Can’t We all Just Get Along?

“Can’t We all Just get along?” — Rodney King.

NO.  Liberals sure as hell don’t want to. They are to vastly superior for that.

In all my years, living through good times and bad, war, recession, periods of great advancement, social upheaval, the eradication of catastrophic diseases and the myriad of forward leaps and backward slides in this United States of America, I have never seen a time when our population was on such adversarial footing.

The problem is not just disagreement, that always has and always will exist, but it seems that in the past we were always able to find some common ground, with reasonable people on each side of an issue. Through civil discourse, and give and take, negotiations found a path both sides could live with.

I think our forefathers designed our government to make it possible for both sides of an issue to be heard, but look how far that concept has fallen, with congressional leaders not even allowing legislation they disagree with to even get to the floor for debate.

It seems, today, instead of engaging in two-sided conversations and attempts to understand each other, we tend to label and lump all those who disagree with us into categories we consider to be mentally inferior to us, considering anything they say to be out of step, off the wall or just plain stupid.

For instance, if you let it be known that you don’t go along with the global warming theories, you are labeled a mental Neanderthal, unable to understand the catastrophic threat to the planet, and even though, for the last century, the apologists have vacillated between devastating heat and ice age and neither have transpired, you are considered to be a flat earth type doofus.

People from both sides of the liberal-conservative issue will resort to rancid hyperbole and insulting name-calling before they even learn each other’s names, raising tempers to the point that any sensible discussion is all but impossible.

People who consider themselves our intellectual betters, those who spout ideological condescension and know beyond a shadow of a doubt what is good for us, rarely have the foresight to consider what the ramifications of their actions would be, and they consider it an insult to their superior intellect when called on it.

Then there are those who use the word “racist” to describe anyone with the nerve to criticize President Obama or believe that “all lives matter.”

If you consider an unborn fetus to be a person, especially if you are a man, you are quickly told that what a woman does with her body falls under a “woman’s right to choose.” It’s a category that supersedes all others governing natal matters, something that is none of a man’s business.

They have the power of life and death and you don’t, son shut the F*ck up, you don’t matter. 🙂

Poor me, I was unaware that a woman could become in a “family way” without the participation of a male.

The Feminists of today are sure working hard for it. Or at least just making the Male just a necessary evil or cattle.

The Republican presidential debates this year, especially the ones hosted by CNN, at least in my opinion, have been more incendiary than informative. The moderators have plumbed the ignition points and tried to pit candidate against candidate, resulting in petty arguments about who did what, when and to whom, each candidate trying to one up the other in exposing past mistakes and present faults. Meanwhile, the audience is left wondering if either one is worth voting for.

Only Hillary. To The Media SHE IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE. Everyone else is just an annoyance to swat down.

I don’t really know what has lead to this attitude of prejudging someone and labeling their ideas irrelevant and contrary before even a word is said, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the nova explosion of social media could claim a lion’s share of the blame.

Being able to hide behind an avatar and say basically anything you want to without even having to reveal your true identity or whereabouts emboldens even the faint of heart to say things they would never say to someone’s face.

Plus, narcissism that just say they are right and you’re wrong and that’s it. And they are the “victims” of hate even when they are perpetrating the hate.

And you can find plenty of sides to choose and plenty of examples to follow if you’re not the kind of person who thinks for themselves. So many people fall into this trap, faithfully repeating what they have heard, never mind checking the validity. They lead the conversation with slights and insults and never even get past the verbal garbage to meaningful dialogue about whatever the subject was in the first place.

The anything with a (D) crowd. 🙂  “What difference does it make?” 🙂

It has digressed to the point that so many people are able to tell you that you’re an idiot, racist, backward-thinking, bigoted misogynist, but for the life of them, they can’t tell you why they feel that way.

But don’t challenge them, because you’re still an an idiot, racist, backward-thinking, bigoted misogynist regardless. 🙂

Preconditioned ideas, without reason, are a dangerous thing.

What do you think?

I think Liberal think with their emotions and emotions have been proven to override logic and reason.

Greed and Fear. That’s the liberal way.

Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

 

It’s Worse than We Thought

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
It’s reality but not as we know it

John Hawkins: How radical, weird and out of touch have liberals on college campuses gotten since Obama came into office? It’s worse than you ever thought and although there is an almost unlimited number of problematic incidents to choose from, these 15 are particularly effective at getting across how bad things have become.

1) “College Students Say Remembering 9/11 Is Offensive to Muslims…. The everything-is-offensive brand of campus activism has struck a new low: Students at the University of Minnesota killed a proposed moment of silence for 9/11 victims due to concerns—insulting, childish concerns—that Muslim students would be offended.”

