A person whose only redeeming quality was that she was cute 20 years ago is angry that gun control bills failed in the Senate. But, let's consider this argument based on the merits of the argument, and the reliability of the testimony.
Gun control doesn't work and that's been documented here and other places countless times, so the argument is without merit in itself. So, for the sake of fun, let's evaluate the credibility of the source of the statement:
One of this person's first acting gigs was in the movie Commando... which had plenty of guns. Evidently, guns are ok for her, but not the commoners.
Of course, shortly after she turned 18, she tried desperately to shed her "good girl" image by performing naked in several movies. Like any other headcase, she sued when she found pictures of those nude scenes online.
She married for less than a year in 1999. Yeah, that shows stability and good judgment. She follows this up by getting married ten years later at age 36. We all know what issues the chronically unmarried female has. These issues have to be twice as bad when you have an attractive female who is a famous movie star and she cannot find someone to con... um, I mean marry.
If this was testimony by a witness in court, opposing counsel would have a field day. It would be very detrimental to the side this witness was taking. Here, it's no different.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
A person whose only redeeming quality was that she was cute 20 years ago is angry that gun control bills failed in the Senate. But, let's consider this argument based on the merits of the argument, and the reliability of the testimony.
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
I traveled to Philadelphia to better understand the firepower of military-style assault weapons and, hopefully, explain their appeal to gun lovers.
But mostly, I was just terrified.
Good Lord, imagine if you had seen military style pants!
It felt to me like a bazooka — and sounded like a cannon.
No, it didn’t. My 8 year old daughter shoots them regularly without issue.
Very easy. In fact, as Philadelphia Daily News columnist Helen Ubinas showed today, you can get a military-styled weapon in seven minutes in this country.
And you can get "military-styled" pants in 5 minutes. But that doesn't make you a killer any more or any less.
The recoil bruised my shoulder.
No, it didnt.
The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face.
I imagine you also get "disoriented" when watching a commercial on TV, too.
The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick.
And probably hurt your feelings, too, huh?
The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD.
No, they didn't. And I am curious how many bombs you've heard go off so as to be able to make such a comparison?
For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.
Are you sure you just didn't need a Snickers?
Maybe that's just how you are all the time? You do seem to me like a little bitch.
Even in semi-automatic mode, it is very simple to squeeze off two dozen rounds before you even know what has happened. If modified to fully automatic mode, it doesn’t take any imagination to see dozens of bodies falling in front of your barrel.
Do you have the know-how and ability to make such a modification? No? The shooter didn't, either.
In fact, please tell me the last time a mass shooter did that?
Monday, June 27, 2016
Note: for today's entry, use the ALPHA - BETA dichotomy model from Heartiste.
This article from Everyday Feminism caught my eye on Facebook a few weeks ago. Titled The real Reason Women Smile At Men Who Harass Us. The author gives example after example of things she says have happened to her, and how smiling and engaging with men who harass her has been her way of escaping unharmed.
It didn't all happen like that
In reality, it is highly unlikely all these things have happened to her. More likely is that the author has gleaned individual anecdotes from multiple sources and fit them within her own narrative.
The author blames men who advise her to just ignore the harassment because they haven't lived the harassment. In fact, her tone toward these men is downright bitchy. She hates them because they are the BETAS in her life that she desperately wishes would act like real men.
Now, it is entirely possible that some drunk might catcall a woman who is out obviously with another man. Drunks are much more likely to do things the sober person might take a pass on.
The BETA factor
The others this author speaks of? They must have spotted the fact that she was with a real loser - total BETA (Alpha-Game gamma). A real man by her side would have verbally put the harasser in his place immediately and would not have feared coming to blows if that's what it took. Of course, a real man would demonstrate his worth physically with body language and that would have warned off challengers.
Falsely lumped in
Of course, there's also the strong likelihood that in many instances, the "harassment" was a man making a legitimate pass at her, and she was kind because she enjoyed it.
So, the author is correct in her summary: "The truth is, we don't have the luxury to ignore harassment. We engage, we're kind, because that's what keeps us safe."
- It keeps you safe when your BETA date cannot.
- It is your way of being a strong, independent woman. (Read with much sarcasm)
- It is your response to legitimate propositions.
- It makes for a feminist article.
- You really wish you could land a real ALPHA male.
Besides, a woman who does not engage and cannot be kind... that's no lady at all. And you know it.
