Surely they have been called Uncle Toms, Race Traitors, Oreos, House Ni**ers, Tokens, etc by the Left already.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/10/28
Surely they have been called Uncle Toms, Race Traitors, Oreos, House Ni**ers, Tokens, etc by the Left already.
Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Character, crime, Culture, economics, Elections, history, Insanity, Liberal, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, race, society | Leave a Comment »
Posted by DNW on 2014/10/18
… really, to the Activist Left.
With the most recent publication of the New York Times article on the Grand Jury findings and the likely Justice Department decision not to prosecute Officer Darren Wilson for the shooting of Michael Brown, it would seem that with a large portion of the uncertainty surrounding this event dissipating, so too would the causes for emotional inflammation lessen at least proportionally.
The Times reports:
“The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.
The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform.
Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck. This is the first public account of Officer Wilson’s testimony to investigators …”
So, Officer Wilson’s testimony does at this point seem consistent with the forensic results.
But, says the Times, “ … it does not explain why, after he emerged from his vehicle, he fired at Mr. Brown multiple times.”
Now let’s just stop here for a moment and consider where we are even if we discount not only Piaget Crenshaw and Tiffany Mitchell’s versions of the encounter at the police car, but also Dorian Johnson’s potential “spin”. After all, Dorian Johnson was an accomplice in Michael Brown’s moments-before robbery of Ferguson Market and Liquors . So, just for the sake of argument, let’s also suppose that Johnson’s version of Officer Wilson’s reaching up and out through the police SUV window, and grabbing the 6’4″ tall, 300 lbs, Michel Brown by the scruff of the neck with one hand , and drawing him back into the police vehicle in order to shoot him, is discounted.
Let’s suppose instead, and based on videotaped fact quite reasonably, that Brown, highly conscious of the strong arm robbery he had just perpetrated, and of the success he had just had in assaulting and technically battering the store clerk into submission during the robbery, figured he would try the same technique on the cop who was trying to tell him to get out of the middle of the road and to stop blocking traffic; a cop who in returning to deal with Brown’s refusal, and while in radio contact with headquarters, would in all probability become more curious regarding Brown’s recent activities and current motives.
Let’s suppose then, that Wilson is telling the substantial truth: that Michael Brown, knocking Officer Wilson back into the SUV as he attempted to emerge, went himself partly in through the car door window in order to batter Wilson into submission. And, that during the course of Brown’s battering Wilson, Wilson and Brown struggled for control of Wilson’s gun, and that, as the forensics show, the gun was discharged twice in the vehicle, spattering the vehicle interior as well as Brown and Wilson, with blood from Brown’s arm.
At which point Brown wounded once in the arm, takes off running; and Wilson, battered about the head and face emerges from the vehicle in pursuit.
The first point to make here is that many on the left would object to Wilson shooting Brown under any circumstances: even to save his life in the midst of a potentially life or death struggle.
How do we know this? We know this, because in what they are positing as roughly parallel cases, wherein there was perhaps even more existential provocation for shooting an assailant, such as for instance, having your head smashed on a concrete walk, leftists and race hustlers have in fact vehemently objected.
In the specific instance just now referenced, the case of Zimmerman-Martin, even after it was demonstrated through imagery, and geometrically, and through the testimony of Trayvon Martin’s so-called “girlfriend”, that Trayvon had to have doubled back on Zimmerman in order to assault him; even after Zimmerman’s bloody skull and broken nose were finally shown to the public; even after the ballistics showed that Zimmerman shot up into Trayvon’s chest while, or virtually while, being battered by Trayvon, the blase’ response of the left – agreed to by our friend the Old Gap Bridger for another example – was that Zimmerman had earlier invaded Trayvon’s space, deserved an assault and battery in response, and should therefore have “taken his beating like a man”.
In other words, to some on the left who still like to pose as fellow citizens instead of declaring as outright enemies, it doesn’t matter if you are being maimed or killed by a member of the imagined victim class. You are to passively suffer it; or maybe, flee. The victim classes’ “right” to inflict mayhem on you, trumps your very right to life.
Now in the case of Officer Wilson and Michael Brown, it is apparent, even according to our hypothetical scenario here, that Brown was shot multiple more times after Officer Wilson drove off Brown’s initial attack. This additional shooting occurred after Officer Wilson extricated himself from the vehicle and, as was his duty, set off in hot pursuit of the man who had mere seconds before been battering him.
