Questions and answers about both politics AND crap!!

Saturday, May 5, 2012

So is fascism basically going too far right while communism is going too far left?

Not even close.
In Socialist circles, "right-wing" socialism included keeping separate national identities and preserving one's own Socialist nation-state. This was called "Fabian Socialism, Fascism, Nazism or Progressivism" depending on what country you were in.
In Socialist circles, "left wing" socialism included global revolution and elimination of nation-states. This was called "Communism."

When and because "Hitler" became a dirty word here, our "Progressives" needed to distance themselves from - well - from themselves, really. They re-named themselves "liberals" because back then, that's what we called the Founding Fathers and the Progressives really needed to do their best to make people think they didn't hate America.
Also, seizing on the Socialist "left-right" dichotomy, they propagated the LIE that Hitler and Mussolini were "right wing" in the American sense even though they had themselves very recently embraced both of those men as heroes of the left-wing movement. After all, both Hitler and Mussolini had simply copied the American Progressives' agenda, making small adjustments to suit their respective countries.

So, what ever happened to the "Progressives" you ask? Literally 100% of their agenda - the same agenda ever so slightly modified by Hitler and Mussolini - is now advanced by each and every living elected Democrat. Aside from details relating to time and place, and that many of them also embrace elimination of the American nation-state, today's Democrat caucus is wholly identical to the Fascists and Nazis. All of them - no exceptions.

Sunday, April 8, 2012

I'm not religious. Why should I care about Easter?

How about for the history?
We immortalize lots of events and people where the powerful were defied by a hopeless minority. Think Balaclava, Thermopylae and such.
Wondering how this applies to Easter? Then you're really not familiar with the story. We can attach very different meanings to the events depending on our religious beliefs or lack thereof but the Histories of all of the principle cultures of the area agree on the broad strokes. The Easter story, stripped of its supernatural trappings is still quite impressive. Check it out.
Man, God or whatever, Jesus of Nazareth was seen by his growing band of followers as the rightful successor, heir-apparent to the Davidic throne of Israel/Judea. He was greeted as a liberator upon arriving in Jerusalem and willingly went into the hands of the enemy to be tortured. Did he do this to free of of our sins? Did he expect divine intervention to rescue him and his movement against the Romans? We can disagree and debate points like that endlessly, but whether Earthly or Divine, for Israel or for all mankind, he had "outs" available but faced the scourge willingly for his people. The result, what he had in mind or otherwise, is so significant that most of the World divides the calendar by his life.
How are you going to ignore that?

Monday, March 5, 2012

The Devil is in the details. Rush was right. (I know, that's not a question.)

