Follow Me On Twitter!

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Liberals Don't Want To Just Take Your Money, They Want To Tell You What To Eat Too

Liberals hate freedom. At least that sure seems to be the case. We know that if Obama and his ilk got their way we would have a socialist, nanny state. The government would "provide" everything we need, own all business, tell you what you are going to do for a living, tell you how and what to worship, and what you are allowed to eat.

Here are a couple of items related to this:

Click here for story: Group seeks ban on new Detroit fast-food eateries

Click here for story: Lawsuit Threat: McDonald's Happy Meal Toys Make Kids Fat

So what is at play here, really? Usually with liberals there is a hidden agenda. They'll go after something, under the guise of "the common good", when really they are out to accomplish something entirely different.

After all, do liberals really care about other people's children? These are the same liberals that will fight to the death to allow parents to have their children torn asunder in the womb and sucked into a sink. But if those parents allow their child to eat unhealthy food after birth, then they are concerned for the child's safety? Typical liberal logic.

No the real root of this issue can be traced to entirely different efforts: animal rights and environmentalism. I remember in the early 1990s when McDonalds came out with the Double Quarter Pounder w/ Cheese. (Excellent eating by the way if you've never had one!) Animal rights groups screamed bloody murder, literally. "This is going to cause more innocent cattle to be slaughtered for the evil cause of food!"

Environmentalists were equally upset. Their argument was more cattle consumption meant more cattle production. Which would lead to a bigger environmental footprint, and more cow farts. Cow farts have been a major point of contention with environmentalists. They believe that the methane produced from cow farts causes global warming. Here this whole time I thought they just hated fossil fuels!

You can be sure that protecting children from the evils of french fries is not the reason for this latest effort by liberals. We know that they hate children because they want them killed in the womb. Their love for the earth and animals is what is driving this. On that you can be sure.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Nancy Pelosi Was Wrong. Again.

I know, shocking right? Check out this flashback article regarding Pelosi being questioned about the constitutionality of a health care mandate included in Obamacare.

Click here: FLASHBACK: When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: 'Are You Serious?'

Now it has been documented many times just how wrong Pelosi is most of the time. But notice the dismissive nature of her answer: "Are you serious?" As if the question was a farce! Well a federal judge disagreed with Pelosi and struck down the health care mandate.

Also, notice how her spokesman responded afterward related to this question:
“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”
FAIL! Apparently it was a serious question because a federal judge heard it and responded with a resounding NO!

This is typical liberal tactics. Any questions that make a liberal uncomfortable are met with scorn and ridicule. Not that Pelosi should be expected to know our constitution since she has spent the last 4 years trying to destroy it. Maybe that is why she will be House minority leader come next month!

Thursday, December 09, 2010

Aaron Sorkin Is An Idiot

Aaron Sorkin has given us some of the most idiotic things in the world. First there is The West Wing. A far-left political drama so far-fetched that even fans of the show secretly laugh at it. Then there is The Social Network. 'Nuf said.

Now Aaron has doubled down on his idiocy and produced a turd so gigantic that even his fans will have to admit that he is an idiot.

Click here: Aaron Sorkin brands Sarah Palin TV show 'a snuff film'

Sorkin apparently has jumped on the liberal bandwagon that has attacked Palin over the hunting of an elk on the last episode of her show. Palin responded to the controversy thusly:
"Unless you've never worn leather shoes, sat upon a leather chair or eaten meat, save your condemnation."
Sorkin apparently feels morally superior to Palin because he chooses to have other people do his killing. His response to Palin's response went a little something like this:
"I eat meat, chicken and fish, have shoes and furniture made of leather ... I'm able to make a distinction between you and me without feeling the least bit hypocritical,"
So not feeling hypocritical apparently makes one completely non-hypocritical. So, for instance, while Algore is out jetting around the world preaching environmentalism, while having the biggest carbon footprint on the planet, as long as he doesn't feel hypocritical then he apparently isn't.

Let's apply Sorkin's logic to other areas. A KKK member that doesn't feel racist, isn't? A murderer that doesn't feel like a murderer, isn't? How about a rapist that doesn't feel like a rapist? He must not be according to Aaron Sorkin.

See, Sorkin makes the typical liberal moral grab here. Simply declaring himself non-hypocritical makes him so. So he can actually be guilty of anything, but simply say he isn't and he thinks people should take that at face value.

What Sorkin is really saying is that allowing others to do your dirty work, like the killing of the animals that he uses in his daily life, is superior than doing the dirty work yourself. Huh? Is that really logical? Next time one of my handy carpenter friends remodels a room of his home I will claim superiority on him by telling him I am going to pay someone do something similar in my home. Would that really make me superior?

I suggest Aaron Sorkin take a big dose of reality, swallow his feigned pride, and volunteer to go hunting on Palin's show to take down a big game animal. Field dress it. Process it. Then if after all that his appreciation for the meat, chicken, fish and leather products he uses each day doesn't multiply he will be the most inhumane human-being on the face of the planet.

You see Aaron, when you have others do your dirty work for you, you don't really understand all that goes into getting that meat, chicken, fish, and leather to you. It becomes a product, not a natural commodity that must be harvested. Palin is superior to Sorkin because she understands what it takes to provide all those things. Instead of sitting in a Hollywood palace having those things delivered by servants, and then looking down her nose at those that do the dirty work.

In the end it is the elitist mentality at play here for Sorkin. He'll gladly use the products that others provide from animals without ever lifting a finger to partake in the harvesting of those products. Sorkin should be thanking Palin, and all those that do this type of work on a daily basis, instead of belittling and attacking them.