Tag Archives: politics

We Need Herpes!

Imagine…

…A world where Everyone had Herpes.

I learned from a friend of mine, who has this disease (“Disease” is such a derogatory term…), about a very close-knit, and intimate, community.  They communicate via the internet and have social functions, outdoor activities, share business leads, etc. etc.  It sounded charming…  Then something wonderful occurred to me.

If all of us had Herpes these folks could come out of the shadows, and we could live in a world of free love and unity!  Think about it… you cannot “run the risk” (such hateful words) of catching it when we all already have it.  In fact, we would make it a rite of passage to seek it out and embrace it, so to speak.  The inherent fairness makes my heart sing sweet wisdom.

We could do away with “treatments” as the stigma would be gone forever.  We all would understand each other because we would share a common experience every 30 days or so…  we would all be equal.  Beautiful!

So bring on the herpes for everyone!  Let true joy and equality reign!

Demand it!  Roll out the chants!

“We wont go… until We All can’t go!”

It’s gonna be Viral!

 

Sound stupid?  Then why do we act this way regarding Socialism?

And just like herpes, once you get it you can never get rid of it.

The only upside is Herpes has not killed over 100 Million Innocent people and counting… while oppressing and enslaving Hundreds of Millions more.

Advertisements

Bipartisanshitt

There is an urban myth out there that needs to be addressed.

“Binge drinking is bad.”  No, wait.  Wrong one.

“Compromise is good.”

If you’re a product of the public schools (like I am) it should be expected you believe we should all get along.  You probably think our elected representatives should be having dinner together, holding hands and making out in the back of dark movie theaters.  You might even think it is GOOD when they all get together and create legislation effecting the rest of us.

In other words, you might believe passing lots of bills is a terrific way to judge their productivity.  You think the government should “do something”… You might have been taught that the founders of this country wanted our leaders to strip down and embrace each other every time they met so they could create lots of really cool law.  If any of this rings true for you, what you “know” is wrong.  You should demand a refund on that free public education.

Here’s the truth, our system of government was designed specifically to be slow, cumbersome and rarely produce laws.  It was created to make sure no single branch could run rampant over the others with this purpose in mind.  It was designed for a fight… over everything… in the hopes that whatever came out was only what was absolutely necessary.  Less was more.  Nothing getting done was fine, if not preferred.  (I’ve floated this idea around the house but have not had much traction.)

We have come a long way from that original intent.  Over the last 100 years we have entitled our politicians to do whatever they want.  They have learned to routinely create law outside of the Constitution because they know that the odds are no-one will challenge it.  And, if their law does get challenged it will take too long and the American people will lose interest, or more often think they are owed whatever the law might “give” them.

These same politicians also know they can slow down the process of any legal challenge by appointing judges who also don’t care what limitations the Constitution puts in place.  Such judges then present their rulings utilizing previous unconstitutional rulings they or their fellow travelers passed down earlier.  Amazingly, they are also not above using foreign law for validation… which I’m very sure the Founding Fathers did not intend.  The fact that we revel in our lack of understanding and promote such behavior in our leaders should be frightening.  It has brought us to a very scary place.  Haven’t you wondered why alcohol sales are up? We’re frightened, but too uninformed to know why.  It’s like a horror movie where the person about to get killed runs around the house and turns all the lights… off.

There has been a determined movement over the last 80 years to position the U.S. Constitution as too restrictive.  (Our current president is on the record promoting this very idea.)  But you will most often find it repeated by the “open-minded” who have not taken the 5 minutes needed to read it, let alone try to discuss and understand it. (They don’t need to read it… their hearts tell them what they need to know… what’s scary about that is they vote…)   These are also the people who think we should all give each other big wet sloppy kisses… all the time.  To them, getting along to “help the country” sounds so nice it requires no further exploration on their part.

To make things worse, there are too many people who want to be led and then insist you must be led as well.  These people have found a home on both sides of the aisle.  The Founders were aware this would always be a reality. The defense they gave us against such people was an extremely well-defined and very restrictive document, that could be changed, in other words amended, if needed… but it would take an act of congress. (Yes, that’s where the phrase came from.)

