Sunday, August 28, 2005

One of the great "side-effects" of the moronity of the Democrats' arguments is that there's really no need to compromise with them. When the best argument they have for anything is "Bush is Hitler" it is best just to ignore the loons and get on with the business of keeping unemployment low, America safe, the economy booming and democracy spreading throughout the world.

The NAACP learned this as their hate-filled lies were met with simply the President not attending their bogus conferences. When the leaders of the NAACP call the other side "members of the Taliban with Nazi swastikas hanging in their garages" as Jullian Bond did there's really no reason to sit down to hear their side of the story.

The same is true, of course, of the loon Cindy Sheehan. Had she been a reasonable person with reasonable concerns perhaps the President takes a few minutes to meet with her for a SECOND time (after the first meeting the loon praised the President to high heaven, a flip-flop that makes the John Kerrys of the left look like pikers.) But a women who is clearly out of her mind with venom not only for this President but for Americans, who who spews the most vile lies against her own country isn't worth ten seconds.

Let's pretend these nuts weren't just vile liars but really wanted some kind of "dialog", what kin do compromise could be reached. Should the President have talked with the NAACP and perhaps worked out a compromise where they'd agree, in a joint statement, that people who disagree with the Democrats are, in fact, all members of the Taliban but that the Nazi swastikas are only in their bedrooms?

What understanding could possibly come from a few MORE minutes with Cindy Sheehan, that America is only the SECOND most evil force in human history and George Bush is only the THIRD biggest terrorist in the world?

What compromise is to be reached with Democrat Dick Durbin, that our troops aren't all Nazis but only Huns?

When Howard "Yeee-ha" Dean, the very head of the Democrat party, "hates Republicans" and wants them imprisoned without charge or trial but "withholds judgment" on Osama Bin Ladin there is no compromise to be found.

So long as the Democrats are led by lunatics and liars, by plagerists and people who pilfer 9/11 documents, folks who call anyone and everyone who disagrees with them "members of the Taliban" and "Nazis" there's no reason to even attempt compromise -- which is why America is succeeding so well. Democrats side always with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. By marginalizing themselves through their words and actions they have left the Republicans free to take care of business and business, on all counts, is good.

The economy is booming. Unemployment is low. The stock market (predictor of future business) is high. Home ownership (sometimes known as "the American dream") is at the hightest level in human history. America has been kept safe from attack since the moment we started fighting back against the terrorists. Democracy is spreading throughout the Middle East. Taxes are low. Seniors now have prescription drug benefits and so on and so on.

Keeping the Democrats out of government is a good thing. And the more they are ignored the better America becomes.

11 comments:

MiamiMiami said...

Youonly need to go to Alva's blog, Nitwit Planet and see some of the insane postings to see this in action right in front of your eyes. It's amazing the amount of venom that comes out of a lib when you show them how silly they appear. It is almost laughable. Really....

Anonymous said...

Yep,I live it every day, for my mother-in-law is one of 'em. She will perform whatever mental gymnastics are required to prove she is right.How can one reason with someone like that? These folks will do and say anything to preserve their fragile egos.

Jeanne said...

No doubt about it. The left are looney's. Camp CINDY (not Casey) are out there with their idiot posters, t-shirts, etc. Cindy gave a speech saying, "George Bush WANTS soldiers to die". She's totally insane and all the morons that clapped for her when she made that statement also need to have their heads examined.
And these are the same people who pretend they are for peace and love. I hear nothing but hate coming from their camp.
One good note...this insures we will win again in 2008 and there will be Peace in Iraq.

MiamiMiami said...

No doubt that it was this mental masturbations that handed Kerry a decisive loss. I can only hope and pray that the next Dem who runs for president makes the same mistake. I am not worried anyways they probably will and get the same result.

Evan Sayet said...

First, I hope it is laughable...it's a big part of how I make my living. My opening joke is that "making fun of the Democrats is so easy it's like taking candy from a baby...which, ironically, is exactly how Air America financed its network."

Dealing with the Alva's is impossible because the rejection of fact, evidence and logic is the first rule of joining the cult of indiscriminateness that is today's Democrat party. What fact, what piece of evidence, what line of logic can one offer that will affect someone whose core rule is the rejectino of all fact, evidence and reason?

The good news is that there are a LOT of people who still foolishly vote for the Democrats because they haven't yet come to realize that their values are not only not supported by the leftists but downright threatened by them. That's why it's OUR job to talk to Democrats in our neighborhood, in our schools, etc. and get them to see that the Democrats are lunatics -- they are the ones who steal food and money from children, they are the insane cindy Sheehans and the Howard "Yeeee-ha" Deans. These people ARE turnable they've just never been exposed to anything but the forged document users in the leftist media before.