It has been released that during the Orlando shooting, police were ordered to stand down for at least 15 - 20 minutes. Let that sink in. Let it sink in deep.
When seconds count, police are only minutes away. Often used, but so very true. And add to that - police are only minutes away, after they've been told to stand down for 15-20 minutes, first.
The police are under no obligation to protect you.
The liberal argument that only military / police should have "assault-style" weapons is proven false here (yet again). Because police are not required to protect you, and because they will take too long to get there, and because they may be ordered to wait even longer or stand down altogether.
Was there a conspiracy here? Guy gets taken off watch lists. Police get told to stand down. Too many other variables that make one wonder.
Friday, June 24, 2016
This made me think... why do Democrats hate gays? Conservatives and right wingers generally leave gay folks alone and let them live their lives as they wish. Democrats actively seek to make gays lives harder.
We all know that Democrats are the ones pushing for more "refugees." These people are militant Islamists who wish to kill gays. See above story for proof!
Many major Democrats, including their presumptive Presidential Candidate, were against gay marriage before they were for it. You cannot trust their opinions on the topic. And let's face it, the only reason a person will lie to another is because they don't care about that person.
Speaking of marriage, why did Democrats champion gay marriage? Civil unions were working fine. By making gay marriage the law of the land, all that has been accomplished is the ability of one gay person to drag another through the hell that is family court. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Democrats once again prove they hate gays by wanting them to suffer in court.
On to another topic - defending one's self. Most gays are against gun control. Yet Democrats push hard for gun control. One might speculate that Democrats really don't want gays (or blacks, for that matter) to be able to defend themselves.
So why is it, my libtarded friends, that you hate gays so much?
Thursday, June 23, 2016
Ask - Tell - Yell - Electric Fence
The only reasons children do anything is because either A ) you taught them to do it, or B ) you allow them to do it. Children instinctively seek to push limits. This is so that they can learn what is and is not acceptable. When they learn this, they feel more secure.
Ask the child to comply with your request. Use the word "please." After all, it is a parent's job to teach a child how to function socially. Good manners is a part of that. Always start with this step, unless life or limb is hanging in the balance. Do not ask the child more than once. Make sure the child heard the request.
If a child refuses to comply, you must decide NOW what the next course of action will be. If the request is of no major concern, then do it yourself or be satisfied that it will not be done. If the child needs to comply, then you must decide RIGHT FUCKING NOW that you are the parent, and that you are willing to take this issue farther than the child is willing to take it.
At the end of the day, you are the child's parent, not his friend. If he will not comply with your request, then tell him to comply. Do not use the word "please" (that just repeats the Ask step). Do not tell the child more than once. Make sure the child heard you.
At this point, very calmly announce to the child that this will result in an electric fence of he continues to push the issue. It's only fair warning. And it lets the child know that the physical punishment was not decided in anger.
You can repeat the verbage used in the Tell step here, just make sure that it is yelled at about 110 decibels. This lets the child know that you are serious and are willing to take this beyond whatever point they are willing to push you to. Also, this helps children with selective hearing.
Do not yell at the child more than once.
Do not skip to Yell unless life or limb are on the line, else the effect will be lost.
Physical punishment. For me, it was a belt. For my kids... about the same. If handled correctly, using the above steps, you should rarely get here. Also, this could be grounding a child or taking away a precious item or freedom.
That said, if your disciplinary actions have been woefully inconsistent in the past, expect to spend a fair amount of time here until the child learns that the Tell step is simply their last chance to handle the issue with dignity.
Out of common courtesy, do not skip to the Electric Fence stage unless life or limb are on the line. Alternately, if a child has a recurring issue that has been addressed multiple times, advise the child that future infractions skip directly to the Electric Fence stage.
It is good practice to teach your child the basics about Ask-Tell-Yell-Electric Fence. Namely, the child should be familiar with the four stages. That way, you an always help them save a little face by saying "are we going to take this to Electric Fence again?"
Sometimes, I'll just use the warning at the Ask phase. It saves trouble.
Sometimes, I'll tell my kids "now we've dealt with this issue twice before, so next time we just skip to Electric Fence."
If you say to yourself "but is this much punishment fitting of the infraction?" Ask yourself these two questions -
"Should I really just have backed off at the Ask phase?"
If so, back off now.