So far, every defense of Sandra Fluke, likewise the attacks on Rush's response, has overlooked certain facts about Ms. Fluke and the specifics of her “testimony.” It isn't “nit-picking.” These are relevant details that significantly shape the meaning of what was said on both sides.
Let's begin with some background. Ms. Fluke is a health-care control activist. Even the fact of her attendance at Georgetown centered around this. Elsewhere she stated she selected Georgetown as a way to change its policies. We'll bring-up the relevance of her health-care control activism as we go through her speech. This is just one problem with her statement, as you will see.
In sequence:
  1. . . . women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation.” In fact, it is that very regulation she attacks. ACA expressly exempts religious institutions like Georgetown from the very thing she demands they be forced into.
  2. . . . non-partisan medical advice of the Institute of Medicine.”  IOM is roughly as non-partisan as the D.N.C.
  3. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage . . . “ We forthwith dismiss the multitude of assurance this is not about contraception.
  4. financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result . . . “ All of these burdens were expected and yes widely predicted consequences of your health-care control activist agenda. Your demands are why these things are tied to anyone's employment and other third-party payers at all. You do not get to complain about the results you deliberately caused and indeed still demand.
  5. . . . the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women.” No, it won't. It's about contraception. You said so, and will say so again.
  6. . . . the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic or Jesuit institutions.” Another blatant lie. Virtually no such institution is satisfied with “change nothing but lie about who pays.” Relevant? Certainly. It goes to her credibility – she clearly has none. Not even a little.
  7. . . . I have heard more and more of their stories . . . and they tell me that they have suffered financially and emotionally and medically because of this lack of coverage.” And yet none of them cared enough to present any such stories in a way you can actually cite. Add-in your proved lack of credibility and I call BS. Anyway, you caused it (see point 4) so you are cordially invited to STFU about it instead of demanding more force against those who tried to prevent the very thing you're complaining about.
  8. Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.” Maybe – somewhere. Not near Georgetown. A brief survey of potential outlets near there found pharmacies where with a prescription you can buy it outright without insurance for about 1/10 that amount. Ms Fluke seems to know she cannot make her point without lying.
  9. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.” a) This is obviously false. She DOES have options. b) It's you health-care control activists who seek to remove those options.
  10. . . . couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore.” Another predicted result of your health-care control activist demands.
  11. In the worst cases, women who need these medications for other medical conditions . . . “ Utterly irrelevant, as your testimony says. Even at Georgetown, it IS covered for these purposes. YOU said so. Again, according to YOU, this is about contraception itself, not “other medical uses” for contraceptive drugs.
  12. When this exception does exist . . university administrators or other employers rather than women and their doctors dictate whose medical needs are legitimate . . “ which is the expressed demand of heath-care control activists like you. Once again, you're not allowed to bitch about what YOU DEMAND.
  13. . . . when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor, . . . “ That's so irrelevant and so certainly a lie on the first place that this one bit of your testimony justifies any and all insults against you that anyone might ever conceive. Even assuming it's true, this victim's concern was over the expected consequence third-party involvement that YOU personally demand more of.
  14. . . . insurance students pay for – completely unsubsidized by the university.” So why is the university involved AT ALL? Say it with me . . because as a health-care control activist, YOU DEMAND IT.
I refer you to points 3 & 11 where Ms Fluke's own testimony tells us this is indeed about sex without pregnancy, since according to – herself – medical uses are not an issue. NO ONE denies the core of her testimony is about the importance of having third parties fund this. Further, the obvious core cause of this “need” is being sexually active. Yep. We need to force-open third parties' wallets because we're having sex. This demand makes “us” whores. This is an identity she conferred upon herself. It's just plain wrong to object to others re-using the term – correctly.
I now refer you to – well – all of the other points. Where she isn't outright lying, she is crying about having already gotten what she (as a health-care control activist) demands, blaming others for it, and demanding those others give her even more of the same.
The fact is, even going well outside of the “contraceptive issue,” NO ONE has yet citied even one systemic problem with our “health care” that was not an expected and predicted result of health-care control activists' demands being fulfilled.
Bottom line. “We” all used to go to the provider or OUR choice because WE thought it was necessary or appropriate. WE paid the bill and WE could afford it. “Health care” costs were simply never an issue until Fluke's ideological fore-bearers chose to make it so. Nowhere is there any evidence that suggests she has even a little regret over these past health-care control actions. To the degree she's in any position to do anything about it, she supports it – all of it.
Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that each and every “heath care” complaint you have – cost or otherwise – is Sandra Fluke's fault. Not all by herself, but she's done as much as she can to further the known cause of your problems and she continues to do so. Don't forget, she also proved herself as dishonest as the day is long. Also, can I remind you that roughly 8 out of 8 of her political allies have proved they find policy disagreement a perfectly justified reason to call a woman “slut” and worse?
NO ONE called her or any other woman ANYTHING for having sex or using contraception. She is being attacked for using the planned outcome of her own demands to "justify" fulfilling more of them, certainly knowing this will make matters worse for pretty-much all of us. To do this she LIED and invoked irrelevant anecdotes in a plea for LAW to compel payment for sex. Yes, that IS what it's about. She said so as we've shown above.
Go ahead. Call her ANY unsavory name you wish. No one on “her side” has any legitimate grounds to object and all of them at the core of this "controversy" know it. Even if you approve, you have to acknowledge she did in fact advocate third-party payment for sex. She is a whore. That's not a matter of opinion – it's just correct usage.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

What are the Roles of Government?

Americans hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
To this end, Americans have empowered the government of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, but only to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of each of the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To secure for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies for no longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States; To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; to make treaties; to adjudicate all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects; to declare the punishment of treason; to prescribe the manner in which public acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof; to admit new states; to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; to guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence; to propose amendments to the Constitution and nothing else.

What do I need to know before getting married?

Most of what we tend to think we know about love, romance and marriage comes from books and movies. Oddly, while we don’t take much stock in what else fiction has to “teach” us, it seems like we take fairy tales to heart and expect our lives to match them in this respect. Well, life is not going to do that so cut it the hell out. Don’t get discouraged here. It’s really great and I’ll get to that bit in due course. First let’s be clear about what marriage is supposed to be, the bits you don’t get from the books and movies.