What it comes down to is that you have two sides to choose from.  One side subscribes to individual freedom and one does not.  What makes one side somewhat sinister is that it wants to control you with “the best of intentions”.  Bear in mind, those who believe the sheep need to be led never seem to count themselves among the sheep….

So there must always be a war between those who know you are too stupid to make decisions for yourself  (Statists/Socialists) and those of us who think you are the only person who knows what’s best for you. (Free-market Capitalists)   If you give it a moment of thought, does it  make sense that a person who subscribes to individual freedom be buddies with a person who believes in the soft slavery of statism?  It’s really as simple as that.  The line in the sand is Force.

In conclusion, we are not supposed to get along.  We are not supposed to compromise our individual freedoms.  Ever.

If you need proof, compromise with Socialists is what got us here today… bankrupt, having our e-mail and phones call tapped, “intelligence agents” looking at our daughters cell phone pictures and Facebook pages while your grandmother is getting molested at the airport.  And the useful idiots continue begging for more Bipartisanshitt…

(Originally Posted 012012.  Reposted yet again because it needs to be.)


F#@!

I make every effort to foster a ‘safe place’ for all types of discussion.  There are no topics I consider off-limits.  For that matter, most language is tolerated if it’s within context.  However there is one word that’s absolutely forbidden.

The four-letter “F” word.

I find the “F” word so offensive that I’ve had to post signs during get-togethers reminding my friends that it’s not to be used within the walls of my home.  At first they laugh, but then I remind them I’ve asked people to leave because they refused to stop using it.

I have to admit there is a longer list of words that I find disgusting, crude and distasteful.  These words can cause me to flinch visibly when uttered in my presence.  These are the kinds of words that if your kid comes in the room and employs them in a sentence, your face squishes up like you just bit into a lemon.  But that one word, that single most offensive word, is the one that earns them a slap across the face.  Possibly two.

I’m regularly appalled, as I’m sure you are, by how common the “F” word is used in public.  I’m even beginning to hear it on television!  It is commonly used in movies and music… and astonishingly, no one appears to care! It seems to easily slip off the tongue of young people and adults alike.  Protesters waive it around on signs, even politicians employ it with ease and often loudly.

Just writing about this is making me feel dirty.

It’s disgusting.

But we all know we can never fix that which we refuse to recognize.

So, for those of you easily offended, please cover your eyes… now.

“Fair”.

There!  I said it.

(I apologize for typing it out loud.  I need to go was my hands, and find a random kid to slap a couple times… just because.)

“Fair” is the most horrific and misused word in any language.

“Fair” is a word used to divide.

“Fair” a tool used to destroy reason.

“Fair” is as undefinable as it is unachievable.

Each of us has a different definition of its meaning making it the perfect escape for those whose arguments are too weak to defend and have no other option but to imply any disagreement they encounter is malevolent.

It’s only use is to justify theft, oppression, discrimination, death and destruction.

It’s a word that above all others should be permanently removed from our lexicon.

 


Bipartisanshitt

There is an urban myth out there that needs to be addressed.

“Binge drinking is bad.”  No, wait.  Wrong one.

“Compromise is good.”

If you’re a product of the public schools (like I am) it should be expected you believe we should all get along.  You probably think our elected representatives should be having dinner together, holding hands and making out in the back of dark movie theaters.  You might even think it is GOOD when they all get together and create legislation effecting the rest of us.

In other words, passing lots of bills is a terrific way to judge their productivity.  You think the government should “do something”… You might have been taught that the founders of this country wanted our leaders to strip down and embrace each other every time they met so they could create lots of really cool law.  If any of this rings true for you, what you “know” is wrong.  You should demand a refund on that free public education.

Here’s the truth, our system of government was designed specifically to be slow, cumbersome and rarely produce laws.  It was created to make sure no single branch could run rampant over the others with this purpose in mind.  It was designed for a fight… over everything… in the hopes that whatever came out was only what was absolutely necessary.  Less was more.  Nothing getting done was fine, if not preferred.  (I’ve floated this idea around the house but have not had much traction.)