2) “Portland State University Offers Course Teaching How to ‘Make Whiteness Strange’…According to Portland State University Professor Rachel Sanders’ ‘White Privilege’ course, ‘whiteness’ must be dismantled if racial justice will ever be achieved. The course description states that ‘whiteness is the lynchpin of structures of racial meaning and racial inequality in the United States” and claims that ‘to preserve whiteness is to preserve racial injustice.’ Students taking the course will ‘endeavor to make whiteness strange.’ In order to make whiteness strange, the description says students must ‘interrogate whiteness as an unstable legal, political, social, and cultural construction.’”

 

3) “A University in the San Francisco Area Actually Told Students To Call 911 if They Were Offended….Administrators at a Catholic university in the San Francisco Bay Area have rescinded an official school policy instructing students to clog up the regional 9-1-1 emergency reporting system to report ‘bias incidents.’

The school is Santa Clara University, reports Campus Reform…Until this month, however, Santa Clara administrators have been instructing students to report ‘bias incidents’ using the emergency service reserved for dispatching police, firefighters and ambulances.

‘If the bias incident is in progress or just occurred: ALWAYS CALL 911 IMMEDIATELY,’ the Santa Clara website instructed students in fierce, all-capital letters.”

4) “Educators in the Volunteer State are very concerned that students might be offended by the usage of traditional pronouns like she, he, him and hers, according to a document from the University of Tennessee – Knoxville’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion.

…For all you folks who went to school back when there were only him and her – here’s a primer: some of the new gender neutral pronouns are ze, hir, zir, xe, xem and xyr.”

5) “A Professor at Polk State College has allegedly failed a humanities student after she refused to concede that Jesus is a ‘myth’ or that Christianity oppresses women during a series of mandatory assignments at the Florida college. According to a press release from the Liberty Counsel, a non-profit public interest law firm, Humanities Professor Lance ‘Lj’ Russum gave a student a ‘zero’ on four separate papers because the 16-year-old did not ‘conform to his personal worldviews of Marxism, Atheism, Feminism, and homosexuality.’ The law firm has called for a full, private investigation of the professor and the course curriculum.”

6) “College Codes Make ‘Color Blindness’ a Microaggression…wait, what?…. UCLA says “Color Blindness,” the idea we shouldn’t obsess over people’s race, is a microaggression. If you refuse to treat an individual as a ‘racial/cultural being,’ then you’re being aggressive.”

7) “The phrase ‘politically correct’ is now a microaggression according to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The university’s ‘Just Words’ campaign is the work of UWM’s ‘Inclusive Excellence Center’ and aims to ‘raise awareness of microaggressions and their impact’—microaggressions like ‘politically correct’ or ‘PC.’”

 

8) ) “‘American,’ ‘illegal alien,’ ‘foreigners,’ ‘mothering,’ and ‘fathering’ are just a handful of words deemed ‘problematic’ by the University of New Hampshire’s Bias-Free Language Guide….Saying ‘American’ to reference Americans is also problematic. The guide encourages the use of the more inclusive substitutes ‘U.S. citizen’ or ‘Resident of the U.S.’ The guide also tries to get students to stop saying ‘Caucasian,’ ‘illegal Immigrant,’ ‘mother,’ ‘father’ and even the word ‘healthy’ is said to shame those who aren’t healthy.”

9) “Late yesterday afternoon, ACLJ filed a lawsuit on behalf of Brandon Jenkins against officials of The Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC) in Maryland for denying Brandon admission to its Radiation Therapy Program in part due to his expression of religious beliefs. As one faculty member explained to Brandon, on behalf of CCBC, the ‘field [of radiation therapy] is not the place for religion.’”

10) “A California school co-founded by a firebrand who once called for an ‘intifada’ in the U.S. has become the nation’s first accredited Muslim college.”

11) “According to Coastal Carolina University, sex is only consensual if both parties are completely sober and if consent is not only present, but also enthusiastic. This is a troubling standard that converts many ordinary, lawful sexual encounters into sexual assault, and it should frighten any student at CCU.”

12) “Clemson University apologizes for serving Mexican food…Students took to Twitter to call the event culturally insensitive and to question the school’s efforts to promote diversity….Clemson Dining issued an apology to ‘offended’ students after hosting a ‘Maximum Mexican’ food day.”

13) “All-Women’s College Cancels ‘Vagina Monologues’ Because it Excludes Women Without Vaginas.”

14) “The ‘Black Lives Matter’ leader who landed a teaching gig at Yale University delivered a lecture this week on the historical merits of looting as a form of protest, backing up his lesson with required reading that puts modern-day marauders on par with the patriots behind the Boston Tea Party.”

