Monday, December 5, 2011

Moonday


Obama: I Need another Term to Finish Us Off

Concerned that the damage will prove to be neither lasting nor complete, the president pressed his case…
"I'm going to need another term to finish the job," he said.
Not Even Barack Hussein Obama can destroy a 235 year old country in just four years. Progressives of all parties have been softening us up over the past 100 years, to the point where a critical mass now believes our rights come from government and the states work for the federal government. Are we citizens or subjects?

Biden 2016!

Gaffmaster Joe could make a play in 2016! Maybe he could run on his embarrassing honesty. He’s too dumb to be crooked.

Liberal Logic: Requiring voter ID is “rigging an election.”

Debbie Washerman Schultz (is she married to Ed Schultz? They’d make a perfect couple) says voter ID laws disenfranchise voters

So you need an ID to buy a pack of cigarettes, but not to protect the citizens' greatest exercise of power over government?  Democrats counter that voter fraud is not a problem, but how do they know that? With such lax rules in place, all but the most blatant fraud would be almost impossible to detect.

It takes a village of idiots…

As this fecund human playground reminds us…

"Somebody needs to be held accountable, and they need to pay."




We all pay, whether we want to or not.  Everyone pays but the serial empregnators who score with these stupid women and then leave them with the trophies.  The liberals whose policies have destroyed the American family need to be held accountable.  Create a nanny state and you will end up with a nation of  infants, wards of the state, crying for mommy and daddy to clean up their messes.

54 comments:

Magpie said...

“The liberals whose policies have destroyed the American family need to be held accountable”

Nice demonization… but what did you have in mind? ‘Second Amendment solutions’?

Could just vote Gingrich over Obama. After all… just look at Obama’s horrible example of a family compared to faultless paragon of marital virtues that Gingrich is.

I’m getting déjà vu on this theme, SF.
It doesn’t matter who is in government or what social services are withheld… some people will not control their reproduction intelligently… none of which has anything to do with the hole that America is in anyhow.

You don’t keep jobs in America, your wonderful free market sees them going overseas. Your banks gamble away millions and aren’t ‘held accountable’. You don’t manufacture enough. Your infrastructure is crumbling. And you are supporting the biggest military machine the world has ever seen.

And if it had been McCain Palin instead of Obama Biden you’d be so far deeper in shit you wouldn’t be able to breathe. Probably be fighting some other dumb war by now.

Silverfiddle said...

Many government policies have perverse consequences. "Helping" someone too much ends up snuffing their ability to help themselves. We have ruined whole generations.

I pretty much agree with your next-to-last paragraph. And it all has to do with accountability. It is nonexistent in this country.

Your last paragraph is pure conjecture.

Always On Watch said...

Not Even Barack Hussein Obama can destroy a 235 year old country in just four years.

In less than four years, Obama has done such harm to America that undoing the harm he's done will take decades -- if the undoing is at all possible.

As for Debbie Washerman Schultz, she is a moron. And a low-class one, at that. Just listen to the inane things she spouts. Her position in the Democratic Party tarnishes the entire Party into rust.

bunkerville said...

I keep asking myself, who annoys me more.. Schultzie or Pelosi? Maybe its Wasserman-Schultz because her hypenated last name reminds me of a certain blood test for a nasty disease.

Jack Camwell said...

I don't think the policies have destroyed the American family, or have resulted in the situation you describe.

I think the policies are a reaction to a situation that was already goin on.

Yes, the policies probably exacerbate the problem, but lets not pretend the law makers somehow started this trend.

The people are just as much to blame for this country's ails as the people they elect to represent us in government.

Anonymous said...

Magpie,

You disappoint me. I thought you were more discerning and more intelligent than that. Delivering a knee- jerk, doctrinaire liberal broadside condemnatory of my country without knowing us from the inside is unworthy of you as a reasonable man of good conscience.

The Angel Adams Phenomenon may not be responsible for all our woes, but it is one of many symptoms of the social cancer liberalism has generated here.

I have never understood -- and never will understand -- why disgusting, moronic women of this sort are not required by government to undergo mandatory sterilization the moment they apply for Aid to Dependent Children. It seems to me that the very least an Almighty Nanny State could do would be to PREVENT the suffering of innocent children yet unborn to hopelessly incompetent members of our permanent underclass.

To bring innocent new life into a situation like the one Angel Adams has created for her most unworthy self should be declared the worst form of Child Abuse imaginable.

Getting pregnant out of wedlock when you have no means of supporting the expected baby should be declared a FELONY. Though it deeply offends our Right to-Lifers, I would also favor mandatory, state-funded ABORTION in such situations if the pregnancy is discovered in the first trimester.

Mandatory sterilization of Welfare Mothers would hardly balance our budget, return jobs sent abroad by the greedy, self-defeating overreach of Unionists, renew our infrastructure or return our educational system to health and strength, but it would go a long way toward sending a strong signal to the Angel Adamses out there that The Gravy Train is about to come to a screeching grinding halt, and will soon be taken out of service altogether.

Dependence on Welfare is supposed to give temporary assistance to genuinely helpless people caught in crisis. It was never intended to become a PROFESSION.

By the way, I've always had a very favorable impression of Australia and her people, but know very little about you. How have you -- and how do you -- handle the Aborigines? Would you be happy if your daughter or son decided to marry one? Could your grandchildren from that union expect to find full acceptance and achieve a high degree of success in your society?

Unless and until obnoxious, virulently mouthy, self-righteous, know-it-all liberals are required by law to SUPPORT and EDUCATE at least TEN illegitimate children of another race from their OWN funds, they ought to shut their damned mouths and quit trying to tell everybody ELSE what to do and how to do it.

A baby is not a "Blessed Event" when it is born to morons who see it only as a means of getting a bigger check from Uncle Sucker. Irresponsible reproduction is a curse and a blight.

