Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
The mainstream media thought that the membership of Todd Palin, who is not a candidate for any office, in the Alaska Independence Party important enough to report in such outlets as the Los Angeles Times, MSNBC, and the New York Times, among others.
So now that Barack Obama’s membership in the far left New Party has been unearthed, will they report his membership in that Socialist organization?
Proof of Obama’s membership in the New Party was discovered by the Politically Drunk On Power blog:
In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago “New Party”. The ‘New Party’ was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. The admittedly Socialist Organization experienced a moderate rise in numbers between 1995 and 1999. By 1999, however, the Socialist ‘New Party’ was essentially defunct after losing a supreme court challenge that ruled the organizations “fusion” reform platform as unconstitutional.
After allegations surfaced in early summer over the ‘New Party’s’ endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and ‘New Party’ then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA’s New Party. [emphasis in original]
So we can call Him a socialist now, right?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Yet another example, if more were needed, of the left’s gruesome dishonesty. More importantly, though, it’s another illustration of their weird relationship with the dictionary.
I was mulling this post over the other day, and I finally came to a provisional conclusion: Arguing with a leftist is like arguing with a stereotypical, dunderheaded, Who Moved My Cheese?-reading middle manager.
First comes the cascade of buzzwords. “We need to think outside the box, redefine the paradigm, recalibrate our measurables and schedule our deliverables!” They truly seem to think that they are 1) communicating, and 2) giving you clear, concise instructions by doing this.
The left has negative buzzwords. Obama’s not a Socialist, you see — despite his publicly-affirmed membership in an avowedly Socialist party — because instead of outright nationalizing the health insurance system (“single payer”), he got the CEO of Prudential in on the process. Which not only isn’t socialism — no nationalization! — but is actually capitalism, because he’s guaranteeing the profits of big business.
When that doesn’t work, out comes the huffy attitude and the implications of your stupidity. When you ask your boss “what exactly are our ‘measurables’?” or point out that the government forcing people to buy stuff ain’t exactly laissez-faire, they snap back that you obviously just don’t understand what they’re trying to say (and you’ve got a bad attitude to boot; maybe you need a little sensitivity training!).
When that doesn’t work, they put on their class struggle faces and try to “explain” it to you again, slowly, and with little words like a kindergarten teacher dealing with a particularly dim pupil. Never mind that their new tack often directly contradicts what went before. For instance, I recently had a leftist try to convince me that the most liberal president in American history wasn’t Obama, but Nixon. Yep, ol’ Tricky Dick himself. Because he created the EPA and wanted to put in price controls. (Which means, I suppose, that the left would vote for Nixon if he came back from the dead and ran against Obama… right?)
The end point of the whole exercise seems to be: “Debating” with you on your terms, but using “your terms” in such an egregious way that you’re guaranteed to reject their argument in toto (for instance, the buddy that pulled out the Nixon gambit above ended the discussion by saying “well, if you can’t agree that Nixon was really liberal, there’s no point in talking about this”). This way, they can play the martyrs to sweet reason — “we tried explaining it to them using words they’d understand, but the poor wittle wingnut h8rs are too blinded by racism and greed to see sense.”
- Severian | 05/26/2012 @ 07:40