Oh, wait . . . that's from an alternate universe
And the blah-blah-blog continues . . .
By my side I have chosen a man with a big heart from a small town.
Seriously? Big? Like big butts? My gosh, the man has no shame! He's obviously making reference to black girls
with sizable posteriors. And "small town" is obviously a reference to rural America—you know, like where the plantations were?
. . . last night America got to see what I saw in Paul Ryan, a strong and caring leader who is down to earth
Stop! Did you catch that? Earth. Earth! Like digging in the dirt. Like slaves—black slaves in chains on plantations,
digging in the earth, right where Romney thinks they ought to be.
I love the way he lights up around his kids. And how he's not embarrassed to
show the world how much he loves his mom.
OMG I can't believe it. Romney is saying that urban black kids steal iPods!
But Paul, I still like the playlist on my iPod better than yours.
Four years ago, I know that many Americans felt a fresh excitement about the possibilities of a new president. That
choice was not the choice of our party, but Americans always come together after elections . . .
Did you see that?! Did you freaking see that! "The driven ones." The ones who have chauffeurs. Black Chauffeurs.
Just shameless. The privileged Miss Daisies being driven around by the oppressed black chauffeur.
. . . We're a nation of immigrants, we're the children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the ones who wanted
a better life. The driven ones.
This is the essence of the American experience.
American? What are you saying, that Barack Obama's not an American?
. . . You deserved it because, when it cost more to fill up your car, you cut out moving lights, and
put in longer hours. Or when you lost that job
Okay, now everyone knows that "job" is racial code. Romney's saying blacks are too lazy to get a job. Clearly racial code. You can't say "job" without being racist.
that paid $22.50 an hour, benefits, you took two jobs at $9 an hour . . .
You need an "American?"
But his promises gave way to disappointment and division.
This isn't something we have to accept. Now is the moment when we can do something. And with your help, we will do something.
. . . Tonight, that American flag is still there on the Moon. And I don't doubt for a second that Neil Armstrong's spirit is
still with us. That unique blend of optimism, humility, and the
utter confidence that, when the world needs someone to do that,
you need an American.
Well, it doesn't get any more blatant than that. I don't have to tell you that's a dig at Obama's birth certificate.
That's just Romney throwing a bone to his birther supporters.
. . . Unconditional love is a gift that Ann and I have tried to to pass on to our
sons and now to our children. All the laws and legislation is in the world will never
heal the world like the loving hearts and arms of loving mothers
Just makes me sick. Clearly a dig at urban black families without fathers. The only "Americans" that Romney recognizes are white people with two parents.
You know, if every child could go to sleep feeling wrapped in the love of their family and God's love, this world would be a far more gentle place.
Again with the reference to agriculture—plantations! Slaves in chains on plantations!
My mom and dad were married for 64 years . And if you
wondered what their secret was, you could have asked the local
Because every day, dad gave mom a Rose, which he put on the bedside table. That is how she found out the day my father
died. She went looking for him, because that morning there was no rose.
Yeah, but black guys steal cars, right Mr. Romney? Isn't that what you're really saying?
. . . I grew up in Detroit, in love with cars. And wanted to be a car guy like my dad.
. . . to read when our son or daughter calls from college to talk about which job offer they should take,
Yeah, maybe your white sons and daughters, 'cause you plan to pass a law saying minorities can't go to college.
Harry Reid wants you to prove that you don't!
And don't think I missed that "jobs" racial code.
and you try not to choke up when you hear that the one they like best is not too far from home.
There he goes, using Obama's African name that Chris Matthews says he's "saddled" with.
. . . Hope and change had a powerful appeal. But tonight I would ask a simple question: if
you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldn't feel that way now, that he is President Obama?
You know there is something wrong with the kind of job
he has done as president when the best feeling you had was the day
you voted for him.
What is that? Is that a dig at blacks that don't shop at WalMart? What just happened there? I don't know, but I can
guarantee you it's a dig on Barack Obama! It's all about Obama, the greatest President in the history of Everything!
The president has not disappointed you because he wanted
to. The president has disappointed America because he hasn't
lead America in the right direction. He took office without the
basic qualification that most Americans have, and one that was
essential to the task at hand. He had almost no experience
working in a business. Jobs to him are about government.
. . . That business we started with 10 people has now grown into
a great American success story. Some of the companies we helped
start are names you know you've have heard from tonight. An
office company called Staples, where I'm pleased to see the
Obama campaign has been shopping.
. . . That's why every president since the Great Depression who came before the American people asking for a second term could
look back at the last four years and say with satisfaction, "You're are better off than you were four years ago."
Okay, I'm done. This is just too sickening.
Except Jimmy Carter.
And except this president.
Jimmy Carter? The peanut farmer? Grouping a peanut farmer with a black man? Clearly a reference to slaves on a plantation.
Just disgusting. Vile. Despicable.
Shame on you Mr. Romney. Shame on you and shame on all you racist Republicans who aren't going to vote for the black man for
Okay, so I coded that last one with a red title, like others that I'd recommend. Sorry. It was a little long, but it was pretty good,
Back during WWII the German's Enigma code was impossible to crack because it was constantly changing.
Sounds like the democrats' racial code . . .
Just the facts, ma'am
The post above is how it should be done. Get to the point. Quickly. Zing!