My God! We sterilize homeless cats and dogs before we're permitted to adopt them from Animal Shelters. It seems that's very least we could do for wayward human beings who offer nothing but further pollution of our already-degraded gene pool.

Tough problems demand tough solutions.

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

Jack: We can quibble over words, but he bottom line is that government policy has fostered irresponsibility, at the corporate and personal levels.

That woman sitting there in a hotel room full of kids from various sperm donors (I don't call them fathers) and demanding material support from others and pointing a finger of blame at others and insisting someone take responsibility is the sad result of our government trying to "help" people. It is grotesque. More so when cheered on by liberals who make excuses for this behavior.

Government would have my support if its first step were to track down the sperm donors and make them pay, through forced-labor if necessary.

Anonymous said...

Magpie,

Your cheap shot at Newt Gingrich is insufferable -- especially when you consider the supremely self-righteous, ultra busybody Eleanor Roosevelt's nauseating lesbian affair with Lorena Hickock and her miserable track record as housekeeper, wife and mother. --- Or JFK's sex addiction freely indulged with bimbos and at last one gangster's moll. --- Or Lyndon Johnson's revoltingly coarse behavior in general including his own well-documented sex addiction. --- And then the Bimbo Eruptions of former serial sex abuser and Rapist-in-Chief now Folk Hero Bill Clinton.

I'm sure you'd be eager to condemn faithful husband and beloved father of two daughters, Richard Nixon, for his petty "crimes," and decent, dull, always-well-meaning family man Gerald Ford for pardoning him, and the Bushes, whose intellectual acumen is certainly questionable, and who may leave much to be desired as politicians, but whose personal lives have been conventionally upright clean and decent -- you'd be happy to dismiss or condemn THEM simply for being "Republicans."

For that is their true sin, isn't it? Not being "liberals."

You'd forgive a dirty Commie bastard with a shady past like Obama anything, because he's billed as a "liberal," but the tiniest peccadillo committed by a man of the right is blown up out of all proportion and used a virtual branding iron, because of your distorted view of his politics.

Face it no one but religious fanatics gives a tinker's dam about anyone's sex life, UNLESS they can use it as a weapon with which to castrate him and destroy his career.

Why this ignoble, hypocritical practice works only with Conservatives and never with Liberals I can't imagine.

Your bigotry is showing a mile his morning, Magpie, and it ain't a pretty sight. It's the kind of crap I'd expect from Ducky, but not from you.

~ FreeThinke

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

FreeThinke: Excellent riposte!

Obama's solid record as a family man and Newt's inferior one have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

This is what I detest about team sport politics, and it's why I stay away from it. This is a discussion about policy grounded in fundamental truths and human nature. Leave it to liberals to drag irrelevant political personalities into it.

Can anyone on the left stick to the topic at hand?

Jack Camwell said...

So abortion is wrong, limiting sodium content in food is wrong, but forced sterylization is totally okay?

China's 1 baby per family policy is okay then, too, right?

And Silver, it's hard to figure out who the "sperm donor," is when the mom isn't even sure who it is.

Ducky's here said...

You spend some time with 12 kids in a motel room.

Not a lot of "help" Barely surviving.

Ducky's here said...

Voter ID - First prove there is widespread voting fraud. This is a movement to get into the minds of the right wing morons and convince them the minorities are taking over.

Kinda disgusting

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: How do you prove it when the law is set up to not detect it?

One example: If voter rolls are never purged, people can vote in place of the dead voter and it would never be detected as a fraud without some kind of cross-check of records.

Voting is the one piece of power We The People have over our government. Ensuring "one person, one vote," is important enough to put simple fraud preventions in place. I don't understand how this is a partisan issue.

Chakam said...

Kurt,

"I don't understand how this is a partisan issue."

Yeah, me neither. One vote, one person, and done.

I fear I shall ne'er understand the mind of a liberal.

Leticia said...

I don't know, Silver, Obama has done some pretty good job in destroying our economy, and the morality of this nation. I shudder to think of how much more damage he will do if he stays in office.

As for the moron in the video, is she daft? She is the one that got herself knocked up 15 times! It's her bloody fault and the "sperm donors." No one should be held accountable except for those four losers. This ridiculous mentality of entitlement has got to quit.

And would someone PLEASE take this woman to get her tubes tied or something! Apparently, she is unable to utter the word, "No."

I am sure there are those in her community that would gladly help pay for the procedure.

Poor kids.

Anonymous said...

"So abortion is wrong, limiting sodium content in food is wrong, but forced sterylization is totally okay?"

No one said that, Jack. Please stop arguing before you listen and fully comprehend what others are saying.

Most of the time life seems to be about making bad choices. Intelligent people learn to rank their available options and go with the least harmful and traumatic.

The world would certainly have missed an extraordinarily fine and talented human being if my mother had aborted me ;-) -- but I would never have known -- and neither would anyone else. Not every acorn gets to turn into a mighty oak.

Septic behavior must quite literally be sterilized, cleansed and washed out of existence to the greatest extent possible in order to avoid the exponential compounding of misery and degradation that malignant morons like Angel Adams perpetrate.

Notice please I am not suggesting that Ms. Adams be killed -- only that her tubes be tied.

If you're going to feed at the public trough, you should be expected to eat whatever the public puts in front of you without complaint or demur. Beggars cannot -- and should not -- be choosers

And please don't anyone tell me it's not Ms Adams's fault. She's always had the option to keep her legs crossed.

I most bitterly resent having to pay for the bastards human detritus like this produce without question, pause, qualm or conscience -- and so should you.

Our problem in Western Society -- thanks to the pernicious blandishments of Cultural Marxism -- is that we tolerate too much, and reason to little.

From the way you talk, I can see that your thinking too has been twisted and confused by this ubiquitous profoundly unwholesome influence. It's no wonder -- you are too young to remember what the world was like before the Libshit hit the fan, and our world got covered with excrement.

