…left in my pocket to be able to survive the “Leftard Reign of Error”.
(Graphic stolen from FB)
Lesbian DNC Advisor Denigrates Stay-at-Home Moms
[See Update]
That’s the reasonable takeaway/pushback to DNC/Obama advisor Hilary Rosen’s slur on Ann Romney:
And yeh, I’m also pointing out that Rosen quite obviously has a skewed view of motherhood from the gitgo. Hey, Hilary! Next time, buy a different vowel! As it is, you don’t have a clue what real women are about. Heck, even I know more from simply having lived with and around real women (my mom, grandmothers and wife) all my life, instead of living with a deviant* “partner”.
Update: Flashback! In 2008, Rosen dismissed criticisms of Sarah Palin for working outside her home with,
“Judgments about people’s personal lives are better left unsaid and unrealized.”
But, of course, condemning a SAHM (stay-at-home-mom) experience as rendering opinions on the world at large invalid is OK with Rosen, because she apparently has no ethical standards worth mentioning. Of course. You did see “DNC/Obama advisor” in the opening line of this post, right? So, “no ethical standards worth mentioning” is a “dog bites man” thingy, eh? 😉
*deviant, n, Differing from a norm. Since self-identified homosexuals make up less than 4% of the adult population of the U.S. (that would include male, female and “other” homosexuals *heh*), and female homosexuals may comprise no more than half that number, I’d say 2% makes Rosen and her “partner” deviant, by definition.
Anyone see the faux apology Rosen finally issued yesterday? Following her deliberate slam of SAHMs as “not having worked a day in [their] li[ves]” is was an insult to anyone who viewed it, especially following on the heels of her expanded insults at “Puffington Host” while penning a walkback on her slur on SAHMs designed to gull the terminally stupid and satisfy her fellow travelers. Check this:
Mitt Romney actually said, referring to asking Ann Romney what she’s been hearing on the campaign trail,
“…she reports to me regularly that the issue women care about most is the economy.”
OK, Rosen quoted that and then LIED about what Romney said! LIED:
“…saying he supports women’s economic issue because they are the only issues that matter to [women]”
Note two things: Romney mentions his wife campaigning with him and on her own and reports what she tells him the women she interacts with on the campaign have told her are the most important issues they care about in the campaign, NOT “the only” as Rosen says in her lie. Firstly, he didn’t ask his wife what her “SAHM opinion” was. He asked her what she was encountering on the campaign. So, Rosen’s comment about Ann Romney (that she’d not worked a day in her life) was not only mean and dismissive of the real work that SAHMs do, it was completely, totally and absolutely irrelevant.
Secondly, Rosen then has to further her attack by actually telling a baldfaced lie about what The Romney Android actually said, on her way to (again!) mischaracterizing the whole incident.
Then, yesterday, she says she simply made some poor word choices and apologizes that her poorly chosen words–not the attitude and content of her dismissive comment, just her word choice–offended some people.
That’s no apology. It’s not even an admission of her behavior. Heck, if she were making a plea of guilt as a part of a plea bargain in court and submitted a similar comment, any honest court would refuse her plea.
Such persons as Hilary Rosen are worse than merely disgusting; they are nothing more than toxic waste trying to pass as human beings.
I Have Your Answer Right Here
A commenter at Politico said the following in response to a Santorum ad:
“Seriously, do we honestly believe that the President of the United States is a traitor, a domestic enemy, and doesn’t love our country?”
Well, yes. Yes I do. In fact, calling The Zero “a traitor, a domestic enemy… [who] doesn’t love our country” is tame, IMO. I’d add “Lying S.O.B. piece of usurping trash” to the list.
Here’s the video that has Obamabots and (redundancy alert) Mass MEdia Podpeople in an uproar. Tame by comparison to what Obamaville is aimed to “accomplish”–the utter ruin of the USA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DApjHZq9o7M
Note: Obamaville can be averted without actually defeating The Zero in his re-election bid by sensible voting on lower races–Senate, House and even State and local races. A real defeat of the Obamaville scenario would be greatly furthered by a sweep from the top down, though. And the WH does need a powerful dose of political bleach to remove the stench of commie-tainted socialism (as if the extreme degree of socialist stench The Zero emits weren’t bad enough by itself).
