"... Your party got us into this state. You can't possibly blame Republicans as you have overwhelmingly dominated the Assembly and Senate in this state."
How about she face off with Boxer on camera and say, "You're a liar." Sound good?
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Prager: "Why is your husband quiet?"
Because he decided early on that it was his privilege not to be bothered in any way with the woman before he wanted sex. He was third-generation Japanese and used that as his excuse but the real reason was that he started a power struggle before we were even married. Part of that fight was refusing to speak to me, refusing to make eye contact, refusing to address me by name or by any pet name. He entertained himself with friends and left the wife and kids sitting at home. But once every three months he'd reach for her for some sex.
He had sex the same way. It was all him, and what made him feel good. He'd never touch me but to make himself feel good. He never did anything unless it turned him on, and he never wanted to see any response from me except what proved he was total stud.
I didn't start this crap. I used to reach for him when we got into bed, and he'd roll away from me and turn his back on me. Looking back after a year of therapy I've been told it was his half of the power grid; he'd have sex when HE damn well pleased, and I wasn't to ask for anything from him. He was a husband the same way. Ask him for sex, you get none; ask him to take out the garbage and that's a solid guarantee the garbage will never get taken out.
In short, my husband was quiet to punish me for breathing.
His name is Stephen Sakamoto, by the way. Just lettin' y'all know.
He had sex the same way. It was all him, and what made him feel good. He'd never touch me but to make himself feel good. He never did anything unless it turned him on, and he never wanted to see any response from me except what proved he was total stud.
I didn't start this crap. I used to reach for him when we got into bed, and he'd roll away from me and turn his back on me. Looking back after a year of therapy I've been told it was his half of the power grid; he'd have sex when HE damn well pleased, and I wasn't to ask for anything from him. He was a husband the same way. Ask him for sex, you get none; ask him to take out the garbage and that's a solid guarantee the garbage will never get taken out.
In short, my husband was quiet to punish me for breathing.
His name is Stephen Sakamoto, by the way. Just lettin' y'all know.
Rolling Stone: "Republicans are in it to keep the recession going, for political purposes."
Anything to vilify the opposition. Laziness between the ears, play the trump card, your opponent is a devil from hell. Now no one will listen to you and we win the game.
"How do you feel..." a typical liberal wording
You should talk, Prager. "When we come back, I'll get your reaction to this." How about asking your guests to respond to issues? You ask them to react. I react to things, always before I think about them, but then I pause to get the rational arguments. My reactions are always based on what's familiar, what's scary, what's exciting, what's boring...
"react" when you mean "respond"
"differ" when we should "disagree"
I've listed a few others elsewhere, wish I could recall them now.
"react" when you mean "respond"
"differ" when we should "disagree"
I've listed a few others elsewhere, wish I could recall them now.
"They hated Bush for winning the election."
Seriously, Prager? Have you completely forgotten how vilified he was, from the moment he announced his intention to run for president?
He was stupid, he was the son of another Republican, he was stupid, he was too rich, he was stupid, he was a murderer (for the death penalty in TX), he surrounded himself with his friends, his friends were all stupid, his friends were all crooks, he was stupid, and he was stupid. Winning the election and having to take the decision to the Supreme Court were just icing on the cake of leftwing hatred.
He was stupid, he was the son of another Republican, he was stupid, he was too rich, he was stupid, he was a murderer (for the death penalty in TX), he surrounded himself with his friends, his friends were all stupid, his friends were all crooks, he was stupid, and he was stupid. Winning the election and having to take the decision to the Supreme Court were just icing on the cake of leftwing hatred.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
A pollitician of such low character...
...that he's a living disgrace to Congress.
I think Prager needs to reconcile this position with his other opinion that you shouldn't care what a man's character is, so long as he votes the way you wish him to.
I have always maintained that if you have a candidate who has demonstrated himself to be a scum, like someone who cheats on his wife, who buggers little boys, who embezzles funds from his nephew's trust fund, then you can't send him to Washington with the expectation of hims voting the way you would like him to. More likely he will be taking payoffs under the table, or if not that, then some rival politician will be sending "escorts" to his hotel room at two a.m. to get him to compromise himself and become susceptible to extortion.
You can't trust these people if they have no character.
I think Prager needs to reconcile this position with his other opinion that you shouldn't care what a man's character is, so long as he votes the way you wish him to.
