I'm not sure if I would want to be a U.A.W. leader just now. On the one hand they have president hussein working his damndest to take care of them, and yet, on the other hand they have president hussein working his damndest to take care of them.
Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't....
No matter how you slice it, the word "Damned" just keeps crawling back in to the lexicon.
GM's post hussein image is starting to take shape and it is being hailed as a major success on his part. He has stripped them of advertising ability, cut their ranks in half, and re-distributed ownership to the UAW, except for what he himself has kept.
Did you read that? The UAW's membership was halved in that company.
I'm not a union member, nor particularly a supporter of unions, but isn't their goal to have as many zombie-drone workers as possible?
And yet their master, president hussein, has cut in half the number of GM employees.
I'd say this is a Pyrrhic victory on the part of the UAW. They own a portion of the wealth, but the wealth is in a company no longer capable of producing in a competitive format, and even if they were, they can't advertise fairly against foreign competition.
So hussein is trying to kill the industry he promised to rescue, and at the same time he's badly wounding the union he rewarded for their fidelity in voting for him by removing their limbs.
Did I already use the word "Damned"? I forget.
And on a side-note, much of what hussein has been touching in the private sector has resulted in mass layoffs. Sure we'll help you save your company, but what's left of it when we're done won't be enough for vultures to pick over.
Makes you proud to live in hussein's america, doesn't it?
Now it seems to me that president hussein spent... ummm... $870,000,000,000.00 only four months ago, in a bid to spark the economy and rebuild the nation. How many jobs has he created? Well, he CLAIMS so far 25 police officers in Ohio....
And how many people have LOST THEIR JOBS due to the actions of president hussein?
Like with the Economic Stimulus Package before it, the number is too high for most people to comprehend.
In the 2,010 edition of Websters' Dictionary, under the phrase "Epic Fail" should be a picture of the historic mulatto president hussein.
(Postscript: Just ran across THIS news piece that kind of hammers my point home appropriately...)
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
WHY Republicans shouldn't question Sotomayer....
It's official. The leftist liberal MSM are punch-drunk with power...
The VERY FIRST LINE of this article makes the rest of the wasted grouping of letters that tacitly form words, is representative of all that is wrong in the world.
So, in much the same way that color was not an issue with president hussein (until, at least, after he became the president... and then people wouldn't shut up about it....), race once again is so sensitive an issue that any kind of fight against this woman on purely logical grounds is immediately nullified by further damaging the Republican Party.
First, if her nomination is that big a concern maybe she should not have been nominated. After all, it's not like she's there for her capacity, but rather for her gender and her race...
Second, the Republican Party as it stands right now is a worthless bunch of idiots incapable of deciding how to tie their shoes let alone put up a cohesive team.
Conservatism is not the same as Republicanism, and it's high time the two be sorted out and separated. Colin Powell, who considers himself a Republican, is so firmly behind the desecration of the United States of America he might as well put on a skimpy cheerleader outfit and knee-pads and go cheer on hussein in person (this, assuming he already hasn't done so...).
So let the Republican Party cave to pressure to keep the Hispanic vote, which of course they weren't exactly in the running for anyhow, and let them listen to so-called moderates.
The time has come to alienate the Republicans for selling themselves down the river, and to form a more solid base for the Conservative Party, and make it the central contender against all the unholiness that is in charge right now.
If Hispanics are unhappy with Conservatives for opposing Sotomayer, then they are unworthy of calling themselves Conservatives. Afterall , Sotomayer is against the things that make America great. So those people are lost anyhow.
Conservatism does not bow to public opinion, it forms public opinion. Republicans can bend and bow and suck all they want...
It won't help them one bit.
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
The VERY FIRST LINE of this article makes the rest of the wasted grouping of letters that tacitly form words, is representative of all that is wrong in the world.
So, in much the same way that color was not an issue with president hussein (until, at least, after he became the president... and then people wouldn't shut up about it....), race once again is so sensitive an issue that any kind of fight against this woman on purely logical grounds is immediately nullified by further damaging the Republican Party.
First, if her nomination is that big a concern maybe she should not have been nominated. After all, it's not like she's there for her capacity, but rather for her gender and her race...
Second, the Republican Party as it stands right now is a worthless bunch of idiots incapable of deciding how to tie their shoes let alone put up a cohesive team.
Conservatism is not the same as Republicanism, and it's high time the two be sorted out and separated. Colin Powell, who considers himself a Republican, is so firmly behind the desecration of the United States of America he might as well put on a skimpy cheerleader outfit and knee-pads and go cheer on hussein in person (this, assuming he already hasn't done so...).
So let the Republican Party cave to pressure to keep the Hispanic vote, which of course they weren't exactly in the running for anyhow, and let them listen to so-called moderates.
The time has come to alienate the Republicans for selling themselves down the river, and to form a more solid base for the Conservative Party, and make it the central contender against all the unholiness that is in charge right now.
If Hispanics are unhappy with Conservatives for opposing Sotomayer, then they are unworthy of calling themselves Conservatives. Afterall , Sotomayer is against the things that make America great. So those people are lost anyhow.
Conservatism does not bow to public opinion, it forms public opinion. Republicans can bend and bow and suck all they want...
It won't help them one bit.
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Maybe they shouldn't have dished it in the first place....
To be honest I had about five different things I've wanted to post about in the past few days, including a few personal ones, but this being a Holiday weekend I was comfortable with holding back. But as THIS NEWS ARTICLE SHOWS it is incumbent upon me to jump on this one quickly... and so I have to break my holiday embargo briefly.
The RNC has launched an ad campaign equating Nancy Pelosi with strict and potentially lesbian James Bond character Pussy Galore. Honestly, from the 69 year old woman's point of view, this might even be considered flattering. And yet the mainstream media and the Democrats are aghast because.... (gasp!!!!) it's not in good taste.
In fact, they argue, it's unseemly to attack someone by targeting their gender. Why what must N.O.W. think? I'm sure the three-year olds hosting "The View" must be all up-in-arms on this one.
Imagine, attacking a public figure, a person of some legitimate station in her career, by assaulting her femininity.
I know... let's get some commentary from Sarah Palin. As a fellow woman she may feel some sympathy.
After all. if anyone knows what it feels like to be ridiculed, gender-assaulted, publicly humiliated, derided for her looks, assaulted for just about anything but the one thing that legitimately mattered, her political viewpoint, it's Sarah Palin.
You can refer to the Governor of Alaska as a pig both in Congress and on National Television, but equate one of the most infamous women in America, a woman who has lied and cheated and publicly derided the fair play her boss at least publicly expects, with a younger, much more attractive Lesbian dominatrix, and suddenly the cat claws come out.
I'm hoping this one elevates, it would be kind of fun to see this get settled in a hot oil wrestling contest, or something.
Seriously, calling for fair play mere months after the assault on Sarah Palin is completely unjustified. Especially in light of the treatment the Liberal community, for whom Nancy Pelosi is the figurative House Madam, has given Carrie Prejean, whose religion-based and moral viewpoint, which had been duly solicited in a calculated attack, was then assaulted by dredging up and posting potentially embarrassing semi-nude photos taken a few years earlier. The fact that they revealed at least as much as the Miss America swimsuit pageant did not seem to matter.
They were attacking her hypocrisy for being a Christian woman who didn't believe in Gay marriage.
The Hypocrisy!!!!!
We can not let the Left determine the ground rules by how the actions harm them... they are either harmful to everyone or they are fair game to both parties.