Marriage is based on the idea that a husband and wife are to be as one unit. “They shall become one flesh,” as you might remember seeing somewhere. This is not intended to be a sentimental saying but a statement of fact about the nature of marriage, that husband and wife are a single corporate being even while retaining their own identities, like how a transmitter and receiver makeup a single radio-telephone device, how a bow and violin are a single instrument etc.

Marriage isn’t just for “while we’re in love” or until we fall in love with someone else. This isn’t a matter of Christian morality as much as it is a mater of simple justice and common decency. You promise to make it life-long and that promise has no special out-clause related to your emotional state now or later. If the words are empty to you, whom are you trying to fool when you make the promise? Your spouse? Yourself? The guests? At best that’s dishonest. If you’re content with that I’m quite disappointed. Otherwise you have bound yourself with a life-long covenant, one you must dishonor if you would “justify” separation due to no longer being in love and if the promise itself is not held above such considerations it should not be made at all.
Consider the matter and you’ll see that on some level you already knew the promise, the contract of marriage is indeed an inseparable part of it. Even while “mindlessly” caught up in the heights of romantic love our natural inclination is to make promises that our devotion and fidelity will be forever. No one ever wrote a love-ballad pledging constancy “until I don’t feel like this anymore.” That would be ridiculous, so act like it’s ridiculous.

Anyway, a pledge, covenant, promise etc is always about some action one can perform or refrain from. Do you really think the marital promise of life-long love is a promise about how you will feel? No, it’s not. It’s a promise about how you will behave. In this sense, the most important sense of the word there is, love is something you do, not something you feel. That is what your pledge is about; otherwise you might as well promise you will never be thirsty or bored. I think you would never consider making any such promise so resolve not to confuse your marital pledge this way. It is not an empty untenable promise about future feelings; it is a real and wholly doable promise about how you will behave and you should keep that promise for reasons that are more important than the heady feeling of being in love. Your children are more likely to be better off in countless ways if raised in an intact mom and dad home. One or both of you no-doubt sacrificed or at least diminished your career for the marriage so ought not to be dropped when your partner tires of you.

Most importantly though is something I don’t think I can explain clearly, but I’m going to give it a shot anyway.
Being in love is great. Everyone should try it some time, but it’s not the best thing there is and you cannot make it the basis for your life and your future. Even the fairy tale ending doesn’t claim, “They felt for the rest of their lives exactly like they did the day they were married.” Who could do that? Who would want to? How could you work? How could you have any friends? This doesn’t mean your love ever ends, just that it matures into what it was always designed to be. Real love is more than an emotional state. It is a deep-down unity of your heart, mind and soul. It is also something you chose to maintain and something you make happen. It endures right through the deepest anger you may have with each other, those times when you look at your spouse and don’t even like him. Don’t pretend you don’t understand that or that you don’t believe it’s possible. You all have families filled with siblings, parents, cousins etc who you most certainly did not like every day of your life and what I’m describing here is something very much like that.

Our culture, our books movies and such do us a great disservice. We get the idea that if we find the right person we’ll be “in love” forever so when that sensation diminishes we think we made a bad choice, that the right person is still out there somewhere. That initial thrill is good and certainly useful. It leads us into the married state for which we are designed and if kept in its proper perspective it moves aside for us to discover even better real and permanent love. Like in other areas of life, the initial thrill fades away and unless you are unduly fixated thereon it makes room for you to develop something even better. Think of anything you ever added to your life, maybe learning to ride a bike or play an instrument. Remember the excitement at the beginning? That’s long-gone but now you’re better at it and I’ll bet you prefer it that way and would rather not go back to being all wobbly about it. How much better a feeling is being in love than being excited you can just barely ride a two-wheeler? Are you beginning to get the picture; beginning to get some sense of how much more wonderful real “boring” love with your spouse will be once you get your marriage past the wobbly bit? The truth is there will be only brief periods that are anything like boring. Excitement keeps finding surprising ways to rear its head and I suspect these are very different for each of us. If you try to cling to or replace that first kind of thrill you will eventually fail and grow into a bored disillusioned and bitter old fart. Let it die and go on working on this second sort of love and I promise new sorts of thrills will abound.