I have always maintained that if you have a candidate who has demonstrated himself to be a scum, like someone who cheats on his wife, who buggers little boys, who embezzles funds from his nephew's trust fund, then you can't send him to Washington with the expectation of hims voting the way you would like him to. More likely he will be taking payoffs under the table, or if not that, then some rival politician will be sending "escorts" to his hotel room at two a.m. to get him to compromise himself and become susceptible to extortion.
You can't trust these people if they have no character.
Today's guest: David Horowitz
I've read a couple of Horowitz's books. He's an absorbing writer and full of good information. Any book he's ever written, you should be willing to read. If you're a liberal, you have no fear, he's not the kind of guy who just calls names instead of offering well-thought out reasons for what he believes.
He was born into a family of card-carrying communists (and thus was a member of the "red diaper baby" set) but after college he began to realize what is wrong with the leftist point of view and changed parties.
Liberals hate him, what stronger recommendation could you ask for?
=======================================================
Horowitz's latest book:
Reforming Our Universities
He was born into a family of card-carrying communists (and thus was a member of the "red diaper baby" set) but after college he began to realize what is wrong with the leftist point of view and changed parties.
Liberals hate him, what stronger recommendation could you ask for?
=======================================================
Horowitz's latest book:
Reforming Our Universities
Monday, September 27, 2010
Caller: "We have a Bill of Rights, not a bill of obligations"
So said a caller. The proper answer to this is that the Founding Fathers took it for granted that everyone knew their obligations under God, and would behave accordingly. This is such a far cry from what we think of today, our rights, grab what's due you, the government owes you whatever you want, including your standard of living.
"They [liberals] call us 'hate radio'..."
What else are they going to do? They don't have a clue how to answer conservative arguments, or for that matter how to support liberal beliefs, so they are forced to resort to vilification and demonization.
Strong men, or strong government?
First off, I think this applies equally, and separately, and differently, to women, and thus it deserves to mention them separately. "Strong men and women" or perhaps "a strong population". I notice some of the callers thought so too.
That said, this deserves a long discussion. There are people in this country who don't have the remotest clue what conservatives are talking about when they say that relying on the government makes you weak, needy, dependent. That waiting for a handout from the government as your salvation is very bad for you. And that when government tries to take care of you in the many ways it does, it invariably does a very bad job, even worse than you would do for yourself regardless of how bad you were at such planning.
That said, this deserves a long discussion. There are people in this country who don't have the remotest clue what conservatives are talking about when they say that relying on the government makes you weak, needy, dependent. That waiting for a handout from the government as your salvation is very bad for you. And that when government tries to take care of you in the many ways it does, it invariably does a very bad job, even worse than you would do for yourself regardless of how bad you were at such planning.
Democratic candidates launch a fierce battery of negative ads
They've always done this. Then they follow it up with calling Republican ads negative and label all Republican campaigning "the politics of personal destruction".
Prager: "Reason number 82 to be a Republican."
Actually, Prager, that's your number. I'd say it was reason number seven or so. I have so much anger in me over the unreasonable nature of liberals, and the nasty, nasty tactics they use. Tactics like this one, where the assumption is that if you're "dirty" in some way--like having once gone to a strip club, or opposing a massive tax increase to pay for education against AGW--somehow makes every opinion you hold wrong.
This isn't just lying. It isn't just playing a trump card for the sake of winning the debate. It is a treacherous attempt to silence the opposition so there will never be a debate. It's support for every Sarah and Deedee who chat at the greeting hour after their liberal church's service and don't want to have to hear those diabolical conservative views expressed at their precious church.
It even works against the Republican chatting with Sarah and Deedee, who because no one wants to expose themselves as demonic, no one wants to lose these nice friends they've made at this church, and they don't want to start any arguments where surely these people will throw labels and call names, which would seriously damage their friendship.
The frustration I feel about this "shut up and get out" card is enormous, and I can only express it in getting angry. This isn't new to Barack Obama, though he is low enough to be the first president we've ever had who did his own name-calling, jeering, belittling, and tarring against the opposition. It's been going on since the first election I can remember, and as the target of sneering bullies and hateful girl bullies, I have to say I consider it cheap and mean-spirited.
Prager: "Reason number 82 to be a Republican."
Actually, Prager, that's your number. I'd say it was reason number seven or so. I have so much anger in me over the unreasonable nature of liberals, and the nasty, nasty tactics they use. Tactics like this one, where the assumption is that if you're "dirty" in some way--like having once gone to a strip club, or opposing a massive tax increase to pay for education against AGW--somehow makes every opinion you hold wrong.