Here's how I do it.
It's easy to think democrats are stupid. I mean, they can't tell the difference between killing babies and putting serial killers to death, they think taxing causes prosperity, they think guns cause crime but still let Rosie O'Donnell have access to ice cream scoops . . .
Then there's Chris Matthews, Michael Moore-on, Joe Biden, Rachel Maddow, Al Franken, Al Sharpton . . . just not room here to list the never-ending parade of idiots with double-digit IQs who represent the greatest thinking of the democrat party.
But they did come up with a piece of technology that mirrors the achievement of the best German engineers.
You remember the Enigma code machine from WWII. The idea behind breaking codes is to find patterns. You track down patterns and then figure out which coded letters represent which real text.
So the Germans came up with something that's dynamic. Even if you figure out the correlation for one letter, it changes for the next.
That's just like the democrats and their racial code. It wasn't racial to blast Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, etc. But then it became racist to not vote for Obama. Constantly changing.
Asking the President a question is racial. Okay. Got it.
Wait, but "Y'all back in chains!" isn't racial. Okay . . .
Wait! Now "anger" is racial? Crap! I'll never get this ingenious thing figured out.
The coming storm
I did it again
Okay, so I posted multiple days on one day again. Meaning, if you haven't been here in a few days, keep reading.
Here are the mathematics of the veiled flip-off thing.
Wait! Don't run away! It's not bad mathematics. It's the . . . you know . . . the other kind . . .
The idea behind the covert flip-off is to make the other guy look like a raving paranoid lunatic.
You get to insult him, but when he calls you on it, he looks like he's seeing phantoms where nothing exists.
If he is a raving paranoid lunatic—like in the case of that Toure whack job—you get to skip the
first step of the equation where you covertly insult him. You just go about your business and he'll make himself
look like a raving paranoid lunatic.
Speaking of Mathematics and Strategy
This is that Wild Weasel trick. We know they're out there, but how do we get them to expose their positions? Even better, can we design an automated control loop that eradicates them from our environs without us even having to do anything?
I found that one while looking for this one
I'm glad we're not letting up on that. Obama has said some really stupid things. The media give him a pass. I'm glad we're not rolling over for him and his gangsters in the media.
Now that there is some fine journalism!
Speaking of "journalists"
I'm sorry, I know you've been really anxious for me to get back to
this piece where Limbaugh talks about the "fractured" media.
Maybe you don't remember it on accounta' cuz you were so in awe about my amazingly insightful observation on dissidents in that same post. You know, the one about how the left celebrates free-thinking and dissidents . . . in the abstract in other countries. But here in this country in real life they want Fox News banned 'cause they don't conform to the state-sanctioned thinking.
I honestly don't have the time, energy or inclination to constantly showcase the hypocrisy of the left. Fortunately, I don't need to, seein's how you already know all about it.
Okay, where were we . . . ?
Oh, yeah, we were getting back to that Limbaugh piece about the "fractured" media.
The point of that segment was mostly about the age-old double standard the democrats play the game under. They get to be as nasty as they want, but even when we're not nasty they whine and cry about how nasty we are. It's also about how insane they are, to find the scent of race in a dish that has no such flavor.
You know the deal with that—they find race in nothing because they are insane, but they're also crazy like a fox. Race is the indefensible strike. It's so sacrosanct that you can't argue once it's been invoked . . . at least, you couldn't back when it meant anything.
Read the link. It's good stuff about the playbook of the democrats, even though you've seen their plays over and over and over again.
Time for a section break
But I want to touch on the part where Limbaugh talks about Time magazine calling a truce. The left gets to be as nasty as they want— reporters treating Bush with disdain, calling Bush stupid, twisting everything Republicans say, calling us hateful names. But—and Limbaugh says it best—when we started "laying gloves on" Obama, then all of a sudden they decided it was time for a truce.
You remember this from the 2004 election. Kerry launched every kind of nastiness he could at Bush. Then, when he got his clocked cleaned in the election he said "Wait! Wait! Now is the time for healing," meaning 'share the power with us.'
Remember how that one worked out for us.
Do not fall for the rope-a-dope. Ever.
Evil people are predictable: they call a truce, then start shooting. Every single time. Democrats do it, Palestinians do it . . . all evil people do it.
The problem is, non-evil people are also predictable. They agree to the truce, then they get shot.
Every. Single. Time.
The Collapse Gap
A friend sent me this. It's a presentation by a Russian guy named Dimitry Orlov called
Closing the Collapse Gap. He basically says that the United States will have an economic collapse at some point, just like the Soviet Union did, but we won't be ready for it like the Soviet Union was.
ADD moment: This has a tie in to the depression. You know the deal—the depression became The Great Depression because the socialist FDR wouldn't let the economy recover (and the dogs kept returning to their vomit, because of the standby democrat trick "Think how bad it would be without our policies!")
But as it turns out, that deprivation toughened us. We were prepared for war because we've been through such a hard time.
Now that we are in good times, we are soft.
Thirty years ago I illustrated this with an analogy. Low tensile strength steel will yield. You load it and it gives way. Hard steel doesn't yield. You load it and load it and it deflects, but doesn't yield. . . until Bam! All at once it gives way. That's why you don't make your roll cages out of aircraft steel. Aircraft steel is stronger but has lower energy absorption . . . I'm getting out in the weeds here.