It is at this juncture that (generalizing) a further supposition of the activist left comes into play. Already under their scheme of things, you are presumed to be obligated to to suffer a beating at the hands of a member of an official victim class without responding with fatal or potentially fatal force. At the very least, the moment any such assailant pauses in his attack on you, he is presumed immune from any retaliation.
In the specific case of Brown and Wilson, Brown (under our assumed scenario) having unsuccessfully attempted to batter and or kill Officer Wilson in Wilson’s car, was fleeing the failed attempt, and thereby had under collectivist moral sensibility become immune from the leveling of deadly force in retaliation. It would not matter if Brown had just 5 seconds before gouged Wilson’s left eye out and ripped off his right ear. As the leftist activist sees it, the perpetrator is morally immunized [legally is another matter] from physical retaliation through the act of flight.
Furthermore, even if Brown ceased flight, not in order to surrender, but only to resume his assault under the transparent pretext of pretending to surrender, the left would still assert that to kill the assailant prior to a repeat of physical contact, no matter how many warnings to halt were given, was “unjust”.
The reason is that under their scheme of interpretation, neither Wilson, nor Zimmerman, nor any other person not a member of an official victim class, is even entitled to self-defense. More broadly, no one is under the leftist system, actually. But this most especially applies to all such people already considered guilty of capitalism, and economic privilege, and of engaging in the pursuit of self-interest. Those, thinks the leftist, of this bourgeois kind, who are not yet the recipients of an assault or battery or murder, are only awaiting their turn at a proper fate.
Unfortunately this attitude, more broadly predicated and subtly construed, at least superficially, has been creeping steadily into law over some generations now.
There can, it is plain, be no real reasoning across this kind of moral gulf.
One can only resist, or submit.
Posted by DNW on 2014/10/16
NBC News reports
“President Barack Obama is expected to issue an executive order Thursday paving the way for the deployment of National Guard forces to Liberia to help contain the Ebola outbreak there, sources told NBC News.
The sources said that eight engineers and logistical specialists from the Guard, both active-duty and reservists, would probably be included in the first deployment. They are expected to help build 17 Ebola treatment centers, with 100 beds apiece. The sources said that no decision had been made.
Defense Department officials said that the executive order was necessary to speed the deployments, and would allow the president to send additional forces as needed. Health officials have recorded more than 2,400 Ebola deaths in Liberia, the highest of any country.”
The National Guard? There have undoubtedly been numerous changes for the worse in our laws in recent years, but when did the President get the authority to call up National Guardsmen for duty beyond our borders on his own imperial say so?
What the hell has this country, and have its people, become?
In partial answer to my own question we have this from the Heritage Foundation. I have made paragraphs in some cases where none were before in order to emphasize certain points.:
“In the 1980s, governors again resisted a presidential call for the militia (National Guard). Some of them objected to the deployment of their states’ National Guard troops to Central America. Led by Minnesota governor Rudy Perpich, these governors withheld their consent to federally ordered National Guard active duty training, as was their prerogative under then current federal law.
In response, Congress enacted the Montgomery Amendment, which prohibited governors from withholding consent for National Guard active duty service outside the United States.
Perpich filed suit against the Department of Defense, arguing that the Montgomery Amendment was unconstitutional because it infringed on the militia training authority granted to the states under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.
Perpich also sought to enjoin the use of Minnesota National Guard troops in any training outside the United States that did not have the governor’s consent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the supremacy of presidential control over the operations of the militia when called into actual service of the United States.
Like James Monroe and Justice Joseph Story, the Court held that a state governor could not veto the use of a state militia when called upon by the nation in accordance with Congress’s constitutional power and the President’s constitutional authority.
Recent Presidents have made more use of the National Guard as a reserve, calling units up for long periods of duty abroad, in actions in the two Gulf Wars, Bosnia, and Afghanistan.”
All this still leaves open the matter of Congressional assent, and under what legal authority the militia is being “called into the actual service of the United States”.
My, what a race of serfs we have become.
Posted by DNW on 2014/09/29
In an update to the Alton Nolen story, we have his mother’s assurance that it was not him, or the real him, that was there when this thing “happened”.
He was raised in a loving home, you see.
And Mom says, he believed in God.
