Slowly but surely, the individual will prevail and the union thug will be no more.
Quebec needs to be purged of this cancer.
2014-03-16
California: Where Unions Are Evil
Slowly but surely, the individual will prevail and the union thug will be no more.
Quebec needs to be purged of this cancer.
Exposing The PQ And Its Unilateral Gibberish About Independence
The Parti Quebecois are deceivers. A party that would nicely in the Malebolge.
On their senseless and petulant path to nowhere, they play with our savings; our future...our lives.
They do so with a puzzling mix of political candidates from Pierre-Karl Peladeau to the leaders of the student protests. The same student movement that received a nice dildo up the ass courtesy of the PQ when it got elected.
What a mix for Quebec's future! Yeah, let's hitch that ride to independence to them. Free shit for all!
Yeesh.
Anyway.
Everything Marois says about the economy and what would happen after the declaration of independence is a ruse. Each time she steps up to a microphone and delivers one of her soliloquy's she reminds me more and more of Travis Bickle given she's basically talking to a mirror.
It's deceptive theater because she damn well knows she has no idea how Canada will react. To presume to do so and go public with it is an outrageous example of her petty irresponsibility; of her and her party's outright disregard for truth. She also knows the majority of Quebecers don't want to leave Canada (which is why the PQ became infamous for their deliberately and pathetic confusing referendum question that gave birth to the Clarity Act. Next time, act like adults and treat citizens like adults and Ottawa won't feel compelled to spank us).
So it's a good tactic to obfuscate.
The arrogance of assuming the rest of Canada will play ball with Quebec's demands is asinine as it is retarded.
There are no guarantees. That's a basic axiom of life. And more so in politics where all of man's most notorious vices reside. Promises and alliances are broken all the time.
No one knows what will happen but if I were to guess it would go along the lines of something like this:
Finally rid of Quebec, the rest of Canada will be free to act as it sees fit to serve their own interests. Not only Quebec has a 'will' after all.
Quebec nationalists like to presume what Canada will do using rational-speak (which is empty jargon in reality) but they be wrong for they conduct diplomacy through their own jealous prisms. One of the key ways to know if you possess diplomatic skills is to be able to know what your opponents want and delivering a deal that pleases both sides. So far, the PQ aren't displaying a knack for the art of diplomacy.
Instead, we get unilateral declarations of 'there will be no borders.'
What does that mean? How does she know? What if Ontario gets up one morning in a foul mood still peeved that Lake Ontario is the smallest of the Great Lakes and decides to put in a border...with tolls!
We don't know.
Canada will likely, naturally, feel scorned and will be in no mood to negotiate. Quebec's position is 'well, they don't want to face turmoil so they will have to talk to us.' Once again, displaying a narcissistic take on things. In their minds, they break shit up but it's the others that will pick up the pieces.
It's possible Canada will not hand over the national currency built over centuries commanding international trust and American acceptance to a bunch of renegade reprobates. Yes, it's possible to enter a monetary union or even create a Quebec dollar but what will be the costs? And how long will the population be willing to sustain that cost until Quebec stabilizes - if at all? How do we know Canada won't conduct its own series of referendums on what to do about Quebec?
Alberta's prominence within a Canadian federation will increase. Suddenly the power structure will tip even further towards the Pacific. It will definitely agitate to not negotiate with Quebec. British Columbia and the Prairie provinces will fall in line with Alberta.
This leaves Ontario - the nation's most powerful entity. Bordering Quebec, Ontario will also have to consider the fate of the Atlantic provinces. Each of these provinces will balance geographical realism and how it relates to Quebec as well as its desired allegiance to Canada. I believe the will of these Canadians will be such that it remains loyal to Canada thus ultimately leaving Quebec alone.
Not only that, the Atlantic provinces, as been murmured in the past, can always ask for annexation to the New England states.
In a sea of "30 million anglos.' With one major difference. Those '30 million anglos' who helped form Canada thus preserving Canadian leverage against American hegemony will be lost. The fear of being swallowed by '300 million English speaking peoples' suddenly becomes, well, real.
All this to say, if anything, Canada will likely be in a better position to dictate the terms.