This isn't just lying. It isn't just playing a trump card for the sake of winning the debate. It is a treacherous attempt to silence the opposition so there will never be a debate. It's support for every Sarah and Deedee who chat at the greeting hour after their liberal church's service and don't want to have to hear those diabolical conservative views expressed at their precious church.
It even works against the Republican chatting with Sarah and Deedee, who because no one wants to expose themselves as demonic, no one wants to lose these nice friends they've made at this church, and they don't want to start any arguments where surely these people will throw labels and call names, which would seriously damage their friendship.
The frustration I feel about this "shut up and get out" card is enormous, and I can only express it in getting angry. This isn't new to Barack Obama, though he is low enough to be the first president we've ever had who did his own name-calling, jeering, belittling, and tarring against the opposition. It's been going on since the first election I can remember, and as the target of sneering bullies and hateful girl bullies, I have to say I consider it cheap and mean-spirited.
Prager: "Affluence is not the normal condition"
Prager: A question to ask liberals--How do you think America achieved its high standard of living?
Thought I would enshrine this in text. As Prager notes, the best-informed libs will tell you we exploited everyone else. Other nations, other races. We enslaved Africans (actually we didn't, we bought the already-enslaved from Muslim traders, though, and thus created a market for natives to enslave their neighbors all the more), the natives in the western hemisphere (actually the majority opposed wiping out the Indians, while an active minority carried this out), we conquered other nations and took their resources (yeah, that sure happened a lot, the list of conquered nations is ... three or four long?), and there are many other complaints about evil America that I'm too bored to list right now.
Thought I would enshrine this in text. As Prager notes, the best-informed libs will tell you we exploited everyone else. Other nations, other races. We enslaved Africans (actually we didn't, we bought the already-enslaved from Muslim traders, though, and thus created a market for natives to enslave their neighbors all the more), the natives in the western hemisphere (actually the majority opposed wiping out the Indians, while an active minority carried this out), we conquered other nations and took their resources (yeah, that sure happened a lot, the list of conquered nations is ... three or four long?), and there are many other complaints about evil America that I'm too bored to list right now.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Why would a religious person confident in his reward in the afterlife, fear dying?
You forget it's built into us as fleshly critters. Similar to needing to eat, or craving sex, we fear death just because the Lord built into us a healthy fright of death in order to keep us living.
"Gave its endorsement to Jerry Brown..."
It was and still is axiomatic from the days of my generation forward that it is wrong to be judgemental.
Endorsing one candidate over another is one form of judgementalism.
I would also like to add that "It is wrong to be judgemental" is a statement which is self-referentially incoherent and thus must be abandoned.
Endorsing one candidate over another is one form of judgementalism.
I would also like to add that "It is wrong to be judgemental" is a statement which is self-referentially incoherent and thus must be abandoned.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Guest speaker Mark Taylor
Taylor is a smart and critical thinker, one whom I have usually found worth listening to. I'm listening to him today, and may make a comment or two but don't count on it.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Guest author
Gawd, what an interesting book hers must be.
I used to listen to Christian talk radio, and the issues there frequently focus on human rights, especially in the Third World. So I knew all this about North Korea. Some of the visual images that have been conveyed to us over the airwaves are utterly sickening. I think if our leftie friends could ever hear these stories, they'd be about a hundred percent less likely to shriek "we have no right to invade" every time we go to war over human rights.
I used to listen to Christian talk radio, and the issues there frequently focus on human rights, especially in the Third World. So I knew all this about North Korea. Some of the visual images that have been conveyed to us over the airwaves are utterly sickening. I think if our leftie friends could ever hear these stories, they'd be about a hundred percent less likely to shriek "we have no right to invade" every time we go to war over human rights.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Oh, yeah, no war, ever, who cares, we stay spiritual
Couple of points here. One, they love to bash and criticize the U.S. with the attack that "we wouldn't get involved in WW1 or WW2 until millions had died at the hands of fascism, or naked aggression, or whatever comes to mind when they're doing the criticizing.
And then they'll turn around and say, "War never solved anything" because it's so Franciscan in its tone. Or if they've never heard St. Francis, they enjoy emulating Gandhi.
Two, it's usually thrown in Republicans' faces that they're hypocrites for pretending to be Christians and yet advocating wars of aggression everywhere. Because of course Christ was a pacifist and would tell all his followers never to lift a finger on our neighbor's behalf if someone tried to kill him.