Though that is not quite what is at issue: since no one disputes that Alton Nolen believed in a god of some sort; just not the Christian God his mother and sister appear to – sincerely – profess.
No, the god Alton Nolen professed was the god Muslim faithful refer to as “Allah”. And it was apparently Alton Nolen’s belief in Allah and in the Koran as the word of Allah, that led Nolen to argue that women should be stoned for certain offenses, and is probably why he beheaded the woman he chose as one of his slashing victims.
But you know, Alton’s mom is, perhaps understandably, having a hard time dealing with this.
“Relatives of the main suspect in an Oklahoma workplace beheading insist that he is a good person and would never hurt anyone.
Mother Joyce Nolen and sister Megan Nolen made the emotional claims in a video posted Saturday to Facebook. Accused killer Alton Nolen has a violent criminal past and has spent multiple stints in prison, records have shown.
Listening to the audio we hear this from his mother, transcribed below as accurately as possible without resorting to a phonetically reproduced “dialect” style of quoting:
“This uh I would like to make a statement on behalf of my son Alton Nolen …. my heart is just [undecipherable] right now
Uh, I know my son, my son was raised up in a lovin home. My son was raised up believing in God, that’s what he believed in. My son was a good kid.
You know, I know what they saying he done, but I’m gonna tell you this; that’s not my son.
There’s two sides to every story. And, we’re only hearing one.
His family, our hearts bleed right now, because what they saying Alton has done.
I wanta apologize to both families, because this is not Alton.
But I just … I’m praying that justice will prevail; the whole story will come out; the whole story.
“There’s two sides to every story and we’re hearing only one …”
“I’m praying that justice will prevail. The whole story will come out … the whole story … “
Yeah, Alton was a good kid. Probably no “serious felonies” as they say in Ferguson.
Their hearts are bleeding too, figuratively speaking. Almost as much as the decapitated body of Alton’s victim did literally.
But remember! The whole story has not come out! Who are we to judge his acts before “the other side” ( whatever that might be) is heard?
Now, as regards Alton’s assaults on police officers? The prison time?
Well as sis puts it: “Alton my brother has always been a great person, a loving person, he’s always been a people person, he’s never been a violent person … so, for something like this to have happened …. [note the use of the passive voice]… And we are all still in shock right now, we’re all still in shock …”
Well, that settles that.
He was a good kid, done wrong. Fired. Driven to act out in a way contrary to his loving God believing nature and upbringing.
The solution is obvious. Call in Sharpton and …
Burn down Oklahoma.
Posted by DNW on 2014/09/16
Just trying to keep things straight here in case of potential developments in the Still Somewhat United Kingdom: but, if Scotland declares its independence in order to form a more perfect collectivist state, is Scotland somehow automatically grandfathered in on the various agreements and crap we have with Great Britain?
I mean, like, man, how could this legally be? Wouldn’t Scotland then be a brand new country, with no treaties or agreements with anyone and no membership in any international organizations?
So … then Scotland wouldn’t even be a member of the United Nations, right? And the United States, for example, would have neither direct nor indirect obligations or arrangements with the Scotch – assuming they even exist for much longer before turning their country over to foreign laborers in return for a promise that their pensions will be paid until they die, or whatever.
But think for a minute. What if Denmark invaded Scotland? Would anyone be legally obligated to respond in its defense? What if Donald Trump invaded … with the intention of turning the whole place into a game preserve?
And, in somewhat happier terms, might this mean in a legal context, for example, that any annoying socialist son-of-a-bitch you might run across, would be – as long as he was Scotch – virtually outside the law … if that is, you could catch it off its home turf?
Now, “Why in the world … “, you might ask ” .. would I even wonder about something like that”? Especially as I am always carping in favor of freedom and self-determination?
The answer is obvious: Alex Salmond.
Yes, that Alex Salmond, pictured above. (Though you might be forgiven for mistaking him for that other tubby leftist Scotch miscreant George Galloway.)
I’ve been doing a little reading about the Scottish Independence referendum, and it is clear that a great deal of what has been driving it, unfortunately, is not a desire for more freedom, but a demand for less.
And who is especially in favor of it? Well, according to those profiled in The Guardian, it’s those who have heretofore had little or no interest in politics, and but who presently draw checks from it.