If you think this is not complicated enough wait until what can happen inside Quebec.
If Canada is divisible, then so can, the thinking goes, Quebec. If Quebec thinks it to be legitimate to break up Canada - a nation they willingly entered, then the sanctity of Quebec's borders are even more in dispute. Enter the Natives - Mohawks and Cree in particular - who have made clear under no certain terms would they go along with a separate Quebec.
Neither will Montreal.
There will be push back and unless Quebec uses coercion and force (certainly not the Canadian military or the RCMP, leaving the Surete du Quebec to handle this? I don't think the Natives are too worried about the SQ who aren't even trained for such events) to suppress unrest, I'm not entirely sure how it will deal with it.
Any currency of good will is already long spent. The Parti Quebecois are not a respected entity among non-Francophones. Would they even be recognized? If they came to our table there's little chance we'd trust them. They've never exhibited any respect for our side, so why should we listen?
The legalities of this will be fiercely argued I'm sure, but people who vote for the PQ should take into account nothing should be taken for granted. Never assume because your actions will piss people off. And lemme tell ya, Marois and her sockpuppet Lisee are pushing all the wrong buttons.
All a pity really.
Quebec has carved itself a nice, unique way of life. We all know it's a different place. But it is not distinct enough to demand a nation. They are different within this nation of Canada. It's different meant in the most respectful way. We are Canadian and the contribution of Quebec to Canada is immeasurable. It raises valid questions about many issues that face us as a nation. It is to our advantage we have a view from all sides coast to coast.
Quebec already operates in the most decentralized Federal state on the planet. It has nothing to gain to agitate anymore. It would be better served to serve its citizens on subjects and issues that matter.
We achieved this within the CANADIAN CONFEDERATION.
Alas, this is my view; a product of my own personal bias.
Nonetheless, it is predicated on the perception that considers nationalism (in all countries) as a malignant actor in the democratic process. It dismisses the hues and cries of self-victimhood and refutes deceptive rhetoric designed to attack our tribal senses.
Oh.
And based on the fact that I think the PQ are fucking liars.
*****
From No Dogs Or Anglophones. I copy in full Castonguay's article on a Quebec currency in La Presse (original text in French here. I love reading it in French):
On their senseless and petulant path to nowhere, they play with our savings; our future...our lives.
They do so with a puzzling mix of political candidates from Pierre-Karl Peladeau to the leaders of the student protests. The same student movement that received a nice dildo up the ass courtesy of the PQ when it got elected.
Yeesh.
Anyway.
Everything Marois says about the economy and what would happen after the declaration of independence is a ruse. Each time she steps up to a microphone and delivers one of her soliloquy's she reminds me more and more of Travis Bickle given she's basically talking to a mirror.
It's deceptive theater because she damn well knows she has no idea how Canada will react. To presume to do so and go public with it is an outrageous example of her petty irresponsibility; of her and her party's outright disregard for truth. She also knows the majority of Quebecers don't want to leave Canada (which is why the PQ became infamous for their deliberately and pathetic confusing referendum question that gave birth to the Clarity Act. Next time, act like adults and treat citizens like adults and Ottawa won't feel compelled to spank us).
The arrogance of assuming the rest of Canada will play ball with Quebec's demands is asinine as it is retarded.
There are no guarantees. That's a basic axiom of life. And more so in politics where all of man's most notorious vices reside. Promises and alliances are broken all the time.
No one knows what will happen but if I were to guess it would go along the lines of something like this:
Finally rid of Quebec, the rest of Canada will be free to act as it sees fit to serve their own interests. Not only Quebec has a 'will' after all.
Quebec nationalists like to presume what Canada will do using rational-speak (which is empty jargon in reality) but they be wrong for they conduct diplomacy through their own jealous prisms. One of the key ways to know if you possess diplomatic skills is to be able to know what your opponents want and delivering a deal that pleases both sides. So far, the PQ aren't displaying a knack for the art of diplomacy.
Instead, we get unilateral declarations of 'there will be no borders.'
What does that mean? How does she know? What if Ontario gets up one morning in a foul mood still peeved that Lake Ontario is the smallest of the Great Lakes and decides to put in a border...with tolls!