Further note: Santorum is still toast, as far as I’m concerned. Even in the face of the Romney communication director’s gaffe (is “communication director” better spelled “commie director”? *heh*), Santorum’s weakly-detracted “Romney=Obama” equation disqualifies him based on its demonstration that he’s really too dumb for words.
Fortunately, I Don’t Run in Those Circles
I know of a few people–dhimmicrappic leftards, one and all*–who have lost very nearly amazing amounts of weight using the “HCG diet” that uses a combo of Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone, a hormone naturally produced by human embryos, and severe calorie restriction (500-800 calories/day) to achieve weight loss. You noticed, of course, that I italicized “weight” in that statement. That’s simply because the amounts of muscle mass lost in this diet is excessive. If one is too fat, then fat loss is a good thing. Muscle mass loss is not, for more than a few reasons. Here, let me just quote a Mayo clinic page on the topic:
“…HCG is used mainly to treat fertility issues. HCG is not approved for over-the-counter use, nor has it been proved to work for weight loss. Companies that sell over-the-counter HCG weight-loss products are breaking the law.
“So why has there been so much talk about the HCG diet? Perhaps it’s because the diet recommends severe calorie restriction — typically just 500 to 800 calories a day. People who follow such a very low calorie diet are likely to lose weight, at least in the short term. However, that level of calorie restriction has risks, such as gallstone formation, irregular heartbeat, and an imbalance of the electrolytes that keep the body’s muscles and nerves functioning properly.”
BTW, I have seen the page I just quoted from excerpted and used in support of the HCG diet. Of course, those who do so are liars, deliberately misrepresenting what was said there in order to promote this dangerous fad diet. So far, every case I’ve seen of such misrepresentation has strangely (NOT!) failed to link the actual page… I have no doubt that the reason is simply to obscure the fact that they are twisting the material they carefully excerpt.
Of course, the target audience of such lying screeds is likely too lazy and stupid to follow a link to the “rest of the story” even if it were provided… and likely too lazy and stupid to understand what’s there, anyway.
Oh, and that “*” earlier? Here it is: I know I run the danger of committing an argumentum ad hominem fallacy by making the association: dhimmicrappic leftards—>dangerous, irrationalbehavior. I’m not actually making that argument by noting that only persons I know who are stupidly abusing their bodies with this dangerous fad diet are the dhimmicrappic leftards mentioned above. The stupid dhimmicrappic leftards I know who are committing this self-abuse are simply data points in a broader correlation I see between dhimmicrappic leftards and many other cases of unthinking (or simply stupid) abuse of self and others. In every case, the unthinking (or simply stupid) abuse of self and others involves blind acceptance of “authoritative” misstatements of fact (or outright lies) and a complete lack of forethought combined with a stupid embrace of “quick fix” solutions to difficult issues.
Just sayin’ It seems, from my observations of the passing scene, to be much more common–though not exclusive to–the left than the right.
I’ll Give You One Guess
But if your answer is “TEA Party Rally” I’ll recommend an Assisted Computing Facility (“Here, dearie, let me make that mouse click for you… “) for you to go live in.
(Found via a lower-rez offering on FB; have no idea where the source might be)
Ask Not…
…on whom the greedy socialistas prey; They prey on thee.
Elizabeth Warren suggests–nay! blatantly proclaims!–that the greedy capitalists OWE the proceeds of their labor and risk to society (as if, as a “class” [group] they do not already pay a larger share of taxes, both in gross amount and in percentage of income, than other classes).
Readers of Jerry Pournelle’s Chaos Manor blog (and Pournelle himself) point out a few obvious flaws in Warren’s pronouncements on so-called “fairness”.
UPDATE: Although many other sites go into great detail demolishing the sugar-coated toxic proclamations Elizabeth Warren
is making, Roxeanne, over at Datechguy’s Blog has a very readable version of the major arguments. Good reading. A sample? Sure:
According to Elizabeth Warren, the moment you first flip a switch in that factory and start producing a good, you are an evil rich person who needs to “give back”, because building that factory just sort of happened, without effort, intellect, financial risk, or the employment of others. Had this chickie even run a lemonade stand, she would understand the fallacy in her thinking.
Glenn Reynolds suggests Elizabeth Warren do some remedial reading (below the fold)
I would suggest we start by confiscating all of Warren’s assets to go toward achieving the social ends she seeks. I mean, it’s not as if she’s ever done anything substantive to “give back” to society. Lawyer? Law professor? We have too many of those already.
