I’m interested in politics more than a normal, healthy person should be. And yet, I really resented watching the Democratic debate. I watched partly because I'm a masochist. I felt a little bit like the stock boy at the grocery store being told “some kid just barfed up an inhumanly large amount animal crackers and corn kernels in aisle three. Take care of it.” But I also felt like Peter Gibbons in Office Space, listening to his bosses drone on about their TPS reports, his soul slowly evaporating under the fluorescent lights. 

 America Now Has an Openly Socialist Party, and Hillary and the entire DNC is onboard.  Well, the protagonists on that debate stage may not have been a set-up in the sense that the fix was in. But of course Hillary Clinton won the debate! Her opponents were like Mohammed, Jagdish, Sidney, and Clayton from Animal House. It was like a line-up at the station house where all the other suspects are cops in uniform, except for Hillary.  I mean good gawd, Lincoln Chafee? He’s less a presidential candidate and more a cautionary tale of what happens to WASP genes when you drench them in scotch, ink residue from old issues of Mother Jones, and bong resin. I could swear I’ve seen him walking down the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica wearing nothing but a bathrobe, Oberlin College sweat pants, and a stained Jefferson Starship T-shirt. He’s like the Kathy Geiss of American politics. In other words, he represents a major swath of Bernie Sanders’s base. I’m being unkind to Jim Webb, who was kind of fascinating and awesome. He seemed almost like a different species than Chafee. I loved Webb’s last line about his real enemy being the guy who threw a grenade at him in Vietnam. Webb’s a great reminder that serious men once found a home in the Democratic party. But he has no chance of getting the nomination. None of them do, really — with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders. But Sanders is like Colonel Nicholson in "Bridge on the River Kwai"; he’s sticking to a principle in spite of what is actually required of him. At some point he’s going to look over his shoulder at the Clinton locomotive barreling down the tracks and say, “My God, what have I done?”

 That said, for what it’s worth, I don’t think Sanders meant to give a gift to Hillary on the e-mail controversy by saying he was “sick and tired of hearing about [her] damn e-mails.”On the stump he blames Clinton for her poor judgment, which made the scandal possible. He may have just flubbed the line. Or it may have been smart politics.  Many Democrats now reflexively take the view that if Republicans or Fox News think something is bad, then it must be an illegitimate issue. Lending even rhetorical aid and comfort to the enemy is counted as “unprogressive” even on issues that progressives should be horrified by. The Clinton Foundation’s incestuous cronyism should horrify the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic party. But saying so would be seen as using “right-wing talking points” so they stay mum on the issue. The same people who freaked out over the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity should properly want Clinton indicted for what she did with her e-mail. But if the Republicans think so too, it must not be so. Clinton did well. She’s had a lot of experience in these things. But to the extent she shined, it was because the competition was so pathetic. 

And then there’s the substance. I guess a more meaningful cause for my resentment is that the debate was a joyless ass ache of a reminder of what liberalism really is. Bernie Sanders thinks you can pay for an 18 trillion dollar expansion of the welfare state — to make it align with a Denmark that doesn’t actually exist — simply by taxing “the billionaire class.” There are 536 billionaires in America. Even if you confiscated everything they had — which, by the way, would surely destroy the American economy by triggering the greatest round of capital flight in human history and amount to government seizure of countless businesses — it wouldn’t come close to covering the tab of Sanders’s proposals. in spite of what the incredibly misleading NYT article stated last week. (The NYT being inaccurate??? You don't say)  But saying stupid things about economics is why God put socialists on this planet. Sanders has to say such things because that is what socialists do. It’s Aesopian: The scorpion must sting the frog; water must seek its level; Anthony Weiner must text junk pics; and socialists must pretend that they have serious ideas. What really bothered me was Hillary Clinton’s “We need a new New Deal” line.  This has become a Liberal obsession. 
 FDR himself sold the New Deal as a continuation of the war socialism of the Wilson administration, in which FDR had served. For example, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the signature public-works project of the New Deal, had its roots in a World War I power project. (As FDR explained when he formally asked Congress to create the thing, “This power development of war days leads logically to national planning.”) If the CNN moderators had been doing their job, you might expect someone to ask Hillary Clinton why, after seven years of Barack Obama, we still need a new New Deal.  The depressing answer is that for progressives — and please forgive the all caps — IT IS ALWAYS TIME FOR A NEW NEW DEAL!!!!. You can explain all day how the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression and they won’t care. They’re like my dog Angie, who apparently thinks every moment is the best moment for a New Throw of the tennis ball.. After 9/11 Chuck Schumer raced to the pages of the Washington Post to explain that terrorism requires a new New Deal. After Katrina, liberals said “Aha! This proves we need a new New Deal.” Thomas Friedman has a shortcut macro on his keyboard that allows him to vomit up a column arguing that pretty much everything (but especially climate change!) requires, , nay demands, a new New Deal. They don’t always use the phrase “new New Deal.” Often, they use the hackneyed language of the “moral equivalent of war” instead.   