We don't know.
Canada will likely, naturally, feel scorned and will be in no mood to negotiate. Quebec's position is 'well, they don't want to face turmoil so they will have to talk to us.' Once again, displaying a narcissistic take on things. In their minds, they break shit up but it's the others that will pick up the pieces.
It's possible Canada will not hand over the national currency built over centuries commanding international trust and American acceptance to a bunch of renegade reprobates. Yes, it's possible to enter a monetary union or even create a Quebec dollar but what will be the costs? And how long will the population be willing to sustain that cost until Quebec stabilizes - if at all? How do we know Canada won't conduct its own series of referendums on what to do about Quebec?
Alberta's prominence within a Canadian federation will increase. Suddenly the power structure will tip even further towards the Pacific. It will definitely agitate to not negotiate with Quebec. British Columbia and the Prairie provinces will fall in line with Alberta.
This leaves Ontario - the nation's most powerful entity. Bordering Quebec, Ontario will also have to consider the fate of the Atlantic provinces. Each of these provinces will balance geographical realism and how it relates to Quebec as well as its desired allegiance to Canada. I believe the will of these Canadians will be such that it remains loyal to Canada thus ultimately leaving Quebec alone.
Not only that, the Atlantic provinces, as been murmured in the past, can always ask for annexation to the New England states.
In a sea of "30 million anglos.' With one major difference. Those '30 million anglos' who helped form Canada thus preserving Canadian leverage against American hegemony will be lost. The fear of being swallowed by '300 million English speaking peoples' suddenly becomes, well, real.
All this to say, if anything, Canada will likely be in a better position to dictate the terms.
If you think this is not complicated enough wait until what can happen inside Quebec.
If Canada is divisible, then so can, the thinking goes, Quebec. If Quebec thinks it to be legitimate to break up Canada - a nation they willingly entered, then the sanctity of Quebec's borders are even more in dispute. Enter the Natives - Mohawks and Cree in particular - who have made clear under no certain terms would they go along with a separate Quebec.
Neither will Montreal.
There will be push back and unless Quebec uses coercion and force (certainly not the Canadian military or the RCMP, leaving the Surete du Quebec to handle this? I don't think the Natives are too worried about the SQ who aren't even trained for such events) to suppress unrest, I'm not entirely sure how it will deal with it.
Any currency of good will is already long spent. The Parti Quebecois are not a respected entity among non-Francophones. Would they even be recognized? If they came to our table there's little chance we'd trust them. They've never exhibited any respect for our side, so why should we listen?
The legalities of this will be fiercely argued I'm sure, but people who vote for the PQ should take into account nothing should be taken for granted. Never assume because your actions will piss people off. And lemme tell ya, Marois and her sockpuppet Lisee are pushing all the wrong buttons.
All a pity really.
Quebec has carved itself a nice, unique way of life. We all know it's a different place. But it is not distinct enough to demand a nation. They are different within this nation of Canada. It's different meant in the most respectful way. We are Canadian and the contribution of Quebec to Canada is immeasurable. It raises valid questions about many issues that face us as a nation. It is to our advantage we have a view from all sides coast to coast.
Quebec already operates in the most decentralized Federal state on the planet. It has nothing to gain to agitate anymore. It would be better served to serve its citizens on subjects and issues that matter.
We achieved this within the CANADIAN CONFEDERATION.
Alas, this is my view; a product of my own personal bias.
Nonetheless, it is predicated on the perception that considers nationalism (in all countries) as a malignant actor in the democratic process. It dismisses the hues and cries of self-victimhood and refutes deceptive rhetoric designed to attack our tribal senses.
Oh.
And based on the fact that I think the PQ are fucking liars.
*****
From No Dogs Or Anglophones. I copy in full Castonguay's article on a Quebec currency in La Presse (original text in French here. I love reading it in French):
Currency is an important symbol a people's identity. An independent Quebec should have its own currency, a Quebec dollar. With the prospect of a referendum, it is important to analyze the effects entailed with replacing the Canadian dollar by a Quebec dollar.But apparently Pauline has other ideas.