If not, ask:
"Is outright defiance three times worth this much punishment?"
If not, then there's no help for you. Your children will probably do better in state-run foster care. At least that way they might be less likely to be socially maladjusted.
If so, then the child has specifically requested this punishment. You owe it to her.
"Awarding" push ups is an acceptable alternative for Yell in many circumstances. Having to perform push ups for poor behavior in public can be extremely motivating for many children. Plus... if you get it wrong (hey, we aren't perfect, either), then what, exactly, did it hurt?
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
This popped up on my Facebook feed some time ago. What a dad sees and what a mom sees when they go to the bathroom. Naturally, the implication is that the mom cannot even get 5 minutes alone to go when nature calls.
The reality is that women who see this are using it as a method for getting attention. Men and women who wish to make use of the facilities alone do a simple thing called closing the door. Sure, small children may knock or whatever, but I've never met one that kept it up when forced to stop. Usually, two or three corrections is all it takes.
To be fair, since women mature earlier than males, but then stop maturing, it is entirely possible that there are some who simply do not understand why their kids follow them to the bathroom. These women would naturally not have a clue about how to get the children to stop, either. So here's a simple guide:
1. Close (and lock) the bathroom door each time.
2. Do not give in.
3. Correct the child who tries to get in anyways.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
First off, let's address nomenclature. In science, a theory is an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events. In other words, a theory is our understanding of fact.
A hypothesis, on the other hand, is a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences. In other words, an educated guess, but not necessarily fact.
However, in common parlance, the word theoretical is used to mean relating to what is possible or imagined rather than to what is known to be true or real... or: relating to the general principles or ideas of a subject rather than the practical uses of those ideas.
Issue at hand - it was observed in a recent martial arts clinic type class, a student who felt the topics and techniques presented were based on the theoretical, not based on practical knowledge. Certainly, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, regardless of whether that opinion aligns with fact.
This opinion led me to look at my own martial arts curriculum. Being my own worst critic, I am constantly evaluating and re-evaluating that which is train and teach. If it works, it's included. If it doesn't work, it is discarded. If it works conditionally, it is included to the extent that the necessary conditions are likely.
Some time back, I decided to alter my fundamental curriculum to align more closely with the techniques, tactics, and philosophies of the Gracie Combatives system. The material is absolutely fundamental for anyone who wants to survive a physical attack, and this can be evidenced with hundreds of videos of actual conflicts between persons.
The Gracie Combatives are also a must-have for any aspiring mixed martial artist, as their prevalence in MMA is very widespread. MMA fighters would not use these techniques and tactics if they did not work.
Furthermore, the Gracie Combatives were adopted by the US Army, and form the basis of the MCMAP. Our military wouldn't continue to use them if they didn't work.
Last but not least, when I have been challenged by students or random folks who wish to see if what I teach is legit, the use of these techniques has been predominant. Sure, I've used a handful of other moves... situationally. But the Combatives movements keep appearing consistently.
I do not have time to train in techniques that do not conform to my intents. My intent is to be proficient at self defense, and to teach that proficiency to others. Therefore, I teach a curriculum that mirrors the Gracie Combatives to a great extent.
The Gracie Combatives are the single most effective course in self defense today. And even then, they are but a starting point (as confirmed by the Gracies, themselves) for true self defense mastery.
However, this is not an ad for the Combatives program - I don't make a dime if you buy it. This is, however, a criticism of a mentality that persists to this day. Folks feel threatened by a system that the know can be used to beat them. And, instead of learning that system, they simply retreat to a safe space and verbally critique from a point of pure supposition.
Sounds like a liberal, when you get down to it.
Don't be that guy.
Monday, June 20, 2016
Saw this on FB the other day -
Those who say there would be no difference between Trump and Hillary are the same people that thought that Romney and Obama would be the same.
I firmly disagree.
Primarily, my disagreement is based on the fact that nobody I know who felt Romney and Obama are the same is saying this... me included. Most of the folks saying this are cuckservatives. And we know that the cuckservatives were perfectly happy with Romney. Romney is the cuckservative posterboy.
Additionally, there is a small but vocal faction of Cruz fans who are saying there's no difference between Trump and Hillary. These people have a fervor I admire, but their statement is not based in truth. When made by a Cruz Crewman, this statement is sour grapes.