We have come a long way from that original intent.  Over the last 100 years we have entitled our politicians to do whatever they want.  They have learned to routinely create law outside of the Constitution because they know that the odds are no-one will challenge it.  And, if their law does get challenged it will take too long and the American people will lose interest, or more often think they are owed whatever the law might “give” them.

These same politicians also know they can slow down the process of any legal challenge by appointing judges who also don’t care what limitations the Constitution puts in place.  Such judges then present their rulings utilizing previous unconstitutional rulings they or their fellow travelers passed down earlier.  Amazingly, they are also not above using foreign law for validation… which I’m very sure the Founding Fathers did not intend.  The fact that we revel in our lack of understanding and promote such behavior in our leaders should be frightening.  It has brought us to a very scary place.  Haven’t you wondered why alcohol sales are up? We’re frightened, but too uninformed to know why.  It’s like a horror movie where the person about to get killed runs around the house and turns all the lights… off.

There has been a determined movement over the last 80 years to position the U.S. Constitution as too restrictive.  (Our current president is on the record promoting this very idea.)  But you will most often find it repeated by the “open-minded” who have not taken the 5 minutes needed to read it, let alone try to discuss and understand it. (They don’t need to read it… their hearts tell them what they need to know… what’s scary about that is they vote…)   These are also the people who think we should all give each other big wet sloppy kisses… all the time.  To them, getting along to “help the country” sounds so nice it requires no further exploration on their part.

To make things worse, there are too many people who want to be led and then insist you must be led as well.  These people have found a home on both sides of the aisle.  The Founders were aware this would always be a reality. The defense they gave us against such people was an extremely well-defined and very restrictive document, that could be changed, in other words amended, if needed… but it would take an act of congress. (Yes, that’s where the phrase came from.)

What it comes down to is that you have two sides to choose from.  One side subscribes to individual freedom and one does not.  What makes one side somewhat sinister is that it wants to control you with “the best of intentions”.  Bear in mind, those who believe the sheep need to be led never seem to count themselves among the sheep….

So there must always be a war between those who know you are too stupid to make decisions for yourself  (Statists/Socialists) and those of us who think you are the only person who knows what’s best for you. (Free-market Capitalists)   If you give it a moment of thought, does it  make sense that a person who subscribes to individual freedom be buddies with a person who believes in the soft slavery of statism?  It’s really as simple as that.  The line in the sand is Force.

In conclusion, we are not supposed to get along.  We are not supposed to compromise our individual freedoms.  Ever.

If you need proof, compromise with Socialists is what got us here today… bankrupt, having our e-mail and phones call tapped, “intelligence agents” looking at our daughters cell phone pictures and Facebook pages while your grandmother is getting molested at the airport.  And the useful idiots continue begging for more Bipartisanshitt…

(Originally Posted 012012.  Reposted yet again because it needs to be.)


Can’t we all just get along?

No.  We can’t.


Is it Ever Worth the Life of a Child?

Yes.  Many.

And apparently you all agree…

So… we are all OK with killing kids…

No?

You lie… when it comes to the Wheel.

Not only do we not seem to care, we Promote and Celebrate the use of  the Wheel as milestones in our children’s lives.  For example… Little Johnny’s first bike, and then getting that first car after getting a driver’s license.  Both of which We teach them how to operate!

We intentionally expose them to this danger when we put them in the Stroller, the Car, or put them on the School bus.

So, given that we are willing to trade our children’s lives without much thought at all, why do we give so much weight to the argument “Is it worth the life of a child?”  (And other intentionally stupid conversation killers like “Who are you to judge?” and “You need to have an open mind.”)

Almost without exception our response is “NO!  Nothing, Nothing, Nothing is worth the life of a child!”  Then we throw the kids in the car and drive off… while talking on the phone, eating sandwich.  (We’re Busy People Dammit!)

But that’s just one of myriad examples…

It’s strange the disconnects we make, the mental gymnastics we perform, in order not appear mean or heartless while behaving in an exactly opposite manner.