The Quebec dollar value and stability are the two main issues. The value of a currency is related to the strength of the economy, public finances and the debt of a country. But the value and stability of a currency depends on the level of trust that citizens, investors and speculators place in that currency.
Given these factors, a new Quebec dollar would inevitably have a lower value than the U.S. and Canadian dollars. Currently, the Canadian dollar is worth 90 cents against the U.S. dollar, analysts consider this difference as justified. Similarly, we can assume that the value of a new Quebec dollar would be about 85 cents against the Canadian dollar and 75 cents against the U.S. dollar.
During the changeover, Quebecers would have their savings and assets decline by around 15 %. Before such an eventuality, Quebecers would probably take all possible measures to prevent the devaluation of their savings and their assets. They would move away their assets outside of Quebec into U.S. dollars. This would add to the instability of the new currency and would lead to a further decline in its value.
In other words, should Quebec make a declaration of independence, it would have no choice but to keep the Canadian dollar. This is what the Parti Québécois recognized on the eve of the 1995 referendum . The use of the Canadian dollar would normally require the conclusion of a monetary union between the newly independent Quebec and Canada, divided by the departure of Quebec. The conclusion of such an agreement would be highly problematic.
We would see this in Britain if the Scots vote in September for their independence. The British Chancellor of the Exchequer warned them they could not keep the pound, the British public would not accept it. It is clear that the Canadian Prime Minister would be in the same situation in the event of a vote for Quebec independence.
Quebec would thus have no choice but to continue to use the Canadian dollar , however, without the benefit of the protection of a monetary union. That is to say that monetary policy would be established by the Bank of Canada strictly according to the situation in the rest of Canada.
Twenty years ago, Argentina had embarked on this path. It allowed its citizens to exchange, according to a predetermined exchange rate their pesos against the U.S. dollar . Argentines rushed to exchange their pesos for U.S. dollars and move it out of the country, which led to the fall in the value of the peso and a real crisis.
We conclude that in the event of Quebec independence, it would be necessary to negotiate in a hostile environment, an agreement to eventually return to the bosom of the Bank of Canada under conditions less favorable than those currently prevailing.
In the current electoral context, some issues may possibly be carried forward to an eventual White Paper on sovereignty. This is not the case for the currency issue. Voters are entitled to know, before exercising their voting intentions what the Parti Québécois' currency policy will be in an independent Quebec.
"A sovereign Quebec would use the Canadian dollar and request a seat on the Bank of Canada’s decision-making body, Parti Québécois Leader Pauline Marois said Wednesday on the campaign trail.
The PQ Leader pointed to several studies on the matter conducted in the early 1990s which showed that there would be no obstacles for an independent Quebec to using the Canadian dollar. However, getting a seat on the Bank of Canada’s Governing Council would be more difficult.
“Obviously we may wish to get a seat at the Bank of Canada but we would accept the Canadian monetary policies,” Ms. Marois said.
Liberal Leader Philippe Couillard said Ms. Marois is living in a dream world.
“The PQ always tries to take us to an imaginary world, Alice in Wonderland, where everything is going to be so great. No borders, no passport, it’s fantastic. Everybody’s going to be great friends,” said Mr. Couillard. Link
Head Scratching Furious Over Obamacare Low Sign Ups
Are the Democrats for real? They pass a law that compels people to buy insurance. When it turns out people can't afford the premiums because they're out of work, they wonder why sign ups are low?
Not even Head & Shoulders has a product for the dandruff this has produced.
Not even Head & Shoulders has a product for the dandruff this has produced.
2014-03-15
Progressives Misread The Constitution
Some guy in America.
I think she gets this spot on. The backward projection applied by such people is astoundingly stupid and illogical. They break the one of the most important laws of history: Don't project contemporary thoughts onto the past.
They fail, in my view, to contextualize. No, I don't consider "those were different, more simpler times" as contextualizing. It's vapid nonsense. I don't know about you folks reading this article, but I don't see a whole lot of difference between how politics - including power politics in international affairs - worked then as it does now. There's a thin, long linear common thread linking all epochs and eras on such matters. There are, surely, differences that mark a particular moment of course, but the over arching arc is the same in any age.