Sooner or later we all must come to grips with the realization that anything does NOT go, and many many self-indulgent modes of behavior are NOT okay under ANY circumstances. It's called acting like an ADULT.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

As for having to produce verifiable ID in exchange for being able to vote, I'll say this:

I am a native-born US citizen. I'll be 71 years old in April. I have had a driver's license and used it steadily since 1957 -- that's FIFTY-FOUR YEARS. I've also had a passport for the past 38 years. And yet, this year I am being forced to produce an "original birth certificate" PLUS my Social Security card in order to get my driver's license renewed.

If you don't think that is an outrage, there's something terribly wrong with you.

Where are the sit-ins, the marches, the parades and the bonfires protesting THAT? Why isn't THAT being taken before the Extreme Caught, huh?

Most of us are suffering from a severe case of Cranio-Rectal vision that we let atrocities like this be passed into law.

If you're going to get mad, at least focus your anger in a proper direction.

Malignant incompetents like Angel Adams should NOT have the right to vote. PERIOD!

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

"I don't understand how this is a partisan issue."

That's easy.

Mental defectives, cheats, criminals, and bums outnumber intelligent, informed, aware people at least ten to one.

The febes with very few exceptions vote D'RAT.

NOW do you understand why liberals are championing the unquestioned, unrestricted right to vote for anyone who shows up at the polls and says he wants to?

Just thinking about it is enough to give anyone the dry heaves.

~ FreeThinke

Infidel de Manahatta said...

My biggest nightmare is that his eminence Lord Obama will win reelection. If the Republicans get discouraged and stay home that might happen.

Look I know all the Republican candidates are RINOs but we have to get Obama out of office.

Chakam said...

Infidel,

I do not believe Mr. Ron Paul to be a RINO. A libertarian with Conservative tendencies, but not a RINO.

Unless you know something he has done or said that would lead you to believe he is a RINO? Do you? I'm researching Mr. Paul, so any info would be appreciated!

Jack Camwell said...

FT,
"I have never understood -- and never will understand -- why disgusting, moronic women of this sort are not required by government to undergo mandatory sterilization the moment they apply for Aid to Dependent Children."

Sounds to me like you're advocating mandatory sterilization.

My guess is that you think abortion is wrong. And I'm guessint that you think the government shouldn't limit sodium content in food.

So please, explain to me where I was wrong in anything I said.

And at what point have I EVER advocated for our current welfare system to remain the same? I agreed that it perpetuates the problem.

I just think it's fairly hypocritical to say that people deserve to make their own choices in life, but at the same time say that the government should have a say on whether or not a woman is allowed to have children.

liberaldude said...

I have to laugh when I hear Fox lemmings talking about "Obama destroying this country" when he is ending wars, saved the economy from the brink of depression and stopped insurance companies from dropping coverage. How evil!!

www.whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com

Finntann said...

“Somebody needs to be held accountable, and they need to pay,”

Damn skippy Angel, have you looked in a mirror lately?

Assistance is one thing, this isn't assistance it's social extortion... gimme the money or the kids suffer.

Prior to this hubbabaloo two years prior (2008) Ms. Adams was evicted by the Tampa Bay Housing Authority for failure to pay $6000 in back rent. Now how much do you suppose they make an unwed mother with a dozen kids pay a month?

After being evicted by the TBHA she moved into the apartment seen in the video. The authorities became involved when one of the children was caught with a knife at school.

Which is silly, I'm sure Ducky will agree since there isn't a demonstrated widespread problem with student knifings, the kids ought to be allowed to have knives at school and the authorities should never have gotten involved.
I can't remember the last time a kid got knifed at school here, shot maybe, but not knifed.

Well since she was demonstrably on assistance while whelping, one can make a strong argument regarding child abuse. I'm not sure what Florida law says, but Colorado law states "or permits a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation that poses a threat of injury to the child's life or health".

I'm sure that you'll agree that having multiple children without the means to support them places those children in "a situation that poses a threat" forcing society to intervene.

I'd even be so generous as to say the first child conceived on assistance is a freebie... the second child conceived on assistance ought to be a class 2 child abuse felony.

Society needs to protect the children and itself, the parents are incidental to all this.

Finntann said...

Hey liberaldude... can I have a toke? Must be some good shit.

Silverfiddle said...

@Libdude: saved the economy from the brink of depression

Just exactly how did his O-ness do that?

Talk to the millions that can't find a job and ask them just how far from the brink of depression we are.

Speaking of lemmings, you do a great useful idiot job of parroting the propaganda.

Rational Nation USA said...

"The liberals whose policies have destroyed the American family need to be held accountable. Create a nanny state and you will end up with a nation of infants, wards of the state, crying for mommy and daddy to clean up their messes."

It is, after all about power and how though dependency you gain ultimate control.

Statism in action and approaching full bloom.

Magpie said...

“Magpie,

You disappoint me.”

I don’t care if you’re disappointed. Free Thinkee
I know what and who I am, and I don’t have to prove a damned thing you.
I don’t think as well of you as you seem to think of me anyway.
To help level the playing field… I’m in an interracial marriage myself… so, now you can hate me too.

People will be stupid about their reproduction regardless of government or social services. Blaming it on liberalism is both irrational and a meaningless distraction from the hard economic reasons why America is in a period of challenge. That’s my point

“I have never understood -- and never will understand -- why disgusting, moronic women of this sort are not required by government to undergo mandatory sterilization the moment they apply for Aid to Dependent Children.”

Because dehumanising people is evil. And that’s an extraordinary comment to make for someone who is opposed to big government.

“By the way, I've always had a very favorable impression of Australia and her people, but know very little about you. How have you -- and how do you -- handle the Aborigines?”

They are the original Australians. We wiped out many of them with our European diseases and stole their world. They mostly live in sparsely populated areas. Those who live in the traditional way survive in an environment that would kill you or me in day. Others drift into the northern cities where our version of rednecks and racist twerps like yourself dwell, and are subjected to vilification and derision because laptops and television doesn’t interest them much.
In past times the authorities declared their women “disgusting, moronic” and took their children away by force to be raised in church-run institutions where they were subjected to horrendous abuse, often sexual.
These are called the stolen generations and our last prime minister delivered an official apology to every living member of them.