MiamiMiami said...

I thought you might enjoy this:


How To Be A Hypocritical Liberal
July 28, 2003
Joe Mariani



The cult of Liberalism probably encompasses the most twisted belief systems in the world, far worse than any beliefs held since the Middle Ages by the Judeo-Christian religions they despise so much. In order to be a modern Liberal, one must abandon all use of cause-and-effect, so-called "common sense", and Occam's Razor (of equally good explanations for a phenomenon, the best one is the simplest which accounts for all the facts). One must defy logic at every turn. One must embrace the most illogical, convoluted, simply WRONG solutions for every problem.
First and foremost: to be a Liberal, one must believe that there is a finite amount of wealth in the world. For every dollar I make, for instance, there is one dollar less for someone. Every dollar I don't spend but keep is a dollar that I'm deliberately preventing someone else from having. One must believe that government, not business, creates wealth. One must conceive the idea that it's the job of the government to redress the imbalance -- that is, the government exists to hand out money, and to make sure that everyone gets an equal amount by taking it away from people that wrongfully keep it. By this twisted perversion of logic, anyone who makes a profit, keeps a bank account, owns stocks, or has anything they don't actually need is Evil. In other words: Capitalism bad, Socialism good.

To be a Liberal, one must be able to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time. For instance: Everyone Is The Same, and Everyone Is Unique. To Liberals, no one person is better than any other, in any way. To suggest that some people are smarter, faster, stronger or more clever than others is an anathema. To be so is to have an "unfair" advantage. Should two people play chess, the winner cannot possibly have won because he is smarter or a better tactician. Suggesting it makes one arrogant, rude and "politically incorrect"; insensitive to the loser. Oh, sorry -- to the, um, non-winner (my apologies to all the losers out there). In fact, all games and competitions that result in "winners" and "losers" should be eliminated so no one can be better than anyone else. As a child, I read a science fiction story about a future where everyone was reduced to the lowest common denominator by law. The main character, a genius, had electrodes implanted in his brain in order to interrupt his train of thought every few seconds, so he couldn't think better than anyone else. He fell in love with a dancer who was forced to wear ungainly leg and arm weights so she wouldn't be more graceful than anyone else. That story gave me nightmares. I didn't know it at the time, but the author (whose name I've forgotten) was describing the perfect Liberal world. At the same time one believes everyone is the same, one must also encourage them to express their individuality, or "celebrate their diversity". How Liberals can believe that every person is equal in every way, yet has unique qualities, is the biggest mystery to me -- logic would dictate that it's one or the other. Moreover, Liberals believe that these unique qualities are shared in groups (which would make its members no longer unique -- sorry, logic again), and believe that every group is ALSO equal to every other while being unique at the same time. Note that Liberals aren't insisting all people should be TREATED equally -- a founding principle of our nation -- but that they ARE equal, which defies logic. Generally, this is done from the standpoint of victimhood. Liberals believe that everyone is a victim of the majority group (Rich White Straight Males) in some way, which actively prevents everyone from being equal. Poor people are victims of the Rich -- if it weren't for the Rich hoarding all those dollars, no one would be Poor. Black/Hispanic/Asian/Amerindian people are victims of the Whites. Women are victims of the Males, Gays are victims of the Straights. Victims, of course, are owed recompense by their oppressors. Recompense or restitution must be paid in two ways, Liberals insist -- Money and Privelege. If one is "lucky" enough to belong to an oppressed group, Rich White Straight Men owe him or her something. Money being self-explanatory, we'll move to Privelege.

Liberals feel that Privelege should be paid in different forms. One would think that preferential treatment might easily be paid to the Poor in terms of jobs, but that's not the Liberal solution. That would actually alleviate the problem, depriving them of power! No, the Rich can only help the Poor in purely monetary terms. Since (according to Liberals) the Rich are also White, Straight, and Male, the jobs they can offer should not go to the Poor, which might help them help themselves, but to non-Whites, non-Straights, and non-Males. Instead of helping the Poor to better their condition in a long-term way, the Liberals insist on short-term solutions for them. Nothing is preventing those non-Whites, non-Straights and non-Males from getting jobs, but they must be given preferential treatment they don't need! In fact, they should get jobs even if they cannot perform them well, which harms the company they work for, which reduces the number of jobs the company can offer and the amount of money the Rich can give the Poor! The Liberals call this "Affirmative Action", but its effects are generally negative.

To be a Liberal, one must believe that Segregation and Exclusion are bad, and that Segregation and Exclusion are also good. Any of the "oppressed" groups can exclude Straight White Males (part of the "Privelege" they are "owed"), but for SWMs to exclude anyone at all is the worst form of oppression. One can have, for instance, a Miss Black America competition or a Miss Latina USA pageant (funded by private groups) in which Whites cannot compete, but not an all-White private golf course, or even exclude Hispanic women from competing for the title of Miss America (also funded by private groups) on the grounds that they have their own separate pageant! Every ethnic and ideological group is given special treatment except Straight White Males -- who supposedly have all the power. Here's a prime example... The Harvey Milk High School in New York City is about to become big news around the country. Founded in 1984 as a private school, it's about to go public, and will soon recieve its first Senatorial visit (from Hillary Clinton, of course). Last year, the school received a huge budgetary increase and is tripling its enrollment. 3.2 million taxpayer dollars are being spent on renovation and expansion. For a public school, that's all excellent news, isn't it?

The reason WHY this will be such a big news story, and why I'm so unimpressed by it, is that the Harvey Milk High School is exclusively gay. They openly and purposefully exclude straight students. The students are all gay, the teachers are gay, the curriculum teaches "from a gay perspective". (I'm using the term "gay" here to cover the "gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth (LGBTQ)" the school caters to.) The principal of the school has not been hired by the NYC school board, but by a private gay advocacy group, the Hetrick-Martin Institute, in an unusual move for a public school (to say the LEAST).

Let's reverse the scenario for a minute and imagine the nuclear explosion of outrage we'd hear from the Left. Let's find a private school that openly admits only heterosexuals. Gays will be barred from teaching at or attending. (If you can find a school like that in America, the FBI has a career waiting for you!.) Let's turn the school into a public institution funded by the government, and spend several million taxpayer dollars expanding and refurbishing it. We'll have a private vehemently anti-gay group like The American Family Association run the school, and choose the principal. No gays will be allowed, remember, at our public school. The curriculum will teach strictly from a "heterosexual perspective", whatever that is. The Liberals in this country would suffer a meltdown before the first day of classes. Should we allow a public school to be run by the KKK? The National Rifle Association? I know -- how about a high school run by the anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee? Wouldn't it be only fair to allow other private interest groups to run high schools? I can hear the Liberals spontaneously detonating in umbrage now.

So why are we expected to swallow this sort of openly anti-Straight White Male bias with a smile? I wonder why the standards the Left pretends to espouse -- tolerance, desegregation, and fairness to "all" -- don't apply to US. Liberals should not be allowed to run a mass social engineering enterprise in the heart of New York City at public expense. No one will actually benefit from it -- certainly not the misfits it will produce. How can they learn to get along in a society they are insulated from?

Evan Sayet said...

Thanks for including the article by Joe Mariani. He has it exactly right. Look, it wasn't someone who was angry at the Democrats who called them "useful idiots" (as in useful to the most evil mentality in history, the leftism of communism) it was their own "Uncle Joe."

Democrats are quite literally idiots as in "incapable of rational thought."

Success, by its existence, is evil and failure -- no matter its cause -- is victimhood to them. Evil is the victim of bigotry (since nothing can be judged as evil by those incapable of rational thought) and good is only considered good by the people because they are bigoted and thus good is the ultimate evil.

It's a sick mentality which Michael Savage recognizes as a "Mental Disorder", Tammy Bruce calls "malignant narcissism" and I recognize as the sickness of "codependence" in my own writings.

MiamiMiami said...

The liberals are already blaming the hurricane on Bush and his not signing the Kyoto treaty! Now the libs are also trying to make the claim that because our National Guard troops are fighting in Iraq that there aren't any here to help. None of it true of course but why let that stop them.

I actually feel sorry for them somedays...

Amgcink@sbcglobal.net said...

I agree with you the President is totally not only one responsible...Actually enough blame to go around. Venom from both sides is pathetic some of the comments on your site show how inflexible some (not all) conservatives are.

Laughing Liberal

harvey said...

I nice blog I have one too Horse racing tips galoreladbroke

Anonymous said...

Hi

I've created a new resource for male baby name you can with lots of information and links related to male baby name
Now I've finished I thought I look around for other male baby name sites and see what everyone else is talking about, you know get ome more male baby name ideas etc...
This blog looks pretty good, though I'm not sure my male baby name site will get this many visitors - ah well, can only but try ;)
If you have a spare moment please visit my male baby name site and let me know what you think, I'll check back here again later.

Bye
Steward