For example, it's irrelevant how weapons would evolve over time. That they couldn't conceive of a bazooka doesn't negate the theory of the right to bear arms. There's a certain arrogance in this position. Here's why. It implies there was no advancement in science and technology. In order for this line of logic to function, it has to presume that the evolution of weapons technology is not relative but static. Which, when one ponders it, makes sense given the static thinking of such assertions.
By the time the Founding Fathers wrote the amendments, there were sufficient examples for them to draw upon when it comes to how man can devise ruthless killing machines.
They understood. They understood very well. Better than you can imagine. This is why the amendments are brilliant in its wording. It really isn't that hard to understand the spirit of their positions. They were conservative men in a liberal age. That is, they were Enlightenment philosophers who believed in the authority of God.
As such, they fall in line with classical liberal thought. Not the contemporary progressive version that pompously seeks to reword, rework or even reinvent The Constitution in its own image.
I don't think it's helpful or proper to try and surmise along the lines of 'they never meant to' or 'they could never know' because, as the video shows, it leaves itself open to all sorts of problems.
And so it is with the 2nd amendment. The point is not about 'assault weapons' and whether anyone 'needs' one. In a similar vein, one can ask why does anyone need big house? Or, as Obama thinks, at some point you make enough money. Why does anyone need anything I don't think they need!?
The point is, and this demands abstract thought, the the intention of the Framers wasn't to offload total security onto the state. The whole point of The Constitution was to limit government; not expand it. In this manner, it is perfectly reasonable, perhaps even moral, for a man to bear arms for how can he defend himself against one of humanity's greatest themes: Tyranny.
Modern minds may not appreciate this, seeing how we've offloaded so many of our personal liberties to the state, but tyranny comes in many forms. The Framers listened to history. They appreciated its cadence and took it for what it was.
We don't. We think we do but ours is a superficial grasp mostly hinged on creating a narrative to suit our political colors.
The Framers weren't afraid of guns.
They were afraid of man's remarkable talent of inflicting pain and imposing tyranny.
Modern progressives are too focused on a piece of metal (a finite object for a most predictable philosophy) thus subjecting them to a confiscatory disposition that only serves to erode liberties. They should shift their thought process more into the abstract (infinite) and put more faith in the liberty of man.
2014-03-14
Moulding Boys In Another Image
Boys will be boys:
"I’ve had a couple different conversations with the teachers at my child’s preschool about some of the aggressive behaviors a few of the children have been exhibiting. It has been most alarming to wake up in the morning and have my three-year-old say to me, “I am a robot, I’m going to eat your brain and peel off your skin.” I was also concerned to learn that when a child brought in a Ninjago book, the teachers read the book to the children even though Common Sense media reports that this series is best for children 7 and over and has 0/5 educational value, 2/5 for violence and 5/5 for consumerism. When I have expressed my concerns about some of these issues, every conversation has ended the same, with the teacher saying, “Oh you know, boys will be boys.”
That statement effectively has ended the conversation because it has left me too stunned and flabbergasted to respond. I bite my tongue each time because I don’t want to be THAT parent who is viewed as oversensitive and disengaged from reality. I also want to have a productive dialogue that will allow the preschool to hear my concerns in a way that may allow them to shift their thinking about how they address these issues. This blog is my attempt to organize my thoughts and gather some relevant research in order to help other parents and teachers who may find themselves perplexed by the same situation. So why is “boys will be boys” dangerous?"
Is that all he said? Shit, you should hear my poor mother went through with her offspring.
5/5 for consumerism?
Oh....noooooo!
The word 'boy' needs to be banned.
Comment:
"sympathize
Submitted by sy sperling on March 14, 2014 - 1:12pm.
""Boys will be boys" is a dangerous attitude because it encourages teasing- the kind of teasing I experienced in grade school, due to my premature baldness.
I went to bed crying many a night. If only I had known then that things would get better, once I came up with my revolutionary hair weave techniques. Today I have a rug and $40 million in the bank- enough for me to pay assassins to track down and eliminate my chldhood tormentors.