And then they'll turn around and say, "War never solved anything" because it's so Franciscan in its tone. Or if they've never heard St. Francis, they enjoy emulating Gandhi.
Two, it's usually thrown in Republicans' faces that they're hypocrites for pretending to be Christians and yet advocating wars of aggression everywhere. Because of course Christ was a pacifist and would tell all his followers never to lift a finger on our neighbor's behalf if someone tried to kill him.
The issue today is: the magnificently large difference between being "spiritual" and being "religious"
Prager: "I'm sure the person is sincere and may be a very wonderful person! That's a given."
It's a cop-out. It means I do what I want, when I want, where I want, I feel God, have a nice day.
What can I say? I've observed this all my adult life. Saying "I'm spiritual" gets the chicks. They fall for it every time. It's safe to them, too, as there won't be any risk, ever, of having this guy try to evangelize you if the relationship gets serious. Moreover, it means "He likes taking walks in the rain," the very thought of which makes them all quivery inside.
"I want to be alone in my spirituality" without a mediating group to monitor my "close relationship with God" is just taking the easy way out.
Amen, Prager. Paul told us not to forsake the gathering of ourselves together. He understood the need we have to get together in bands or tribes to maintain our higher selves.
Here's a nice story. In fact, I love telling it. Two men, friends of many years, were chatting huddled round a coal-heated stove one evening at the home of one. They were discussing philosophy and religion, I believe. When one asked the other why he had quit going to church, the other answered, "Because I can practice my faith just fine without anyone else helping me." The first opened the door on the pot-bellied stove and with a pair of tongs took out one of the coals out of the fire and set it on the hearth. He said nothing but stood and watched as the coal burned brightly for a short while, then within few minutes it cooled and its glow went out. The other man said, "I see what you mean."
It's a cop-out. It means I do what I want, when I want, where I want, I feel God, have a nice day.
What can I say? I've observed this all my adult life. Saying "I'm spiritual" gets the chicks. They fall for it every time. It's safe to them, too, as there won't be any risk, ever, of having this guy try to evangelize you if the relationship gets serious. Moreover, it means "He likes taking walks in the rain," the very thought of which makes them all quivery inside.
"I want to be alone in my spirituality" without a mediating group to monitor my "close relationship with God" is just taking the easy way out.
Amen, Prager. Paul told us not to forsake the gathering of ourselves together. He understood the need we have to get together in bands or tribes to maintain our higher selves.
Here's a nice story. In fact, I love telling it. Two men, friends of many years, were chatting huddled round a coal-heated stove one evening at the home of one. They were discussing philosophy and religion, I believe. When one asked the other why he had quit going to church, the other answered, "Because I can practice my faith just fine without anyone else helping me." The first opened the door on the pot-bellied stove and with a pair of tongs took out one of the coals out of the fire and set it on the hearth. He said nothing but stood and watched as the coal burned brightly for a short while, then within few minutes it cooled and its glow went out. The other man said, "I see what you mean."
Monday, September 20, 2010
Prager would like us to ask our families --
Ask your family: Do you agree with Lincoln that "the last best hope of mankind is the United States of America"?
Friday, September 17, 2010
"Yes, we Jews earn our way into heaven."
How many verses in Scripture say that there's no freaking way you'll ever earn your way into heaven?
Your righteous deeds are just filthy rags (more accurately, menstrual rags) to God.
Are there righteous people on Earth? Well, are there sinners on earth? There are. Who is not a sinner? Well, there is none that loves God, not one. So we are all sinners. If that's the case, who are the righteous men? Those who spend their energy purifying the sins they have committed through sacrifice in the temple. So you trot off to the temple and sacrifice a hog. Then on the way home with the hog's carcass, you have a gloating thought about how yummy this hog will taste on the dinner table, and another gloat about how good you are, thanks to your offering up this sacrifice. You just committed "pride", which may not be one of the Jewish seven deadly sins, but you have to admit the LORD doesn't think too highly of pride.
Your righteous deeds are just filthy rags (more accurately, menstrual rags) to God.
Are there righteous people on Earth? Well, are there sinners on earth? There are. Who is not a sinner? Well, there is none that loves God, not one. So we are all sinners. If that's the case, who are the righteous men? Those who spend their energy purifying the sins they have committed through sacrifice in the temple. So you trot off to the temple and sacrifice a hog. Then on the way home with the hog's carcass, you have a gloating thought about how yummy this hog will taste on the dinner table, and another gloat about how good you are, thanks to your offering up this sacrifice. You just committed "pride", which may not be one of the Jewish seven deadly sins, but you have to admit the LORD doesn't think too highly of pride.