Fundamentally, my problem is not with the serious and sometimes life threatening trade-offs we make in life, but with the Rhetorical Devices we use so we don’t have to make an effort thinking about what we are saying.

More importantly my problem is exacerbated when we allow others to influence us using such devices…

I wouldn’t have an issue if these devices weren’t intentionally used to stifle sound, reasonable, discussions regarding the trade-offs we make everyday in order to live the lives we desire… imagine for a moment a life without the wheel and you will get my point.

We should all watch for rhetorical devices (read ridiculous statements) used to stifle rational debate.  Those who say such things are people who have either no argument or a very poor one.  Trying to stop the discussion is their only avenue of “winning”  while attempting to make any opposition appear “mean-spirited” or ‘ignorant’.

Let’s pledge to stop using such inane conversation killers.  More importantly, confront with vigor those who do.

These people are the destroyers of discourse.

We allow them to make us dumb.

Now go take the kids for a bike ride.

(Originally posted 011512.  Repost inspired by X.)


Healthcare is a human right!

There is no debate.  Healthcare is a human right.

I’m not sure how there can be any misunderstanding here.  Each of us has the right.  We are endowed by our creator certain inalienable rights. (sound familiar?)  And one of those is healthcare.

Everyday, every minute, every second we make decisions that are beneficial or detrimental to our health.  It’s our right being free individuals in a currently free society.

For example;

I have the right to buy bigger bottles of scotch.

I also have the right to put the cheeseburgers down and push away from the table.

Clearly you can see the difference between the two… buying bigger bottles of scotch means more of it when I want it thus it being beneficial, and putting down the cheeseburger being detrimental because cheeseburgers are yummy.

What I do not have is the right to force you to subsidize my scotch consumption through a scheme where the Federal government, via regulation, raises your insurance rates to cover my cheeseburger and scotch habit.

And here is where it gets good…  If you want to lose your human right to healthcare as described above then keep pushing the implementation of Socialized Medicine.  Once fully up and running you will have people like me deciding everything from how big your scotch bottle can be to how cheesy your burger should be.  Assuming, of course, that I allow you to have a burger in the first place… I hear that veggie burgers are better for your health – you with me here?

This speaks to the most basic of our “inalienable rights”.  It’s all about freedom.  The freedom to make the wrong decision even when we know what the right one is.

There is nothing wrong with the health system as it currently exists.  It’s not perfect, but its the only system that doesn’t allow me to put a mortgage on your life to keep me drinking scotch out of ever bigger bottles.  And while not perfect, it’s a darn sight closer to perfect than any of its nearest competitors in other countries.

There is a rush to implement socialized medicine in the U.S. for several reasons.  First is the most basic for leftists, and that’s the power of control over you given to government.  Second is the need to convince you its brilliant before the other Socialist healthcare systems drive their countries into bankruptcy.  (Unless you’re Cuba who has simply stopped supporting any of its other infrastructure in order to prop up its mediocre military and mediocre health care system.) And finally, and possibly the most sinister, is the rush to get people hooked on the access and view it as an entitlement.  In other words, get the needle in their arm… pun intended.

So to sum it up, our health care system could use some scrutiny.  No doubt.  But we need to understand why “private” is a must.

OR

We all need to get bumper stickers reading “It wont be fair until we all have crappy health care” and “I can’t wait to tell you what you can eat.”

(originally posted 011512)

Update:

It’s also important to understand that profits organize markets.  In other words, once something becomes a “right” then profit must be removed.  I just had this conversation last evening… and morning… with a friend and her husband.  Both doctors.  She believes Health Care is a Human Right.  And, Insurance Companies should not be making money from it.  I said ‘f*ir enough’, You should work for free too.

This prompted her to change direction quickly and offer there should be a ‘balance’.  I asked her who should be in charge of determining what that balance might be… she began to tell me what the balance should be in today’s dollar amounts.  I asked her why it should be her who determines the ‘balance’?  She couldn’t answer me… she’s not stupid, she knew where I was going.  I simply said “Thank you for illustrating my point.”

Thus the repost.  It was on my mind.  And it’s valuable to recognize that we will be revisiting the same arguments over… and over… and over…