The point is, the high tensile steels takes a lot, but when it gives, it just breaks. It doesn't yield and come back for more.
That's what Orlov is saying. They were already starving and using the bathroom in outhouses in Russia. Someone had to tell them the economy had collapsed or they would have never known.
Read the article.
So you don't see paragraph after paragraph that you're going to have to plow through and not read this. But it's the same post.
Here's where I have the beef with Orlov. He makes some excellent points, but he doesn't understand Capitalism. He thinks he does, but he can't. He's never really experienced it.
Orlov says that empires have to fail. Period. That may be what his experience taught him, but it's not true.
The beauty of capitalism is that it is sustainable. It's based on true principles that regulate themselves, and it is
sustainable. Capitalism works. Period.
Here's the problem:
When you mess with the system the way Obama, the occupy crowd, and George Soros have, it's not capitalism anymore. It's
something different; something corrupted. When you distort capitalism to something that isn't based on self-regulating
true principles, it's no longer capitalism, and yes, it will fail.
The Perfect Example
That's a perfect example of . . . of . . . well, I have no idea what to call it. But it's that deal I flap my gums about
where you trade on the legitimacy of a real principle to sell your counterfeit.
Obama's programs fail because they suck. He says it's because we haven't let them be implemented in their full glory. He
says we are screwing up the purity of his programs.
That's bullcrap. But the principle is true when applied correctly—in the right direction. He's using it backwards.
Obama is screwing up the purity of the American way.
Capitalism does work. But when he screws with it and prevents it from working, of course it won't work. But it's not the
fault of capitalism. When someone pours orange juice in your milk you don't drink it. But it's not the fault of the milk.
Perverting the system
The problem isn't with the system, it's with the fact that evil people have subverted the system. It's like websites where
people give feedback on dealings they've had with a car dealership. That's the system. It's a good and useful thing. Then
when employees of the dealership post fake feedback like "I don't know why everyone's complaining here, I had a wonderful
experience . . . " That's subverting the system. It no longer works. It's based on people using it properly. But evil people can't do that.
You see it all kinds of places. You see it with people trying to get higher rankings on Google, and sending you things that
look like bills to try to trick you into changing your hosting service, and sending you official looking documents to get you
to sign up for a warranty you never had.
And you see it with people trying to subvert the free enterprise system. Our system works, but then people change it—add
stupid regulations and tricky rules to undermine the base principles of the system—then when things go wrong because of those
bastardizations, they point to that as proof that our system doesn't work.
Our system only works when people are somewhat trustworthy. It's funny, 'cause it's based on the fundamental that people
are not angels—that they will predictably act to fulfill their best interest. But that interest has to be informed and
forward looking. When scoundrels (what's a better single word that means "evil people?" Something more broad than "democrats")
pose as customers or your internet provider or a government agency, that make the system less useful, often to the point that
it quits working altogether.
It's like John Adams said. When you have a system based on freedom, that presupposes a certain level of responsibility.
You've seen that, too. The ACLU and villains of their ilk are constantly trying to find gray areas in the system that they
can exploit to make the engine miss. They are there. They have to be to allow freedom. But when those idiots make us put
patches on things that aren't broken, it defiles the whole thing.
Here's an example—not a good example, but an example. We don't want to meddle in religion. So the Indian religion smokes
peyote. Uh . . . well . . . I guess that's . . . you know what? Go ahead. If that's your religion, I guess we have to allow it.
So now all of a sudden half the druggies on the planet discover they're part Indian so they can legally get stoned. We
haven't done it yet (that's why it's not a good example) but then we have to go in and get explicit about that and tie it
all up in piles of legalese, it ceases to be they system that was designed to safeguard freedom.
So I guess those occupy socialist morons are right, it is time for their system. They have proven they can't function in a
system that requires virtue and responsibility. Ultimately there will be order. If the populace is not responsible enough
to behave themselves, a system will develop that controls them. The Occupy socialist and their ilk represent evil, and evil
will be controlled, but can't be governed by a free system
Milk or orange juice?
I've seen socialist-type systems have some success in some places. Norway is a beautiful and peaceful place. You don't see
many poor people there. You don't see many rich people there, either. That's the way their system works.
I would never live there. If you own land in Norway, that's public land. Anyone can camp on your land anytime they want.
They can't destroy your crops to do it, but if you have land that's not in crops, the law says that it's public land. That's
just an example of the kind of freedom you give up in that system. A lot of people are willing to do that. If you are, please
move to Norway.
But it works for those people.
Capitalism works for us. If you were to try to infuse our brand of capitalism into Norway's system, you'd lose what they
have that they like. That's what's happening here. Obama is trying to infuse our system with his brand of socialism, and the
hybrid does not work.
(That's not exactly what he's trying to do—a full treatise on the psychosis that drives that man is well outside the scope of
this blog, but you get the point.)
And proud of it!
Obama's programs are a nightmare. We fight them. He says we are the party of no. That's not exactly right. I'd have to say
we're the party of "Oh, Hell no!"
When you try to harm my family and I stand in your way, you bet your socialist posterior adipose tissue I am going to say
no—or whatever it takes to keep you at bay.
I'm sure there are probably some interesting insights on this blog. Problem is, you have to slog through lots and lots
and lots) of words to get to it. If you know of a more boring person on the planet, please don't let us ever get near each other. The physics of that interaction would surely collapse the universe.