So for now, Nancy Galore... get out that riding crop and dominatrix the hell out of avoiding your responsibilities to the the oath of office you took. It's the least we've come to expect from a dried up old hag like you.
(Hope that came across fair enough to everyone...)
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
The RNC has launched an ad campaign equating Nancy Pelosi with strict and potentially lesbian James Bond character Pussy Galore. Honestly, from the 69 year old woman's point of view, this might even be considered flattering. And yet the mainstream media and the Democrats are aghast because.... (gasp!!!!) it's not in good taste.
In fact, they argue, it's unseemly to attack someone by targeting their gender. Why what must N.O.W. think? I'm sure the three-year olds hosting "The View" must be all up-in-arms on this one.
Imagine, attacking a public figure, a person of some legitimate station in her career, by assaulting her femininity.
I know... let's get some commentary from Sarah Palin. As a fellow woman she may feel some sympathy.
After all. if anyone knows what it feels like to be ridiculed, gender-assaulted, publicly humiliated, derided for her looks, assaulted for just about anything but the one thing that legitimately mattered, her political viewpoint, it's Sarah Palin.
You can refer to the Governor of Alaska as a pig both in Congress and on National Television, but equate one of the most infamous women in America, a woman who has lied and cheated and publicly derided the fair play her boss at least publicly expects, with a younger, much more attractive Lesbian dominatrix, and suddenly the cat claws come out.
I'm hoping this one elevates, it would be kind of fun to see this get settled in a hot oil wrestling contest, or something.
Seriously, calling for fair play mere months after the assault on Sarah Palin is completely unjustified. Especially in light of the treatment the Liberal community, for whom Nancy Pelosi is the figurative House Madam, has given Carrie Prejean, whose religion-based and moral viewpoint, which had been duly solicited in a calculated attack, was then assaulted by dredging up and posting potentially embarrassing semi-nude photos taken a few years earlier. The fact that they revealed at least as much as the Miss America swimsuit pageant did not seem to matter.
They were attacking her hypocrisy for being a Christian woman who didn't believe in Gay marriage.
The Hypocrisy!!!!!
We can not let the Left determine the ground rules by how the actions harm them... they are either harmful to everyone or they are fair game to both parties.
So for now, Nancy Galore... get out that riding crop and dominatrix the hell out of avoiding your responsibilities to the the oath of office you took. It's the least we've come to expect from a dried up old hag like you.
(Hope that came across fair enough to everyone...)
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
president hussein's first debate with a real Conservative...
As evidenced in this interesting article president hussein has never had a real debate with a real right-wing opponent, someone who won't be bullied or belittled.
The subject: Closing Gitmo and restoring America's stance against torture.
The opponent: Vice President Dick Cheney, who has taken flack for a little too long from the new administration.
hussein takes the stance that by using enhanced interrogation techniques which were illegal, we generated a whole host of terrorists who otherwise would have loved America. The theory being that if we treat the bad guys significantly better than they would treat our men and women under similar circumstances then the Terrorists would all have gone "Awww jeez, I feel kinda stupid, y'know... just hating America like that. I'm gonna go hug my daughter and raise a flower garden instead.".
It could happen. You never know.
Cheney takes the stance that in the same way that police hard line question criminals in order to gain information to save lives, enhanced interrogation techniques have actively saved lives. And THAT is the goal, not worrying about the rights of those who would kill us.
On the surface hussein is the winner. Afterall, who's NOT for making friends.
But that surface is molecule-thin and impressively unrealistic.
The interrogation techniques were duly vetted and approved, much more so in fact than hussein's eligibility to the office of President of the United States (but then, what hasn't been if you think about it....).
On the issue of whether or not Gitmo created terrorists, this is just sophistry designed to get us to feel guilty. The idea that one would love America and then suddenly become violently enraged over a penal system that has affected a handful of terrorists is frankly idiotic and childish. Terrorists come from a deep-seated hatred born from years of indoctrination.
Apparently, as with so many other things, president hussein was never briefed about the role of the U.S. President.
IT'S TO KEEP US FREAKIN' SAFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not to be loved.
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
The subject: Closing Gitmo and restoring America's stance against torture.
The opponent: Vice President Dick Cheney, who has taken flack for a little too long from the new administration.
hussein takes the stance that by using enhanced interrogation techniques which were illegal, we generated a whole host of terrorists who otherwise would have loved America. The theory being that if we treat the bad guys significantly better than they would treat our men and women under similar circumstances then the Terrorists would all have gone "Awww jeez, I feel kinda stupid, y'know... just hating America like that. I'm gonna go hug my daughter and raise a flower garden instead.".
It could happen. You never know.
Cheney takes the stance that in the same way that police hard line question criminals in order to gain information to save lives, enhanced interrogation techniques have actively saved lives. And THAT is the goal, not worrying about the rights of those who would kill us.
On the surface hussein is the winner. Afterall, who's NOT for making friends.
But that surface is molecule-thin and impressively unrealistic.
The interrogation techniques were duly vetted and approved, much more so in fact than hussein's eligibility to the office of President of the United States (but then, what hasn't been if you think about it....).
On the issue of whether or not Gitmo created terrorists, this is just sophistry designed to get us to feel guilty. The idea that one would love America and then suddenly become violently enraged over a penal system that has affected a handful of terrorists is frankly idiotic and childish. Terrorists come from a deep-seated hatred born from years of indoctrination.
Apparently, as with so many other things, president hussein was never briefed about the role of the U.S. President.
IT'S TO KEEP US FREAKIN' SAFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not to be loved.
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
A Solution for poor Barack...
After reading THIS NEWS REPORT I felt really sorry for president hussein. It must be tough when you generously dole out toys to all your friends, and you go to all the houses on the block and tell the mommies that you know you shouldn't have trampled on the flowers, but you're just incorrigible, but you're really sorry and it won't happen again, and you've gone into the sandbox and took away all the other kids' toy cars so they would stop fighting, and you told the teacher how Timmy was getting too much chocolate milk in the lunchline... more than the other kids, anyhow, and you've showed all those kids on the next block how awesome your new ten-speed bicycle was, even though most of them still remember the time they were knocked to the ground by a bully on a 10-speed, and you try and you try and you try....
And still no one will do whatever you tell them to do just because.
Y'see, kids are like that. You can't buy their love. You can buy some gratitude, that's for sure, but in the end love is not something you can enforce on the world. The More you try the More it will prove to you how stupid you are for having thought you could.
And now poor hussein has a problem. He told all the kids and the teachers that he is going to take away the "naughty corner" where the bad kids are told to stand and face the wall for an unspecified amount of time. You have convinced everyone that those kids just need to be loved, and the idea of the "naughty corner" will only enrage the bad boys and make them be badder.
But without a place to send the bad boys to so that they can be punished for putting frogs in suzy's desk, the bad boys will just have to placed back into the classrooms.
Which is where they wanted to do their bad things in the first place.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and steal one of Dana Carvey's catch-phrases here.... "Well isn't that special?"
When even Congress and the Senate begin to show rational thought and tells hussein in no uncertain terms they don't want the scum of the earth brought into the very country they have vowed to destroy and given nice suburban homes, universal health care, and the right to vote... well it's pretty obvious a nerve has not only been touched, but likely tortured with pliers hooked up to a car battery.
Of course, the answer is simple. What if.... and just hear me out on this, what if we just built a prison somewhere where they can be kept safe and not be a danger to anybody, and then we can try them after their comrades have all agreed that maybe being sent to a prison somewhere where they can't harm anyone is a bad thing, and therefore not a good risk in the line of their goal to kill Americans.
