired claim is that partially un-taxing the rich led to economic booms in the 1960s, the “Seven Fat Years” from 1983-1990, and (with the help of welfare reform increasing the supply of labor) Bill Clinton’s second term. Until the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) economy appeared in the spring of 2008, the economy generally grew nicely for a quarter-century with only two historically minor hiccups. Even Clinton himself “famously answered ‘No’ when asked if any nation had ever taxed its way to prosperity.” The alleged goal of taxing the rich disproportionately is to reduce income and wealth inequality, both of which are allegedly on the rise, according to left-revered Thomas Piketty. There’s only one problem: Last week, Chris Giles at the Financial Times found that accidental and deliberate errors in Piketty’s work completely nullify the French economist’s conclusions. In other words, “There is no obvious upward trend (in wealth distribution).” The article has some interesting links embedded in it. | ||
| Aesquire |
"Ask the Indians what happens when you don't control immigration. " Tagline from internet forum | ||
| Aesquire |
Offend a lefty today. You'll feel good, the world will be a better place and they might learn something. That last is kinda doubtful, but it's probably the only way they will short of getting mugged. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379301/left- offended-quin-hillyer | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379158/idiot s-lose-their-religion-carlos-alberto-montaner Proof that people can grow up. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-new-regre ssives/?singlepage=true and that many refuse. | ||
| Hootowl |
"I suggest that we call today’s liberals “regressives” — fundamentalists who are wedded to self-serving deductive doctrines that cannot sustain empirical scrutiny and exist mostly as fossilized theologies of the 1960s." There it is. | ||
| Aesquire |
In defense of fossilized theologies...... The "free love" and "freedom" movement had a lot going for them. If you add responsibility for your actions in the stew pot, you have pretty good ideals. The Communism part, heavily sponsored by the KGB, to exploit the "student masses" was the bitter poison in the beer cup that was the 1960's. Time and time again, rich evil old men use the idealism of the College Student to use them as bullet sponges, shock troops, and ardent, ( and physically attractive ) revolutionaries. Then when the power has changed hands, usually kill them, as no one wants revolution indoctrinated punks around to mess up the New Normal. Best recent example is Egypt, where the Students and Normal folk, supported by the US Regime, got the old prez-for-life tossed out. Whoopee! Then the evil old rich guys took over, and the killing began. The number of murders committed by the New Regime's thugs will never be reported in the US, since Barry was an ally. When it got bad enough, the military had a coup. How sucky does it have to be for Military Rule to be better? | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379472/peopl e-want-rights-much-rice-lee-edwards the 25th anniversary of Tiananmen Square Still denied by the Chinese Communists, a lesson in courage and oppression. | ||
| Macbuell |
I think it's crazy that the issue is NOT that this old rich jerk had a private conversation taped by his mistress, and it's going to screw his family. WTF? Don't have all the facts here, myself, but isn't this the mistress that his Wife is suing to get back a house, and a bunch of cars that cost more than I make in a decade? This is a rerun of "Dallas", right? So she "outs" him and his family gets screwed? Serious issues of Privacy, Being recorded, and Don't You Ever Dare Say Anything Not PC Enough! Or Suffer The Wrath Of The Public! Don't you think? I'm with you on this. I think it is very scary that a private conversation in the privacy of your own home can force you to sell something you own when you do not want to sell it. No laws were broken. All that was done was insensitive, racist and politically incorrect statements were made. And due to those statements, you are forced, FORCED, to sell your own property. Political correctness is just one other thing that is ruining our country. (Message edited by macbuell on June 04, 2014) | ||
| Aesquire |
I don't like the guy based on public behavior. I know there are often morals clauses in contracts. ( on the Drew Carey show, he won The Batmobile, and got it taken back because he got caught making out in it LOL ) I don't doubt he's violated them, but no one said a word until an angry mistress illegally taped him and made it public. Slippery slope crap indeed. | ||
| Aesquire |
The Progressive wants the Conservative to shut up. The Conservative wants the Progressive to keep talking. I'm one of those scary guys that reads Huckleberry Finn to children. (Message edited by aesquire on June 04, 2014) | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/379968/fox-mo st-trusted-name-news-jonah-goldberg | ||
| Hootowl |
Nice. Liberals trust Jon Stewart more than they trust CNN. Does that say more about liberals, or CNN? | ||
| Aesquire |
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/06/17/the-quote-tha t-should-end-hillary-clintons-political-career/ | ||
| Fredfast |
"Wait, what? Americans have the right, given to us not by government but by our Creator" Wait, what? Would that be like Moses and the ten commandments? | ||
| Pwnzor |
Yes. We definitely don't get our rights from the likes of Mrs. Clinton. "We cannot let a minority of people hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people" WHO the F__K is this "we" she is talking about? The government? The one our founders created with LIMITED powers, and those not specifically enumerated do not, in fact, exist? That's exactly what she means, and when the seven trumpets have sounded, I hope I'm there to see her burn. | ||
| Reindog |
Our Powers are not granted to us by the Government and that is why we fought the American Revolution. Does anyone disagree with this bedrock foundation of America? We are going to have a little chat if any American disagrees. | ||
| Oldog |
Hey Fred Start Reading Here you obviously don't understand..... http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/ From the Declaration of independence We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.} Thought provoking, this gives some credence to the idea that our liberties are GOD given and not from government... Granted the concept seems to be a bit much for some to understand..... (Message edited by oldog on June 19, 2014) | ||
| Pwnzor |
Tom, You are not permitted to hold that viewpoint. | ||
| Fredfast |
" that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," Well I guess the whole idea goes out the window if your not into creationism. | ||
| Aesquire |
I'm not into "creationism". The meaning is clear to me. It's to be expected that one who hold truth and honesty in contempt would have troubles with it. That explains your lack of comprehension on a wide variety of topics, and why history makes you confused. The whole idea of "objective reality" bothers folk who live in the world of leftist Ideology. The term "objective reality" was coined by Russian Generals who had to interact with their Political Masters. When your religion is that "lies make it so", the very basis of Dialectical materialism, you cannot understand why your will, ( or the Will of the Holy State ) does not get the results your lies told you it would. Generals HAD to use a neutral phrase to break though that insanity, temporarily, and it had to be acceptable to the religion of Marxist-Leninism. So, for example, when explaining that you needed to send a larger number of untrained troops to attack German, battle hardened SS troops, A general would have to explain that "objective reality" outweighed the political desires of the politician. They shot a lot of Generals before they worked out the right language to allow people dealing with the real world to talk to religious fanatics who believe their own lies, and evil exploiters who pretended to piety. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359778/worse -new-normal-mark-steyn | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380670/incre asingly-expensive-chicken-every-pot-kevin-d-willia mson |