“Would you be happy if your daughter or son decided to marry one?”

Of course. Unless they were a total jerk, same as anyone else regardless of their ancestry.

“Could your grandchildren from that union expect to find full acceptance and achieve a high degree of success in your society?”

Yes. There are part-aboriginal politicians, business leaders, celebrities, sportspeople and other prominent members of society now.

You write “It seems that's very least we could do for wayward human beings who offer nothing but further pollution of our already-degraded gene pool.”

And yet you have the gall to say “Your bigotry is showing a mile his morning, Magpie”

My bigotry?? MY bigotry???

And Silverfiddle writes “FreeThinke: Excellent riposte!”

Now you disappoint me Silverfiddle.
Sadly.

Silverfiddle said...

This is the riposte I was referring to. Go back and check the thread...


Magpie,

Your cheap shot at Newt Gingrich is insufferable -- especially when you consider the supremely self-righteous, ultra busybody Eleanor Roosevelt's nauseating lesbian affair with Lorena Hickock and her miserable track record as housekeeper, wife and mother. --- Or JFK's sex addiction freely indulged with bimbos and at last one gangster's moll. --- Or Lyndon Johnson's revoltingly coarse behavior in general including his own well-documented sex addiction. --- And then the Bimbo Eruptions of former serial sex abuser and Rapist-in-Chief now Folk Hero Bill Clinton.

I'm sure you'd be eager to condemn faithful husband and beloved father of two daughters, Richard Nixon, for his petty "crimes," and decent, dull, always-well-meaning family man Gerald Ford for pardoning him, and the Bushes, whose intellectual acumen is certainly questionable, and who may leave much to be desired as politicians, but whose personal lives have been conventionally upright clean and decent -- you'd be happy to dismiss or condemn THEM simply for being "Republicans."

For that is their true sin, isn't it? Not being "liberals."

You'd forgive a dirty Commie bastard with a shady past like Obama anything, because he's billed as a "liberal," but the tiniest peccadillo committed by a man of the right is blown up out of all proportion and used a virtual branding iron, because of your distorted view of his politics.

Face it no one but religious fanatics gives a tinker's dam about anyone's sex life, UNLESS they can use it as a weapon with which to castrate him and destroy his career.

Why this ignoble, hypocritical practice works only with Conservatives and never with Liberals I can't imagine.

Your bigotry is showing a mile his morning, Magpie, and it ain't a pretty sight. It's the kind of crap I'd expect from Ducky, but not from you.


As for your emotional state, that's something you'll have to work through...

Magpie said...

I meant that this all you had to say after Free Thinkee's racist remarks. But fair enough I guess you just don't want to address those.

But by the way my point about Gingrich is solid. There is no way he can stand up for the 'family values' so beloved of conservatives.

Yes it might have been a cheap shot I my part. But cheap because it was easy and easy because it's true.
And so I got yet more demonisation of 'liberals' instead of agreement that he would have trouble as a candidate on the basis of his personal life which will be an issue FOR CONSERVATIVES.
Liberal-minded people won't vote for him anyway, because his policies are crap, not because of his personal life.

And an astounding barb that it is me who is the bigot (from someone openly racist), somwhow, because I don't like Newt Gingrich (as a politician).

Anonymous said...

I REPEAT with EMPHASIS:

Unless and until obnoxious, virulently mouthy, self-righteous, know-it-all liberals are required by law to SUPPORT and EDUCATE from their OWN funds at least TEN illegitimate children of another race, they ought to shut their damned mouths and quit trying to tell everybody ELSE what to do and how to do it.

A baby is not a "Blessed Event" when it is born to morons who see it only as a means of getting a bigger check from Uncle Sucker. Irresponsible reproduction is a curse and a blight -- not a "right."

My God! We sterilize homeless cats and dogs before we're permitted to adopt them from Animal Shelters. It seems that's very least we could do for wayward human beings who offer nothing but further pollution of our already-degraded gene pool.

Tough problems demand tough solutions.

It's not the skin color,. it's the BEHAVIOR, Stupid -- the BEHAVIOR.

You think you hate me, Magpie -- and I'm sure most of the others tacitly disapprove of my bold statements based on common sense -- because unlike those who've been undermined by the insidious blandishments of Cultural Marxism, I dare to denigrate and defy the suffocating orthodoxies of our time instead of pretending to feel ashamed of not going along with them.

"[The Aborigines] mostly live in sparsely populated areas. Those who live in the traditional way survive in an environment that would kill you or me in [a] day."

I already knew that. It's the condition in which they lived before "White Conquest," isn't it? What you don't seem to realize, Magpie, is that the type of sentimental, guilt-ridden emotion that appears to dominate what-passes-for "thinking" on your part would soon cause what-we-still-like-to-call the Civilized World to revert to similar primitive tribal conditions.

You write well, Magpie. So well in fact that for a time you gave me the impression you had a good mind. I'm sorry to see you prove me wrong.

Like most every liberal I've ever encountered you brazenly substitute sentiment for sense and vainly imagine yourself righteous and "enlightened."

It is not love for the Wretched of the Earth that motivates you, it is hatred of yourself and your own kind.

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

Magpie: I don't scold or censor commenters here like they do at liberal sites. Comb through comments (which I know you don't have time for) and you'll find blasphemy, profanity and all manner of withering criticism of libertarianism, conservatism and Christianity. I censor none of it.

I will engage someone if they challenge something I said, but I'm not the comment nanny.

You brought up Gingrich (who I don't like) and family values, which I never mentioned.

This is about personal responsibility and accountability.

If people like that woman and the octo-mom want to behave like animals, its none of my business...

... until the government picks my pocket to pay for their irresponsible lifestyle. I have a wife and kids of my own to take care of.

liberaldude said...