But I did make a note of this, so I have to post it. Sorry.
Here's another example of the "trading on a truth to sell a counterfeit" concept. Using an if-then scenario to find proof of
something is a valid methodology. If the problem were in the ignition system, then pouring fuel into the intake wouldn't make
the engine run.
But it's often use improperly. This is one that isn't used in the wrong direction so much as just used . . . well, stupidly.
'If birds can fly then why is snow not green?' type of logic. It's just often a non-sequitur—an conclusion that doesn't
inevitably follow the premise, although it could.
Two thousand years ago a thief on a cross used that kind of non-sequitur. "Well, if you really were the son of God, you'd
save yourself and us, too." Nope. Sorry, I am but I won't. Thanks for playing.
Since the incorrect use involves incorrect thinking, it's typically used by idiots trying to be clever. For example, Bart
Sibrel's absolute incontrovertible "proof" that Neil Armstrong didn't walk on the moon was that he never wrote a book about
it. Typically it's phrased as a question: "If he really did land on the moon, why didn't he write a book about it?"
Walking on the moon could lead to writing a book. But not writing a book doesn't equal not walking on the moon.
The technical term for that kind of reasoning is stoo-pid.
What's that? Oh, you're right. That sounds like Harry Stoo-pid Reid (legal name Harry Stoo-pid Evil Piece of Crap Sub-human
Indescribably Despicable Moron Imbecile Reid). He's the great logician who said "Well, if Romney did pay taxes he would have
given me access to all his private personal records that are none of my damn business."
To which you might say "Well, if you didn't do anything criminal in that land deal, why haven't you released the details of it?"
For contrast, here's a valid one that Rush asked: If the stimulus worked, why didn't Obama do another one?
Just messin' witchoo
You know the deal. We landed on the moon. Multiple times. People who doubt that are crazy.
So "John" comes up to me and asks what I think about "Ron" talking about how we never landed on the moon.
First, a little background on "John." In a meeting once, someone asked whether the double-angle bolsters drilled faster
than the single-angle ones. A friend of mine said "It's like the square root of a million—We'll just never know." That was
funny, right there, but even funnier was when "John" said "What? We can calculate the square root of a million."
"John" is one of those people you sometimes come across who cannot comprehend non-literal communication.
So now "John" is asking me to ridicule "Ron," which I normally would love to do. I've got a confederate in "John" in
the fact that he shares my view that "Ron" is crazy. But I've also got a dilemma, because in "John" I have an opportunity
to mess with someone.
What do you think? Of course I messed with him!
I totally took "Ron's" side of the argument, because it was so indefensible that it drove "John" batty. No way was I
going to miss out on tormenting such an easy target. Easiest thing in the world, because not only did I not have to make
sense, but it was more entertaining to not make sense.
What's that? Hmmm. You know, you're right! Now that you mention it, that is exactly like the democrats.
No one can believe the crap they spout, but it drives us crazy. And then we have to point out the absurdity, at
which point they just respond with even more absurdity.
So the democrats totally trash Palin and Ann Romney and SE Cupp and countless other women, then they float this idea that
they are the party that respects women.
It's insane. It's crazy. It makes no sense. We bite it, hook, line and sinker. "What?! Why, you dirty, rotten . . . you are not!"
Then they know they've got our number. Now we're just getting our buttons pushed. They run a "community organizer" then say Mitt
Romney's background doesn't qualify him to be President. They faux freak over every word we say, but then . . . Joe Biden?
They say . . . well, there's not enough room here to list all the insanity they pull on us. Besides, you already know.
You've gotta' give 'em credit. They are trying to push it so far that we clue in. They really are. They still can't believe we
didn't wise up after crooked dealer Harry Reid did that deranged rant about Mitt Romney. They figured we'd have to slap our
foreheads after Biden did his "Put y'all back in chains!" stunt followed by that whack job saying that "angry" was racial code.
But we still haven't figured out they're messing with us, so they continue to use us for entertainment.
They're going back to their old standby. At the same time they are proclaiming that we are the party that disrespects
women, for the keynote speaker at their convention they get Bill Clinton—you remember Bill Clinton,
the guy who raped Juanita Broadrick, sexually assaulted Kathleen Willey, sexually harassed who knows how many women—that
Bill Clinton. (By the way, Clinton did rape Juanita Broadrick. Harry Reid says so, until Clinton can prove otherwise.)
I can't believe I fell for it for this long. Good one, guys! It all makes sense now. All these ludicrous things you pretend
like you believe—all the contradictions and non-sequiturs and conflicting and indefensible positions . . .
You guys are funny!
Mathematics vs. Reality
You've heard about
the study by the two University of Colorado professors that predicts that Mitt Romney will win the election. These guys have predicted the winner with this model since 1980.
The forecasting model they have developed is unique in that it doesn't measure popular vote, rather it uses more than
one state-level measures of economic conditions. I'm not even expert enough to be a neophyte at this kind of thing, but
to me it seems kind of like using technical and fundamentals to pick stocks (rather than one or the other). I'm sure the
math and science behind the model is incomprehensible, but it has worked in the last eight elections.
So you're thinking, is it possible God might be willing to give America another 1980-style second chance?
