July 27, 2013

Ah-ha! Another EPIC FAIL for the Repugnants.

July 26, 2013

The arguments do match the RWR's. There are scientific explanations, but they'll judge characters.

Anti-scientific and moral bigotry runs rampant in RWR, Libertarian and Randian circles. They revel in any excuse to find fault with other people for their own self-serving reasoning.

Disabled? Elderly? Obese? Poor?

Get out of the way, you might interfere with my pleasure or fun, or even cost me money!

FOAD!

Most conditions are temporary and a reaction to all kinds of input, emotional, physical and some beyond the control of the person affected. Some are not temporary.

All of it makes them 'The Other.'

You know, 'The Other.' The ones who must be removed from the gene pool to make the world a better place and give more 'freedom and liberty' to those not so afflicted.

Screw diversity. Social Darwinism at its best. Unless it happens to you. All are eligible for problems.

I have told some who have been teased because of their weight or other differences that don't match the Hollywood ideal:

They say you are ugly, but you can lose weight. But they can't lose the ugliness inside them and it comes out of their mouth. But it says more about them, than it does you. It is THEIR problem, not YOURS.

Answers for those who feel entitled to degrade and discriminate, could be drawn from other cultures, or even our own principles.

Not conforming in body image or any other way that does not harm others, is only a crime to a flock of chickens or a pack looking for a pecking order. Pure reflexive, animalist response. Not human.

Same as being overweight. Some claim sick or elderly people are in the way, dragging their standard of living down. How about looking up a bit higher, to the ones who kept your wages down, took your home, your health insurance, or whatever?

How very telling that some will turn on those they consider beneath them while they are too cowardly to look at who is really pulling the strings and who is benefiting by division.

Would they rail against this image:



If a loved one lost an eye, a finger, a limb, their job, their home or gets fat, should they be discarded? Just how shallow can one be? Are the ones judging others prepared to FOAD if Dame Fortune abandons them?

If one's mother gains weight over the years, do her years of sacrifice and love for her child, turn into something worthless?

Erich Fromm described the error of market values applied to human beings. Are we commodities, to be judged by what is trendy or pleases the eye as fickle as that is, but never looking at who is manipulating that perception, in the end?



To which I say:

July 26, 2013

No, Obama did it! He sees all, knows all! He's watching you now! Put your clothes back on!

July 26, 2013

Damn straight! It's hard work! (Warning: Graphic Image)

July 26, 2013

Please give this excellent OP by Stonepounder a read:

A Prosecutor weighs in on fetal personhood and criminalizing abortion

From the OP, please read the words of the prosecutor quoted below and more at the link that goes along with it:

...But I’ve been watching a lot of Republican candidates for federal office saying a lot of stuff about pregnancy and rape, and pregnancies resulting from rape, over the last several weeks, and I am simply unable to keep my mouth shut any longer. Because as all of my friends know, I’ve been prosecuting rape, child abuse and homicide for over a decade and a half, and this is a subject that I happen to know quite a lot about. And I am deeply disturbed by the personhood movement, by the idea that there should be specified exceptions to a blanket criminalization of abortion, and by the fact that the group of mostly men propounding this policy seem to have absolutely no FREAKING idea what they are actually trying to do here. Since I think that my perspective as a prosecutor might be relevant, I intend to provide it. Read on if you want to hear it. Skip this if you don’t.

First off, I want to talk about an abortion ban that leaves exceptions in place only for instances of rape, incest or life of the mother. The first thing that I want to say about this policy is this: this is a pro-choice position. The proponents can call it whatever the hell they want, but the bottom line is that this position is pro-choice. A person who takes this position is acknowledging that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy. What we are actually quibbling about here is who gets to decide when the woman’s reason is good enough. With the classic pro-choice position, the person who gets to decide if the woman’s reason is good enough is the woman. Herself. The rape/incest exception people – their position is that they get to decide if someone else’s (i.e., some other woman’s) reason is good enough. I am pro-her-choice. They are pro-their-choice...