Hair Club for Men changed my life and it can change everyone's. And remember, I'm not just the PResident of Hair CLub, I'm also a client.
Peace out.
Sy Sperling
P.S. I'm proud of you Professor Meyer. And there is no chance at all your son will grow up to be a prancing, limp-wristed oversensitive sissy. No chance whatsoever."
"I’ve had a couple different conversations with the teachers at my child’s preschool about some of the aggressive behaviors a few of the children have been exhibiting. It has been most alarming to wake up in the morning and have my three-year-old say to me, “I am a robot, I’m going to eat your brain and peel off your skin.” I was also concerned to learn that when a child brought in a Ninjago book, the teachers read the book to the children even though Common Sense media reports that this series is best for children 7 and over and has 0/5 educational value, 2/5 for violence and 5/5 for consumerism. When I have expressed my concerns about some of these issues, every conversation has ended the same, with the teacher saying, “Oh you know, boys will be boys.”
That statement effectively has ended the conversation because it has left me too stunned and flabbergasted to respond. I bite my tongue each time because I don’t want to be THAT parent who is viewed as oversensitive and disengaged from reality. I also want to have a productive dialogue that will allow the preschool to hear my concerns in a way that may allow them to shift their thinking about how they address these issues. This blog is my attempt to organize my thoughts and gather some relevant research in order to help other parents and teachers who may find themselves perplexed by the same situation. So why is “boys will be boys” dangerous?"
Is that all he said? Shit, you should hear my poor mother went through with her offspring.
5/5 for consumerism?
Oh....noooooo!
The word 'boy' needs to be banned.
Comment:
"sympathize
Submitted by sy sperling on March 14, 2014 - 1:12pm.
""Boys will be boys" is a dangerous attitude because it encourages teasing- the kind of teasing I experienced in grade school, due to my premature baldness.
I went to bed crying many a night. If only I had known then that things would get better, once I came up with my revolutionary hair weave techniques. Today I have a rug and $40 million in the bank- enough for me to pay assassins to track down and eliminate my chldhood tormentors.
Hair Club for Men changed my life and it can change everyone's. And remember, I'm not just the PResident of Hair CLub, I'm also a client.
Peace out.
Sy Sperling
P.S. I'm proud of you Professor Meyer. And there is no chance at all your son will grow up to be a prancing, limp-wristed oversensitive sissy. No chance whatsoever."
Four Issues Not Discussed About Quebec Independence
1) Quebec's debt running at around $260 billion. Its balance sheet is not healthy.
2) Native rights and its position. Natives will fight tooth and nail what it regards its lands.
3) The status of Montreal increasingly considering its own secessionist option - which I support.
4) Anywhere between 500 000 and 800 000 people are on welfare.
2) Native rights and its position. Natives will fight tooth and nail what it regards its lands.
3) The status of Montreal increasingly considering its own secessionist option - which I support.
4) Anywhere between 500 000 and 800 000 people are on welfare.
U.S. Would Not Have Recognized Independent Quebec In 1995
No kidding.
The U.S. needs instability on its borders, like I need a hydrogenated soy bean oil fruit drink.
The U.S. needs instability on its borders, like I need a hydrogenated soy bean oil fruit drink.
'I'm A Thief, But You're A Terrorist!'
Progressive 'tolerance' in action.
This is a professor, folks.
Notice the smug laughs.
It's irrelevant she doesn't 'go there.' The actions of the professor (and I use the term loosely here) were an abomination to free speech.
Oh.
Here are her credentials:
Areas of Study:
Pornography; Sex Work; Black Film, Popular Culture and Art; Feminist & Queer Theory; African American & African Diaspora Studies; Visual Archives; New Media; Ethnography; Oral History.
This is a professor, folks.
Notice the smug laughs.
It's irrelevant she doesn't 'go there.' The actions of the professor (and I use the term loosely here) were an abomination to free speech.
Oh.
Here are her credentials:
Areas of Study:
Pornography; Sex Work; Black Film, Popular Culture and Art; Feminist & Queer Theory; African American & African Diaspora Studies; Visual Archives; New Media; Ethnography; Oral History.
Quote Of The Day
Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments when he
was merely stupid.