So what we have here in the Scotch Independence Movement, is a movement that appears to be largely by and for those who draw their meal tickets from the government and who are determined to make sure that if England is infected by “neo-liberal” ideas of the kind that spell individual rights and less government direction, they will not be part of it.
Of course others have a different opinion. Some see it, and speaking of Donald Trump, as part of a vast right wing conspiracy for which Salmond is acting as crony or front man.
Who can say really. All we really know is what the Scotch in favor of the movement say, and that is that they want less dangerous classical liberalism and more guaranteed welfare statism, even if it means paying for their “Independence” by importing a non-Scots replacement population in order to to underwrite it all.
Why don’t they just put guns to their heads and pull the triggers?
The Nazis, famous for being infamous, were once also famous for complaining that many of the most vigorous of the German nationality had emigrated to America; leaving behind a more stolid and less heroic population than was necessary for an anti-classical liberal national revivification of the kind they envisioned. Their proposed solution was the organized militarization of their political culture, and the expulsion (or murder) all non-Germans in the perfervid hope of reinvigorating their “people”.
The Scotch solution to an endemic national ennui and the threat of encroaching classical liberalism, is to declare independence from the source of the individual self-direction taint (England), and turn the country over to immigrants who will, they hope, underwrite the comfort of the present pensioner class.
Talk about two suicidal extremes proposed as answers to what was essentially the same question …
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/09/07
From Facebook comes this gem. See how many squish Republicans are there. I saw a couple of very noteworthy Republicans in that list. And people wonder why the grass-roots are up in arms against Republicans, too.
The DEMOCRAT John McCain is on that list, as is the other Flake from Arizona and the sore loser from Alaska who needed K-Street to win as a write-in against the Republican in the race, as the Democrats jumped ship from their loser candidate to vote for her over the grass-roots Republican (who went on to snub the one person who had the king-maker mantel who could help him win). And of course, there’s Orrin Hatch, who got all wee-weed up that the grass-roots didn’t like him. Ever wonder why the grass-roots didn’t like you, lifer Orrin? (Even though I post your very worthy Hanukkah song every year.)
Posted in Character, Conservative, Constitution, Culture, economics, Elections, Law, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, society, war | Tagged: Jeff Flake, John McCain, Lamar Alexander, Orrin Hatch, Republicans out of touch, RINO, Senator Murkowski, Veteran Pensions Cut | 1 Comment »
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/09/01
Yeah, the title is grammatically incorrect. I won’t suggest you sue me, because there are morons who do just that for other frivolous crap. (I’m looking at you, Wee Willy Widebody (and barely keeping my lunch down) and your idol, TDPK.)
So, I’m watching FOX News, and they tease an upcoming report regarding Michael Sam and ESPN. Yes, as I write this, ESPN reported on Michael Sam’s showering habits in regard to the rest of the team. And later apologized.
But that brings up an important point.
For many decades, pro sports did not allow women journalists into the locker rooms where men tend to be naked or almost naked. Likewise, pro sports did not allow their athletes to shower with the cheerleaders. Well, due to some blow-hards, there are women journalists in locker rooms with naked men. Movies like Jerry Maguire do comedic bits with this. Woman journalist asks naked man a question; woman journalist drops microphone; woman journalist looks away as she squats down and fishes for dropped microphone. But there are still rules preventing the football team from showering with the cheerleading squad.
I don’t think there is any reasonable person or group of people who would suggest the Lakers should be able to shower with the Laker Girls, or the Raiders should shower with the Raiderettes. And for good reason. Pregnant cheerleaders are kind of a turn-off. A Family Feud winner’s question session (I don’t know what they actually call it) asked 100 men about the visual rating (you know, rate a girl from 1 to 10) of a pregnant girl. It was extremely low.
Okay, there was some snark there. But it was based on the facts that are there, too. What happens when you put a bunch of naked alpha-males and a bunch of naked beautiful women in a group shower? You get a bunch of naked sex. Not every time, but it will happen.
There is also the morality aspect. Millennia of moral standards say women and men should not do such a thing. It will inevitably lead to the slippery slope of immorality. Yes, the slippery slope is real; thus, not a logic fallacy.