"If only ... then I would be happy"
I would like to contribute to this.
Mine is:
If only someone loved me, then I would be happy.
Mine is:
If only someone loved me, then I would be happy.
Mom: "Hello Dennis, when are you leaving?"
Prager: I refuse to answer that question because if you knew, you'd spend the entire week worrying, "He's leaving on Monday" or whenever."
Probably she asks because you never volunteer the information.
Since she never knows, she spends all day every day worrying, "I wonder if it's today? I wonder if it's tomorrow?" Why do you not realize that? Shame on you.
Probably she asks because you never volunteer the information.
Since she never knows, she spends all day every day worrying, "I wonder if it's today? I wonder if it's tomorrow?" Why do you not realize that? Shame on you.
Love and Marriage Go Together Like a Horse and Carriage...
"If you said this to kids today, first they'd tune you out, then they would laugh and tell you it sounds like something from the thirteenth century."
Or like something from the 1950's, which they have been taught is pretty much the same thing.
Or like something from the 1950's, which they have been taught is pretty much the same thing.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Leon De Winter
"If you think that all religions are equal, then cannibalism is only a matter of taste."
Such a good quote.
Such a good quote.
If you want to take an innovative, experimental drug...
...then why is it the government's choice and not yours?
Because there are limited funds for limited resources. The government doesn't want to be responsible for such things as inequality (either of treatment or of results, hence the desperation over getting every American onto equal health care) or side effects or rewarding innovation. We whine all year long about "funding research for ______" but then when some drug company might have the answer to that problem, we keep them from profiting from it. Pretty soon all our drug research is going to be coming from China, just like the other things we've outsourced to them.
Because there are limited funds for limited resources. The government doesn't want to be responsible for such things as inequality (either of treatment or of results, hence the desperation over getting every American onto equal health care) or side effects or rewarding innovation. We whine all year long about "funding research for ______" but then when some drug company might have the answer to that problem, we keep them from profiting from it. Pretty soon all our drug research is going to be coming from China, just like the other things we've outsourced to them.
List of the left wing's phony scare stories
Prager is looking for a list of phony science scare stories. I have a few suggestions:
Anthropogenic global warming
Silicon breast implants
Second-hand smoke
The Y2K disaster
The vanishing American forest
American toilet paper is made from old growth trees
Overpopulation
DDT
Tampons
Heterosexual AIDS
H1N1
Infant vaccination
Condoms cure everything and prevent everything
Sex education cures all sexual problems
We need sex ed in kindergarten
It's a fetus, not a person
It's a blob of undifferentiated tissue
If abortion is not legal, there will be thousands of deaths a year from attempts at self-abortion
If we fund embryonic stem cell research, Christopher Reeve will walk again
Ethanol is an excellent fuel for cars
Electric vehicles don't pollute
Compact Fluorescent Lights are good
Anthropogenic global warming
Silicon breast implants
Second-hand smoke
The Y2K disaster
The vanishing American forest
American toilet paper is made from old growth trees
Overpopulation
DDT
Tampons
Heterosexual AIDS
H1N1
Infant vaccination
Condoms cure everything and prevent everything
Sex education cures all sexual problems
We need sex ed in kindergarten
It's a fetus, not a person
It's a blob of undifferentiated tissue
If abortion is not legal, there will be thousands of deaths a year from attempts at self-abortion
If we fund embryonic stem cell research, Christopher Reeve will walk again
Ethanol is an excellent fuel for cars
Electric vehicles don't pollute
Compact Fluorescent Lights are good
What does it mean when they say "global climate destruction"?
Maddow: I think that "global warming" probably means ... extreme weather of all kinds.
Yeah, they needed to revise their definition because they were wrong all along and needed to fit the situation (there isn't any unnatural global warming) to the propaganda they've been spewing for the last twenty years.
Prager asks, Is this not an indicator that the whole AGW issue is a complete fraud? The answer is: NO, because the left never has to recant its obvious heresies and say it's sorry.
Yeah, they needed to revise their definition because they were wrong all along and needed to fit the situation (there isn't any unnatural global warming) to the propaganda they've been spewing for the last twenty years.