- Heinrich Heine
That one's for Pauline.
- Heinrich Heine
That one's for Pauline.
Diversity!
As defined by progressives.
Nice people.
Piece and word of advice. Whenever you see a sign - or a variation thereof - that reads 'Diversity and Equity Center' put your head down, don't lock eyes with the derps and keep walking. If not, trouble looms.
Nice people.
Piece and word of advice. Whenever you see a sign - or a variation thereof - that reads 'Diversity and Equity Center' put your head down, don't lock eyes with the derps and keep walking. If not, trouble looms.
Chinese Default Inevitable
As I've cautioned in the past, China is more paper tiger than anything.
I never really thought its economy was ready to challenge America's depth.
It's all staged.
Where there's communism and socialism, it's all staged.
Love or hate them, America's successes and failures are there for all to see.
Give me America any day on a bet.
I never really thought its economy was ready to challenge America's depth.
It's all staged.
Where there's communism and socialism, it's all staged.
Love or hate them, America's successes and failures are there for all to see.
Give me America any day on a bet.
Comrade Matthews Fighting The Good Fight
Chris Matthews intellect at work:
"And why is it hard for Democrats to fight that? Well, for one thing, Democrats generally can see the complexity of our times. The polls show this. They don't think they have all the answers. They'd like to see some deal making between the parties and across the aisles.
"Two, the Democrats know that the health care program, as it's been put there, could be improved. They're thinking about it. They're watching it. The Republicans -- well, you don't really have to think much if you're just ticked off, do you? All you have to do is go to your base and go back to cutting government spending, attacking health care, hating the President and guarding your values."
The party of central planning doesn't think it has all the answers?
Oh I get it. The reason they're incapable of articulating and implementing their plans is because they're too smart and everyone is too stupid to follow them.
Got it.
Add the petulance of the opposing party and you get the perfect recipe for 'Blaming others.'
I think I saw that on Diners, Drive-ins and Dives.
It calls for:
1 tsp of woe is me
1 tsp of shit (the more liquidity the better)
1/2 cup of whine
1/3 of appeals to emotions
1/4 tsp of vomit (the chunkier the better. Corn optional)
1/4 tsp of Chris Matthew's cum
1 full table spoon of Bill Maher's saliva
1/2 tsp of Jon Stewart's tears
1/4 tsp of sweat (doesn't matter who it's from. If you prefer sweeter salt you can use Melissa Harris-Perry's sweat. Hard to find but you can try any store that sells affirmative action produce)
1/4 tsp of libertarian blood.
Rachel Maddow's tongue (cut in thin strips. See marinate on p. 32)
A lock of Al Sharpton's hair.
pinch of nutmeg.
"And why is it hard for Democrats to fight that? Well, for one thing, Democrats generally can see the complexity of our times. The polls show this. They don't think they have all the answers. They'd like to see some deal making between the parties and across the aisles.
"Two, the Democrats know that the health care program, as it's been put there, could be improved. They're thinking about it. They're watching it. The Republicans -- well, you don't really have to think much if you're just ticked off, do you? All you have to do is go to your base and go back to cutting government spending, attacking health care, hating the President and guarding your values."
The party of central planning doesn't think it has all the answers?
Oh I get it. The reason they're incapable of articulating and implementing their plans is because they're too smart and everyone is too stupid to follow them.
Got it.
Add the petulance of the opposing party and you get the perfect recipe for 'Blaming others.'
I think I saw that on Diners, Drive-ins and Dives.
It calls for:
1 tsp of woe is me
1 tsp of shit (the more liquidity the better)
1/2 cup of whine
1/3 of appeals to emotions
1/4 tsp of vomit (the chunkier the better. Corn optional)
1/4 tsp of Chris Matthew's cum
1 full table spoon of Bill Maher's saliva
1/2 tsp of Jon Stewart's tears
1/4 tsp of sweat (doesn't matter who it's from. If you prefer sweeter salt you can use Melissa Harris-Perry's sweat. Hard to find but you can try any store that sells affirmative action produce)
1/4 tsp of libertarian blood.