You know the deal—Mitt Romney has to win this election. Another four years of Barack Obama is not the end of the world,
but it would absolutely be the end of America as we've come to know it. But in your head you can't imagine Romney actually
winning. But this forecast that has always worked is saying that he will. What gives?
Fortunately you have me to explain it all for you.
The rules that the forecast are based on don't apply in this case. America doesn't elect people like Barack Obama. Even
understanding that the model predicted Obama would win the last election, I'm guessing it didn't predict Barack Obama as much
as "not McCain." So the rules don't apply when you have a ringer candidate like Obama. Americans do not elect people like him,
but they did.
You know why as well as I do. We're not allowed to say it, but you know why. Nobody voted for the man, they voted for themself.
They voted so that they could say "Look at me! Look how cool and enlightened I am. My vote made history!" Not one single person
thoughtfully said "I believe that Barack Hussein Obama is the man that America needs right now."
Second, the forecast is based on the will of the voters. It assumes that the results of the election will represent how citizens
actually voted. Obama is not going to let that happen. Do you really believe that he's going to leave that decision up to the
will of the People? Has he ever ever operated that way? Ever? You know that Obama's machine is already stuffing ballot
boxes, registering dead people and cartoon characters, intimidating voters, fighting any attempt to remove dead people, felons,
and imaginary voters from the registers, stifling military votes—doing everything that gangland Chicago political machines do to
steal elections. Nancy Pelosi herself tipped their hand and told us they were going to steal this election.
Al Gore explained this when they got caught cheating in 1996. He said that sure, they cheated, but they had to. Their "agenda"
was way too important to leave in the hands of the voters. That's Obama's philosophy; it's just what gangsters like him do.
This just in . . .
Barack Obama is a fetid pile of steaming crap.
So Obama's PAC puts out the ad accusing Romney of killing that guy's wife.
Now, a leader might say "I condemn the tone of that ad, I do not agree with that message, and I call on them to retract it."
Instead, Obama says "I don't necessarily think Romney caused her death." Okay, not really leadership-level talk, but about
the best you can expect from a two-bit celebrity without a TelePrompTer. Then the whining starts. "I have nothing to do with
the PAC, I can't control them, I have no say in what they do, even if I wanted to I couldn't tell them I don't like what they're
doing . . . and besides, that ad didn't run that much."
Total bullcrap. The whining and passing the blame are exactly what you've come to expect from The Amateur.
But he's still not done. Next he goes on to say "But . . . !" and essentially says that Romney killed that guy's wife.
What a pile of crap that man is.
America can survive having a worthless President like Barack Obama. What we can't survive is having citizens stupid
enough to re-elect a waste of skin like Barack Obama.
Don't listen to me
Is the purpose of talk radio to inform through entertainment, or entertain through information? You are informing the populace,
but it's easier to inform someone when they don't tune out or fall asleep. Talk radio isn't typically—or I should say "shouldn't
be"—where you get the meat of the political issues. People who call in and say "Rush (Michael, Mark, Jason, Lars, Sean . . .),
you should run for President" are idiots.
Talk radio—and blah-blah-blogs—aren't going to change anybody's mind one way or the other.
I told you the two smartest guys on the radio are Medved and Levin. Listen to Mark Levin, but pay attention to Michael
Medved. Medved has it right. Granted, Levin is more entertaining, but Medved is the model we should be following.
Here's what I mean. When I hear that Toure guy talk about how any word we decide to say is racial coding, I just want to
break his jaw. I really do.
Okay, the liberal who happened in here looking for pictures of naked midgets is now wetting his little dress and running
off to the Huffington Post to tell everyone how violent conservatives are. Good riddance, you pantywaist pervert.
Stay tuned, I explain my irrational propensity for violence in the next post.
But here's the point: I'm not winning any hearts with my bombast. It's kinda' more like what Mark Levin would say, but
I certainly hope nobody uses me as a representation of conservative thought.
This gets into the whole swing voter myth deal. The hearts I'm not winning I couldn't win no matter what, so why not
appeal to my base?
But there's also a chance that if you do agree with me you're turned off by that kind of talk. That's why I don't
listen to Hannity. I just don't like the way he treats people.
So listen to Levin and his "Get of my phone, you big dope!" shtick for entertainment. But pay attention to
Michael Medved and his "stick to the facts and issues and don’t scare people" approach to win over the swing voters.
And don't listen to me.
In defense of violence
Being inclined to violence over someone's words may seem like an irrational response, but I feel like hitting the guy
because it's the logical response. Here's why.
First, I use words to discuss. If you want to have a discussion, let's talk. Let's examine the issues and let's plot out
where we have common ground and where we disagree. But when you start to attack me, it sounds like you want to fight. If
you want to fight, don't be surprised when I break out my fighting tools.
Next, since we use words when we talk, I need to be allowed to use words. When you keep changing the rules so you get to
use words but I don't, I'm going to find an alternate means of expression. If trespassing and vandalism are valid means
for expression in your world, breaking your jaw is valid in mine.
See, you don't get to set the rules. It's funny how you become an expert in my religion when it's convenient for you.
You attack Christians 'cause you figure we're safe. Muslims will cut off your head, but in your mind our scriptures say
we're not allowed to defend ourselves.