Prager asks, Is this not an indicator that the whole AGW issue is a complete fraud? The answer is: NO, because the left never has to recant its obvious heresies and say it's sorry.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
"Titled" vs "entitled"
I know the difference. I agree that "titled" is the correct word for "having such and so a title", especially considering the prefix "en-". But you see, "en-" can mean that the object has been infused with some feature. Endowed, imbued, and immersed are some examples.
That's not enough for me to advocate using "entitled" (which does make sense, even if Prager argues that it's wrong). But I would like to point out that when I was reading Ben Franklin's Autobiography I found about half a dozen cases where Franklin used "entitled" over "titled". Now, this might have been dismissed as editor error--correcting a correct word (it would seem likely that a brilliant man of Franklin's calibre used "titled") but this particular website insisted that it always preserved the original ms. in its original language.
And if it's good enough for Franklin, I can't see arguing with it.
That's not enough for me to advocate using "entitled" (which does make sense, even if Prager argues that it's wrong). But I would like to point out that when I was reading Ben Franklin's Autobiography I found about half a dozen cases where Franklin used "entitled" over "titled". Now, this might have been dismissed as editor error--correcting a correct word (it would seem likely that a brilliant man of Franklin's calibre used "titled") but this particular website insisted that it always preserved the original ms. in its original language.
And if it's good enough for Franklin, I can't see arguing with it.
Ninety million years ago there were alligators in the Arctic
I just wish the millions of people who fell for the AGW (anthropomophic global warming) hoax would stop and think about this.
Were there any holier-than-thou earth rescuers around back then to try to keep the earth from warming up and doing irreparable harm to the precious, delicate balance of nature? No. I wonder how anything survived, then?
What did the world do before there was an Al Gore and his hysterical followers to rescue it from the rest of us, the evil predators who would destroy as much of it as possible?
Were there any holier-than-thou earth rescuers around back then to try to keep the earth from warming up and doing irreparable harm to the precious, delicate balance of nature? No. I wonder how anything survived, then?
What did the world do before there was an Al Gore and his hysterical followers to rescue it from the rest of us, the evil predators who would destroy as much of it as possible?
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
"We use 'he' because it's closer to being 'it'"
When it comes to teachers, I usually use the anonymous "she" even though the profession is now more or less equally divided. I grew up assuming teachers were female because most of them were, until I reached high school age. The same with nurses. The grammar books of the era insisted that "if there is a single member of that group that is male, you use 'he'." What a crock. Everyone said "she" for teachers and nurses and usually for secretaries as well.
And yes, we refer to unknown animals as "he". But when it comes to insects, I use "she" most of the time, especially with social insects and spiders. I don't know whether I should be saying "she" with anything else, but to say "he" in reference to a bee or wasp is just wrong. For all intents and purposes, every bee or wasp or ant you will ever see is a female. The nests have no more than a few males and those never come out to be seen unless the queen is swarming.
As for spiders, I use "she" because many spider females kill and eat their mates, so I assume there may be a preponderance of females in the population, though I don't know this as an entomological fact, I just get tired of saying "he" so often.
And yes, we refer to unknown animals as "he". But when it comes to insects, I use "she" most of the time, especially with social insects and spiders. I don't know whether I should be saying "she" with anything else, but to say "he" in reference to a bee or wasp is just wrong. For all intents and purposes, every bee or wasp or ant you will ever see is a female. The nests have no more than a few males and those never come out to be seen unless the queen is swarming.
As for spiders, I use "she" because many spider females kill and eat their mates, so I assume there may be a preponderance of females in the population, though I don't know this as an entomological fact, I just get tired of saying "he" so often.
Sixhirb
Sexist
Intolerant
Xenophobic
Homophobic
Islamophobic
Racist
Bigoted
Or some combination of any of these seven elements.
We get called these names all the time.
Sadly, you've left out several crucial labels that they can throw at us:
Stupid
Ignorant
Trailer trash
Redneck
Religious clinger
Religious bigot
Religious fundamentalist
Religious
Old
Evil
Hateful
Nazi* (or fascist)
Demon from hell
*Somehow, Godwin's Law only shuts up conservatives, never liberals
Intolerant
Xenophobic
Homophobic
Islamophobic
Racist
Bigoted
Or some combination of any of these seven elements.
We get called these names all the time.