Rachel Maddow's tongue (cut in thin strips. See marinate on p. 32)
A lock of Al Sharpton's hair.
pinch of nutmeg.
Feeling Used
Ah.
The old 'you were supposed to call me in the morning after you made love to me' routine.
Nothing worse than being told you're loved only to find out the next day you were fucked.
Obama is nothing but a player.
"Former congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan, who left office in 2011 after deciding not to run for reelection, penned an op-ed in USA Today on Tuesday saying that while he still supports Obamacare, he thinks Americans “should not be required to relinquish our conscience and moral convictions in order to implement the Affordable Care Act.”
“We received an ironclad commitment [from the president] that our conscience would remain free and our principles would be honored,” Stupak wrote. “I had hoped that more of my Democratic colleagues would object to the way the contraception mandate has been applied.”
The old 'you were supposed to call me in the morning after you made love to me' routine.
Nothing worse than being told you're loved only to find out the next day you were fucked.
Obama is nothing but a player.
"Former congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan, who left office in 2011 after deciding not to run for reelection, penned an op-ed in USA Today on Tuesday saying that while he still supports Obamacare, he thinks Americans “should not be required to relinquish our conscience and moral convictions in order to implement the Affordable Care Act.”
“We received an ironclad commitment [from the president] that our conscience would remain free and our principles would be honored,” Stupak wrote. “I had hoped that more of my Democratic colleagues would object to the way the contraception mandate has been applied.”
Hey PQ: Cut The Crap
Let's lay the cards on the table.
You don't like us (and them - the Natives) and we don't like you.
So stop pretending to care about us or paying lip service by using Machiavellian tactics.
We know where you stand.
You don't like us (and them - the Natives) and we don't like you.
So stop pretending to care about us or paying lip service by using Machiavellian tactics.
We know where you stand.
2014-03-13
Alex Jones Mad, Smash!
"George Soros is evil."
Oh, I agree. Koch has nothing on Soros.
“Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson are absolutely exposing the fact that the Democratic Party was run and founded by the Ku Klux Klan basically in the modern age and fought against the Republicans and Lincoln and has been the party of slavery and division all along and demographically couldn’t win any more, I mean that should be the headline.”
That's too good.
He mentions Howard Stern. A couple of months back Stern acted as if he never heard of Jones. I found that strange. If I've heard of him, how can Stern not have? Seems a bit of a stretch to me. Moreover, if you talk about politics you should know who the players are, including guys like Jones.
But that's me. I'm mental that way. There aren't many pundits and sites out there I haven't heard of.
I mean, I listen to Smerconish for crying out loud.
Anyway.
Back to Jones.
Oh, I agree. Koch has nothing on Soros.
“Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson are absolutely exposing the fact that the Democratic Party was run and founded by the Ku Klux Klan basically in the modern age and fought against the Republicans and Lincoln and has been the party of slavery and division all along and demographically couldn’t win any more, I mean that should be the headline.”
That's too good.
He mentions Howard Stern. A couple of months back Stern acted as if he never heard of Jones. I found that strange. If I've heard of him, how can Stern not have? Seems a bit of a stretch to me. Moreover, if you talk about politics you should know who the players are, including guys like Jones.
But that's me. I'm mental that way. There aren't many pundits and sites out there I haven't heard of.
I mean, I listen to Smerconish for crying out loud.
Anyway.
Back to Jones.
The Things People Say In Court
Teaser:
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn’t know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
ATTORNEY: She had three children , right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
ATTORNEY: She had three children , right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No..
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
My Cousin Vinny eventually got the hang of lawyering.
More at Not all who wander are lost.
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn’t know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
ATTORNEY: She had three children , right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
ATTORNEY: She had three children , right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No..
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
My Cousin Vinny eventually got the hang of lawyering.
More at Not all who wander are lost.
Settled Economics!
500 economists say a minimum wage hike will hurt jobs and the economy.
"Signed, sealed, delivered. Exclamation point!"
Pft. Only one economist matters. That would be Paul Krugman. Where's his signature, eh?
Where?
"Signed, sealed, delivered. Exclamation point!"
Pft. Only one economist matters. That would be Paul Krugman. Where's his signature, eh?
Where?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)