Another time you might hear that "Trump is no different than Hillary" is from Libertarians. Sadly, the Libertarian party has recently devolved ... sometimes into an outright freakshow. But the Libertarian claim here is completely without merit since the nomination of David French as their VP candidate. French is bona-fide cuckservative, through and through.
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Happy Father's Day!
I will not use this day to say Happy Father's Day to any female, first and foremost because it is not possible for a female to be a father. Secondly, because moms who are "pulling double duty," are doing so at their own request.
Friday, June 17, 2016
A 350-pound+ land whale.
She proudly proclaims she will not "serve" any man when the conversation is about one of the ladies present serving her husband a cold bottle of water.
She protests another female taking the initiative to deliver the water - because said female will not "give [the man] a hard enough time."
She points out several times that she is nearly 40 years old. It must be bothering her.
She points out several times that she is single. That, too, must bother her.
She proudly proclaims that her son is "ADHD." Is this really any surprise?
Is the fact that these all came from the same person any surprise at all?
When I was young, my father described a few (a very few) females as hating men. Of course, I had my doubts at the time. Those days are over. Women who hate men most are the ones who think men get all the special treatment, yet try to act like men themselves and are forever unhappy for it.
Thursday, June 16, 2016
This is actually funny. Of course, those versed in logic recognize the illicit negative fallacy immediately.
Nobody argues that we are in a state of inflation. However, this meme suggests that the only cause of inflation is the increase of minimum wage.
This is what passes for "intelligence" in liberal circles these days.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Found via Facebook recently was this photo. Of course, the attempt is to undermine Donald Trump's message of Make America Great Again.
A natural reply would be to refute or explain each of these things one by one. That's not for today, though.
Another natural reply would be to take a look at the person who shared this, and point out how often he shared anti-American or racist memes. That's not for today, either.
Instead, let's focus on making America great again.
Yes, Americans once participated in genocide and conquest. More recently, we were a country that defended against same.
Yes, we once hung women for suspected witchcraft. More recently, we were among the first countries to recognize a woman's right to vote.
Yes, we once practiced slavery - most places did in the 1800's. More recently, we have liberated oppressed people from economic slavery.
Yes, we ignored the Holocaust for a short period of time before responding. More recently we have prevented other Holocausts from ever starting.
Yes, we dropped bombs on Japan and interred Japanese folk in America. And more recently, we have actively fought such injustices elsewhere in the world.
Yes, we sent thousands of men to die in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan. We do this because we have learned from our mistakes in the past, and we cannot bear that someone else might not have a voice in the world. We cannot tolerate evil. And to do something about it - something we haven't done in 7 1/2 years - is the very definition of making America great again.
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
As I wrote this, I was sitting in a hotel breakfast area, and scheduled this to post more than a week later. I observed two families eating breakfast, and this is a bit unusual, as the typical folks I see are businessmen and women without their families. I made some interesting observations of these two families.
Note: for this article, I shall use the Heartiste "alpha-beta" dichotomy model, and not the Alpha Game alpha-beta-delta-gamma-omega heirarchy model.
Two children, about 7 & 5. They are running around everywhere causing a commotion. Father is (not surprisingly) an overweight beta who is pleading with the children to behave.
Three children, approximate ages 8, 5, and 3. All sit at the table respectfully. They speak, but are using "inside-voices" and all remain in their seats. Father is in great shape, and speaks to his children respectfully, but is also clearly the alpha in charge.
Side note - one family is black, one is white. Can you guess which one?
Not surprisingly, Family 1 left a huge mess for the attendants to have to clean. It took two attendants over five minutes to get things back in order. Family 2? One attendant wiped down their tables in a total of 30 seconds. Again, none of this should come as a surprise.
Family 1 - father is afraid of the mother, as evidenced by several behavioral traits. He is constantly seeking her "guidance" on every suggestion to his children and course of action.
Family 2 - father is "Captain" and mother is "First Officer." Father tells the family what they will do next, and the children obey without hesitation, and mother helps the youngest do so. When he tells then what's next, it is not a barked order, it is a quiet statement.
We need more of Family 2 - in all races. And it starts by having more men like Father 2. Be like him. Make the day great!
Monday, June 13, 2016
Quote of the day, "Strong, Independent Woman" (SIW) style...
Everyone's a strong independent woman until there is a fight to be fought, limited number of seats on a life boat, hostages to be released ("women and children first, right?"), a blue collar job to be done, a date to be paid for, or a door to be held open.