 The real appeal of the New Deal wasn’t its alleged success, it’s that the New Deal is synonymous with a time when progressives had nearly unfettered political power to do what they wanted. Liberals don’t really worship the New Deal, they worship themselves. The New Deal is just a talisman in their undying faith in their own ability to guide society and make decisions for others better than people can make for themselves. And, at a fundamental level, the desire for an unending string of New Deals going on forever, is indistinguishable from socialism. Liberals used to be honest about this point, as when Arthur Schlesinger let slip in the pages of Partisan Review that “There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals.” It’s all just so exhausting. And I guess what I resent most of all is the fact that I will spend the rest of my life arguing with people who not only think that their faith in progressivism and the State is smart and modern, but that their opponents are the ones who are stuck in the past. And in the process, they’ll keep making the country worse, with every failure providing the latest evidence that now, now, is the time for a new New Deal. As Ronald Reagan stated at the 9:15 mark in his coming out party in 1964, and the greatest speech i've ever heard, (Link attached for those who would bother listening) "...The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan."  It's enough already. 

                          WHEN THE LEFT BECOMES UNHINGED

I never even heard of Phil Robertson until two days ago.  Apparently he made some comments regarding gays, to which A&E responded by suspending him from his show, "Duck Dynasty".  The only reason I have ever even HEARD of "Duck Dynasty" is because I follow Rich Froning JR on Twitter, and noticed that he mentions it often.  Apparently the "fittest man on the planet" enjoys this show immensely.

Now, while I may disagree with Phil R's viewpoint re; gays, I'm not sure he said anything which would warrant his being fired/suspended. In fact, his beliefs are pretty much in line with every Pope that has ever existed, and they seem to be able to hold onto their jobs without a problem. Why can't the marketplace simply dictate what should happen?  If you're offended, don't watch Duck Dynasty.  Simple.  I don't.

He didn't commit a crime. He stated his beliefs is response to a question. Period. One look at his picture and I'd be surprised if he DIDN'T say what he said. Now THAT would be a news story!!!

In the meantime, Martin Bashir said on air that he'd like to see somebody defecate on Sarah Palin's face.
Ed Shultz calls Laura Ingrahm a "slut". Bill Maher regularly is far more offensive than Phil Robertson could ever be, and ya wanna know what I have to say about it? Who fucking cares?  Seriously.

We are all in control of our remote control and are free to choose what we want to listen to, and what we choose to ignore. The tolerant left is generally tolerant up until the point you say something that doesn't align with their "progressive" sensibilities.  Their faux outrage is always astounding/laughable to me. Everybody is so easily OFFENDED!!!!   Give me a fucking break.

Get back to your lives. Go read a book to your child, make dinner for your spouse, have a glass of wine and stop worrying that some dude from Louisiana sees the world differently than you do.