15) “Assistant Dean (at Cornell) Tells a Project Veritas Investigative Journalist that the University Would Allow an ISIS Terrorist to Hold a ‘Training Camp’ on Campus, Saying: ‘It Would be Like Bringing in a Coach to do a Training on a Sports Team.'”

 
BE AFRAID of the Crybaby Generation, Be very Afraid.

Ministry of Truth Moderates?

I still don’t understand why the GOP has the Liberal Media moderating their debates. I just don’t get it. And apparently last night it showed.

I didn’t watch it for precisely the reason that apparently happened. The Liberal Media wanted to incite a fight and make the GOP look bad.

It’s like asking the Wolf to guard the chicken coup. The Big Bad Wolf to watch the sheep.

It’s idiotic. And apparently last night it showed.

‘The questions asked so far illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media. This is not a cage match,’ Cruz said 

‘Look at the questions: “Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?” “Ben Carson, can you do math?” “John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?” “Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign?” “Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?”‘ 

‘How about talking about the substantive issues that people care about?’

Cruz earned the night’s loudest single wave of applause for that outburst. 

Rubio followed him with additional slams on the U.S. political press corps after Trump demanded an end to ‘scam’ super PACs that ‘are causing some very bad decisions to be made by some very good people.’

‘The Democrats have their own super PAC,’ Rubio claimed. ‘It’s called the mainstream media.’ 

You just now figured that out? Really??

“The CNBC moderators acted less like journalists and more like Clinton campaign operatives.  What was supposed to be a serious debate about the many issues plaguing our economy was given up for one Democratic talking point after another served up by the so-call ‘moderators.’  They clearly war-gamed this thinking that a relentless series of personal attacks on the candidates would somehow drive their ratings and help Hillary Clinton.

The CNBC debate will go down in history as an encyclopedic example of liberal media bias on stage.  The audience roared its disdain for these so-called ‘journalists,’ and all of America heard it.  CNBC should be embarrassed for their pitiful display of partisan liberal media bias and apologize to the GOP candidates and the American people.”– Brent Bozell

Except by the Liberal Media itself I bet. 🙂

“Congressional Republicans, Democrats and the White House are about to strike a compromise that would raise the debt limit, prevent a government shutdown, and calm financial markets of the fear that a Washington crisis is on the way. Does your opposition to it show you’re not the kind of problem-solver that American voters want?” CNBC anchor Carl Quintanilla asked the presidential candidate.

That’s questions more loaded than a drunk at bar at 2am. And more slanted than the drunk trying to walk home afterwards!

“So you don’t actually want to hear the answer, John?” Cruz called out the anchor. “You don’t want to hear the answer, you just want to incite insults.”

“You used your time on something else,” a dismissive Harwood said.

Which was: “The questions being asked shouldn’t be trying to get people to tear into each other, it should be what are your substantive solutions to people at home,” Cruz said before getting cut off.

“You’re not interested in an answer,” Cruz scolded.

No, he really wasn’t. He wanted to incite insults and violence to make you look bad. That was his job.

A half-hour after the debate ended, CNBC had turned off the TV monitors in the press filing center, effectively hiding its own post-debate broadcast coverage from the hundreds of reporters who traveled to cover the event.

Frank Luntz, the legendary Republican pollster, hosted a focus group during the debate as he has for each of the other Republican intra-party clashes.

’23 of tonight’s 26 focus group participants watched all three broadcasts.,’ he tweeted. ‘They ALL said @CNBC mod[erator]s were the worst.’

Why do you have The Ministry of Truth running your Debates? It makes NO sense!

And New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who had few spotlight moments, lit into the moderators for asking a question about whether the federal government should regulate pay-for-play fantasty football competitions online.

‘Wait a second,’ he said, firing rhetorical bullets at the CNBC anchor desk: ‘We have $19 trillion in debt, people out of work, ISIS and al Qaeda attacking us – and we’re talking about fantasy football?’ 

The Liberals don’t want you talk about those things that THEY fucked up. Why the hell would they want that?

Inanities is what they do best.

‘How about we get the government to do what they’re supposed to be doing?’ an agitated Christie shouted. ‘Enough on fantasy football. Let people play! Who cares?’ 

Moments earlier, Christie had lit into moderator John Harwood for interrupting him in mid-answer. 

‘Even in New Jersey,’ he said, ‘what you’re doing is called “rude”.’ 

The network’s chief moderator, John Harwood, found himself in trouble early for claiming Rubio’s tax plan was the subject of an aggressive takedown at the hands of the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

He told the debate’s audience that the organization scored the Rubio plan ‘and concluded that you give nearly twice as much of a gain in after-tax income to the top one-percent as to people in the middle of the income scale.’