I know... It's pie-in-the-sky and would never work. It's not like such a facility would have contributed to eight years of safe Americans or anything.
Yeah... you know what, I live in New York State. I'm thinking, what the hell.... give us your poor, your hungry, your religiously-motivated kill-crazy, and let 'em loose.
But before you do that, try the litmus test for such an asinine and anti-american policy and let these guys loose in the White house for a day... y'know, just to prove that they're really all reformed and everything.
I'm Dr.Calamity and I approve this message
And still no one will do whatever you tell them to do just because.
Y'see, kids are like that. You can't buy their love. You can buy some gratitude, that's for sure, but in the end love is not something you can enforce on the world. The More you try the More it will prove to you how stupid you are for having thought you could.
And now poor hussein has a problem. He told all the kids and the teachers that he is going to take away the "naughty corner" where the bad kids are told to stand and face the wall for an unspecified amount of time. You have convinced everyone that those kids just need to be loved, and the idea of the "naughty corner" will only enrage the bad boys and make them be badder.
But without a place to send the bad boys to so that they can be punished for putting frogs in suzy's desk, the bad boys will just have to placed back into the classrooms.
Which is where they wanted to do their bad things in the first place.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and steal one of Dana Carvey's catch-phrases here.... "Well isn't that special?"
When even Congress and the Senate begin to show rational thought and tells hussein in no uncertain terms they don't want the scum of the earth brought into the very country they have vowed to destroy and given nice suburban homes, universal health care, and the right to vote... well it's pretty obvious a nerve has not only been touched, but likely tortured with pliers hooked up to a car battery.
Of course, the answer is simple. What if.... and just hear me out on this, what if we just built a prison somewhere where they can be kept safe and not be a danger to anybody, and then we can try them after their comrades have all agreed that maybe being sent to a prison somewhere where they can't harm anyone is a bad thing, and therefore not a good risk in the line of their goal to kill Americans.
I know... It's pie-in-the-sky and would never work. It's not like such a facility would have contributed to eight years of safe Americans or anything.
Yeah... you know what, I live in New York State. I'm thinking, what the hell.... give us your poor, your hungry, your religiously-motivated kill-crazy, and let 'em loose.
But before you do that, try the litmus test for such an asinine and anti-american policy and let these guys loose in the White house for a day... y'know, just to prove that they're really all reformed and everything.
I'm Dr.Calamity and I approve this message
Good lord, if this is news then it's the most boring news day ever....
Apparently the ACLU can't seem to do anything but sit around and twiddle their fingers while their secretary sits by the phone filing her nails. After all that liberal training you'd think they'd have a crap-load of cases to cover, but apparently this august organization, stalwart defenders of the left wing mentality, is getting antsy for lack of a any challenges.
I think president hussein must have convinced them that he has completed his mandate to force everyone to care.
And then some sixth-grade girl comes along and watches the movie "Milk" and before you know it the ACLU has slung their unlicensed nuclear accelerators to their backs, crawled into their converted hearse with the stolen "Casper the Friendly-Ghost" esque logo, and trundled on down the road to Mt. Woodson Elementary School in Ramona, California.
To think that a school would have the right to have a policy of some sort, one in which the little tyke was actually able to go ahead and do what she set out to do, is just horrifying. The next thing you know we'll all be invading countries and torturing anybody who isn't White, which as we all know leads to a failure to provide serial killers with knife-sharpening equipment so as to ensure they have usable tools for their chosen profession.
Read THIS ARTICLE and ask yourself what news is NOT being reported in its place that might actually be a real news story.
I've seen Bryant Gumbel rip guests on Today apart for less than this.
I don't really want to waste too much time on this issue.... but well.... what the hell, man? What the hell?
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
I think president hussein must have convinced them that he has completed his mandate to force everyone to care.
And then some sixth-grade girl comes along and watches the movie "Milk" and before you know it the ACLU has slung their unlicensed nuclear accelerators to their backs, crawled into their converted hearse with the stolen "Casper the Friendly-Ghost" esque logo, and trundled on down the road to Mt. Woodson Elementary School in Ramona, California.
To think that a school would have the right to have a policy of some sort, one in which the little tyke was actually able to go ahead and do what she set out to do, is just horrifying. The next thing you know we'll all be invading countries and torturing anybody who isn't White, which as we all know leads to a failure to provide serial killers with knife-sharpening equipment so as to ensure they have usable tools for their chosen profession.
Read THIS ARTICLE and ask yourself what news is NOT being reported in its place that might actually be a real news story.
I've seen Bryant Gumbel rip guests on Today apart for less than this.
I don't really want to waste too much time on this issue.... but well.... what the hell, man? What the hell?
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
As far as James is concerned...
Professional athletes have to tread a fine line. Moreso that bimbos like Janeane Garafolo, pro athletes have to watch what they say because their livelihood is dependent upon one thing.. teamwork.
Pittsburgh Steelers teammate James Harrison is, I believe, a bit of a high-profile person. So when he makes a public statement it tends to reflect on the team. Clearly he has to watch what his politics are, so he may tend to couch some dialogue in more vague terms.
So when he came out in a blog recently saying he would decline a trip to the Whitehouse to meet with president hussein everyone gets riled up and starts calling him names.
Seriously, read this news piece I just stumbled upon... The author is derisive and abusive, and much of the talkback is equally condescending.
But Mr. Harrison is not apparently a stupid man. He could say something like "Barack Obama has the political acumen of a Danish Whore" which may in fact be somewhere along the lines he's really thinking. I Don't know. But he at least is stating his mind about the lack of pleasure he has for going to the Whitehouse under the current circumstances.
Which offends people.
I mean, here president hussein generously invites him to live the life of the Hollywood elite for a few hours and eat far better than most Americans will do in a year, and the man just goes up in his face and disses him like that. Who WOULDN'T want to go to the Whitehouse and meet the president of the united states of america?
Apparently James Harrison.
Now the fans are going to have to look to Congress to understand how to react here.... after all he's not a white gorgeous beauty queen, so those twits at N.O.W. can't help... and he's not accepting bailout money so he's not a Wall Street guy... in fact he's touted as a Main Street hero.
So people will throw epithets at him and insult him as if he had acted in a completely filthy, horrid manner like encouraging life and discouraging baby-killing.
Poor guy...
If it helps any, and I mean this from the heart, I don't want to go meet this man either. I certainly don't want to go to the Whitehouse until after this administration leaves.
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
Pittsburgh Steelers teammate James Harrison is, I believe, a bit of a high-profile person. So when he makes a public statement it tends to reflect on the team. Clearly he has to watch what his politics are, so he may tend to couch some dialogue in more vague terms.
So when he came out in a blog recently saying he would decline a trip to the Whitehouse to meet with president hussein everyone gets riled up and starts calling him names.
Seriously, read this news piece I just stumbled upon... The author is derisive and abusive, and much of the talkback is equally condescending.
But Mr. Harrison is not apparently a stupid man. He could say something like "Barack Obama has the political acumen of a Danish Whore" which may in fact be somewhere along the lines he's really thinking. I Don't know. But he at least is stating his mind about the lack of pleasure he has for going to the Whitehouse under the current circumstances.
Which offends people.
I mean, here president hussein generously invites him to live the life of the Hollywood elite for a few hours and eat far better than most Americans will do in a year, and the man just goes up in his face and disses him like that. Who WOULDN'T want to go to the Whitehouse and meet the president of the united states of america?