Paranoid, liars and haters...Oh, my!

Finntann said...

Magpie... the difference between a libertarian and a liberal, is libertarians don't care what you do so long as you don't violate any one elses rights and pay for it yourself. Liberals however want to nanny and scold, you're okay so long as you do what they say and pay for it to boot.

No one cares if you are "stupid about your reproduction", we simply don't feel obligated to foot the bill. The condition those children are living in is heartbreaking, but leaving them there and funding numbers 16, 17, and 18 doesn't make any sense.

I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal... if you have 12 kids, are supporting them, lose your job, I have no objection to temporary assistance. If you have eight kids, are on the dole, and pop out numbers nine, 10, 11, and 12... you are seriously taking advantage of your fellow citizens, and we don't need to stand for it.

To then have the unmitigated gall to voice “Somebody needs to be held accountable, and they need to pay,” on television just illustrates how screwed up the liberal nanny state has made some people.

Cheers!

jez said...

Surely magpie can be forgiven for being distracted by free thinke's racism? It does tend to steal focus for some of us.

Anonymous said...

Your "focus," Jez, appears to be strictly on your navel.

People of your philosophical persuasion steadfastly refuse to confront the realities that are dragging all of us back into the primordial swamp.

I agree with Finntann's last statement. It's logical, clear-headed and well stated. Yet no one calls him a "racist." I'm a libertarian too, but I'm also a great believer in personal charity, and I would restrict behavior that adversely affects the tone and character of neighborhoods. I am against loud, aggressive, belligerent unsightly demonstrations and vulgar displays of bad taste.

What anyone does quietly in the privacy of his own home, however, is none of my business -- or yours -- , unless he's getting his kicks by quietly kidnapping and carving up victims chosen at random, or stealthily adding deadly toxins to the water supple, etc.

The Cultural Marxist dicta of using loud accusations, aggressive lies, distortions and selected "facts" to distract observers from the truth tends to turn reasoned debate into a shouting match. Sorry, but the tactic doesn't work with me.

It may have started with accusations of "anti-Semitism" which were supposed to make anyone so accused freeze with shame and embarrassment, then crumple, shut up and sit down -- or better yet -- slink away.

That tactic worked so brilliantly the accusations soon broadened to "racism," sexism," "ageism," "nativism," "nationalism," "corporatism," "homophobia," "bigot," "hater," "religious fanatic," and every other belligerent, disrespectful term of opprobrium imaginable.

You dare to call comments that directly address the cause and define the nature of the problem cited a "distraction?"

I'm sorry to have to be the one to say it, but you're a silly child.

As I said above, "It's not the skin color. it's the BEHAVIOR, Stupid." The BEHAVIOR -- get it?

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

..."if you have 12 kids, are supporting them, lose your job, I have no objection to temporary assistance. If you have eight kids, are [already] on the dole, and pop out numbers nine, 10, 11, and 12... you are seriously taking advantage of your fellow citizens, and we don't need to stand for it.

"To then have the unmitigated gall to voice 'Somebody needs to be held accountable, and they need to pay,' on television just illustrates how screwed up the liberal nanny state has made some people."


BRAVO Finntann! An eloquent statement of irrefutable logic and absolute truth. Thank you.

~ FreeThinke

jez said...

'Yet no one calls [Finntann] a "racist."'

Maybe that's because he hasn't said anything racist? Not that I've done any kind of audit...

"...using loud accusations..."

this accusation isn't loud (but maybe your reaction to it is).

'You dare to call comments that directly address the cause and define the nature of the problem cited a "distraction?"'

No, the racial portions of your comments neither define nor address
the problems, they distract from them.
Why bring up the aborigines? Why demand that liberals adopt 10 babies, specifically of another race? These things have nothing to do with the problem. Finntann, for example, has no problem sticking to the real issue.

FreeThinke, I have no inclination to demonstrate your racism to you, and I don't need to. You've already (elsewhere) admitted that you are, and confessed that you don't care.
I only comment to alert you that your display of it is a frequent distraction. If you have more substantial points to make, be aware that the racism gets in the way of them.

"you're a silly child."

You're a reminder that age is no guarantee of wisdom; in fact, there's no fool like an old fool.

'As I said above, "It's not the skin color. it's the BEHAVIOR, Stupid." The BEHAVIOR -- get it?'

I heard you the first time, but you contradict yourself all over the place. Once should be enough, but only if you're consistent. So, yes, "get it" insofar as I am aware of you typing that in; but it'll take more than repetition for me to accept it or believe it from you.

Magpie said...

FreeThinke

“You think you hate me, Magpie”

Oh… I’m pretty sure of it. Or more accurately, I despise the kind of attitudes you embrace.

I also resent your intellectual narcissism that somehow you carry the flame for Western civilisation. All you actually champion is the politics of vilification.

You infer that I am somehow ashamed – “guilt-ridden” to use your phrase - regarding Western civilisation because I SIMPLY ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION about aborigines.
Does my abhorrence of the sexual molestation of aboriginal children ripped from their families by self-righteous kiddie-tiddling church followers automatically mean I am ashamed of an entire civilisation? What am I to assume from your attitude there? That you see nothing regrettable about such abuse?

How dare you.

I LOVE my country. And ALL the cultures in it that make it great.
And that’s the difference between us: You cannot handle diversity. You once said as much yourself.
You’re the primitive.

And who the hell are you to talk about civilisation with such proprietorial assumption? Did you personally paint the Sistine Chapel? Write Hamlet?

Enforced sterilisation and abortions? Are you nuts?
These are the sorts of things the lunatic Right accuses Obama of plotting with ‘socialised medicine” (stupid bogeyman phrase), and yet you’re actually and openly advocating it.