So the moderator is preaching partisan BS instead of asking questions, ghee, why didn’t you see that coming GOP? The Ministry of Truth is there to make you look bad and to plant questions that are slanted so far to the left they are one dimensional.

‘Since you’re a champion of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, don’t you have that backward?’ Harwood asked him.

‘No,’ Rubio corrected him. ‘You wrote a story on it. You had to go back and correct it.’

‘No, I didn’t,’ Harwood insisted.

Harwood, though, tweeted his correction on October 14. 

‘Tax Foundation says Rubio benefits lowest 10% proportionally more than top 1%,’ that tweet read. 

A “Narrative” correction? 🙂

image1

The Ministry of Truth has an agenda. and a Narrative. But yet let them “moderate” your “debate”?

Why?

The Colorado debate began with a round of navel-gazing as CNBC host John Harwood asked the 10 assembled candidates, job-interview style, to describe their biggest weaknesses.

WTF!

Would they ask Hillary or Bernie Sanders that question? Really??

QUOTH THE DONALD: ‘I am now in Colorado looking forward to what I am sure will be a very unfair debate!’ (Daily Mail)

Ya Think! 🙂

Media critic Howard Kurtz analyzes the behavior of the CNBC debate moderators, particularly John Harwood, on FOX News’ Kelly File:

KURTZ: Megyn, this was an absolute trainwreck for CNBC. Many of the moderators’ questions seemed to be snide, hostile, condescending, borderline insulting. And let me just make clear: I’m totally in favor of tough and provocative questions. When you do that, sometimes audience doesn’t like it, sometimes the candidates don’t like it. But a lot of the questions were not drilling down on facts or record or policy. When John Harwood says Trump, comic book campaign, or do you have the moral authority to be president? When Carl Quintanilla asked Marco Rubio — who had a good night by the way — are you a young man in a hurry? Shouldn’t you wait a few years to run for president? It just validated what a lot of people think about the mainstream media — and this channel is affiliated of course with NBC News — that they cannot be fair to Republicans.

WHY WOULD YOU EXPECT THEM TO BE?

That’s the question I want answered.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

DIY

A recent New York Times headline read, “Raising Taxes on the Wealthiest Would Pay for Bold Plans.” The story says that by soaking the rich “the government could raise large amounts of revenue … while still allowing them to take home a majority of their income.”

Nowhere in the story, nor in the endless promises of Democratic presidential candidates, is there a single word about whether more government spending will produce the promised outcomes. We are to take this on faith, despite past performance being a good indicator of future results. Also absent is any expectation that individuals have more power than government to direct and improve their lives.

The Government in 2015 has taken in more tax money than any time in American History…but they still run a massive deficit…things have gotten worse not better.

That’s because to the left, government is much like a deity to be worshipped rather than a servant of the people. If you don’t worship at the leftist shrine, you’re labeled unsympathetic toward the poor. Republicans should respond: “We care about the poor, but unlike you, who have spent over a trillion dollars fighting poverty with little to show for it, we want the poor to become independent of government.”

What keeps most of the poor locked in poverty is propaganda from the left, which tells them they cannot succeed without government assistance, which, in turn, leads them to a series of bad choices and a state of perpetual victimhood. Look at America’s big cities, dominated by Democrats, to see how that’s working. Once we talked about people who overcame difficult circumstances; now we just sing about overcoming … someday.

 

Charles Koch and his brother David are reviled by the left because they contribute large amounts of money to Republicans. Never mind that George Soros does the same for Democrats. The normally reclusive Charles is doing interviews to promote his new book “Good Profit: How Creating Value for Others Built One of the World’s Most Successful Companies.”

Speaking with Megyn Kelly on the Fox News Channel, Charles read a letter his father sent him about his inheritance: “If you choose to let this money destroy your initiative and independence, then it will be a curse to you and my action in giving it to you will have been a mistake. I shall regret very much to have you miss the glorious feeling of accomplishment. Remember that often adversity is a blessing in disguise and is certainly the greatest character-builder.”

Where are you hearing anything like that in contemporary political discourse, especially among Democrats? It’s all about free college tuition, free health care, free everything. The United States will become a giant ATM and those evil, miserly, insensitive “millionaires and billionaires” will pay for it all because it isn’t fair that they have more money than you have.

They (the anti-Democrat) are racists,bigots, homophobes, haters,misogynists, who hate children, poor people, want to destroy the environment and above all are “greedy” and “selfish” (the last two are in quotes because they are so laughable I can’t type it straight).