Apparently James Harrison.
Now the fans are going to have to look to Congress to understand how to react here.... after all he's not a white gorgeous beauty queen, so those twits at N.O.W. can't help... and he's not accepting bailout money so he's not a Wall Street guy... in fact he's touted as a Main Street hero.
So people will throw epithets at him and insult him as if he had acted in a completely filthy, horrid manner like encouraging life and discouraging baby-killing.
Poor guy...
If it helps any, and I mean this from the heart, I don't want to go meet this man either. I certainly don't want to go to the Whitehouse until after this administration leaves.
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
Friday, May 15, 2009
What a pleasant a charming way to erode the Bible...
CNN.com, in its mission to erode the concept that God and Religion are legitimate aspects of life, certainly an annoying concept to anyone who believes unborn children shouldn't be allowed the rights granted to kill-crazy Islamo-fascists, has reported on a warm and charming former evangelical who now works to denounce the bible.
The article can be found HERE.
What's different from the normal mode of attack is that it's presented in lighter, brighter colors so that you don't realize what is being said. This guy isn't angry and upset, he's well-read and he just doesn't believe the tenants of the bible are real.
They cite the Resurrection of the Christ as a prime example. Using zero evidence Bart Ehrman claims that there is no reason to believe that anyone actually saw Jesus arise from his grave. Instead he believes that the Apostles imagined it.
Uh huh....
If I remember my Bible correctly, nobody DID see Jesus arise from the grave.Certainly the Roman guard guarding the entrance to the cave missed that one. In fact the Apostles were confronted by Jesus nearly two weeks after his murder as they gathered in a locked room (remember, these were not people the Roman Government were particularly happy to have roaming around...). One of the Apostles, Thomas, was not present and Jesus had left by the time he had arrived. Upon being told the story, he refused to accept it.
It wasn't until Jesus appeared at a later date and begged Thomas to place his fingers inside the death-wound in his side that Thomas finally came to believe that this was the Christ, risen from the grave. This is in fact the story of where the phrase "doubting Thomas" comes from.
This is all pretty well laid out in the Bible... the one Christians use anyhow.
How that translates into "it was a dream" is anyone's guess.
Now the reality is that the Bible is not a tome that refers to all people at all times for now unto infinity. Take Leviticus, for instance... Leviticus is often described as hard line, and in fact is one of the very few places in the Bible where Homosexuality is brought up. Along with many other practices Homosexuality is frowned upon as not a very religious lifestyle... which, of course, it is not. However the writings of Leviticus, as with many of the writings of the Bible, were geared for the people of roughly 100 AD, but in such a way that many primary truths still resonate to this day.
The horrible and inescapable fact is that a truth can still be a truth years later.
Additionally, it's an extremely common practice int he bible to use parallels in fictional storytelling in order to get out various points of view. The '70s musical Godspell is a recap of Jesus telling the Apostles the lessons they need to know so that they can go out and channel his teachings to the public.
So why should author Bart Ehrman want to do damage to the beliefs of the bible? For one thing it's in vogue now... "The DaVinci Code" is a popular novel and movie that suggests that the bloodline of Jesus continues to this day, which is a cover-up by the Church. I've no idea what "Angels and Demons" is actually about but at a guess it's likely not about how awesome the Knights Templar were.
CNN couldn't be happier to have this popular anecdotal diatribe to launch against organized religion. Their master, president hussein for whom the concept of the beginning of life is above his pay-grade... (yeeeesh... I still can't believe he said that....) is a vocal supporter of baby-killing... not just abortion, but repeat abortion for those rare instances when particularly tough babies aren't killed on the first attempt... his is a vision of the miracle of life that suggests he believes Dick Cheney is somehow behind such a fascist control of women. CNN will leap to his defense and champion his causes just so long as they can stay in his good graces.
Ask Ed Brown.
So forget how polite and warm the message is, it's still a message of removing religion from the plate so you can more easily act... well... in an immoral manner.
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
The article can be found HERE.
What's different from the normal mode of attack is that it's presented in lighter, brighter colors so that you don't realize what is being said. This guy isn't angry and upset, he's well-read and he just doesn't believe the tenants of the bible are real.
They cite the Resurrection of the Christ as a prime example. Using zero evidence Bart Ehrman claims that there is no reason to believe that anyone actually saw Jesus arise from his grave. Instead he believes that the Apostles imagined it.
Uh huh....
If I remember my Bible correctly, nobody DID see Jesus arise from the grave.Certainly the Roman guard guarding the entrance to the cave missed that one. In fact the Apostles were confronted by Jesus nearly two weeks after his murder as they gathered in a locked room (remember, these were not people the Roman Government were particularly happy to have roaming around...). One of the Apostles, Thomas, was not present and Jesus had left by the time he had arrived. Upon being told the story, he refused to accept it.
It wasn't until Jesus appeared at a later date and begged Thomas to place his fingers inside the death-wound in his side that Thomas finally came to believe that this was the Christ, risen from the grave. This is in fact the story of where the phrase "doubting Thomas" comes from.
This is all pretty well laid out in the Bible... the one Christians use anyhow.
How that translates into "it was a dream" is anyone's guess.
Now the reality is that the Bible is not a tome that refers to all people at all times for now unto infinity. Take Leviticus, for instance... Leviticus is often described as hard line, and in fact is one of the very few places in the Bible where Homosexuality is brought up. Along with many other practices Homosexuality is frowned upon as not a very religious lifestyle... which, of course, it is not. However the writings of Leviticus, as with many of the writings of the Bible, were geared for the people of roughly 100 AD, but in such a way that many primary truths still resonate to this day.
The horrible and inescapable fact is that a truth can still be a truth years later.
Additionally, it's an extremely common practice int he bible to use parallels in fictional storytelling in order to get out various points of view. The '70s musical Godspell is a recap of Jesus telling the Apostles the lessons they need to know so that they can go out and channel his teachings to the public.
So why should author Bart Ehrman want to do damage to the beliefs of the bible? For one thing it's in vogue now... "The DaVinci Code" is a popular novel and movie that suggests that the bloodline of Jesus continues to this day, which is a cover-up by the Church. I've no idea what "Angels and Demons" is actually about but at a guess it's likely not about how awesome the Knights Templar were.
CNN couldn't be happier to have this popular anecdotal diatribe to launch against organized religion. Their master, president hussein for whom the concept of the beginning of life is above his pay-grade... (yeeeesh... I still can't believe he said that....) is a vocal supporter of baby-killing... not just abortion, but repeat abortion for those rare instances when particularly tough babies aren't killed on the first attempt... his is a vision of the miracle of life that suggests he believes Dick Cheney is somehow behind such a fascist control of women. CNN will leap to his defense and champion his causes just so long as they can stay in his good graces.
Ask Ed Brown.
So forget how polite and warm the message is, it's still a message of removing religion from the plate so you can more easily act... well... in an immoral manner.
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
Notes from the finalists from the Miss California Contest...
Carrie Prejean, who waited until she was vindicated by the Miss USA organizers to then turn her back on them and disgrace them for the miserable whores they were was not the only finalist from the Miss California Pageant to be vocal lately. Let's see what the others had to say.