I do NOT hate “my own kind” - a phrase used almost exclusively by morons with confederate flags hanging over their sofas, I might add….
I hate your kind.
The kind that deal with their own frustrations and inadequacies by the systematic dehumanisation of others. Your attitudes are exactly the enablers of every atrocity in history, and like every perpetrator of atrocity you cloak your inadequacies and hate in grand ideas of ‘civilization’, scorning simple decency as foolish “sentimentality”.

And it IS about skin colour for you. Don’t lie.
You have uttered any number of racist obscenities that I’ve seen. You are an unapologetic bigot and you revel in your bigotry.

Don’t even dream that my feelings are hurt by your sociopathic attempt at browbeating. I’d be very worried if you thought I was party to any ideology you would attach yourself to.

Now back to the point:

Octomum or whoever are not the reason that America - a wonderful nation made great BY DIVERSITY - is in economic difficulty. Indulge in your umbrage all you want about what a twit she is (and yes she is a twit), but that won’t fix anything.

You remind me of a baying pack of medieval villagers wanting to burn a witch to make their world safe.

Hating a woman for her reproductive or sexual choices is the hallmark of primitive reactionaries the world over.
Would you like to stone her, FreeThinke? Would that make you feel better?
Oh no. You would like her to live as dog or a cat in an animal shelter, with some of her parts removed to make her a suitable.. ‘unperson’… to sate your ire.

Meanwhile you still have millions of people looking for a job.

And Silverfiddle,

I never asked you to be a comment nanny.
I just note you don’t call racism racism unless you see it on what you’d call a liberal site.

Silverfiddle said...

When have I ever went to a liberal site and accused someone of racism? (Maybe I have but don't remember.)

Again, I'm not the comment nanny, and I have a day job, so running around "calling" people on whatever for their comments is not a high priority.

Your complaint is especially strange since you've done an excellent job on your own, much better than I could have ever done, quite frankly. I loved "proprietorial assumption." You really are a very good writer.

Anonymous said...

The only useful thing I may have accomplished on this unfortunate thread is to bring two exquisite examples of leftist malevolence out in the open -- naked, unashamed in all their glory. I have always maintained that what-has-been-mistakenly-called "liberalism" is primarily a hate-based phenomenon -- a movement predicated on negativity -- the desire to mock, reject, wound and destroy. The remarks posted by my antagonists add considerable credibility to that contention.

Whether it be based on self-hatred, resentment of parental authority, childish rejection of "Tradition," rebellion against the excessive demands made by the Word of God, a wish to find a good excuse to avoid exercising the self-discipline necessary to acquire genuine skill and knowledge, or merely to find focus for the free-floating hostility found everywhere that two or three are gathered together for any purpose whatsoever doesn't much matter. It's probably a combination of at least two or more of those elements, but whatever the basis of modern liberalism might be, hostility and resentment are its hallmarks, and unabashed rudeness and accusatory insolence are the way it characteristically expresses itself. It has nothing to do with love of humanity or anything in the least positive.

~ FreeThinke

(CONTINUED)

Anonymous said...

I am only sorry that I allowed the antagonism to activate my own capacity to express hostility. I should not have called Jez a silly child. Such an observation could only add fuel to the fire. It was stupid of me to give way to the impulse.

"Race" is the "Ace in the Hole" liberals have used to beat those who dare to disagree with them about the head and shoulders. No one is more race-conscious or race-obsessed than your average liberal. Tub-thumping for "racial equality" lends their totalitarian ambitions an aura of legitimacy. Persistent accusations of "racism" give them a claim to virtue. If it hadn't been for "racism," -- admittedly once a serious social problem -- liberals would never have gotten to first base in their quest for dictatorial power. So naturally it is in their best interests to keep "racism" alive and well by "seeing" it and denouncing it everywhere. Accusations of "Anti-Semitism," "Racism," "Sexual Harassment," and coincidentally "Child Abuse" are the Salem Witches of our era.

Once accused you might as well be dead, for surely you will be drawn and quartered -- or the metaphorical equivalent thereof.

Liberals have had an absolute field day denouncing "Anti-Semites," "Racists," "Sex- Abusers," et al. and have gained exorbitant amounts of political clout in the process.

Our country was rudely insulted by a foreign liberal in the first post on this thread. "Race" is never far from the mind of these bigots [a bigot by the way is merely someone who thinks that all opinions incongruent with his own must be evil or stupid. "Bigot" is not properly a synonym for "racist"], just as it hung obviously in the air over this entire post since the video reveals Ms. Angel to be undeniably black. So naturally I would ask the Aussie how his country has dealt with the Aborgines. He was honest enough to say that his countrymen have treated their native blacks as badly as some of our forebears treated our Indians and later the Negro slaves imported to our shores by ignorant, selfish, tragically short-sighted individuals.

All I ever hear from liberals I know is that any and all objections to President Obama must be laid at the foot of "racism."

No! No! No! No! NO!

The bizarre concept that we must give up Capitalism -- give up the accumulation of personal wealth -- give up the ability to pass our accumulated wealth to loved ones in future generations -- give up respect and reverence for our culture and heritage -- and embrace the tyranny of MARXISM [Let's just call it what it is, and be done with it, please] in order to prove once and for all that we are not "racists" -- and let's face it that is EXACTLY what so-called "liberals" are demanding of us -- is untenable.

Suzerainty over our minds, hearts, souls -- and most particularly our wealth -- is what liberals are after -- nothing less. All their self-righteous posturing and belligerent accusatory rhetoric -- their relentless, indefatigable truculence and combativeness -- are contrived to achieve that end.

It infuriates liberals when someone sees them for what they are. The Smear Machine revs up at the first sign of Truth on the horizon, and goes into automatic pilot to free the liberal operatives to flail away at their army of strawmen with reckless abandon to the detriment of everyone's future prospects.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

SilverFiddle,

You have no need to defend yourself. I have freely acknowledged that Magpie is a good writer, myself, even though I find his remarks odious for reasons perhaps too amply stated.

Unlike most "liberals," -- and those of a site-nannying disposition (thankfully not you, or I wouldn't bother to post here) -- I really do believe in the free, unfettered exercise of free speech.