If you really want to be offended, why not be offended by the tenant of Islam which condemns gays to death?  Here is an except from an article I read this AM.

"

UCKNOW: A Bareilly-based cleric has issued a fatwa against homosexuality and live-in relationships calling them anti-Islam and said Shariyat has provisions to punish those indulging in such acts.

The fatwa was issued by Mohammad Afzaal Rizwi, the mufti of Darululoom Ifta at Dargah Aala Hazrat, Bareilly in response to a query byAkhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui Noori on the issue.

The mufti has cited two hadis (teachings of the Prophet Mohammed) from the Quran as a premise for his fatwa. As per Hadis Dur-re-mukhtar, such acts could attract severe punishment, he said. "A person may be burntalive, pushed from a high wall or be beaten publically with stones if he indulges into either of the two behaviours," the fatwa states.

The other hadis is a story that explains why Islam is against homosexuality. The story relates to a tribe, kaum-e-looth, which existed in the pre-Islamic era. The tribe is said to have perished because it indulged in homosexuality.

Regarding live-in relationships, the fatwa says a couple staying together or having sexual relationship without solemnising marriage is banned under Islam. The woman in a live-in relationship cannot ask for the rights of a wife."

Seriously——Phil Robertson ain't the problem.  

                                    THE TITANIC

 

Now that the fable of ObamaCare is meeting reality, one of the biggest political problems for the president is that 1.5 million families have already lost the insurance Obama repeatedly promised them they could keep. And millions more are going to. To push back against this outrage, a new fable developing among the left and media is that those losing their insurance are going to be better off because they will receive "better coverage" under ObamaCare.

That is complete and utter nonsense. Let me explain it this way…
What if you are perfectly happy with your minivan and the government comes along and forces you to be buy a big, fancy recreational vehicle? And what if you don't camp and never intend to go camping? Is that the government seeing to it that you get a "better vehicle," or is that the government forcing you to subsidize the recreational vehicle industry?
That is a rhetorical question, and it perfectly sums up ObamaCare's mandated coverage.
Americans are just now waking up to two terrible consequences of ObamaCare. The first, as I mentioned above, is that millions are having their current plans cancelled. Second is the rate shock. In California alone, the middle class can expect a 30% hike in premiums.
Both are a direct consequence of ObamaCare outlawing health insurance plans that do not cover what the federal government demands.
To mitigate the political fallout of this fact, the spin coming from Democrats and much of the media is that this is a good thing because those losing their coverage and paying more will now get "better coverage."
But you are not getting better coverage. Instead, you are being forced by your government to buy a recreational vehicle -- to buy a lot more than you want, need, or will ever use. Here are the ten insurance essentials ObamaCare mandates be part of everyone's health insurance coverage:

1. Ambulatory patient services
2. Emergency services
3. Hospitalization
4. Maternity and newborn care
5. Mental health, substance use disorder services and behavioral health treatment
6. Prescription drugs
7. Rehabilitation and habilitative services and devices
8. Laboratory services
9. Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management
10. Pediatric services, including oral and vision care

I am a 49-year-old man, and I do not need numbers 4, 5, or 10 (OK---5 is a tough call). And under ObamaCare, I will also be paying for birth control coverage, and who knows what else is hidden in that gajillion page piece of legislation? The residents of Scottsdale, Arizona are not coerced to buy flood insurance in order to subsidize those who live near the Ocean....because they don't need it. It would make sense that there would be some delineation between subgroups of the population, and let each pool their risk together. That would make sense....but NOTHING about Obamacare, as presently constructed,  makes sense.

Rather than inform people that ObamaCare's one-size-fits-all plan forces tens of millions to pay for services they do not need, the media is spinning this bulky, expensive, unwanted, unneeded, but mandated recreational vehicle as "better coverage."  It's truly incredible to me how many people have been duped.....nevermind the $6-8 trillion this will tack onto the national debt. Maybe I'll cover the impending disaster tomorrow.  I almost feel bad for all the Libturds....they so desperately want to be right.