Janeane Garafolo, long suspected of being an alien species that was trying to masquerade as human but somehow not quite getting it right, has been quite willing to display her ample talents when discussing things political. Her acceptance speech for the Miss California contest, in which she came in 3rd place, was said to be "...adorable and refreshingly feminine" by Perez Hilton."While it's true that men are pigs, men with a moral code are even worse. They display a limbic thing that precludes them from using multi-syllabic phrases that are meaningless. I agree that all unborn babies have a right to be killed and taxes are the greatest thing going. But killing babies is really not the issue, it's the racism associated with them. Did you know that all murdered babies are killed because of their race, and that's only because these people with moral values want to enforce their own personal version of right and wrong on the babies and limbic brains. Why should a baby be forced to live with people who don't even know what Tea is... I mean if you ask them they all think it's an anti-government thing and it really isn't It's racism and that's what is bad for our babies, so I say we slaughter them all."
Meanwhile the #2 entry, runner-up to the crown of Miss California Wanda Sykes, was more intelligible and coherent..."I think all white women need to just shut the hell up! I mean what is it with them anyhow? They just prattle on about moral values and Jesus... that dude never asked ME out on a date, and he sure as hell ain't never wanted to save MY soul. In fact I think all people with moral values is just plain ignorammmable.... you all know what I mean!...."There's a long pause while her audience laughs, reads emails on their blackberries, and mentally dresses her in a parka and a snowmobile suit to cleanse their heads....
And then she starts up again... "Gay marriage? Why the hell not? If you're gonna let straight people get married then gay people should get married. Doesn't it make more sense that we should have same-sex marriages? I mean opposite sex don't even sound natural, do it? It sounds like some sort of perversion, like maybe Dick Cheney buying a derringer instead of a shotgun. I mean ain't it the truth? I just wish all straight people would die of diahrrea! I just hate you all!!!"
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.... to say nothing of condoning mentally dressing Wanda Sykes.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
When Cheney-talking, always fail specificity 101....
Noted former Vice President, friend-shooter, and defender of the United States of America Dick Cheney has of course been making the rounds in the press lately as the sole political figure standing up for what a good number of Americans believe was a good time for the US of A... the Bush Administration.
Here's an interesting article.
While George Bush lacked pizazz and hollywood glitz, he more than made up for it in good old-fashioned love of his Country. He behaved while in office as a man convinced that the office itself was the important part of the job, not his own petty desires. He kept his pants on, his mouth shut when it pertained to things that might lower the dignity of the office (bi-partisan spats, for instance... ) and he largely followed party lines, although not always as conservatively as some would have liked.
His successor however is all pizazz and gaffes and charm and teleprompters and violations of constitutional laws and offending of millions of Americans and American Allies. president hussein is a dazzling mulatto of exceptional partisanship, and short of the idea that there is no reason to believe he has even considered cheating on his satanic alter-ego imp from hell wife, in all other respects he has been a thoroughly contemptible man who favors the honoring of his own reign over the majesty and importance of the office.
So now the only person standing up from that administration to defend it is Cheney. He has only two reasons to be defiant. Even though Rush says he has no reason to do this other than love of country, the man IS penning an autobiography and it WOULD be helpful to have some advance publicity. One thing hussein is good for, it's generating loads of press. It's easy when he owns the media outright.
But still, Cheney has the marks of a man who does not care if you like him, he's gonna do what is right anyhow. He has worked tirelessly for both the Bush administrations to protect America. So I believe he has legitimate reasons for wanting to prove that the interrogation techniques are not only legal, but absolutely vital to protect Americans from further harm.
And the kicker is, in their defense as to why they would not release the two memos he wants, is that they are pertinent to two pending lawsuits and therefore cannot be released.
You can suggest that this is some under-the-radar lawsuit from the hussein camp that is prosecuting criminal Republicans and their attorneys for their horrible gall to heinously place non-bitey bugs into cells with killers and thugs. But you'd be wrong.
As I said, the one thing the hussein camp has going for it is their absolute and totally abusines control over the media, which means if he were the one pressing charges the case would be so high-profile he'd have to make yet another special TV appearance to bore us with his preening over it.
So no, this is in reality a matter of a case where the memos did what they were SUPPOSED to do, and in fact the case is being prosecuted properly and now fewer Americans have died at the hands of the enemy.
Go ahead... give me another scenario.
So thanks to USAToday.com, we now know that the memos Cheney wants A)are legitimate and B) demonstrate the effectiveness of the Bush/Cheney approach.
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
p.s.: Today is my wife and my 21st anniversary. To everyone on her side of the family, F.U.!!!! I'm not going anywhere!
Here's an interesting article.
While George Bush lacked pizazz and hollywood glitz, he more than made up for it in good old-fashioned love of his Country. He behaved while in office as a man convinced that the office itself was the important part of the job, not his own petty desires. He kept his pants on, his mouth shut when it pertained to things that might lower the dignity of the office (bi-partisan spats, for instance... ) and he largely followed party lines, although not always as conservatively as some would have liked.
His successor however is all pizazz and gaffes and charm and teleprompters and violations of constitutional laws and offending of millions of Americans and American Allies. president hussein is a dazzling mulatto of exceptional partisanship, and short of the idea that there is no reason to believe he has even considered cheating on his satanic alter-ego imp from hell wife, in all other respects he has been a thoroughly contemptible man who favors the honoring of his own reign over the majesty and importance of the office.
So now the only person standing up from that administration to defend it is Cheney. He has only two reasons to be defiant. Even though Rush says he has no reason to do this other than love of country, the man IS penning an autobiography and it WOULD be helpful to have some advance publicity. One thing hussein is good for, it's generating loads of press. It's easy when he owns the media outright.
But still, Cheney has the marks of a man who does not care if you like him, he's gonna do what is right anyhow. He has worked tirelessly for both the Bush administrations to protect America. So I believe he has legitimate reasons for wanting to prove that the interrogation techniques are not only legal, but absolutely vital to protect Americans from further harm.
And the kicker is, in their defense as to why they would not release the two memos he wants, is that they are pertinent to two pending lawsuits and therefore cannot be released.
You can suggest that this is some under-the-radar lawsuit from the hussein camp that is prosecuting criminal Republicans and their attorneys for their horrible gall to heinously place non-bitey bugs into cells with killers and thugs. But you'd be wrong.
As I said, the one thing the hussein camp has going for it is their absolute and totally abusines control over the media, which means if he were the one pressing charges the case would be so high-profile he'd have to make yet another special TV appearance to bore us with his preening over it.
So no, this is in reality a matter of a case where the memos did what they were SUPPOSED to do, and in fact the case is being prosecuted properly and now fewer Americans have died at the hands of the enemy.
Go ahead... give me another scenario.
So thanks to USAToday.com, we now know that the memos Cheney wants A)are legitimate and B) demonstrate the effectiveness of the Bush/Cheney approach.
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
p.s.: Today is my wife and my 21st anniversary. To everyone on her side of the family, F.U.!!!! I'm not going anywhere!
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The shrill Miss Sykes and her wacky hate crimes....
Alerted to this juicy little bit of media that the mainstream wants covered up, by WorldNet News,
at this past weekend's Whitehouse Correspondent's dinner, usually an occasion for politicians to make jokes and playfully jab at each other, the night appears to have been rife with hatred and tactlessness.
It was already widely reported that president hussein's monologue compared himself favorably to Jesus Christ, teased his own image by saying he can be even more astounding and better in his second hundred days, and continued on with his usual trashing of the previous administration.
Now to be fair, Miss Sykes is a comedienne and her job is to do whatever she can to be funny. In her case the only thing that works for her is to perpetuate stereotypical images of the black community and use her God-Given grating and, let's be honest just awful voice. And she does use it to pretty good effect, even going so far as to play a cow in animation voice work.