Fortunately for me, the way I read the scriptures, the same New Testament that says I have to turn the other cheek for
you says you have to forgive me seven times seventy when I don't.
Miller on Life
Okay, back to talk radio, then I'll let you go for the day.
I tell you Medved and Levin are the smartest guys on the radio, and you say "What about Dennis Miller?"
I don't know. He's an intellectual. He's more intellectual than those two, but is he smarter? Wait, why are we
categorizing people anyway?
I think Dennis is so much smarter than me, I just can't keep up. That's why my radio on the way home is on Levin
then Miller for commercials, and not the other way around.
Well, today Dennis Miller made this brilliant observation (which takes forever to explain, which explains my radio choice).
He was talking about the plank in the Republican platform that explains the exception for state-funded abortion in the case
of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger. He said that was the core.
Someone called in to debate him on the minutiae of that. Dennis asked the guy a question and the guy responded with a
rhetorical artifice. Dennis asked him again, and again the guy tried to tie him up. Dennis gave him yet another chance—said
"Here's the way I understand the core of it, let me just say that, then I'll give you a chance to talk," and again the guy
came back with something out in the weeds.
Dennis said "Okay, thanks for the call," and I said 'Way to go, Miller-man!'
But then he explained it this way. It's the core. The core is like the big muscles; that 's what you use to get
consistency (in a golf swing—ugh, I can't believe I polluted my sacred blog with a golf reference). You use just
the little muscles and it can vary, but for consistency you use the core. That's why I don't get all shredded up with
Insightful, apt. That's Dennis Miller.
Okay, back to Levin to hear him call someone an idiot and tell him to get off his phone.
The veiled flip off
You know how this works: you scratch your nose with your middle finger, which looks innocent, but the person you're facing knows you're flipping him off.
Because it looks benign, you get a free insult without appearing to have violated any social norms.
If the person you're targeting tries to call you on it, you get a bonus, 'cause he looks like a paranoid lunatic. "Dude, what? I can't scratch my nose?"
The covert middle finger is the classic representation of the technique, but it's often executed as an innocent-sounding phrase that you know has a coded
meaning for the insultee. Like you might say "The workers on the shop floor are running around like hamsters." It sounds perfectly innocent, but your mark
knows you're getting in a dig. "You know my father died in a hamster attack, you heartless beast!"
Two competing elements have to come together for this to work properly: First, the mark has to know that he's being insulted, and second, it has to appear
completely innocent. That way you have plausible deniability, and he looks loony if he says anything.
Usually this maneuver takes a little planning and skill to pull off. But, when you're dealing with idiots and crazy people it runs itself. The whack jobs
will find stuff that isn't there, and come out of hiding.
I'm talking about this idiotic raving lunatic Toure. Romney's just minding his own business giving a speech, and this nutcase comes unhinged. "Did you
hear that? Did you hear that?!! He said 'angry!' Twice!"
Romney never intended to smoke the guy out, but Toure does that job for him. "Woo-hoo! Look how crazy and unstable we are on the left!! Weeeee-heee!
Trust us with making policy! The voices in our heads are never wrong! Wooooo-weeeee!"
Romney comes out unscathed, the democrats reveal themselves as erratic and deranged, and Romney didn't even have to do anything!
We have a winner!
The Phil Hendrie challenge is over. The real life human being most resembling a Phil Hendrie character is . . .
Toure ! ( Really? I guess the guy has so little personality he can fit it all in one name. At least that's the only possible explanation according to Paul Begala.)
You're familiar with the Phil Hendrie Shtick. He develops these characters on the radio that defend ridiculous ideas. The trick is to see how far he can push it and still have people believe it's real. The whole audience is "No way, man, this is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard!" and he still has people calling up to argue with a fake person; a person who defends an idea no one could possibly hold.
The latest push of the envelope is some whacked out character called Toure.
Here's Hendrie's setup. Romney tells it exactly like it is in a campaign speech in Ohio.
This is what an angry and desperate presidency looks like . . . Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago
Enter Phil Hendrie's fake, ridiculous, whacked out, made up, way too far over the edge to fool anybody character Touré:
I mean, that really bothered me. You notice he says anger twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama, the “otherization”; he’s not like us. I know it’s a heavy thing to say, I don’t say it lightly, but this is Niggerization. You are not one of us. You are like the scary black man we’ve been trained to fear.
Okay, honestly, anyone who isn't a complete idiot is saying "Ha-hah, you lost me with 'says anger twice.' You didn't have to go to the extreme of saying 'Niggerization.' How stupid do you think we are? "
The idea that the word "anger" is racial code is a stretch even for Phil Hendrie.
To be fair, I guess you could have fallen for it, except that we were already told that Joe Biden's "Put Y'all back
in chains" comments had nothing whatsoever to do with race. How could you even imagine that Biden's words could be
construed like that? Sheesh.
No. No, not even without that. Even without that adamant declaration that nothing you say can be construed as racial, no
matter how pointedly racial it is. You couldn't have possibly thought that the word "anger" could be racial code to anyone.
Obama is racist.
Back in 2008 Obama helpfully pointed out that Clinton is a racist for saying "fairy tale." Now he himself is talking about "fairy dust."
Oh, wait . . . is that racial code or not?
Apparently racial code is like the Enigma code machine that the Germans had in WWII. It was a constantly changing code, so even if you figured it out for one message, it's changed for the next.
