Daily Archives: November 8, 2008

All you need to know about Carl Cameron’s Palin rumors

ph2008100300302Like the good lady said: “shameless cowards” are attacking her. Copied verbatim from another blog. (shameless, I know! ūüėČ

“I‚Äôve been working over 20 years in Washington and I‚Äôve been around literally dozens and dozens of politicians. She is among the smartest, toughest, most capable politicians I‚Äôve ever dealt with,‚ÄĚ Scheunemann said. ‚ÄúShe has a photographic memory.‚ÄĚThen, on the other hand, Carl Cameron and others are reporting that unnamed inside sources are dishing that this same woman doesn’t know the identity of our North American neighbors (e.g., Canada) or just what “Africa” is. Continue reading

A message to “Libertarians”

Previously posted, but moved up front 5/21/09 for emphasis, and in reply to those who would rename the GOP and call it the¬†Liberty¬†Party:¬† I know you think are are sophisticated. I know you look down on rubes who believe in old-fashioned, quaint antiquated notions of morality and decency.¬† In fact, I believe that you consider your position to be so superior to the conservative position that you look down on any who do not agree with your position. But you aren’t as smart as you think. The Founding Fathers drew a clear distinction between liberty and licentiousness. You’ve either forgotten the difference, or never knew it in the first place. Continue reading

The mainstream media have dealt themselves a fatal blow

ch9jacksonLying, partiality, partisanship, bogus polls and intentionally affecting the outcome of the election by the media¬†IS JUST AS BAD AS TOTAL LACK OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. We might as well hold elections in China, for all the MSM is concerned.¬† With a communist controlled media, nobody¬†finds out the truth. With a partisan controlled media, nobody believes the truth when it is told. And this isn’t a new problem!

…”the licentiousness of the press produces the same effect as the restraint of the press was intended to do, if the restraint was to prevent things being told, and the licentiousness of the press prevents things being believed when they are told.” [Thomas Paine in 1806, quoting from memory what¬†Thomas Jefferson said way back in 1787!]

http://www.uark.edu/depts/comminfo/cambridge/tpliberty.html

“Social liberal, fiscal conservative” is a cop out

It means you either a) are a coward, afraid to stand up for what is right; b) misguided, thinking that what people do with their own lives doesn’t affect society as a whole; or c) you like the benefits that fiscal conservative brings but you want to cling to your own immoral behavior.¬† BUY A CLUE! Liberalism doesn’t work, because it is wrong. It flies against human nature, against God’s laws, against the laws¬†of the universe. It’s like saying “Poof, the law of gravity¬†no longer exists as you step off a balcony¬†of the penthouse of a tall apartment. Reality is a bitch. ¬†

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/duigon/2005/duigon042405.htm

About that phrase “INSTITUTIONALIZED BIGOTRY” being applied to opponents of gay marriage

Whiiiiiiiiiiiiine. When faggots don’t get their way, when godless heathen liberals don’t get their way, they have to demonize the good people who oppose them. After all, what kind of rallying cry is “Win one for the godless immoral heathen”? When the people pass Prop 8, suddenly the girly-men riot. And the NYTs is suddenly concerned with civil rights.¬† When the civil rights of viable unborn children are violated in the most inhumane way, they are silent. When children are born alive after a botched abortion, and Obama votes to let them die, their sense of “Institutionalized murder” is nowhere to be found.

STOP with this crap that not allowing SSM is “unfair” or “unjust” or “unequal treatment.”¬† Queers have the same rights to marriage that the rest of us have: to marry a member of the opposite sex, within certain limitations. They don’t want equality, they want special rights and privileges. They want to change the very definition of marriage. It is no different than if I wanted to change the definition of my very race. If I saw some scholarship only available to blacks, I could whine and say that isn’t fair, so from now on, “blacks” must be¬†defined to include¬†guys of dubious background consisting mainly of Irish and Swedish descent, and no hint of african blood.

You want to argue, you want to change the law, or the definition of marriage, fine, give it your best shot. Just quit with the demonizing your betters who oppose you by calling them bigots. And quit whining and rioting when you lose.