And now, for your viewing pleasure...
Saturday, June 11, 2016
Social media was so ablaze the past few days!
"Brock Turner only gets 6 months in jail for rape!" say so many.
"A black athlete (Corey Batey) got a much harsher sentence for rape than a white athlete!" says the Black Pride crowd.
Another meme compared a multi year sentence a man get for growing Marijuana to Turner's 6-month sentence for "rape."
But there's a problem with these statements...
Brock Turner did not get convicted of rape.
Let that sink in. Make sure you rage at me. Make sure you stop reading right here because you're mad. Make sure you link this to some unpopular opinion social media outlet. All done? Good. Let's look at the facts. And facts are what courtrooms are supposed to focus on.
1. Turner was not convicted of rape.
2. Turner was convicted of three charges -
- Assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person,
- Penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object, and
- Penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object.
3. The rape charges were dropped early on.
4. The victim was drunk.
Several hours after Turner was found with her, the victim's blood-alcohol content was three times the legal limit for driving.
5. Turner was drunk, too.
Several hours after they were found, Turner's BAC was twice the legal limit for driving.
6. The victim claims she remembers none of it.
While this is consistent with blacking out, it's also consistent with not wanting to say anything else that might incriminate one's self.
7. The victim admits it was not rape, but penetration with a foreign object.
From her letter at the trial:
"Note; if a girl falls down help her get back up. If she is too drunk to even walk and falls down, do not mount her, hump her, take off her underwear, and insert your hand inside her vagina."
And even that is suspect. The only objects inside her were dirt and pine needles. That's messed up, to be sure. But it is not rape. Had there been a shred of evidence of rape, this boy would be locked away for 6 decades, not six months.
Turner's actions were reprehensible. But there's no way he could have perpetrated them had the victim not chosen to drink to the point of admittedly blacking out. Had she exercised a wee bit of restraint, she would have been able to push him away like so many other girls at that party did.
Everybody is getting what they deserve. Turner gets jail time. Victim gets to hide out in shame, and rightfully so. She doesn't want anybody to know who she is lest they rightfully shame her for making equally poor decisions as Turner. Both parties played stupid games and won stupid prizes.
Roosh V was right -
By attempting to teach men not to rape, what we have actually done is teach women not to care about being raped, not to protect themselves from easily preventable acts, and not to take responsibility for their actions.
I saw women who voluntarily numbed themselves with alcohol and other drugs in social settings before letting the direction of the night’s wind determine who they would follow into a private room. I saw women who, once feeling awkward, sad, or guilty for a sexual encounter they didn’t fully remember, call upon an authority figure to resolve the problem by locking up her previous night’s lover in prison or ejecting him from school.
Turner's victim did not call the authorities as so many women do out of buyer's remorse. No, two passers-by saw the scene and thankfully intervened. The court found Turner guilty of assault with intent to commit rape. This means he likely would have raped the victim if allowed to continue. But just as much as Turner is veritably guilty of a crime, the victim is equally guilty of not taking easy steps to prevent just such a situation.
In fact, one might argue she might have been at the party to intentionally get plastered and hook up with someone. We will never know.
Friday, June 10, 2016
It has been said that the most dangerous creature on earth is a fake friend. Those that have voted for Republicans, only to see them turned liberal when they get to government know this all too well. Often, these sorts will be called wolves in sheep's clothing, and with just cause.
This article illustrates the point with great clarity. A wolf in sheep's clothing to be sure. Someone who is not only willing to compromise our rights away, but who actively seeks the opportunity to do so. So, following are some excerpts from the article, and translations into honest English for all the world to see the deception.
(Quotes from the article in italics; honest translations in bold.)
But I’m not one of those types who believe that any common sense approach to solving a problem is always trumped by the Second Amendment.
I do not believe in the Second Amendment.
I wouldn’t hold a hearing on them because it would have been taken by some very extreme gun rights groups — not the NRA, but the fringe groups — they would have used the mere fact that we held a hearing as a fundraising tool.
The "gun lobby" is one of the smallest lobbies in the land, and what little monies it generates are insignificant on a national level, much less a state level as this politician is trying to create spin about.
I had no intention of allowing them the pleasure of convincing folks that I was holding a hearing on something that I knew would never pass.
