Archive for the ‘liberal logic’ Category

Another example of "liberal logic"

September 26, 2008

Code Pink is “declaring victory” and stopping their protests at the USMC recruiting station in Berkeley.

Here is the kicker, apparently the word “Victory” means something different to the hard far left extremist moonbats of “Code Pink.”

As the nice folks at This Ain’t Hell point out, the US Marines are still there.

In fact, the USMC intends on staying to at least the end of the three year lease they have on the office space.

Protest Shooter has pictures of the rather tiny “victory celebration.” Note that the “Code Pink” moonbats are also 9/11 Troofer moonbats too boot!

He also has a link to a cool shirt.

Advertisements

A glimpse at what you can expect if Obama becomes President

August 28, 2008

Confederate Yankee points out that candidate Barak H. Obama has no respect for the First Amendment.

Obama’s campaign has previously threatened broadcasters who would carry an ad linking Obama to Ayers, and has also asked the Department of Justice to shut down the group that made the ad.

The intense campaign to silence dissenting voice has also included a recent campaign email asking Obama supporters to deluge Chicago-based broadcaster WGN with complaints to pressure the radio station to cancel an appearance by Stanley Kurtz, a writer with National Review who is researching the documents of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge.

The Challenge, co-founded by Ayers and chaired by Obama, took tens of millions dollars in grant funds and public and private matching funds with the stated goal of increasing the quality of education in Chicago. The program was utterly ineffective, and some critics are suggesting that the challenge was little more than a slush fund for left-wing radicals. At least $175,000 was funneled to Ayers’ friend, SDS radical, Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) (CPML) chairman and Barack Obama supporter Mike Klonsky’s Small School Workshop.

That disregard for the Constitution with the power of the Executive Branch is frighting.

Liberal democrat logic

April 16, 2008

It takes the far left extremist liberal democrat village idiot to say shit this fornicating stupid:

“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.”

This uber-moron is completely missing the fucking point!
Of course, it is that champion of Islamofascist terrorist, former democrat President Jimmy Carter.

Keep in mind that this national embarrassment and easily the worst President of the the last 50 years is a democrat Overseer (a so-called “super delegate”) and will be one of the select few who will actually select the democrat nominee.

HT to Hot Air & Ace.

Black Helicopters seen buzzing around HufPo

January 5, 2008

NewsBusters points out that sanity is not their strength at HufPo:

Want some old fashioned black helicopter, conspiracy goofiness? Check out the frenzied work of HufPoster Joseph Palmero who imagines that if Obama becomes president members of Blackwater security services or Haliburton would somehow decide to assassinate him. After reading his wild-eyed musings, one wonders if the foam from his mouth short circuited his keyboard as he wrote?

In an effort to equate Obama’s rather empty rhetoric and lack of a substantive record to what Palmero imagines his lefty pals will imagine is “greatness,” Palmero tries to work in some equating of the junior Senator from Illinois with Robert F. Kennedy’s campaign for the Dem nomination for president in 1968.

A good description

November 9, 2007

You can’t make this shit up…

November 8, 2007

By way of DUmmie FUnnies, actual moonbat ranting:

A coup that started with the assination of John Kennedy when he tried to wrest this country currancy away from the Federal Reserve Board which is this country branch of the global banking cartel. Then they had to get rid of Bobby because he went after J.Edgar Hoover’s pals in the mob. Of course Dr. King had to go for obvious reasons. And lastly John Lennon. Any and all heroic figures that could unite and rally the people had to go, that’s why we’ve Nazi thugs in the Whitehouse and perverted spineless leeches in congress. Only Kucinch and Ron Paul the fascist scum in their respective parties and I fear for their lives.

Oh my, that is somebody who is seriously off their meds, and sadly for the Republic, a fought over democrat primary voter.

Troofer rules for non-logic

November 5, 2007

By way of the Bronze Blog comes Troofer/Twoofer Rules:

1. Ad hominem is the basis of all reality: Broadest form of pretty much all these other rules: Who you are makes your argument valid, not the internal logic or physical evidence.

2. Evil = Power: Because Bush is evil enough to do something, there’s no need to prove that the laws of physics would allow him to do that something. No need to worry about the administrative nightmare of managing thousands of rogue ninja demolition crews, either.