Even if government confiscated all of their wealth there wouldn’t be enough to pay off the $18 trillion national debt. What happens when the money runs out; when all of the wealth of the successful is exhausted and the incentive to make money disappears with it?

The Democrats will demand more.

Where will the left turn then? Who is asking these questions? Not debate moderators, who seem more interested in getting the candidates to attack each other, as though the debates were just the latest reality shows. This is the future of the United States at stake. Could we please hear some adults conversing like adults?

The Liberal Media only wants to attack the right and throw Nerf balls at the Left.

The Agenda is The Agenda and they are the superior form of life, at least according to them.

Need a plan for success, or at least independent living?

The Democrat completely endorse not having one. That’s what government is there for, for you to be coddled and manipulated like zombies.

It isn’t new. Stop turning to government as a first resource. Get married before you have children, stay married and if things get tough seek counseling. Stay in school. Don’t take drugs. Develop good character and a sound work ethic. If a good job with a future isn’t available where you live, move to a city that offers more opportunity, or start a small business.

Why be an adult when Democrats want to be your Mommy. 🙂

In the bidding war for votes, the left is preaching a message of envy, greed and entitlement. Human history proves that message doesn’t improve a life.

But as long as itn wins elections they don’t care.

The old values worked. If you’re a millennial, ask your grandparents about them, why they worked and how we lost sight of them along the way. Since these values succeeded for previous generations, why don’t we reclaim them?

Because then you’re a “greedy”, “selfish” “uncaring” bastard!

Yeah, Bastards! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
 

They are Coming For You…

 

Mary Katharine Ham and I have written a new book, End of Discussion, which explores and exposes how the Left (primarily) increasingly seeks to “win” cultural and political debates by preventing them from happening. Instead, they move to delegitimize, disqualify and demonize their opponents through the impugning of motives, name-calling, and bullying — all of which is intended to raise the cost of disagreement, and to stifle open conversation. This phenomenon is born on college campuses (Chapter 5: “Speech Police Academy”), weaponized in DC, and has begun to permeate all aspects of American life (Chapter 2: “Everything’s a Thing”). Mary Katharine quasi-launched End of Discussion with Bill O’Reilly on Monday, then we appeared jointly on The Kelly File last night. Among other things, we analyzed stories illustrating how the Outrage Circus is making America less free (see the gay marriage purges in Chapter 8: “Bake Me A Cake Bigots”) and less fun (“Chapter 9: “The Uptight Citizens Brigade”):

End of Discussion is available in Hardcover, digital and audiobook editions. It’s on sale at Amazon, elsewhere online, and at retailers across America — including Barnes & Noble, Walmart, Books-A-Million, Costco, and others. By the way, I’m joining the ladies of ‘Outnumbered’ on Fox News as #OneLuckyGuy today at noon ET. Please tune in!  I’ll leave you with a link to Rare’s excerpt from our chapter on the “war on women” aspect of the Outrage Circus’ acrobatics, entitled, appropriately enough, “The Vagina Demagogues.”  Enjoy, and please buy the book!

Birthed By Liberal Educators for 12 years. Matured by Liberals at College. Then weaponized by DC politicians and then social “activists” all so the Thought Police can destroy your life if you even THINK of disagreeing with them!

Jerry Seinfield: Seinfeld says teens and college-aged kids don’t understand what it means to throw around certain politically-correct terms. “They just want to use these words: ‘That’s racist;’ ‘That’s sexist;’ ‘That’s prejudice,’” he said. “They don’t know what the f­—k they’re talking about.”

He forgot the one of the Left’s favorites: “Islamophobia”.

Leno said much the same in March:

He said: ‘College kids now are so politically correct. I mean, to the point where — I’ll give you an example, we had interns at the show, college interns.

‘Like, the last year of the show, one of the interns comes and says, “Mr. Leno, I’m getting lunch. what do you want?’ I said, ‘I don’t know, where are you going?’

‘He said, “we’re getting Mexican.” I said, “I don’t really like Mexican.” He goes, “whoa, that’s kind of racist”.’
Leno then shouts: ‘That’s not racist.’

‘No, being anti-guacamole is not racist, okay? You have no idea what racism is. That’s not racist, you idiot, you moron.’ (Hot Air)

All the guys above are white dudes, which allows liberals to say, “Hey, aren’t you a white male? I think that’s enough out of you. End of Discussion.”

Rich, White dudes! Even WORSE!

http://www.amazon.com/End-Discussion-Outrage-Industry-Manipulates/dp/0553447750

There’s a whole chapter in “End of Discussion” devoted to these battles called, “The Uptight Citizens Brigade.” We applaud Joan Rivers for her genuinely unapologetic approach to comedy. We highlight the ludicrous spectacle of the outrage industry going after the famous drinking card game, “Cards Against Humanity,” for a card that was offensive even though the entire reason for the card game’s existence and every card in it is EXPLICITLY TO OFFEND.