So when she has the opportunity to talk about her main squeeze Rush Limbaugh, who embodies everything she hates in the world, she can't help but maybe go a little too far, like for instance wishing him dead.
But then to lay false accusations against him... believing that Rush's well-placed distrust of the president and his Socialist policies, makes him a treasonous man, a traitor (her words...) is going beyond the veil of comedy. For one to do something like that in the name of comedy one must present their case. Rush's crime = wanting president hussein's policies to falter and fail. She takes the liberal zombie mind-set that this means wanting Americans to suffer.
president hussein isn't the United States of America.
And somehow I wonder just how defensive she was with President Bush. Did she come running to his aid every time someone uttered a complaint about his policies?
But railing against a hack comedienne who's desperate to be noticed (No.. in this instance I'm not referring to Janeane Garafolo... but the parallels are striking, aren't they....?) is not really the point.
My point is, does anyone else notice how many people around president hussein have been saying or doing just outrageously asinine things? From the inaugural invocation with a pastor uttering racist hate words to.... well the Whitehouse Press dinner wherein a comedienne utters racist hate words... from Joe Biden saying just about anything to Janet Napolitano denying her oath of office by pointing out that illegal aliens are not illegal. There's a pattern forming here... a pattern of disquieting proportions. hussein laughing about the state of the economy, Hilary Clinton laughing about Somali piracy...
We're the joke. And we're here for the benefit of our elected officials.
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
at this past weekend's Whitehouse Correspondent's dinner, usually an occasion for politicians to make jokes and playfully jab at each other, the night appears to have been rife with hatred and tactlessness.
It was already widely reported that president hussein's monologue compared himself favorably to Jesus Christ, teased his own image by saying he can be even more astounding and better in his second hundred days, and continued on with his usual trashing of the previous administration.
Now to be fair, Miss Sykes is a comedienne and her job is to do whatever she can to be funny. In her case the only thing that works for her is to perpetuate stereotypical images of the black community and use her God-Given grating and, let's be honest just awful voice. And she does use it to pretty good effect, even going so far as to play a cow in animation voice work.
So when she has the opportunity to talk about her main squeeze Rush Limbaugh, who embodies everything she hates in the world, she can't help but maybe go a little too far, like for instance wishing him dead.
But then to lay false accusations against him... believing that Rush's well-placed distrust of the president and his Socialist policies, makes him a treasonous man, a traitor (her words...) is going beyond the veil of comedy. For one to do something like that in the name of comedy one must present their case. Rush's crime = wanting president hussein's policies to falter and fail. She takes the liberal zombie mind-set that this means wanting Americans to suffer.
president hussein isn't the United States of America.
And somehow I wonder just how defensive she was with President Bush. Did she come running to his aid every time someone uttered a complaint about his policies?
But railing against a hack comedienne who's desperate to be noticed (No.. in this instance I'm not referring to Janeane Garafolo... but the parallels are striking, aren't they....?) is not really the point.
My point is, does anyone else notice how many people around president hussein have been saying or doing just outrageously asinine things? From the inaugural invocation with a pastor uttering racist hate words to.... well the Whitehouse Press dinner wherein a comedienne utters racist hate words... from Joe Biden saying just about anything to Janet Napolitano denying her oath of office by pointing out that illegal aliens are not illegal. There's a pattern forming here... a pattern of disquieting proportions. hussein laughing about the state of the economy, Hilary Clinton laughing about Somali piracy...
We're the joke. And we're here for the benefit of our elected officials.
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The Venerable Colin Powell....
I understand that there's a bit of a to-do between Dick Cheney and Colin Powell as to whether or not he is a Republican.
On "Face the Nation" this Sunday Mr. Cheney was asked about Mr. Powell's comments on the Republican Party. He correctly answered that he was unaware that Mr. Powell was a still a Republican. The evidence is hardly inconclusive. Colin Powell, who was hardly comfortable in the Bush Administration, has made no bones about his allegiance.
When you tell the nation that you are going to endorse Barack Obama you pretty much have changed party affiliations. He can hardly claim to have been a Conservative Right-Wing person.
I feel a little guilty covering this because Rush is putting so much time and effort into it, but let's be honest, Colin Powell has had a jones against the Bush Administration ever since he was sent to the UN to sell them on the invasion of Iraq and he got laughed out of the place.
Unlike Rush I have no issue with whether or not he endorsed the hussein-ster due to his skin color. Of course that's an asinine reason for wanting anyone to be president... it's no more an indicator of your abilities than whether or not you wear boxers or briefs (I personally wear an orthopedic thong...). But on the "race" card, I have no problems.
You see, what is annoying, and while not quite as insidious, it's in the same field as the Arlen Specter thing... true Colin never ran for public office and was not elected General, but he basically came up through the ranks on a more temperate conservative platform. Liberals, in fact, have little ability to advance in the military unless it's through means other than merit.
So Colin projected the image of a man who had grown up understanding that the nation must be protected and that our troops were of utmost importance. He drew strength from the nation's pride in itself and from the advances that have transformed the American fighting man into the multi-tasking ambassadors, field medics, and soldiers that they have become.
(I must take issue with my own wording... "Man and Woman" is much more accurate. At my nephew's recent wedding, he a vet of both Bosnia and Iraq, I overheard a female member of the wedding party who had obviously done combat tours talking about how hot this other girl was and how the guy she was talking with should nail her, and then complaining somewhat amusingly about how stupid it was that this one woman brought make-up to Iraq.... "You Don't bring F***ing Makeup on deployment!" she laughed.... hate to say it, but she made me feel even more proud of our women in service. Pretty, capable, one of the guys, and likely just as lethal to the enemy.....)
Knowing that Bush was committed to America's safety Powell may have had some disagreements, but the cause should have been the same. And understanding that America's soldiers are the finest in the world and that Bush supported them 314 % more than most Americans, who were right up there in the 100% area.... Powell should have realized the goals again were very similar.
But like Specter before him, Powell has sold down the river the people who supported him and made a decision to back someone who would see our troops pay for their own health care for wounds suffered in combat.
The political landscape has positively crumbled and become a rocky jumble of unfamiliar terrain, but if jackasses like General Colin Powell get exposed for the traitors that they are in the fray, it's almost worth the price. We need to rout these weasels out of the Right-Wing conservative movement and establish once and for all we are NOT here for more of the same old failed policies and dogma of the hussein administration.
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
On "Face the Nation" this Sunday Mr. Cheney was asked about Mr. Powell's comments on the Republican Party. He correctly answered that he was unaware that Mr. Powell was a still a Republican. The evidence is hardly inconclusive. Colin Powell, who was hardly comfortable in the Bush Administration, has made no bones about his allegiance.
When you tell the nation that you are going to endorse Barack Obama you pretty much have changed party affiliations. He can hardly claim to have been a Conservative Right-Wing person.
I feel a little guilty covering this because Rush is putting so much time and effort into it, but let's be honest, Colin Powell has had a jones against the Bush Administration ever since he was sent to the UN to sell them on the invasion of Iraq and he got laughed out of the place.
Unlike Rush I have no issue with whether or not he endorsed the hussein-ster due to his skin color. Of course that's an asinine reason for wanting anyone to be president... it's no more an indicator of your abilities than whether or not you wear boxers or briefs (I personally wear an orthopedic thong...). But on the "race" card, I have no problems.
You see, what is annoying, and while not quite as insidious, it's in the same field as the Arlen Specter thing... true Colin never ran for public office and was not elected General, but he basically came up through the ranks on a more temperate conservative platform. Liberals, in fact, have little ability to advance in the military unless it's through means other than merit.