But what does the Cavaliers showering with the Cavalier Girls have to do with Michael Sam showering with his teammates? As “The Plague” said to “Zero Cool”, “think about it.” If you are against homosexual “marriage” (like me) or you are for it; if you think the Bible is truthful in calling homosexuality an abomination (like me) or you disregard the Bible; if you think homosexuality is abnormal (like me) or you think it’s normal, you have to agree that homosexual people showering with those of the same sex (the people they are attracted to) has to be a bad idea, because of what can result.
What can result if men and women shower together? Sex. Rape. Assaualt and battery. Murder. Self-defense – caused death. Appropriately modest people having to decide to stay stinky or violate their own modesty rules. Ostracization due to a person’s modesty. Ostracization due to a person’s lack of modesty. Ostracization due to a person’s Christian values. Ostracization due to a person’s refusal to bow down to the Leftist PC bovine byproduct.
Why should Michael Sam not have the option to shower with other football players? He is sexually attracted to what is between their legs. It’s the very same reason no football team should have the option to shower with the cheerleaders. They are sexually attracted to what is between the cheerleaders’ legs.
And, quite frankly, I should not have to shower with someone who is sexually attracted to sexual parts people of my sex have. Women should not have to shower with someone who is sexually attracted to their sexual parts. And women have no business being in a locker room full of men who are fully or partially naked.
Period. (For you Limeys who frequent this site, that means Full Stop.)
Posted in 1st Amendment, Character, Christianity, Constitution, Culture, funny business, Law, Liberal, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, truth | Tagged: cheerleaders, ESPN, FOX News, homosexual agenda, Michael Sam, showering | Leave a Comment »
Posted by DNW on 2014/08/25
Albania The Brave?
Great Britain no more?
Scotland is facing an independence referendum in about 23 days. And at present the news reports a 48% favorable headcount.
There are any number of implications to Scottish independence having to do with defense matters and currency, but the driving force behind the movement is from my perspective, surprising, as it is driven seemingly by the politically left-wing.
A glance at The Guardian’s article on divided families shows some very interesting opinions by those in favor of independence.
Apparently a significant number of supporters want national sovereignty, or independence, for the purpose of enhancing an already substantial Scottish welfare state. This leaning is confirmed by a look at the Scottish National Party web site.
In addition, and speaking of voting away your freedom in the name of a worry free existence, there seem to be numerous questions which would have to be resolved only after independence is declared. Sort of like ObamaCare: you know, you have to vote for it before you can find out what’s in it.
Anyway, here are a couple of pro-independence voices recorded by The Guardian. Remarkably, they do seem to channel Ms Pelosi in a number of ways.
Caroline Wylie, says:
“I’m voting yes because of many things. I think the nationalists, while they’ve been in power, have delivered things that show they can govern properly. I like the fact that I live in a country that can deliver free prescriptions and university education for its children …
The no side say they will give us fresh tax-raising powers, although they are unspecified, but if they are to be believed we will get that anyway, whether it’s yes or no. …
I have to confess, though, that until the referendum campaign I was very apolitical, whereas all the rest of my family – my mum and dad and my two sisters – were all more politically engaged than I and are all against independence.
Most politicians are selfish, I think, and purely in it for themselves, but I think the SNP are different and want to look after ordinary people. We have a chance here to throw out all the debris of Westminster; the large, corrupt and cumbersome government that does not represent the ordinary people in the street.”
So, the previously politically uninformed and disengaged Ms Wylie says that the taxing power is going to go up anyway, and she likes free government stuff, and [elsewhere] that she trusts the Nationalists to properly spend the money they take in.
Our next example is from Clare McKenna. Clare says,
I never used to be very interested in politics, as I thought that most of our politicians were just in it for themselves. Then, when I began to study social work, I began to see the negative impact of London’s policies on very many poor and vulnerable people.
I just see independence for Scotland as an opportunity to reject the neo-liberalism at the heart of Westminster politics. This is all about protecting the interests of a tiny political elite and their wealthy supporters.
You can see that in the way that the coalition government, aided and abetted by the so-called Labour party, have punished poor people and disabled people in their austerity drive.
I have seen the pain and suffering that the Westminster government has caused to vulnerable families in Scotland. And now we have been given this fantastic opportunity to reject the greed, corruption and self-interest of Westminster rule and to create a new politics in Scotland.