Go watch “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” with an audience. That is the most Politically Incorrect movie environment left on Earth.

Hint: every time Susan Sarandan’s (yes, her!) Janet says just about anything you yell “slut” at the screen. It’s so un-PC! 🙂

Their mission and their guarantee is that they WILL OFFEND everyone. Then you’ll have a good time doing it!

http://www.rockyhorror.htmlplanet.com/about.html

< Comedian Colin>Quinn believes that this PC mindset has expanded from colleges to American society as a whole in recent years. “Now people are outraged over any ‘buzzword’ that they think is offensive which has led to George Orwell version of ‘groupthink’ that demands conformity.”

Pizza anyone? 🙂

At The Spike TV Guys Choice Awards Clint Eastwood was introducing The Rock, he compared the San Andreas star to former athletes who have become actors, like “Jim Brown and Caitlyn Somebody…,”

That “somebody” was considered so “offensive” that it will be edited out of the broadcast.

Yes, just that. That’s all it took for the PC police to go nuclear!

You know what Eastwood’s guilty of? He’s guilty of trying to use Jenner as a punchline, irrespective of what the point of the joke is. And that really is a thoughtcrime first-degree, bordering on blasphemy, in the current media climate.

That’s it.

Enjoy that freedom of thought because the Left is gunning for you, RIGHT NOW!.

You racist, homophobic, islamophobic, hater you!

You will comply. You will conform. You will do as you are told and think only thoughts we have approved of.

END OF DISCUSSION. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Word Games

“Like most political topics [in the US] the debate is relatively non-existent.  Once you identify pro or con on the subject, the other side assumes they know your feelings and arguments and immediately begins either attempting to convert you or demonize you for your beliefs.”

This struck a cord with me because of how true I feel it is. Why is this? What is a society that does debate more productively? What would you like to see happen and might it happen? Any thoughts are welcome.

My definition of debate; respectful conversation that might lead one or both sides to see the full scope of an issue and agree on a best choice in the matter. -Timothy A Walker

Advocacy is the norm.  Unlike debate, advocacy can be effective sans facts.  Good advocacy works on our reason, emotion and the character of everyone involved is a consideration too.

Unlike debate, advocacy shares a lot of common ground with propaganda and is very easily abused.

There has been a consistent reduction of clarity in news, linked to misinformation, that favors advocacy forms of dialog.  Infotainment is advocacy.

The lack of clarity norms renders debate lofty,inaccessible and boring essentially.

We need advocacy and we need debate.  I believe the real answer to this is a sharp increase in clarity norms, which would favor good advocacy and frame it as the gateway to debate instead of being the gateway to misinformation and polarization is most often is now.

Clarity is a non partisan common interest we all should have.—Doug Dingus

In the 1980s there was a TV show called “Not Necessarily The News” on HBO that featured something called “sniglets.” (Hosted by Bob Saget). Although it’s probably a hate-crime to say the word “sniglet” out loud now and will get you accused of homophone-a-phobia, a sniglet is a word that should appear in the dictionary but doesn’t. Sniglets have all but disappeared, but the dictionary itself might as well be thrown out too. Words that had unambiguous meanings for decades or even centuries have seen those definitions changed by progressives in the name of political correctness.

To make sure you are up to date on which words and phrases are now permissible, I’ve assembled a few here that have seen their definitions change so you don’t get accused of being an “Ist-a-phobe” at the water cooler come Monday.

Thug: noun.
Old meaning: a violent criminal.
New meaning: a racial slur; the same as the “n-word.”
Source: Tonight Show band leader Questlove in a tweet this week and pretty much everyone on MSNBC.
Suggested replacements for your vocabulary: upriser, revolutionary, victim, misguided young people, Democratic Party voter.
Acceptable uses: When referencing the bad guys in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and when talking about white hockey players Food Stamps: noun.
Old meaning: a small document that is given by the government to poor people and that can be used to buy food.
New meaning: a racial slur; “code” for black people.
Source: Democrats in the 2012 election deemed pointing out the fact there are more people on food stamps under President Obama than at any point in American history to be “racial code.” It being a fact was deemed irrelevant.
Suggested replacements for your vocabulary: economically challenged, differently fed, Democratic Party voter.
Acceptable uses: When calling for greater funding for the program or when accusing a Republican of wanting to “gut” the program.