Sadly, you've left out several crucial labels that they can throw at us:
Stupid
Ignorant
Trailer trash
Redneck
Religious clinger
Religious bigot
Religious fundamentalist
Religious
Old
Evil
Hateful
Nazi* (or fascist)
Demon from hell
*Somehow, Godwin's Law only shuts up conservatives, never liberals
Hahaha, you can't follow this blog
...because I have no idea what "feed URL" means. Thus, I can't "configure feed" as the widget adder requests. Oh, well.
Hopefully I'll get to delete this post some day.
<3 everyone who has visited here, though.
Hopefully I'll get to delete this post some day.
<3 everyone who has visited here, though.
"In America, we (the middle class) give our kids twenty bucks just to go to the movies"
Prager is contrasting this fact (yes, sorry, it's a fact) with the statement that the average Cuban makes $20 a month.
Where did he get the idea this was a trait of our middle class? I'm living with a charitable bunch of people. The single mother works a forty-hour-a-week job at $11 an hour. She and her three children live below the poverty line.
They own their own house (paid for by her father, who is on Social Security), they have cable and internet and cell phones for all the family, they own a car (rather ratty and crummy but they own it) and four TV sets, one for every room (three bedrooms and the living room). They all own laptop computers and the daughters get a full new wardrobe every summer, plus perhaps thirty other garments during the rest of the year. When the son has a date with his girlfriend, grampa just pops out a twenty and hands it to him. When the daughters want yet another pair of shoes, mom pops out another forty dollars for those. All three women go to the tanning salon about once a month on average during the nine non-summer months.
These are our below-poverty-line people. The Cubans wish they had it so good.
Where did he get the idea this was a trait of our middle class? I'm living with a charitable bunch of people. The single mother works a forty-hour-a-week job at $11 an hour. She and her three children live below the poverty line.
They own their own house (paid for by her father, who is on Social Security), they have cable and internet and cell phones for all the family, they own a car (rather ratty and crummy but they own it) and four TV sets, one for every room (three bedrooms and the living room). They all own laptop computers and the daughters get a full new wardrobe every summer, plus perhaps thirty other garments during the rest of the year. When the son has a date with his girlfriend, grampa just pops out a twenty and hands it to him. When the daughters want yet another pair of shoes, mom pops out another forty dollars for those. All three women go to the tanning salon about once a month on average during the nine non-summer months.
These are our below-poverty-line people. The Cubans wish they had it so good.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Is Stephen Hawking an atheist?
One of Prager's callers asserted that he is. I read somewhere that while Hawking isn't exactly religious, he does think there is some kind of intelligent force behind the universe. In other words, a person. But if that's the case, I'm sure Hawking has never encountered him.
I think the assertion that was an atheist is mostly liberal wishful thinking. Leftists seem to think it is damaging to their point of view whenever any great scientist admits to seeing "an intelligent force" behind the universe, so they like to claim all the great scientists, economists, political leaders, and scientists for the atheist camp, and continue to call the rest of us "stupid" for "believing in sky fairies" (the most damaging and contemptuous term they could come up with without out and out name-calling).
I think the assertion that
Name a single issue on which the leftist position is more nuanced than the conservative position
Prager is right, again. One single issue, please.
Oh, you think your abortion position is nuanced? I don't know many liberals who will allow a single restriction on such an issue. To see yourself as I see you, just picture my friend Bob, an extremist like yourselves, who considered all abortions to be permissible, and who got into another discussion with me on this subject. His voice rose as he tried to shout me into silence. His face turned red and the veins stood out on his neck. His nostrils flared and he began to squeeze and open and squeeze his fists, until soon he was standing on his toes and dancing around the room, shrilly wheezing, "NO RESTRICTIONS!!! NO RESTRICTIONS!!!!" Then he proceeded to destroy a few items he found sitting around the room.
That's nuance for you!
Oh, you think your abortion position is nuanced? I don't know many liberals who will allow a single restriction on such an issue. To see yourself as I see you, just picture my friend Bob, an extremist like yourselves, who considered all abortions to be permissible, and who got into another discussion with me on this subject. His voice rose as he tried to shout me into silence. His face turned red and the veins stood out on his neck. His nostrils flared and he began to squeeze and open and squeeze his fists, until soon he was standing on his toes and dancing around the room, shrilly wheezing, "NO RESTRICTIONS!!! NO RESTRICTIONS!!!!" Then he proceeded to destroy a few items he found sitting around the room.
That's nuance for you!
"Life in prison is much worse than execution"
Funny, said Prager, but you know who doesn't agree with you? The murderers."
He has also said, "If you really believe that life in prison without possibility of parole is worse than execution, I consider you a barbaric monster."