Like Caroline then, Clare had also been uninformed and politically disengaged. But since then, she has discovered through her government job, that she likes and that people are deserving of free things. There is at present she says, just too much London driven Classical Liberalism going on. And like Caroline again, she is certain that once Independence is achieved and the tides of English influence recede from Scotland’s shores, Scots will finally have the freedom they need to be less free and more sharing; as corruption disappears and compulsory wealth redistribution blooms.
Now, for those of us who have been reading about the dwindling away of Scotland’s population and the ratio of pensioners to workers, we wonder just how do Clare and Caroline expect this to happen?
Well, my guess is that Clare and Caroline really have no idea at all as to how this is supposed to work, since they have they admit, just begun to take an interest in politics. They cannot after all, be seriously expected to have it completely figured out. Discovering that Classical Liberalism is wasteful, corrupt, inhuman and cruel, and that Independence means compassion and caring and sharing out the wealth, is quite enough for starters.
On the other hand, the Scottish National Party has at least some notion as to how they will attempt this multiplication of loaves.
They will do it in part, by importing a replacement population, and then dressing them in kilts, or something ….
The Scottish Government’s White Paper ‘Scotland’s Future’ lays out our approach.
We plan a controlled points-based system to support the migration of skilled workers for the benefit of Scotland’s economy. An independent Scotland will have an inclusive approach to citizenship and a humane approach to asylum seekers and refugees.
The Scots are exposed to the same anti-immigrant rhetoric of the right wing press, and Nigel Farage is as ever-present on Scottish TVs as he is south of the Border.
In Scotland we have to lump inappropriate Westminster immigration laws, and we are constantly told that they must become even more restrictive to protect us from the various ‘floods’ of ‘foreigners’ who are to erode our way of life.
Scotland votes for a Government at Holyrood that couldn’t sound any more different from the UK Tory Government on immigration and we are a better country for that. The difference in how the two Governments see immigration is best demonstrated in their various responses to the annual census of net migration.
In Scotland, when we see an increase in our population given our history of depopulation, we celebrate the good news. At Westminster it couldn’t make the politicians more miserable.
Scots are also becoming increasingly aware of our own population and demographic requirements. Only 20 or so years ago there was a real fear that our population would dip below five million. Although our population is currently growing at a healthy and welcome rate, there is still a realisation that our population levels remain more fragile than south of the Border.
We can only properly deal with that if migration policy is decided in the Scottish parliament, not by Westminster.
Scotland has always accommodated new people coming to our country — and one of the greatest sayings in Scotland is that ‘we are all Jock Tamson’s bairns’.”
And all will then be well: as Caroline and Clare will henceforth be able to more fully enjoy the comfort and security and caring and sharing which they have so recently discovered they, and all others, are entitled to experience through the miracle of redistributive justice, finally, at last, enabled by “Independence” … of a sort.
Well, free to enjoy as long as the imported replacement population allows them to.
Of course nothing to worry about anyway. Those scare mongers on the other side of the debate are making false claims, claims which don’t matter even if they are true, as we SNP types eventually get around to admitting:
” … people on the state pension are not necessarily dependent. It sounds academic, but it is also common sense. Think about friends and family who are on the state pension – are they all ‘dependent’? Even if they are right that more people are reaching retirement age, this does not mean suddenly our population will be unable to produce what a country needs to prosper, or that suddenly our spending on health will increase beyond control.
As one of the report’s authors puts it: “Sometimes you hear people saying that 60 is the new 50, and that is absolutely right. The health status of people the life expectancy of 60-year-olds is pretty much the same as it would have been for 50-year-olds 20 or 30 years ago”.
Older people are not the burden that the No campaign tells us they are.
But those who work to represent older people say what we already know – that older people contribute more to society than we tend to admit, including as workers. Age Scotland said “Older people have a great deal to offer to society: as workers, active citizens, cultural contributors and carers.” They say the Edinburgh findings “will help dispel the myth that our ageing population is a burden. On the contrary, it is something to be celebrated.”
See! All you have to do is equivocate the word “dependency”, and then celebrate it, and the problem magically goes away through the miracle of subversive redefinition and (more quietly now) …. changed expectations. Ain’t that great?
Oh yeah, and don’t forget to import those foreigners. (Link within the above link:) “Our immigration policies and policies to support and encourage families could and must also address this trend.”