So Colin projected the image of a man who had grown up understanding that the nation must be protected and that our troops were of utmost importance. He drew strength from the nation's pride in itself and from the advances that have transformed the American fighting man into the multi-tasking ambassadors, field medics, and soldiers that they have become.
(I must take issue with my own wording... "Man and Woman" is much more accurate. At my nephew's recent wedding, he a vet of both Bosnia and Iraq, I overheard a female member of the wedding party who had obviously done combat tours talking about how hot this other girl was and how the guy she was talking with should nail her, and then complaining somewhat amusingly about how stupid it was that this one woman brought make-up to Iraq.... "You Don't bring F***ing Makeup on deployment!" she laughed.... hate to say it, but she made me feel even more proud of our women in service. Pretty, capable, one of the guys, and likely just as lethal to the enemy.....)
Knowing that Bush was committed to America's safety Powell may have had some disagreements, but the cause should have been the same. And understanding that America's soldiers are the finest in the world and that Bush supported them 314 % more than most Americans, who were right up there in the 100% area.... Powell should have realized the goals again were very similar.
But like Specter before him, Powell has sold down the river the people who supported him and made a decision to back someone who would see our troops pay for their own health care for wounds suffered in combat.
The political landscape has positively crumbled and become a rocky jumble of unfamiliar terrain, but if jackasses like General Colin Powell get exposed for the traitors that they are in the fray, it's almost worth the price. We need to rout these weasels out of the Right-Wing conservative movement and establish once and for all we are NOT here for more of the same old failed policies and dogma of the hussein administration.
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
Update to the Carrie Prejean thing...
I make no claims toward being psychic or anything, I just kind of got lucky. In my last post I predicted that the only support from the pageant people that Carrie Prejean would get would be from Donald Trump.
It was just announced that the Trumpster saw things as they are and said y'know what... she's still gonna wear the crown.
I'm not sure, but I think the state of California just broke away and floated off in shock.
Holy Crap... a religious woman's beliefs were help up in a meatshow.
There goes the neighborhood.
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message
It was just announced that the Trumpster saw things as they are and said y'know what... she's still gonna wear the crown.
I'm not sure, but I think the state of California just broke away and floated off in shock.
Holy Crap... a religious woman's beliefs were help up in a meatshow.
There goes the neighborhood.
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message
Mixed signals in all directions...
I wouldn't classify my interest in the case of Carrie Prejean, potentially defrocked Miss America and amazingly appropriate Miss California, as particularly overt. I normally don't put much attention in the direction of beauty pageants, not least of all because I know I will never be crowned Miss New York, but also because they are a series of mixed signals that typifies what is wrong with the world lately.
And the mixed signals in this instance are all over the place. Even Miss Prejean is sending them. And in this article from CNN.com it's clear that drama slut P. Hilton has created such an avalanche that the most sane mind in the house may actually end up being Donald Trump.
You know it's a sad day in history when you turn to Trump for normalcy.
To be fair the pageant organizers have a few legitimate gripes. There are the semi-nude photos that are being used to embarrass Miss Prejean which, in some eyes, are doing just that. There are the actions she has taken which are not within the guidelines of the pageant since the major storm erupted, such as becoming an advocate for the National Organization for Marriage.
But lest you think I am feeling sorry for the beauty pageant people, they are sending their own massively mixed signals pretty severely themselves. They appear to have done nothing to stand behind their contestant in the face of a clear attack from one of the judges based entirely upon a prejudice toward her religious beliefs. This tacit approval undermines any message they may send that they are pro-woman.
But better than that, they just released a statement that just smacks of condescension and and urge to put Carrie, and any other "free thinkers" in their place. To wit....
And the mixed signals in this instance are all over the place. Even Miss Prejean is sending them. And in this article from CNN.com it's clear that drama slut P. Hilton has created such an avalanche that the most sane mind in the house may actually end up being Donald Trump.
You know it's a sad day in history when you turn to Trump for normalcy.
To be fair the pageant organizers have a few legitimate gripes. There are the semi-nude photos that are being used to embarrass Miss Prejean which, in some eyes, are doing just that. There are the actions she has taken which are not within the guidelines of the pageant since the major storm erupted, such as becoming an advocate for the National Organization for Marriage.
But lest you think I am feeling sorry for the beauty pageant people, they are sending their own massively mixed signals pretty severely themselves. They appear to have done nothing to stand behind their contestant in the face of a clear attack from one of the judges based entirely upon a prejudice toward her religious beliefs. This tacit approval undermines any message they may send that they are pro-woman.
But better than that, they just released a statement that just smacks of condescension and and urge to put Carrie, and any other "free thinkers" in their place. To wit....
"The turning point was when she decided that she wanted to move forward with media interviews, in spite of the fact that her message was dividing us rather than bringing us back together," Lewis said.
The pageant would "never want to take away a girl's beliefs or her voice," he said. "We try to make these women capable of being free thinkers."
The pageant organizers "try to make" these women free thinkers. They don't give them credence enough to suppose that maybe they already were free thinkers. As sexist a bit of trype as you're likely to cook this year.
And thanks to the pig Hilton, the pageant organizers are exposed for what they have been all along, purveyors of meat. Even then, however, their message is mixed, because they disdain any attempted purveying of that same meat that they themselves did not participate in.
Why am I at all interested in this case? After all we have a president of possibly illegal origin subverting our culture, providing aid and comfort to the enemy, denying our allies, scaring both the citizenry and major businesses, and pitting American against American all for his sole delight, along with a cackling mass media who have forfeited their right to any claims of being America's watchdogs. Why would a stupid beauty pageant have any merit?
Because it's absolutely typical of where we are in America right now. Those who hold religion as an important aspect of life and believe in the right things are being mercilessly assaulted for their beliefs, even being propped up so they can be as publicly humiliated as possible, by mewling cretinous not-quite human drama queens incapable of producing anything let alone extending the fairness they shrilly demand from others.
Intolerance in America does NOT come from the Right, it comes from the Left... and it insists that vengeance is not only proper, but is what this country is founded on.
When we went to war with England in the late 1700s it wasn't vengeance, it was freedom. That is why they have spent the bulk of the past two hundred plus years as one of our strongest allies. That was a war between men of good faith trying to find the best solution.
I miss the good old days when the best solution was a goal.
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
When is a Sacrament not a Sacrament?
In their rush to be included everywhere that they are not, the Gay and Lesbian community, in the form of hysterical queen Perez Hilton and any number of advocates who are either gay or gay sympathizers, have pressed forward an astonishingly hostile and heartless assault on people who feel marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.
As offensive as a straight marriage can be (the very term "straight" is itself offensive.... apparently... I guess....) it has the benefit of having been lent some history. It's an institution that goes back for many hundreds of years. I will grant you that on the opposing viewpoint gays have been around for probably as long, but never in any cohesive form that an enterprising young Mulatto could whip into a political force.
But the prevailing attitude in the country favors the formerly disenfranchised and whether or not their arguments have merit is not a deciding factor. Simply having been against the last eight years of the same old failed policies (their words, not mine...) is enough to ensure that you will get treated far more fairly and equally than those conservatives.
So if being disenfranchised was such a bad thing, does it make sense that inflicting disenfranchisement upon others is a positive step toward reconciliation? Once again logical discourse falls on stupid ears.