Obama is right.
Obama thinks that Americans are stupid. I'm pretty sure he's exactly right.
Football with liberals
You know how this works. You're playing football with liberals, you have the ball, they tackle you. They get the ball, you tackle them, all of a sudden whistles are going off everywhere.
"Hey, you can't tackle! What are you thinking?! You can't tackle man, c'mon, play by the rules!"
They are brushing themselves off, all indignant, everyone goes back to playing. You have the ball, they come to tackle you, your teammate blocks them . . .
"Dude, what are you doing?! You can't block! Sheesh! C'mon man, quit cheating!"
I've said it before (but you haven't read it on accounta cuz I just posted it yesterday): The double
standard is just accepted practice. Everyone knows democrats are evil. No one expects them to live up to
the same standard a Republican is capable of.
Biden gets to say the most reprehensible thing anyone could imagine—actually no, no one could imagine it.
Stephen King doesn't have the imagination to come up with the kind of stuff that falls out of Biden's mouth.
But if we use the word "angry," all of a sudden whistles are blowing and penalty flags are flying everywhere.
They say "niggerization," but we can't say "angry."
What? Seriously, that's racial code. You have got to be freaking kidding me?
You understand what's going on here. Liberal ideas are not defensible. The only way they can get
away with what they're trying to sell is by shutting down the competition, the way that Obama did in
his Illinois senate race. The only race they can win is the one where no one is competing with them.
What? 'Freaking' is racial code?
What? 'What' is racial code now?
So what can I . . . ooops, sorry. I said the 'w' word.
We can't say we are "targeting" certain areas to campaign, or "aiming" for so many seats in the house.
But they can talk about bringing their guns to a knife fight with Republicans. They can openly advocate
that Americans stone Republican members of Congress in the street. They get to bring actual weapons, not
metaphorical ones, to polling sites to keep conservatives from voting.
But we're not allowed to talk. Words are against the rules for us.
Had I only known
When I was in college I thought you had to actually read the text book. I'm so embarrassed about all the time I wasted. Now I understand that all you need to know is in the title. Chemical Thermodynamics. There, I'm done. Give me my degree.
That's why liberals can look at the title of a bill and know everything they need to know to rant about the legislation. All that boring content? Who needs it? All you need to know if you're a liberal can fit on a bumper sticker, a chant, or a tweet.
We morons are wasting our time reading the actual bills. That's why we're confused. We get all conflicted because the content
of abortions like "The Affordable Health Care Act" and the "American Jobs Act" (both "American" and "Jobs" in the same title!) have
nothing to do with the title on the folder. We are causing ourselves unnecessary stress by delving into all those boring words.
It all makes sense now.
Liberals are wrong about everything, but they claim to be the intellectuals. How can that be?
Grab a textbook, read the title, grab the next one. The average liberal can read fast enough to read all thirty textbook
titles they need in about a year. That's pretty impressive intellectual credentials if you say you got through college in a year.
Time to Post Again? That year went by in a hurry.
You know the deal . . . or maybe you don't. The first full week in August we have the big race. So my July and August are really busy for me.
So, instead of posting once every three months, like I normally do, during those two months I post every six months . . . sort of . . .
My Savage Moment
You know the Savage deal—any thought he has, he figures he's the only one that has ever had it. He came up with "Trickle up Poverty." George Bush stole "Compassionate conservative" from him. He had the one phrase would have won John McCain the election, if only he would have said it.
Well, Dennis Miller was talking about how Obama is the Kardashian president. He said that he talked about it a while ago, then Rush took it and ran with it. Dennis made it sound a lot more credible than Michael Savage does, but I have to correct him.
As you know, I came up with it.
Immediately after the election I pointed out that the man isn't a leader, he's just a celebrity. You just can't look at him and see anything else. I talk about it in the earliest post I link back to.
The man loves the sound of his own voice. He jets around, he does his shtick for the crowds, he goes on the coffee klatch shows, he drops names, he . . . Hell, I don't have to tell you. If you are reading this blog you are at least alive and awake—you've have to have already seen it for yourself. He's nothing but another mindless celebrity.
I pointed it out, but everyone knew that from early in the 2008 campaign—well, everyone with two functioning brain cells to rub together. He's not an intellectual, he's not an inspiring figure, he's not a statesman, he's certainly not a leader.
He's a celebrity. Nobody with any brains has ever viewed the man as anything but just another celebrity.
Since I have to take credit for what Dennis Miller claimed, I'll give him back this: Dennis Miller said it best. "The man is a whiner. Leaders aren't whiners."
What's the thinking here?
A place where I used to work did a March of Dimes drive every year. They always chose the most beautiful female employees with the greatest bodies to go around hitting everyone up for money. And they were very successful at getting money out of people.
So, what's the reasoning here? "Maybe if this gal ever decides to start sleeping with random people, she'll remember that I gave her money for the March of Dimes."
It's not logical, but you can't refuse a beautiful woman.
So, if Kim Kardashian is standing there telling you the moon is made of green cheese, you're going to be saying "Yep, yep, it sure is, you are absolutely correct," but you're not really listening. You're just thinking "I've gotta' get me another look at that posterior."