This is a beauty.

THE WAR THAT WON'T GO AWAY

After the capture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Obama asked, “Why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence?”

In Obama’s speech, the willingness of the Tsarnaev brothers to kill the people of the country they had grown up in is a paradox. But it isn’t a paradox; it’s the point.

Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev carried out the marathon massacre not because they were on the outside, but because they were on the inside. Islamic terrorism was their way of expressing their American identity. When they detonated bombs at the Boston Marathon, they weren’t doing it as Chechen Muslims, but as American Muslims.

There is a reason why second and third generation Muslims are more likely to turn terrorist than their immigrant parents. It is because they have become American, British, Canadian and Australian part of the way. They have gone deep enough to begin making a claim on the country. The Western Islamist seeks to align his internal Islamic identity and his external national identity by unifying them through Islamization.

Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were not fighting for Chechnya at the Boston Marathon. They were fighting against the American infidels who were barring the way to an Islamic America. They were fighting to make America like Chechnya. Islam is not just a religion. It is a political system. You cannot expect a devout Muslim to live as an American, the same way that you could not expect a Communist, Nazi or any other consuming political identity to just keep it private or local. To think that way is to truly misunderstand Islam.

The liberals who refuse to see what the Tsarnaev brothers stood for passionately believe in the things that they think it will take to make the world a better place. The Tsarnaevs believed that only one thing was necessary; Islam.

Until we truly understand these issues, we have no chance to win this battle for civilization. In Boston the infidels resisted the messengers of Mohammed and Allah. They patched up the wounded and saved as many as they could. They hunted down the messengers and shot them. But more will come. You can count on it. They will speak the language of our popular culture and their classmates will remember them as nice young men. No one will understand what caused such nice young men to do it except other nice young men like them who feel the tension between Islam and America inside them waiting to break.

Religion Of Peace? My Ass

Here are some interesting passages from the Koran:

"Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them." Koran 2:191

"Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood." Koran 9:123

"When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them." Koran 9:5

"Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable." Koran 3:85

"The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them."... Koran 9:30

"Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam" Koran 5:33

"Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies." Koran 22:19

"The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them." Koran 8:65

"Muslims must not take the infidels as friends." Koran 3:28

"Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur'an." Koran 8:12

"Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels." Koran 8:60

Get back to me when the Messiah, or ANYBODY in the liberal media reports about what seems so obvious. Our political correctness is a big problem. We are so frightened to offend these people, we dance around the issues until somebody's legs get blown off...and even then we don't call this what it is.  Jihad. 

LIBTARD ALERT!!!!!

This is AJ McCarron's girlfriend, Katherine Webb..aka Miss Alabama. During the National Championship Game on Monday night, while ESPN cameras were zooming in on Miss Webb, Brent Musberger had to AUDACITY to say that this woman is "beautiful", while suggesting that young men should start throwing a football around at a young age in order to date women like her. The HORROR!!!  He had to apologize on behalf of ESPN for his observation. Ugly, retarded Liberal women are at it again...ya know..the kind of women who have never BEEN called "beautiful", and thus have deep seeded insecurities based on their looks. These are the women who try to tell us "it's what's on the inside that's important". If they truly believed that, they wouldn't hate themselves so much...although it's easy to make the case that they are ALSO ugly on the "inside", so who knows where this insanity begins? In the meantime , Katherine Webb seems NOT to be offended by this as we see here.





Notice how the Libtard Matt Lauer (i consider him a Liberal woman—yes) tries to get her to claim some kind of injustice has been done around the 1:25 mark. What a fucking moron.  Is there anything more annoying than phony Liberal outrage?

Ed Schultz can call Laura Ingram a "slut, Bill Maher can call Sarah Palin a "bimbo", and can call her Daughter a "dumb whore", but Brent has to apologize for calling this woman "beautiful"?

Time to get back to looking for real estate in New Zealand .