Budget cut: noun.
Old meaning: the act of reducing budgeted expenditures.
New meaning: a reduction in the rate of increase in spending where more money is spent than the prior year but slightly less than previously projected; draconian gutting of vital programs, particularly for poor and minority people.
Source: The Democratic Party and the mainstream media.
Suggested replacements for your vocabulary: There is no alternative; reducing, or even proposing a reduction in the rate of increase of government spending, is racist.
Acceptable uses: The term is not only allowed to be used when talking about spending on national defense, it is required.

Urban: adjective.
Old meaning: of or relating to cities and the people who live in them.
New meaning: racist code for “black people.”
Source: Every progressive everywhere.
Suggested replacements for your vocabulary: Underrepresented communities, victims.
Acceptable uses: Only when giving the full name of a country singer or talking about an awful store selling clothes for white suburban hipsters.

Progressive: adjective.
Old meaning: Political philosophy based on the belief that some people are intellectually and genetically superior to others and should, therefore, be able to exercise power over everyone else, up to and including who can live or reproduce.
New meaning: tolerant, loving, smart, caring.
Source: The Democratic Party (which also was the source of the original definition but now chooses to pretend otherwise) and pretty much everyone on MSNBC.
Suggested replacements for your vocabulary None. Even though the philosophy was created by those who literally advocated for the extermination of “undesirable” people (minorities and poor, uneducated whites), people proudly call themselves progressive without consequence.

Tolerance: noun.
Old meaning: willingness to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own.
New meaning: Conformity; the belief that the only acceptable thoughts are those that adhere to a progressive philosophy.
Source: The Democratic Party, College professors, pretty much everyone on MSNBC.
Suggested replacements for your vocabulary: None. There is no need to remove this word from your vocabulary, but it is important to remember it means only the new definition. Any deviation from the new meaning to the old one will be met with protests, boycotts and potential massive fines from government.

Diversity: noun.
Old meaning: the quality or state of having many different forms, types, ideas, etc.
New meaning: different colored, like-minded drones. It no longer applies to the ideas or thoughts, only skin color. This word particularly does not apply to black or Hispanic conservatives.
Source: The Democratic Party, the mainstream media and pretty much everyone on (the mostly white) MSNBC.
Suggested replacements for your vocabulary: None. You must not question this concept, only blindly accept it. To point out the hypocrisy of rich, white liberal progressives living in gated communities extolling the virtues of diversity is a near hate-crime.
I hope this small but important list helps you navigate our brave new world. Should you find yourself violating these suggestions by saying something like, “Well, progressive Democrats and their policies have pretty much had unfettered reign in the most violent and economically depressed areas of the country for generations and things have only gotten worse,” the only hope for redemption is a donation to a progressive organization that sells “indulgences.”

The most popular indulgence sellers are the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. Donations are tax deducible and you can rest assured that your money will be put to good use, not wasted on frivolities like accurate record keeping or paying taxes. (Derek Hunter)

Don’t do as They do, do as they say. OR ELSE!

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers

The Tolerance Game

 This may not be as flashy as Hillary or Obama, but it still about Freedom and the intolerance of The Left that will come for you some day if you don’t do something about it. (anyone else find the banners ironic?) 🙂

Nothing says tolerance than being called the C-word for supporting religious freedom, or having a student-led petition started to have your banner removed at your respective school. That’s exactly what happened to Lindsey Kolb, a senior student at Missouri State University in Springfield, after she voiced her opinions in support of religious freedom a few weeks ago. At the time, the city was debating whether to add sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) to its nondiscrimination statutes.  Some, like Lindsey, felt the religious exemption wasn’t specific enough.

Yet, before we get into the liberal intolerance that was thrown at Kolb, let’s discuss a little more about the law’s aspects.

As the Springfield News-Leader reported, anyone found guilty of violating the ordinance would be served with a 180-day jail sentence and a $1,000 fine, though the city’s attorney said virtually all of these infractions would only result in a financial penalty. As for existing law, local columnists have come to the same scenario in question: bathrooms:

One thing that does change is that a business owner would not be able to preemptively kick someone out because the owner believes that person is a threat. As it stands now, if a business owner believes a person is in the “wrong” bathroom, the owner would have the right to tell the person to leave the business. With sexual orientation and gender identity protections in place, the person who is asked to leave would have the recourse to file a complaint with the Mayor’s Commission on Human Rights.

As for the religious exemption [emphasis mine]:

One ordinance suggested by the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Task Force included a broad religious exemption. Basically, any business owner could deny service if he or she did so on religious terms. However, the version of the ordinance the city adopted only exempts strictly religious organizations.For example, a church can deny employment to whomever it chooses, for any reason. A religious person, who owns a call center, shoe store, or any other such business, cannot.