However, when a discussion degenerates into nothing but an exchange of heated insults, it ceases to be worthwhile.

It's much too bad if we can't tolerate the airing of opinions we don't agree with without getting nasty.

We all have a right to our views. I refuse to be insulted or bullied into stifling mine.

~ FreeThinke

jez said...

In fact I have treated you graciously with a gentleness you frequently fail to return.

'"Anti-Semitism," "Racism," "Sexual Harassment," and coincidentally "Child Abuse" are the Salem Witches of our era.'

This is true give or take some clumsy syntax, and we could add more items to your list.

but...
"Once accused you might as well be dead, for surely you will be drawn and quartered"

I have no interest in doing this, and I challenge you to produce evidence that I have any such intention.

"[race] hung obviously in the air over this entire post since the video reveals Ms. Angel to be undeniably black."

Not for me it didn't.

Do you imagine it would be at all difficult to find welfare queens just like her from other races?

Anonymous said...

I wish SilverFiddle had found a video of some piece of poor white trash who put herself in a similar situation to Ms. Angel's -- or Octomom's. It would have been more -- er -- diplomatic -- not to say Politically Correct -- if he had.

If you can find one, please give us a link. I'd like to see it. I'm sure Britain too has a large, ever-expanding underclass every bit as much a blight and a burden on society as ours.

You made a mistake common to most people of a captious, disputatious, bent, Jez. You assumed my remarks were directed specifically at you, personally. They were not, though yours and Magpie's were most certainly aimed at me, personally. This argument is not about you and me or Magpie. It's about principles and conflicting concepts of what might make a better society.

The observations I make about liberalism-- and the dismal effects it has had on our once vibrant, optimistic, high achieving, forward thinking, genuinely progressive world -- are rarely directed at any individual.

Many of my dearest, lifelong friends are liberals. It doesn't stop me from loving them, but neither does friendship -- or even the dearest,most intense romantic attachment -- prevent me from rejecting the beliefs they embrace -- usually in ignorance of their implications and ramifications.

I regard most liberals -- certainly the ones I know socially -- as well-meaning dupes. They've been indoctrinated by the truly evil instigators and "organizers" who perpetuate the movement in myriad ways. They've been taken in and swayed by the false humanitarianism that masks totalitarian ambition. In this regard National Socialism and Bolshevism -- assumed by many to have been in bitter opposition -- were identical -- evil twins, if you will. The dispute between them was over the matter of who would get to play the role of Dictator to the World. That was all.

I don't wish you ill, Jez. I just disagree with your beliefs -- at least as they've been revealed here.

Have a MERRY CHRISTMAS, whether you celebrate it or not. A little joviality -- and expressions of generosity and gratitude -- can do a lot of good in this otherwise dreary old world.

Cheerio!

~ FreeThinke

jez said...

Yes my remarks were directed personally to you, broad statements about eg the whole right wing being racist would have been presumptive and false. As are your sweeping generalisations frequently false. Consider my responses to be proof by counter-example.

Anonymous said...

My dear, all you prove is that -- on this blog at least -- you are a chilly little pill filled with ill will. You may be the very personification of Charity, Charm and Good Cheer elsewhere, but the drift of your commentary here has all the appeal of the Common Cold.

From the evidence you present at Western Hero you are like every other "socially conscious" dupe I've ever known. You are forever on the hunt for something you may fear, loathe, disapprove of, or worry yourself sick about.

And you ought to know by now that it's wrong to confuse principle with generalization.

Even so, I wish you a MERRY CHRISTMAS and a Better, More Salubrious Outlook on Life in the New Year.

Cheer up for God's sake! I mean you no harm, and certainly pose no threat to you. I merely disagree with your philosophy -- as you've given me to understand it.

~ FT

jez said...

Well that's your opinion, and while I'm sure you're not the only one who finds me unappealing, I nevertheless interpret it as a symptom of the paranoia that your favorite conspiracy theory has infected you with.
You consider anyone who disagrees with you to be not only devious, but despondent or even depressed. Have you ever considered that it might be possible to be happy while maintaining a different outlook from your own??

You say that you pose no threat to me, I'm not sure that's true. I think some of the views you hold are profoundly dangerous.

Anyway, no point dwelling on all that. Instead, why don't you get down to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zywDiFdxopU -- that should cheer *you* up! I insist that you pursue it at least to the final chorus with the ecstatic bvs.

Anonymous said...

I listened to Stevie without annoyance, but with little interest. Quite an accomplishment, since I have never been one of his fans. Not having to look at him shaking his dreadlocks and making awful faces helps, of course.

Don’t understand your singling this out for attention, because all he does is repeat and repeat and repeat a single phrase without discernible nuance or development, but at least the overall effect is not as jarring or patently offensive, as so much “pop” music has been for the more than half a century.

If I feel a need for rest, renewed hope and reassurance, I look to selections like the following
:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh31j6L95Ok&feature=fvwrel

or
:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=6LxquaZZFQo&feature=related

or:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ck0CJw3VEc
or:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4iP9xpOElw

Best wishes for a serene and joyful celebration of Christmas and the coming year.

~ FreeThinke

PS: I admit I was quickly bored by Stevie Wonder and did not finish the selection, but I promise I will just to prove I am a good sport. Meanwhile, I hope you caught the radiant wonder, glory, majesty, serenity and boundless energy in Allegre, Bach, Vittoria and Fauré. - FT

Anonymous said...

Well, Jez,

I kept my promise and listened to all of Don't You Worry 'Bout A Thing.

I understand it's very good of its kind, and I don't dismiss it as "unworthy" just because I don't happen to like the genre, but the fact remains that I don't like the genre.

'Taint "racism," because I love Josephine Baker, Bricktop, Alberta Hunter, Ella Fitzgerald, Art Tatum, Nat King Cole (before he became really "popular"), Bobby Short, Mabel Mercer, Duke Ellington, Errol Garner, Prstl Bailey, Cab Calloway, Lionel Hampton, et al.