You see, I have problems with two different issues lately. One affects me very personally because my son is 15 and has begun to sprout bodily hair at an astonishing rate, and so I am trying very hard to understand the modus operandi and the whole point of Lycanthropy. Let's face it... when you look at it, Werewolves simply do not make any sense at all.
What do Werewolves want? Why do they automatically attack others and disembowel them? Food? Not likely. Bloodlust? Granted, that would be protected under the current administration, but again, not very likely. So I can't understand what the hell is the point to being a werewolf.
The other problem is really more of an academic one as it does not affect me anywhere near as directly. I have one lesbian friend for whom I'm quite fond, and she puts up a compelling argument for Gay marriage based upon fact and logical progression.
Which of course means she would likely be ostracized by the rest of the gay and lesbian community.
Making sense after all is anathema to their approach.
So the idea of gay marriage mystifies me.
Let me explain it. Marriage is one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic church. Its function was for a way to formalize and provide a civilized form of approval over intimate relations in order to encourage reproduction. In the heady days before Anno Domini (heathens may prefer to Google that term...) people tended to get stoned with real stones for any little offence such as adultery. In fact it was so bad it reminds of the current political climate.
Anyhow, as I was saying, marriage is a sacrament. That kind of makes it a religious issue. Unions that occur under a civil circumstance I have no issue with. After all, that's just the government saying "sure, you can shack up... we don't care". But the government isn't God. And this is what pisses liberals off.
Because there is a God, and he/she/it/whatever doesn't have an interest in marriages that do not have a biologically ordained function (i.e, maintenance of the human race...) any union that occurs outside of the Church becomes roughly akin to two raccoons sharing a bed and a hot latte extra skinny. God really has had no say when having his words transcribed into text in the writing of the bible, as to the comings and goings of raccoons or other four-legged critters. In fact it is a matter of record that historically raccoons have only ever been invited to the kinds of parties that the cool kids DON'T throw, so they have very limited social lives.
My point is, the Church has no interest in gay marriage because it makes no sense to them. It's like me marrying a 1998 Plymouth Voyager SE... the parts don't fit together and after the first year or so the conversation begins to get a bit one-sided. People just don't have intimate relations with minivans or indeed, automobiles of any kinds (although the Prius is thought to be making inroads in this area....). Gay marriage will not result in children being born. Therefore it has no bearing on the church.
Now the argument that gay people have feelings to is not something I'm unsympathetic to. Apart from my previously mentioned shallow nephew-in-law, I believe that gay people have the same types of feelings anyone else does. This includes a strong desire to be united under the law.
But I take the same viewpoint as noted Bi-Sexual actor John Barrowman (an excellent singer and a truly handsome man... y'gads... ) who last year got married in England. He was quoted as saying that he did not want a religious ceremony because why would he want to be married by an organization that does not accept his lifestyle. This is an honest and straightforward answer.
And I approve of it.
I only have an issue on the subject of religious gay marriage. It has no place in society, makes no sense whatsoever.
If the shrill histrionics of Perez Hilton are to be listened to, he has no desire to have anything to do with God or Church. He is offended by them and places more faith in the changing whims of public policy than in the gravitas of two thousand years of unchanging religious doctrine.
So why should he care if the Church doesn't want to med a Buick and a Lemur in holy matrimony?
And yet he does.
Y'see, that's three things I just don't get... but if I ever do start to understand Ms. Hilton I think it'll be a very cold and horrible day.
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
As offensive as a straight marriage can be (the very term "straight" is itself offensive.... apparently... I guess....) it has the benefit of having been lent some history. It's an institution that goes back for many hundreds of years. I will grant you that on the opposing viewpoint gays have been around for probably as long, but never in any cohesive form that an enterprising young Mulatto could whip into a political force.
But the prevailing attitude in the country favors the formerly disenfranchised and whether or not their arguments have merit is not a deciding factor. Simply having been against the last eight years of the same old failed policies (their words, not mine...) is enough to ensure that you will get treated far more fairly and equally than those conservatives.
So if being disenfranchised was such a bad thing, does it make sense that inflicting disenfranchisement upon others is a positive step toward reconciliation? Once again logical discourse falls on stupid ears.
You see, I have problems with two different issues lately. One affects me very personally because my son is 15 and has begun to sprout bodily hair at an astonishing rate, and so I am trying very hard to understand the modus operandi and the whole point of Lycanthropy. Let's face it... when you look at it, Werewolves simply do not make any sense at all.
What do Werewolves want? Why do they automatically attack others and disembowel them? Food? Not likely. Bloodlust? Granted, that would be protected under the current administration, but again, not very likely. So I can't understand what the hell is the point to being a werewolf.
The other problem is really more of an academic one as it does not affect me anywhere near as directly. I have one lesbian friend for whom I'm quite fond, and she puts up a compelling argument for Gay marriage based upon fact and logical progression.
Which of course means she would likely be ostracized by the rest of the gay and lesbian community.
Making sense after all is anathema to their approach.
So the idea of gay marriage mystifies me.
Let me explain it. Marriage is one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic church. Its function was for a way to formalize and provide a civilized form of approval over intimate relations in order to encourage reproduction. In the heady days before Anno Domini (heathens may prefer to Google that term...) people tended to get stoned with real stones for any little offence such as adultery. In fact it was so bad it reminds of the current political climate.
Anyhow, as I was saying, marriage is a sacrament. That kind of makes it a religious issue. Unions that occur under a civil circumstance I have no issue with. After all, that's just the government saying "sure, you can shack up... we don't care". But the government isn't God. And this is what pisses liberals off.
Because there is a God, and he/she/it/whatever doesn't have an interest in marriages that do not have a biologically ordained function (i.e, maintenance of the human race...) any union that occurs outside of the Church becomes roughly akin to two raccoons sharing a bed and a hot latte extra skinny. God really has had no say when having his words transcribed into text in the writing of the bible, as to the comings and goings of raccoons or other four-legged critters. In fact it is a matter of record that historically raccoons have only ever been invited to the kinds of parties that the cool kids DON'T throw, so they have very limited social lives.
My point is, the Church has no interest in gay marriage because it makes no sense to them. It's like me marrying a 1998 Plymouth Voyager SE... the parts don't fit together and after the first year or so the conversation begins to get a bit one-sided. People just don't have intimate relations with minivans or indeed, automobiles of any kinds (although the Prius is thought to be making inroads in this area....). Gay marriage will not result in children being born. Therefore it has no bearing on the church.
Now the argument that gay people have feelings to is not something I'm unsympathetic to. Apart from my previously mentioned shallow nephew-in-law, I believe that gay people have the same types of feelings anyone else does. This includes a strong desire to be united under the law.
But I take the same viewpoint as noted Bi-Sexual actor John Barrowman (an excellent singer and a truly handsome man... y'gads... ) who last year got married in England. He was quoted as saying that he did not want a religious ceremony because why would he want to be married by an organization that does not accept his lifestyle. This is an honest and straightforward answer.
And I approve of it.
I only have an issue on the subject of religious gay marriage. It has no place in society, makes no sense whatsoever.
If the shrill histrionics of Perez Hilton are to be listened to, he has no desire to have anything to do with God or Church. He is offended by them and places more faith in the changing whims of public policy than in the gravitas of two thousand years of unchanging religious doctrine.
So why should he care if the Church doesn't want to med a Buick and a Lemur in holy matrimony?
And yet he does.
Y'see, that's three things I just don't get... but if I ever do start to understand Ms. Hilton I think it'll be a very cold and horrible day.
I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