So, personhood for a cluster of cells means that abortion could equal aggravated murder. Really, do Republicans want us prosecuting girls and women for the aggravated homicide of their zygotes? Is that the plan here? Do they actually want to impose the death penalty, or will life in prison be sufficient to satisfy their pathological need to punish women for the crime of being sexually active? Of course, if the woman is guilty, so is the man who facilitates her in procuring an abortion – boys, if you take your girlfriend to Planned Parenthood for an abortion, we’re going to imprison you both for murder. It’s called a “conspiracy.” In case you were wondering...

http://thedeadauthorsclub.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/fetal-personhood-and-criminalizing-abortion-a-prosecutors-perspective/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3346858

I am also noting the post that the OP author made further down:

I honestly believe that the whole "pro-life" thing is about men who have a need to abuse women 'legally'. If the actually cared about the 'child' they wouldn't be trying to cut off access to contraceptives, they wouldn't be treating rape as a joke, and they would be working to make sure that the unwanted and/or disabled children that are born as a result of their mean-spirited laws are taken care of and nurtured. Instead of frothing at the mouth about food stamps, and school-lunch programs, and screaming about having to provide insurance that covers contraception.

And of course women will always find a way to get an abortion. The rich ones will fly off to where abortion is legal and the poor ones will return to the back-alley abortionists. And yes, many will die. And the 'pro-life' crowd ill just see it as 'their punishment'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023346858#post3

Stonepounder has been here a few years, but not posted much. This was certainly worth the wait to learn this DUer's take on this.

July 26, 2013

Yes, and all of two years in college to get an 'AA degree with highest honors.' Talk about grifter!

More artistic than the Infowars crowd, but been on the show many times, and he knows EVERYTHING!!11!!

Also, he's from another galaxy and picked his Earth parents himself. Oh, yeah!



As much as I wanna believe, my lack of faith keeps interfering. Will I ever get it right?

July 26, 2013

Clearly, no one is safe from a person like this. More of the Restoring Honor crowd?

http://www.salon.com/2010/08/27/glenn_beck_special_operations_rally/

July 26, 2013

Eeerily similiar to the former in jumping to conclusions to bash Obama:

http://aattp.org/breitbart-com-loony-in-chief-ben-shapiro-launches-into-utterly-bizarre-tirade-on-air/

July 26, 2013

Obama should have maintained that 2008 timeline, but he's been busy:

Obama, Cloning & The Coming Space War

Who is this man we call the President? Whats hidden within his name and his statements? Is he the coming Anti-Christ predicted by Nostradamus? Are we witnessing the rise of the Fourth Reich? Or are things much stranger than we thought?

http://www.artopium.com/space20/purchasepage.cgi?ID=V5045

Just reporting the latest from the infallible internet. Look everybody! Another DVD to learn The Truth©! Only $24.99 plus shipping!

The material just writes itself. Does this post need and icons? Apply liberally as needed.

July 26, 2013

At the rate things are going, Rand doesn't need your stinkin' votes! Banana republicans forvever!

Here's the version without commentary:



You can overthrow government and auction everything off to the Koch brothers by several ways.

First, by denying others a voice in voting by oppressive regulations and misinformation.

Second, by impoverishing people through defunding government's ability to stand between predatory capitalists and their prey.

Third. by non-stop propaganda against that government to make people give in to the fascism they promote by default, allowing the church and business interests to run wild in the public and private lives of people.

Fourth, is just shooting people or intimidation, doing that banana republican routine so obvious in the videos. These displays of armed force across the nation are designed to shut people up and let these who presume to act as our 'betters' or as they call themselves, 'patriots' who would run our lives into the ground.

Those of us in the 'Look! The Emperor Has No Clothes' brigade would call them 'bullies' and not patriots.