And Stevie's "sound" is at least endurable, which is more than I could say for most of his "colleagues."

Bu why nyone wold want to hear Stevie when they could have Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Hugo Wolf, Debussy, Ravel, Fauré, Duruflé, Messiaen, Poulenc, Richard Strauss, etc. I can't imagine.

Best of The Season to You!

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

I meant P-E-A-R-L Bailey, of course. Sorry!

~ FT

jez said...

FT, thanks for listening -- I understand this response may not reach you but I have been moving house and mostly away from the internet in the mean time.

"Not having to look at him shaking his dreadlocks and making awful faces helps, of course."

Come now, it's not like you never have to sit through a classical musician gurn his way through a movement as though he were negotiating a particularly upsetting shit, is it?
That brief joust out of the way, on to more important matters:

"Don’t understand your singling this out for attention"

The reason is joy. It is unrestrained and uncomplicated, yet (for many) fully believable and un-patronising. This is why Stevie Wonder is important, for this is rare in music, certainly rare in pop music.
I didn't mention him because of his race, but because of the "cheering up" you frequently recommend; I reckon Stevie can teach us something profound about "cheering up."

It contrasts with your selections (or at least the first one, the only one I have pursued -- sorry, I still have severely limited internet). Aside from the difference in idiom, I notice that whatever joy there is in psalm 51 is significantly encumbered with penitence, contrition and self-flagellation. I can see the appeal, after all most of the "serious" artists and listeners working in the pop idiom require a similar bitterness in order that they may take the sweetness seriously; but Stevie Wonder is different, perhaps unique, in his capacity to make his sweetness palatable without resorting to melancholy.

The peerless music critic Robert Christgau explains Stevie far better than I can: here's his write-up from 1974, and as such many of his references that would elude you for being too pop also elude me for being too old; but on the plus side, this was slap in the middle of Stevie's classic period (he has been near-enough irrelevant as a recording artist since about 1980, although he remains singularly compelling live). www.robertchristgau.com/xg/rock/wonder-74.php
The article is quite long, and I am aware that it is not science; it is amply open to accusations of pseudo-intellectualism. So I will quote one important bit:

"I began by calling Stevie Wonder a fool because that is the kind of judgment we shy away from--after all, the man is blind, he is black, and we love him. But if he is a fool he is a sainted fool. His simplicity will not save us--what will?--but it will do us more good than the simplicity of John Denver or Elton John. We may enjoy their simplicity, we may find it useful ... but we do not need it. It just may be that we need Stevie Wonder."

You have identified, correctly, that his music is simple. That's an asset.
(although, he's not specially simple by the standards of the pop idiom).

"all he does is repeat and repeat and repeat a single phrase without discernible nuance or development"

This is partly due to the idiom, (pop and folk songs are designed partly with community singing in mind; do you complain about repetition in hymns?) but it is also hyperbole: there are at least 4 melodic phrases, and these *are* developed, consider the gradual introduction of extra backing vocals I mentioned before, among other things.

"Bu why nyone wold want to hear Stevie when they could have Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, ..."

Stevie is valuable primarily as a performer, and those guys are dead and never got to record.

A note about voices: I find the classical training in the operatic style makes a voice quite alien, and the chief motivation for it (sufficient volume to balance unamplified against a full orchestra) has disappeared since the arrival of the microphone. That style of voice usually sounds nice in a choir, but I usually find it grating in solo. I find the untrained pop style of voice far more relatable and therefore better able to touch my emotions.

I could go on, but I fear I have already gone on at impolite length.

Anonymous said...

Hi, Jez,

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Just wanted you to know that I did receive your last letter. Your sincerity can't be questioned, I'm sure.

I think we may have to agree that we respond to stimuli on different wavelengths, and let it go at that.

The human capacity to become fascinated and fond with -- whatever -- would make an interesting study in itself.

Since I have no idea how to provide "hot" -- or direct -- links, I won't trouble you with the six musical selections I found and formatted in this year's Christmas email which I've sent pleasantly formatted and interspersed with Christmas poetry to 125 friends and relatives.

Most of the music comes from England, which still produces the finest choral singing to be found anywhere. Your beautiful Lynne Dawson, who sang at the recent Royal Wedding at the Abbey has quite stolen my heart. I've never heard a more beautiful rendition of two of the soprano arias from Messiah.

No one is more alive today than Purcell, Byrd, Bull, Gibbons, Palestrina, Monteverdi, Gesualdo, Vittoria, Zweelinck, Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Liszt, Brahms, Wagner, Richard Strauss, Mahler, Hugo Wolff, Debussy, Ravel, Prokofieff, Tchaikovsky, Bartok, and all the rest of the many significant composers who helped advance Western Civilization.

If you'd care to leave your email address, I would gladly send this year's Christmas email offering to you. If not, I understand. We come from different worlds. I wish I could understand and enjoy yours yours, but I doubt it's possible.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

~ FreeThinke

jez said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jez said...

"I think we may have to agree that we respond to stimuli on different wavelengths, and let it go at that."

Not convinced we do, since I love the classical idioms too, though I tend to experience them as monuments: a fine subject for a visit and worthy of close contemplation and study, but not as a place to live. My daily bread is pop.
In both idioms, I am highly selective. Most music from every era is worthless.
Perhaps I have better luck appreciating more idioms than you can, because I don't insist on comparing my apples with my oranges.

"The human capacity to become fascinated and fond with -- whatever -- would make an interesting study in itself."
Not to mention lucrative!

"I've never heard a more beautiful rendition of two of the soprano arias from Messiah."
Funnily enough I heard the best performance of arias from Messiah last month too, from an American soprano.

"No one is more alive today than <exhaustive list of composers, many if not all of whom are dead>"
Sentimental perhaps, but dodges my point: they are decidedly dead as performers.

Hope your christmas was merry, and your new year happy, as were mine.