And another UPDATE, this from Jerry Pournelle on 09/28/11:
As to Ms. Warren’s viral speech about how others paid for the roads and the schools and the police force, I would have thought those are mostly paid by local property taxes, and if the factory owner has got away with not paying those he’s pretty clever. I would have thought that factory owners paid a lot of property taxes. How much of that is fair is, I would presume, a matter for local communities. Raise them too much and the factory moves elsewhere, as Massachusetts has long ago discovered. Of course the remedy for that, according to liberals, is to eliminate competition – make the taxes national so they can’t be escaped. Oddly enough that was all debated as part of the Convention of 1787, but you’d never guess that from listening to this Harvard Professor, who doesn’t seem to have read The Federalist Papers or Tocqueville. But then that’s not too surprising.
Indeed. (BTW, you’re up pretty late, Jerry, “Get some rest. If you haven’t got your health, then you haven’t got anything.” ;-))
And do not neglect Ms. Warren’s remedial reading, below.
Continue reading “Ask Not…”
James Burnham’s Thesis Illuminated
Burnham’s Thesis is, of course,
“Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide.”
Well, Pat Condell explains the normative result of contemporary “liberalism” very well as he comments on the London Riots of 2011:
Found via a malformed link at dailygaggle.com
“In other words, everything liberals have been telling us is false.”
So? And in what corner of the universe is this news?
Gallup: Tea Parties most racially balanced
Again with the “Dog Bites Man” non-news. Anyone who didn’t already know this has simply been drinking the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind Koolaid.
Was Pollyanna Stupid or Evil?
It’s a tough question. If you’re unfamiliar with the reference, take some time out. I’ll wait. Meanwhile, I’ll leave this here for interim consderation:
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.–Napoleon Bonaparte (ascribed)
There is such a thing as human evil. I’ll allow no argument on that point, because any argument otherwise is simply either stupid* or evil. Period. So, accept as axiomatic that human evil exists. Is it then stupid or evil to look human evil in the face and see good? (I’ll allow a third option: insanity.)
Examples abound:
Idiots who defend Islam as a “religion of peace”. Stupidity or witting enabling of the evil hate cult of Islam?
People who assert that America is an unjust society, because we have people they class as poor? Evil or stupid? Consider this:
Ahhh, I’m tired of this already, and my BP is starting to climb… *sigh*
So, are those who are enablers of the hate cult of the Butcher of Medina evil or stupid (or both–likely, IMO)?
Are those who seem to be actively attempting to destroy our society via such activities as encouraging the kleptocratic “gimme” culture evil or stupid (or both–likely, IMO)?
And when do we stop ascribing destructive behaviors to stupidity alone and start calling it malice?
Yes, I aborted a bunch of stupid/evil material ranging from “pro-choice” (which is really, “Deny ANY choice to the unborn”), “Edumacation”, the Thugs Standing Around program of full employment for goons and petty tyrants, and “feddle gummint” tyrannical meddling in citizens’ lives while actively enabling outlaws to The Cult of Anthropogenic Climate Scare-ism and numerous points in between. One can select any issue dominated by the lies of the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind, politicians *gag-spew* and Academia Nut Fruitcakes and plug it right into the “Stupid or Evil” matrix for consideration.
*I include in my use of “stupid” acts of witting, deliberate avoidance of facts. Witting, deliberate distortion of facts is evil–slander against truth.
What Does One Say to “Cwazy Unka Joe”?
My thanks to The Right Scoop
This would be the appropriate answer to Cwazy Unka Joe Biden’s slanderous fat mouth, if more people had as much intestinal fortitude as Sarah Palin:
If we were really domestic terrorists, shoot, President Obama would be wanting to pal around with us wouldn’t he? I mean he didn’t have a problem with paling around with Bill Ayers back in the day when he kicked off his political career in Bill Ayers apartment, and shaking hands with Chavez and saying he doesn’t need any preconditions with meeting dictators or wanting to read US Miranda rights to alleged suspected foreign terrorists. No if we were real domestic terrorists I think President Obama wouldn’t have a problem with us.
Oh,wait, she did say that. At least she has the guts to tell the truth. Indeed. Best answer to Cwazy Unka Joe Biden and other dhimmicraps calling anyone who disagrees with their intent to spend the US into a grave “terrorists”.