Please note the familiarity of the speakers with the entire Infowars universe, a Bircher production. They have learned the lessons the Koch brothers paid for, very well.

Rand Paul is the elected version of Adam Kokesh and the rest of the gang who want to bring the Old South back. And at this point, we must ask supporters, just like those of Ron Paul:

...See, believe it or not, judgment matters. If a man believes there is a straight line of unbroken tyranny betwixt the torture and indefinite detention of suspected terrorists on the one hand, and anti-discrimination laws that seek to extend to all persons equal opportunity, on the other, that man is a lunatic. Worse than a lunatic, that man is a person of such extraordinarily obtuse philosophical and moral discernment as to call into real question whether he should even be allowed to go through life absent the protective and custodial assistance of a straightjacket, let alone hold office. That one might believe in unicorns would still allow one to profess a level of sagacity and synaptic activity in one’s brain several measures beyond that of the man who thinks liberty is equally imperiled by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as by the CIA.

That any liberal, progressive or leftist could waste so much as a kind word about someone as this is mind-boggling. There are not many litmus tests for being a progressive in good standing in this country, but one would think, if there were, that surely to God, civil rights would be one of them. It is one thing to disagree about the proper level of taxation, either on the wealthy or corporations: honest people can disagree about that, and for reasons that would still permit one to claim the mantle of liberalism or progressivism; so too with defense spending, drug policy, trade, education reform, energy policy, and any number of other things. But the notion that one can be a progressive, even merely liberal, while praising someone who believes that companies should be allowed to post “No Blacks Need Apply” signs if they wish, and that only the market should determine whether that kind of bigotry will stand, is so stupefying that it should render even the most cynical of us utterly bereft of words. It is, or should be, a deal-breaker among decent people.

And please, Glenn Greenwald, spare me the tired shtick about how Paul “raises important issues” that no one on the left is raising, and so even though you’re not endorsing him, it is still helpful to a progressive narrative that his voice be heard. Bullshit. The stronger Paul gets the stronger Paul gets, period. And the stronger Paul gets, the stronger libertarianism gets, and thus, the Libertarian Party as a potential third party: not the Greens, mind you, but the Libertarians. And the stronger Paul gets, the stronger become those voices who worship the free market as though it were an invisible fairy godparent, capable of dispensing all good things to all comers — people like Paul Ryan, for instance, or Scott Walker. In a nation where the dominant narrative has long been anti-tax, anti-regulation, poor-people-bashing and God-bless-capitalism, it would be precisely those aspects of Paul’s ideological grab bag that would become more prominent. And if you don’t know that, you are a fool of such Herculean proportions as to suggest that Salon might wish to consider administering some kind of political-movement-related-cognitive skills test for its columnists, and the setting of a minimum cutoff score, below which you would, for this one stroke of asininity alone, most assuredly fall.

I mean, seriously, if “raising important issues” is all it takes to get some kind words from liberal authors, bloggers and activists, and maybe even votes from some progressives, just so as to “shake things up,” then why not support David Duke? With the exception of his views on the drug war, David shares every single view of Paul’s that can be considered progressive or left in orientation. Every single one. So where do you draw the line? Must one have actually donned a Klan hood and lit a cross before his handful of liberal stands prove to be insufficient? Must one actually, as Duke has been known to do, light candles on a birthday cake for Hitler on April 20, before it no longer proves adequate to want to limit the overzealous reach of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms? Exactly when does one become too much of an evil fuck even for you? Inquiring minds seriously want to know...

http://www.timwise.org/2012/01/of-broken-clocks-presidential-candidates-and-the-confusion-of-certain-white-liberals/

Rand is no different than Ron. He and the Libertarians and want this government gone so their sponsors can steal America. EOM.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023321236#post3

I grew up hearing (not from my family, thank god) that not only did 'Might Makes Right' but 'White Makes Right.' Ain't going back there. No, nope, nah!