I agree with him on both points. Where is your brain? How could you scream about banning execution as so hideously heinous that no civilized society should ever even consider it, and then turn around and so calmly assign these same people to something you claim is worse?
You wouldn't.
You're lying about it.
So shut up and step back, you've forfeited your right to a place at the table.
He has also said, "If you really believe that life in prison without possibility of parole is worse than execution, I consider you a barbaric monster."
I agree with him on both points. Where is your brain? How could you scream about banning execution as so hideously heinous that no civilized society should ever even consider it, and then turn around and so calmly assign these same people to something you claim is worse?
You wouldn't.
You're lying about it.
So shut up and step back, you've forfeited your right to a place at the table.
Smoking hysteria
Prager has always been 100% right on every issue concerning the hysteria over smoking.
Now we're supposed to be concerned over a politician's character as revealed in whether or not he smokes. Sigh.
Well, as Obama says, "Go for it." Funny, I wonder if our Old Stream Press, once they go after Boehner for smoking, is going to go after Obama as well?
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
Now we're supposed to be concerned over a politician's character as revealed in whether or not he smokes. Sigh.
Well, as Obama says, "Go for it." Funny, I wonder if our Old Stream Press, once they go after Boehner for smoking, is going to go after Obama as well?
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
"I'm worried about the morality, not the legality."
I realized after years of debating with my flamingly liberal friends that they often argued that something was legal so I was supposed to shut up. It's another trump card they play on someone else's answers, an "Automatic I-WIN Card".
That's how they'll argue when something they like has been made legal since the Sixties. But when they're arguing to get some old established law changed so they can have the law look they way THEY say it should look, then they'll just leap the chasm over to the other side, the moral side: we have to change it because it's the moral thing to do. It's wrong to make a woman search for a back-alley abortion; it's wrong to let people blow their cigarette smoke in my face, it's wrong to serve hormone- and antibiotic-laden beef in a restaurant...
And on they go, completely oblivious to the inconsistency.
That's how they'll argue when something they like has been made legal since the Sixties. But when they're arguing to get some old established law changed so they can have the law look they way THEY say it should look, then they'll just leap the chasm over to the other side, the moral side: we have to change it because it's the moral thing to do. It's wrong to make a woman search for a back-alley abortion; it's wrong to let people blow their cigarette smoke in my face, it's wrong to serve hormone- and antibiotic-laden beef in a restaurant...
And on they go, completely oblivious to the inconsistency.
Friday, September 3, 2010
"The left controls the language"
And that's how they win so readily. All the labels they apply to their opposition are beautifully crafted because they demonize the right and sanctify the left at the same time. Who wants to be a racist? So you shun the TEA party. Who wants to love the rich and hate the poor? That may be what every other culture does, but here in the Occident it has been turned into a very evil thing.
Are you against people sneaking illegally into the country and staying permanently? You're anti-immigrant. I even saw that label on FOX News this morning. "28 Governors favor anti-immigrant laws" the headline said, even though you'd have to search long and hard before you ever found a person who is against immigration. Who can hold a point when they're anti furriners? Who in the world would listen to a xenophobe as he undoubtedly spews his irrational hatred?
Pro-abortion became pro-choice, while right-to-lifers were turned into anti-choice. With labels like that, it's easy to con much of the public into believing that everyone who supports the "mass of undifferentiated tissue" "parasitizing" a "helpless young girl" (with horrible, abusive parents, always) would happily walk into any "women's health clinic" and kill every doctor, nurse, and patient in the place.
And so the good people vote Democrat. Every time. Religiously. Because voting Republican is voting for the devil.
Are you against people sneaking illegally into the country and staying permanently? You're anti-immigrant. I even saw that label on FOX News this morning. "28 Governors favor anti-immigrant laws" the headline said, even though you'd have to search long and hard before you ever found a person who is against immigration. Who can hold a point when they're anti furriners? Who in the world would listen to a xenophobe as he undoubtedly spews his irrational hatred?
Pro-abortion became pro-choice, while right-to-lifers were turned into anti-choice. With labels like that, it's easy to con much of the public into believing that everyone who supports the "mass of undifferentiated tissue" "parasitizing" a "helpless young girl" (with horrible, abusive parents, always) would happily walk into any "women's health clinic" and kill every doctor, nurse, and patient in the place.
And so the good people vote Democrat. Every time. Religiously. Because voting Republican is voting for the devil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)