So that's what we've got—the Kardashian President. I've gotta' admit, I never used the term 'Kardashian' when I pointed out he was nothing but another celebrity, but it's apt. 'Cause think about how much your brain would actually be working if you were talking to Kim Kardashian. That's the way his mindless sycophants in and out of the media are.
That's why the gaga giggly girls on the left believe anything he says, no matter how ridiculous it is.
"Romney's a felon! He doesn't pay taxes! He's going to take your money away from you and give it to the rich!"
Nothing the man says is remotely true, but the idiots who swoon over him say "Yep, yep. He's a handsome man, and what a basketball player! Hey, get a load of Michelle's arms!"
Which leads us to . . .
Everyone on the left is gaga about what great shape the Obamas—the Kardashians—are in. It's great that they work out and take care of themselves and spend time in the gym and doing sports. That's a wonderful and laudable thing.
But when Paul Ryan does it, that's horrible. The democrats are beside themselves with how horrible it is that Ryan is in great shape. He's vain, he's just a sex symbol, he's wasting time he should be working for the People!
Did I ever tell you how repulsed I am by democrats?
No one is surprised at the left's double standard. The same mindless morons used to talk about Clinton: "Isn't it great that he jogs? What a good example." But a lot of us had the same question Hillary had. If he's always jogging how come he's in such bad shape? The state troopers answered that: he didn't really jog that much, he just left the governor's mansion to go jogging and visited his girlfriends.
But the point is, the left pointed out how great it was; what an amazing human being Clinton was because he exercised.
Then, the exact same people said about Bush (exact wording): It's creepy the way he keeps himself fit.
Compare and Contrast
The Christian in me feels really sorry for the mindless insects who vote democrat. We have an intelligent, thoughtful, poised, and polished VP candidate. What do they have?
I keep saying that no one is ever shocked by the left's double standard. We haven't been for years. But that doesn't keep me from being repulsed and disgusted by them.
Despicable repulsive disgusting revolting detestable democrats. I can't think of enough bad words to describe democrats.
Oh, wait. They are contemptible and loathsome, but I'm the bad guy . . .
Double standards, VP picks . . . it all nicely rolls into Biden Gaffes.
Biden can't open his mouth without setting a new record for idiocy. But no one every bats an eylash.
Michael Medved said it best: It's like when you call a phone and get the message "The voicemail box that you are trying to reach is full." Biden's gaffe box is overflowing. Now all his gaffes just get bounced into the ether.
The man is a complete freaking moron. The only bigger idiots that walk the planet work for MSNBC (MSLSD, thank you Mark Levin).
The double standard is just an accepted deal. Biden can say anything he wants, and not one person on the left even says "That might have been a poor choice of words." But every word that a Republican utters elicits faux outrage from the left. George Allen uses the word "macaca" to call out an enemy spy, his career is over.
It's just accepted practice. Everyone knows democrats are evil. No one expects them to live up to the same standard a Republican is capable of.
Can you imagine a universe where they had to play by our rules?
When Obama lies and oversteps his Constitutional authority and a reporter asks him a question about it, the reporter is a racist. The gaga girls in the media are tripping over their skirts with vapors, because obviously no one would ever treat a white President like that!
Let's try this. Let's pretend Romney were a democrat (I just threw up a little bit in my mouth). What would the pantywaist bigots who pretend to be reporters be saying right now?
Epstein: Would the right-wing be doing this if we had a non-Mormon Presidential candidate there?
Lemon: They don't treat him with the same respect that they would treat a non-Mormon man in that position.
Dyson: Does it have anything to do with the fact that this is the nation's first Mormon president and the level of disrespect is alarming and stunning?
Williams: It's very, very difficult to place religion outside of this context.
Obeidallah: This is a campaign to delegitimize the presidency, and to me, I think religion is a component.
It's Thursday, you know the drill. Read Ann Coulter's column. It's scary how much we think alike.
"Word is out" that the only reason Harry Reid joined the Mormon church is to tap into the big voting block of LDS people in Nevada.
That's just a fact, until he can prove it isn't true.
My freaking gosh, how did that clinically insane, criminally stupid individual miss getting recruited by MSNBC? They don't come any crazier than Harry Reid.
His accusations are patently ludicrous—like Andrew McCarthy said "To state them is to refute them."
But the true story here is actually pretty amazing.
What we know without seeing Reid's tax returns is that he is a crook who has made millions in shady real estate deals. That's a fact. The man has engaged in criminal activity to make money, not only in bizarre illegal real estate deals, but selling short on funds he owned when he pushed through legislation that would damage his investments.
Harry Reid's insane accusations are just another example of liberal projection. Harry Reid is a crook. That's why he sees crooks wherever he looks. If he's so anxious to uncover dirt on Romney, I'd really be curious to see his tax returns.
The Only Possible Explanation!
Do you ever hear Hugh Jackman talk about me? You don't.
The only possible explanation is that he's intimidated by my handsomenessosity. That's the only thing it could be. No other explanation you could come up with makes any sense.
In a related story, Paul
Begala is an idiot.
How did MSLSD miss that waste of skin?
And while I was looking for that, I came across this:
Better Click Previous
At the same time I posted this stuff I posted a bunch of notes from last month that I had never
finished. If you're reading this for the first time, you haven't seen that.
Click "Prev" below to go to earlier posts
And it's all the same quality you've come to expect from this blog . . .
Wait a minute . . .