I knew I'd not be re-elected if I pushed for this.
Let’s talk about good legislation. It keeps guns away from criminals and, at the same time, does not step on the toes of law-abiding citizens.
Let's push legislation that further marginalizes rights, instead of outright black-and-white infringements that will make voters mad enough to do something about crooks like me.
We still have gun-free zones, for example, despite the constant suggestion that they are are a bad idea. I don’t think it’s sensible to do away with the notion that there are places we don’t want people carrying guns.
See? See! I want marginalization. I'll package it as common sense, even though it's not based on fact, but rather on feelings.
We passed a law several years ago to prevent the mentally ill from purchasing weapons. Some viewed it as a form of gun control. But I don’t think you should be able to walk out of a mental hospital, and then buy a firearm.
But let's not dig too deep on who is authorized to say someone else is mentally ill or what degree of mental illness should be the litmus test. Because I'm intent on marginalizing your rights.
I also recently sponsored domestic violence legislation that created quite a furor. I don’t believe people who threaten to kill their family members or spouses should have access to weapons. ... If someone is considered to be a threat after a court hearing, the judge ought to have the discretion to have that person surrender their weapons.
If I can get you to allow yourself to be marginalized here, then every argument that every couple has will label both parties as domestic violence offenders... then nobody can have a gun!
Permitless carry has been pushed now for a number of years in South Carolina. I don’t agree with it.
I believe that if you do have a right, the State ought to be able to take it away from you and sell it back to you.
First, I believe that the training component, which is required when you obtain a concealed carry permit, is essential.
But just ignore how much training our police officers don't have.
It’s also called “constitutional carry,” which implies permitless carry is a right. I don’t get that.
I'd rather it be regulated by the State - because then, permission can be taken away at a whim (forget about due process) and it can be made to generate revenue.
Folks, even if you do not read the responses in bold; a look at the words in italics, separated from their fluffy brethren designed to make the excrement more palatable, yields a very dark manifesto. If liberals truly represent the rights of the minorities, then they should be appalled at this conservative, as he wishes to take away the rights of the smallest minority - the individual. If conservatives truly embrace freedom, then they should replace this fraud, as he truly wishes to marginalize, regulate, and tax freedom.
Thursday, June 9, 2016
Reading an article posted on Steven Crowder's Facebook page some time back about a couple who waited until marriage to have sex. The overwhelming number of the responses were positive. A handful were full of hate and vitriol.
Those handful of comments were all by women... women who did not wait until marriage. These women all accused the author of the article of "being on a high horse" or demonstrating "judgmental tones." Of course, it was a case of the lady who doth protest too much, methinks.
Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds.
And while the comments above may not have all been made by liberals, the mindset is more common on that side of the aisle. Of course, there is the occasional cuckservative who wants his daughter to grow up to be a strong, independent woman, or something similar. Most of these are just low intelligence folks who have been brainwashed by the media. Of course, that's not substantially different than the liberals, I suppose.
But how, exactly, do we see this liberal hypocrisy in action?
Here's a list of some common ways:
Example 1 - Gun Control
Liberal says: "Guns are only useful for killing people."
The Liberal's true thoughts: "If I had a gun like that, I would only want to kill people with it. Probably conservatives. Maybe liberals who aren't liberal enough. Definitely someone who hurts my feelings. But yeah, I'd definitely kill several people with it. Therefore, all people with guns only want to kill other people with those guns."
Example 2 - Abortion
Liberal says: "Abortion is a women's rights issue. Her body, her choice."
The Liberal's true thoughts: "A woman (me?) who made a choice she regrets should now have the choice to undo that error, even if it means killing someone who doesn't deserve to die. But, I don't want her (me?) Held responsible for that first choice, because that would be so very inconvenient."
Example 3 - "Refugees"
Liberal says: "We should accept refugees with open arms."
The Liberal's true thoughts: "I want to be accepted for my antisocial behavior with open arms so I can get more attention! Plus, these Muslim militants are scary... maybe if I accept them, they will see that I mean them no harm and they will spare me when they start their raping and killing sprees."
Example 4 - Afraid of XYZ
Liberal says: "You're just afraid of (Muslims / gays / strong, independent women /etc.)."
The Liberal's true thoughts: "I am afraid of (Muslims / gays / strong, independent women /etc.), but definitely afraid of you!"