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/08/17
DNW has been regaling us with the absurdity that is the Loony Left as represented by one John the Liberal, who runs American Liberal Times. Well, the clown who unfortunately shares my first name wrote an article blasting Voter ID (which is supported by a majority of each segment of each spectrum) and simultaneously calling for mandatory voting. I responded. I expected to get a message saying my comment is in moderation. I did not get that message. Instead, I got a response from the site that suggested my comment went directly into the spam filter. That response was a refreshing of the direct page without even the hint that I commented at all. Good job, DNW. Not only did you get yourself banned from the illogical, deceitful, dishonorable site, but you also got this site, which is based on Honor, banned from it. That does, indeed, show the depth of depravity, the complete inability to hear the truth, the total disregard for Honorable debate “John the Liberal” has.
Knowing there might be an issue with commenting there, I had the forethought to save what I wrote before hitting the submit button. And here it is.
You say “feel free to comment” when you actually mean “comment when and if your opinion matches my own completely off-balance opinion”. I know this to be the case because an author on my blog has attempted to enter into an intellectual and logical debate with you. What did he get in return? “La la la la la I can’t hear you.” And a “you’re not welcome” sign.
You’re not interested in the truth. While I do know Leftists who are, indeed, interested in honest debate; aphrael (the “married” homosexual Leftist at Patterico’s Pontifications) and Jeff (the Left-wing Jewish heterosexual who is down for the cause of homosexual “marriage” (something every true Christian is foursquare against) at Opinions Nobody Asked For) are two such examples, you, however are not in that crowd. I have strong respect for both aphrael and Jeff, despite their being wrong on just about every issue. They, at least, try to debate honestly. You should give it a try yourself.
The only thing that seems to happen is that the voter ID laws become ever increasingly demanding
Prove it. You won’t because you can’t. It’s just a sham you on the Left push in your efforts to make enforcement of eligibility requirements as difficult as possible. You need the fraudulent votes. You need the politicians’ lies. Without both, you lose lots of elections you’re currently winning.
You claim vote fraud is rare. The way you write suggests it’s virtually unheard of. The only reason it would be unheard of is due to the fact mainstream media works so hard to hide it. Vote fraud is hardly rare. I have personally compiled a small sampling of massive voter fraud and voter registration fraud. And it inevitably points to your side of the political spectrum. The side that has the absolute belief that there are no absolutes. (Talk about an intellectually and logically untenable position…)
While it is difficult to ascertain the depths of the vote fraud and voter registration fraud perpetrated by Democrats and Leftists, my proven documentation of Democrat officials engaging in both destroys your claims. As does the 120 percent voter registration in Indianapolis. 120 percent. When even 100 percent is statistically impossible without fraud. And the over 100 percent vote in Florida, used to unseat a black man from office because he didn’t toe the Democrat plantation line.
But your suggestion of making voting mandatory does two things I want to point out here.
1) It proves you on the Left are not at all about independence. You are not at all about individual freedom. You are about control of the people. You are fascist at the core. (That’s what mandatory voting is: Fascism. So, own it or be dishonorable and run from it.)
2) It proves you need the wholly uninformed to vote for your emotionalist scare arguments because, when it’s only the informed who vote, you lose cataclysmically. You cannot win when the people are truly informed and involved. It is impossible. Therefore, the more uninformed the people who vote, the better it is for your totalitarian side. This is proven by the results of “low voter turnout” votes. Those who “don’t get into politics”, in other words, those uninformed types, are more likely to not vote in low voter turnout elections. And low voter turnout elections tend to tilt far to the Right. Thus your need for the uninformed, uneducated, non-critical-thinking masses to be “forced” to vote.
Quite frankly, I would be happy if those who did not pay Federal taxes in the previous year or two were not permitted to vote on any issue that raised taxes on those who actually do pay taxes. Why should the leeches of society get to vote on how much they can leech off those who are forced to lend their arms for the blood-sucking? But my position would be clearly unconstitutional, so I do not advocate for it. Your position, which you are strongly advocating for, is equally unconstitutional.
But since when did the Constitution ever get in the way of you on the far Left?
Here, you can find other articles on this site that concerns voter fraud, voter registration fraud, and the like.
Posted in Blogging Matters, Constitution, Constitution Shredded, Elections, Law, Liberal, Over-regulation, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, Vote Fraud | Tagged: American Liberal Times, fascism, Unconstitutional Democrats, vote fraud, voter registration fraud | 4 Comments »