3. Anonnies and people with pseudonyms are automatically wrong because they might possibly have something vaguely resembling a government connection. Therefore, if a conspiracy skeptic posting under a blog name, rather than his real name, says the sky is blue, then obviously it must not be. Exception: Twoofers who use fake names, after all, they’re the only people who have something honest to protect, and they’re the only people on the entire surface of the Earth who don’t want death threats sent to their snail mail address or government suppression squads at their front door or office.

4. Using your real name = Infinity Plus One times your normal credibility. Being ridiculed by snail mail or physical presence when someone figures out where you live boosts your credibility level far more than email or forum ridicule because Galileo didn’t have an email address.

5. People who are standing up against The Man are automatically right. Outspoken liberal skeptics who berate government officials for trampling on science, trying to get Intelligent Design in schools, employing various ineffective or even counterproductive “War on [Concept]” measures, destroy civil rights, engage in historical revisionism, or whatever aren’t doing enough: They have to sit on their rears talking/posting about being certain of the government using Orbital R-9 Wave Cannons in order to count as being opposed to the administration. Anything less, and they’re exactly as loyal as any Bush crony, and thus automatically wrong.

6. If it doesn’t sound like a TV/movie plot, it’s not realistic. There’s ALWAYS a frame-up, an “unexpected” plot twist, or whatever. If the evidence is rock solid, that just means the guy doing the framing/set up/whatever is more elaborate about the level of evidence he plants.

Go read it there, it has links and more rules in the comments.

File this one under…

October 4, 2007

…no fornicating shit!
A liberal’s lament: The NRA might be right after all

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that … here’s the really hard part … the NRA may have been right.

Some liberals do get it.

“The purpose of the First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee was pretty clearly to protect political discourse. But liberals reject the notion that free speech is therefore limited to political topics, even broadly defined. True, that purpose is not inscribed in the amendment itself. But why leap to the conclusion that a broadly worded constitutional freedom (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) is narrowly limited by its stated purpose, unless you’re trying to explain it away? My New Republic colleague Mickey Kaus says that if liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory.” — anti-gun lawyer Michael Kinsley – Washington Post, January 8, 1990

Spread the Truth!

October 3, 2007

Spread the Truth about the Titanic!

It makes about as much sense as the crap put out by the Troofer Moonbats (and frighteningly large number of liberals eat that with a spoon).

HT to John Groth!

Explaining liberalism

September 24, 2007

John Hawkins does a good job of explaining liberal “thinking” in a single column:

Liberals love to think of themselves as intellectual and nuanced, but liberalism is incredibly simplistic. It’s nothing more than “childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues.” Very seldom does any issue that doesn’t involve pandering to their supporters boil down at its core level to more than feeling “nice” or “mean” to liberals. This makes liberals ill equipped to deal with complex issues. Since liberals tend to support or oppose policies based on how those policies make them feel about themselves, they do very little intellectual examination of whether the policies they advocate work or not. That’s because it doesn’t matter to them whether the policy is effective or not; it matters whether advocating the policy makes them feel “good” or “bad,” “compassionate” or “stingy,” “nice” or “mean.”

Because of this, liberalism has more in common with religion than it does with other political ideologies like conservatism or libertarianism. Moreover, liberal beliefs are more like religious doctrine than any sort of battle-tested policies that bear up under logic or examination. Although the interpretation of the doctrine that the Left supports may change a bit over time, just as religious doctrine does, it’s essentially taken on faith, like scripture. That’s why, for example, you may see ferocious debates on the right side of the blogosphere about the war, illegal immigration, or spending. But, with the netroots, the debates almost always revolve around the best strategy to get more liberals elected. The issues are not really up for debate, other than debate over how to get them enacted.

This same thinking leads to very little criticism of liberals by other liberals. Liberals will ferociously defend and even happily echo the lies of other liberals. Liberal feminists will defend Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy. Liberals who pride themselves on being tolerant of other races will support Robert Byrd. Why? Because even if they’re wrong, they’re still fellow liberals — which must mean they’re nice people.

Read the whole thing.