Many liberals do not speak of their positions unless and until they find an "opposing" viewpoint on conservative media. Let's say that again, for clarity - liberals read through conservative media, looking for talking points. I do not read liberal outlets, and most conservatives I know don't, either. Liberals know the truth, they seek the truth, then they knowingly rebel against the truth.
Almost all liberal objections are based on the liberal's own personal character flaws. They are acutely aware that they have these flaws. Instead of taking steps to overcome these fkaws, they accuse others of having the same flaws. That, friends, is the definition of psychological projection, a psychological defense mechanism.
Posted via Blogaway
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
I was renting a car to a lady whose regular ride was in the shop. Not unusual. The rental car, depicted by the red car in this drawing, was parked in "Stall #1." Right next to it, on the right, was a concrete sidewalk, six inches off the ground. The renter and I both walked up on it, and down on the pavement as we circled the car in a pre-rental inspection.
The renter noted aloud: "I'd better be careful of that sidewalk when I pull out!"
Me: "Yes, ma'am. Good news is you can drive straight ahead to get on the street."
Renter: "I see that. Good!"
She got in the car, and for some reason I still have not figured out to this day, she cut the wheel sharply to the right and drove right up onto the sidewalk.
I felt like Bill Engvall: here's your sign.
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
At the time of this writing, I'm 40 years old, 6'2" tall, 210 pounds.
I drive approximately 50,000 miles per year in a professional environment.
I've been driving for 24 years. 50K miles per year for the past 10 years.
I do not have an at-fault accident on my record... ever.
I cannot pass #3 or #4.
Another example of absurd propaganda put out there by fringe elements in an attempt to try to regulate more of your life. If you want to keep kids in car seats and boosters longer, then do so. However, don't try to make it mandatory for the rest of us. And don't try to insult our intelligence with bunk such as this.
Monday, June 6, 2016
Saw this some time back on social media. Of course, the implication is that women treat men badly because the men first treat the women badly. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Most likely reason she no longer treats you like a king: you supplicate to her.
Also of note: over 99% of American women do not act like a princess, yet demand to be treated as such. Hmmm...
Friday, June 3, 2016
Seen on Facebook the other day; the above photo, and this statement:
I was just thinking . . .
There are four living former Presidents (two Democrats and two Republicans) as well as the sitting President. None of them support Donald Trump. That's called bipartisanship.
Perhaps America should pay attention to the people who actually know what the job entails.
Naturally, I have a few questions / comments.
1. Who actually said any of the five men above actually know what the job entails?
Have they been President? Yes.
Did you like what they did as President? If the answer is "no" to any one of them for just about any rational reason, then I can demonstrate why your answer should be "no" for all of them.
2. Name the last "bipartisan" policy went into effect that actually helps you and our society.
You can be sure that if both Democrats and Republicans want it, then it's no good for you and me!
3. Look at the underlying thought.
If you like what you've been getting with the Democrats / Republicans, then don't vote for Trump.
In this case, the reverse is true, as well: if you don't like what Democrats / Republicans have done, then vote for Trump!
4. This was shared by a self-proclaimed conservative.
I suggest she should call herself a "cuckservative." She certainly qualifies as a cuckservative female and was chronically unmarried until nearly age 40. Not ironically, she hit "The Wall" a decade ago.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
A quick search on that topic yielded hundreds of blogs, tweets, and other social media expressions of a gay person or lesbian wishing to commit suicide. Hundreds. Makes me worry about them as people. I've several friends who are gay / lesbian and I would hope if they ever felt this way, they would reach out for help, immediately.
At one point, our society considered homosexuality a mental disorder. I think we need to go back to that idea. These people really need help. Not "locked away" help. Real help: therapy, group counselling, church, medication, diet, exercise, etc.
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
From this post on social media:
(And the picture above.)
Response from a Libertarian girl:
I feel compelled to point out that Ronald Reagan conducted himself in a classy and courteous manner, unlike Trump.
Is her point valid?
On the surface, it might pass muster. However, upon closer inspection, you'll notice that in past interviews and media appearances, dating back to the 1980's, Trump has always been classy in his communication. Only since this presidential election has he brought out the sharp tongue. And then, only when viciously attacked.
True alpha male behavior.
Trump takes no shit, particularly from low-life liberals, RINOs, and media pundits. Finally, someone with balls. First since Reagan, coincidentally.