And therein lies the controversy; a private business owner who is deeply religious would be forced to go against his own faith and beliefs. It’s the baker and the gay wedding cake scenario.

Kolb wrote an op-ed in the Standard on March 31, one week before the scheduled vote on the bill–in response to a satire piece that mocked Christians. Yet, it’s her final paragraph that struck at heart of the battles now raging over religious freedom laws:

My last point is to call for the entire community to engage in civil discourse regarding this topic. I ask you to consider both sides, read the bill, talk to your friends, talk to your family, do some research and come up with your own decision concerning your vote. Last week in The Standard, the attempt at making an argument for one side attempted to cease the conversation by using name-calling, making light of valuable political conversation and attacking one community with hopes that it will relieve tension on another community. This is not only unprofessional, unproductive and immature, but it is not held to the standards that our university has poured into our lives. Missouri State University is dedicated both to public affairs and creating educated persons. Let’s start having conversations now about important issues rather than turning to insulting tactics.

Trying to talk rational sense to The radical Left, now that’s just crazy!

On April 7, the ordinance failed by a narrow margin.* Nevertheless, the “Get Kolb” campaign was up and running.

They needed to lynch someone for losing. It couldn’t be them. Someone’s scalp had to pay for this injustice!!

Kolb said that the vitriol aimed at her included people telling her that she should commit suicide, along with other attacks laced with profanity and misogynist language (don’t be a cunt).

Kolb is former president of MSU’s College Republicans chapter and the State Chairwoman for the Missouri Federation of College Republicans, as well as a university ambassador, which explains one petition urging the school to remove her banner hanging on Carrington Hall–the main administrative building on campus.

From the petition’s description on Change.org, it says it doesn’t aim to make Kolb a “scapegoat,” (more like sacrificial goat to the God of  Progressive Liberalism) though it also says its impetus was grounded in “the things Lindsey has said in the past.” It’s an ideological mess [emphasis mine]:

My goal here is not to make Lindsey a scapegoat for the way the vote turned out yesterday [April 7] or attack her religious rights or right to free speech. The goal is to create dialogue that induces change here on campus and in our city. Yes, last night’s vote was disappointing, but the petition was not made because of the way things turned out, it was made because of the things Lindsey has said in the past that include the comments she made last night. I respect Lindsey’s right to say what she believes just as much as I ask anyone to respect my right to voice my opinion, however when one is the representative for something larger than themselves, it is important that their opinions and values align with those of the entity they represent. <Ours only> Missouri State claims to value its Public Affairs mission pillars of Ethical Leadership, Cultural Competence, and Community Engagement and each year chooses one pillar to highlight. This year, the chosen pillar is Ethical Leadership. In GEP classes, students are assigned projects to define and identify ethical leaders in our world. At SOAR, new students do group activities that represent our Public Affairs mission and one that I specifically remember is the one in regards to Ethical Leadership. My SOAR [Student Orientation, Advisement and Registration] group found that an ethical leader is one who has their own set of values but can recognize when the greater good requires them to set those values aside.…

Whenever Lindsey was approached in 2013 to be on the banner on Missouri State’s most recognizable building, she agreed. Through that agreement she also vowed to live our Public Affairs mission and be culturally competent, engage in her community, and be an ethical leader. For Missouri State to continue to endorse her discriminatory views is effectively showing that they do not in fact value ethical leadership. The goal of the petition is not to attack free speech or victimize Lindsey. The goal is to show that there are consequences to one’s speech whenever it is inflammatory and supports discrimination against those who the speaker represents.

Lindsey is not to blame for the loss for the LGBT+ community last night, but signing the petition can help change our campus and our city for the better. (which means we are going to sacrifice HER anyways for our political needs)

This classic American progressivism; we support free speech, just our version of free speech. At least they note that Kolb isn’t to blame for the failure of the ordinance since she has zero skin in the political game in Springfield.

“Personally, I don’t vote in Springfield. I vote in my home district. I advocated for the repeal because I believe in religious freedom. I believe that churches, businesses, and organizations, and people with religious convictions should be able to decide whom they serve,” she said.

Well, she’s in the majority. Overall, while Americans generally support gay marriage rights, a AP/GFK poll found that 57 percent think that a wedding-related business should be allowed to refuse service to a gay couple if it violates their religious beliefs.

In a poll conducted by Wilson Perkins Allen Opinion Research on behalf of the Family Research Council, they found 81 percent of Americans believed government “should leave people free to follow their beliefs about marriage as they live their daily lives at work and in the way they run their businesses.”

The Left and their false sense of Sanctimony and “outrage” would never TOLERATE such a thing. 🙂

Ironic is it not?

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok