Karma’s A B**** But Ignorance Is Bliss.

10 06 2009

ny-craze-coke-jesus

Guess which president was a cokehead who got a mysterious and undeserved/unsubstantiated ride through the Ivy League; is up to his ears in Saudi money and invokes Jesus more than Jenna Jamison in the middle of a shoot?

You already know don’t cha?

obama toker

Yep.

Too bad lying-a$$, hypocrite liberals will never enjoy the irony.

Advertisements




Sin Tax Changes Human Behavior. Prevents People From Drinking Selves To Death!

25 11 2008

Why are liberals so enthusiastic about using taxes to curb undesirable behavior, but so adamant that taxes on income and investments don’t similarly dissuade activity?

Also, since they understand how effective taxing can be, why do they only use taxation to punish and not create tax breaks as incentives?

Try answering this without saying the words, “mental disorder.”





Clinton Administration Document Credits Deregulation for 90s Boom

24 11 2008

I’m sick of Republicans constantly talking about Reagan, but I’m really at a boiling point with Democrats talking about the 1990s and wanting to go back in time, to a place where ignorance was bliss.  At least Reagan-obsessing Republicans don’t want to go back to the 80s; they just (over)seek out certain “content(s) of character,” thinking their timeless traits will translate well in any era.  Democrats really want to go back in time.  Who’s the conservative now b%(*#s?

To me, the 1990s were just the buildup time directly before an inevitable, crusade-like attack on America.

I guess I’ll get used to it since Obama has recycled so many players from Bill Clinton’s term(s).  Honestly, I’ll take it.  His other alliances seem worse than Clinton’s cronies and I didn’t want to fundamentally change the country to begin with.

Anyways, it’s time for liberals to put their earmuffs on again and not read this article, so they can deny it’s premise and keep making stuff up as they see fit.  That way, they can prescribe more of the same medicine that got us all sick while blaming conservatism.

This article out of Scotland, which proclaims “capitalism didn’t kill the banks, socialism did,” helps diagnose our current financial crisis quite succinctly.

Please note the difference between deregulation in markets besides housing, which smart people know wasn’t “deregulated,” but was rather, “hyper-regulated” as people like Barack Obama had “sit-ins” at banks to disrupt business and encourage junk loan lending to people who should have been in apartments.





Are These The “Useful Idiots” Lenin Spoke Of?

18 11 2008

This 10 minute video shows brainwashed liberals who know absolutely nothing about the candidates.  At least they have hope!  And I’m confident that once they reach 65% of the populace while being addicted to government entitlements, they’ll start being a bit more bipartisan and consider becoming conservatives. Thanks mainstream media, public education, and Hollywood!

UGH. Depressing.





Another Fear Mongering Lie From Liberals About Conservatives…

17 11 2008

How else would they incubate legions of angry voters?

Below, a great summary from Timothy Sandefur about the…wait for it…hypocrisy of liberals regarding their charges that conservatives are anti-intellectuals….click here to read the page from his site in its entirety.

Liberals have lately been making much of the purported anti-intellectualism of conservatives in the late election. No doubt they’re right. But I must say I find it laughable that this charge would come from liberals of all people. The left in this country has had a long and dismal history of embracing a wide variety of anti-intellectual credos.

The leadership of the American left appeals not to ideas but to emotion—envy, usually, or panic—to move party members to embrace empty promises of material prosperity through government manipulation, promises no competent economist can fail to see through. The left is fond of violence and power, and the romanticism and iconography of thugs who are transformed into celebrities among leftist intellectuals. Liberals are this country’s leading practitioners of race and gender politics. Barack Obama exploits the power of crowds to chant empty slogans promising that the laws of economics can be magically suspended if we just have enough faith (“Yes, we can!”)…. And yet this is not the party of anti-intellectuals and populists?

It doesn’t get much better when you move to the more moderate liberals, either. Liberals believe that government can efficiently allocate resources, and run, say, a health care system for hundreds of millions of people, despite the basic failures of such systems in other countries. And they believe this, not because they disagree with the discoveries of economists like Friedrich Hayek, or have an answer to the problem of rent-seeking, a term which most Democrats have probably never heard. No, they believe this because of their emotional commitment to wealth-redistribution, a commitment based on a moral premise—that the wealthy should pay the bills of the poor because poverty is “unfair”—which they rarely even bother to defend. Ask why your earnings should be taken from you by the state and given to someone else, and you will rarely get an intellectual answer.

Many rank and file liberals believe a whole host of basic untruths, and do not bother themselves with examining their beliefs any farther than their emotional prejudices allow them. Consider the environmentalists, who believe in a wide variety of panicky flasehoods about the state of the earth. Al Gore made a film riddled with misleading or half-true claims. Did the left correct him or urge him to be more intellectually honest? No, they gave him an Oscar.

Start with the most obvious: the left has long been the welcoming home of fashionable postmodern nonsense like deconstructivism and moral and cultural relativism. Under these doctrines there are supposed to be different kinds of “logics” (male logic, female logic, &c.) and none is more valid than the other. All of them are simply clever masks for a brutal competition for wealth and power. This is a profoundly anti-intellectual strain of pseudo-thought which avoids the need to take any arguments seriously, because such ideas can simply be accused of corruption. When Sandra Harding called Newton’s Principia a “rape manual,” she did so from the left, not from the right. And the cultural relativists who demand that we treat the dismal productions of barbaric cultures as the intellectual equivalents of Shakespeare and Homer—and tars as “racist” anyone who suggests that some cultures and their mores are better than others—are fundamentally, even proudly anti-intellectual.

“Radical chic” is a leftist phenomenon, not a conservative one. It was, and is, liberals who accord street thugs and petty vandals the respectability of academic honors. The terrorist Bill Ayers? Or the terrorist Angela Davis, winner of the Lenin Peace Prize of the U.S.S.R.? She’s presidential chair at U.C. Santa Cruz. It was liberals who not only gave the anti-intellectual thug Norman Mailer pop icon status, but handed him the mantle of a respectable intellectual. The Jack Abbott case was a curiosity to them, and a source of gossip. When he stabbed his wife with a penknife at a dinner party, almost killing her in 1960, was that the end of his run as a leftist intellectual? Hardly. The left respects its anti-intellectual thugs.

Very similar to their awe for ideological violence is the liberal respect for consistently leftist liars like Michael Moore. Moore was made of, by, and for liberals, and he remains a celebrity to liberals despite the fact that there is probably no more recklessly anti-intellectual a figure in America today (with the possible exception of the moronic liberal darling Cornell West). He has contempt for anything approaching a truthful description of reality or a reasonable theory of politics or economics. His work is a set of cheap thrills for those with a knee-jerk hostility to the free market. Yet those thrills don’t even add up to anything like a sensible plot. His lies and distortions are well documented, and even turn off some thoughtful liberals. Yet he is still admired by a great many others, who are more committed to the party than to the basic facts. If that isn’t anti-intellectualism, I don’t know what is.

What about the “Bush lied, people died” meme? No serious person can believe that the Bush Administration consciously lied about the intelligence on Iraq in order to trump up a war to seize Iraqi oil. Yet tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people believe this, and proudly say so on the bumpers of their cars. Is this the intellectualism of the Democratic party?





Out Damn’d Spot, Out Obama Says!

17 11 2008

Liberals have hatefully fear mongered maintained for years that the Bush Administration would mimic a police state by; manipulating the media, censoring negative information, bringing back the draft, persecuting dissenting voices, breaking campaign promises, infringing on the constitution, hiding relevant evidence any time it was convenient, and cherry picking irrelevant evidence to bolster its arguments.

Curious ironies are already being revealed by ‘Office of the President Elect,” who may easily surpass Bush for totalitarian maneuverings.  During the campaign, Obama routinely scrubbed his website without update, after Atlasshrugs.com and Littlegreenfootballs.com frequently exposed his anti-American connections and initiatives.

Today, National Review alerted us that they are on to his, “down the memory hole” ways and promised a full report soon.  Conversely, the “big, corporate” media promised a story about Dubya’s doomed legacy and Obama’s undershirt preferences.  And for their favor, received $139 Billion.





Like The Child Who Covers His Own Eyes And Thinks You Can’t See Him

12 11 2008

I know some folks who consistently poopthebed about FOX.  Since none of them can name a daytime anchor or reporter, it’s obvious that O’Reilly and Hannity are really the targets of their rage.  Almost all of these folks also watch Olbermann’s Noggin every night.  It occured to me a while back that I’ve never seen Olbermann call himself a “lefty” or a “liberal” or openly admit who he was going to vote for.  To me, this is inexcusable for a media figure who partakes in such virulent and biased propaganda.  I understand now how difficult it must be for reporters to remain unbiased, but that makes their open announcements of their partisan leanings all the more necessary.  I’d always rather have them deliver the news they see fit, as long as they are clear about their point of view.  That way I can take it with a grain of salt.  For the record, Hannity clearly admits his party loyalty and O’Reilly never seems to…and he seems to be pretty conservative.

Olbermann was on the view and admitted to never voting…He thinks this makes his bias acceptable or unknowable, or something even though he bashfully submitted every time slightly less liberal, Babawa Wowtoes, called him an obsessing, mentally diseased liberal.  Him not voting is like Colonel Sanders abstaining from poultry.  And I think it makes him an even bigger idiot than I previously thought.  One for not voting while being a political animal, and two for his deranged, immature logic.