While we’re thinking about new thrills, there will no-doubt come times when something rather like that earlier “falling in love” feeling comes up in the form of attractions to new acquaintances. You will meet someone who looks good, makes you laugh, with whom you find things in common etc and this will trigger a sort of reflexive kindling of that thrill. This does not mean it’s time to give-up on your marriage or that you have failed your spouse in any way – unless you choose to give-up on your marriage, of course. When you meet someone smart, attractive etc it’s natural to notice and admire these qualities and to feel some of that thrill you felt once – with your spouse – and likely over the same qualities. Just remember back then you had to act on those feelings to make the connection you did with your spouse. It’s not an uncontrollable thing that just happens to you like catching the flu, no matter how some part of you may try to convince you that it can’t be helped.

You're going to need outside support. You may find your own way but the best thing I've found is to be involved in a Church - and with other people likewise involved. You can find most of what you need to know about an appropriate and successful marital relationship there.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

What are some of the most retarded arguments on the present "contraceptive" controversy?

Retarded Question: Aren't Republicans trying to ban access to contraception?
Obvious Answer: No. They only object to forcing everyone to buy it.

RQ: Didn't they just have a hearing on banning it?
OA: No. They had a hearing on whether or not the President has unilateral power to force everyone to buy it.

RQ: How is it any of my employer's business if I use contraceptives?
OA: No one said it is, nor is anyone trying to stop you. The argument is only that your employer should not be forced to buy it for you.

RQ: Are you saying my employer has a right to force his morality on me?
OA: No. I'm saying he does not. I'm also saying you don't have a right to force yours on him.

RQ: Shouldn't it be my choice?
OA: It already is and no one suggests changing that - or did you mean "shouldn't forcing others to pay for it be your choice?" In that case, no. Of course not.

RQ: But don't Republicans want to stop funding Planned Parenthood? Isn't that the same thing?
OA: No. They only want to end the practice of forcing everyone to fund it.

RQ: But PPACA (Obamacare) requires free access to preventative medicine.
AO: So what? 1) There is clearly no lawful authority for Congress to make any such law. 2) PPACA does not define contraceptives into that category. 3) The President unilaterally did that by his own declaration. 4) Surely you aren't suggesting reproduction is a disease, and if not, this whole line of argument is irrelevant.

RQ: But 99% of American women, and 95% of American women who are Catholic, use artificial birth control.
OA: That doesn't give them the right to force others to pay for it. Also, it's a lie. The study yielding those numbers was only of women who were sexually active while trying to avoid pregnancy. 90-some percent of women who want to have sex and avoid pregnancy say they use some method to prevent it.

RQ: What about when birth control drugs are used for medical treatment?
OA: Are you still not getting the "not forcing others to pay" thing?

RQ: Why is it ok to cover Viagra?
OA: That was your side's idea. We opposed that as well. Not "covering" it, per se, just forcing other people to buy it.

RQ: Get real. Don't you see this is a war to stop women's choice?
OA: Really? Then how have you been getting condoms, foams, pills etc. until now? So far, we have not been compelling everyone to buy them. How is "not changing that" suddenly going to stop you? The rule we're fighting against DOES force all women to abandon their choice. The entire Democrat caucus demands you be forced into this purchase even if you will never use them and regardless of any moral objection you might have.

Sunday, February 12, 2012

How can I stop a emotional blackmailer peacefully?

Stop helping them.
They WILL stop the moment you actually want them to. It really is that simple.

Wasn't Jesus the original liberal?

Not in the least, although approximately 8 out of 8 liberals say he was while they ridicule Christianity and claim it's based on hate.
> He demanded obedience to Old Testament law, pretty-much all of which is utterly intolerable to liberals.
> He urged his followers to arm themselves for protection against an abusive government, which is completely antithetical to core liberal ideology.
> He never once suggested you should get your government to force others to pay for politically defined "help" for politically chosen "needy" which is the sine quo non of all liberal advocacy.
> He said individuals should use their own resources cheerfully to address legitimate needs they identify, which is a concept ridiculed by all liberals.
> He said not to "help" the idle. Liberals declare this idea absolutely hateful.
> He promoted a spirit of voluntary association for mutual benefit, free of the violence and threat thereof upon which all liberal "benefits" are based.
So, sticking with the modern American political model suggested by your question, it's pretty obvious he was a conservative.

Thursday, January 19, 2012

My Democrat friends say Mitt Romney pays less taxes than the majority of Americans. How is that possible?

He pays more.
Gather your Democrat friends and I'll try to keep this simple-enough for them to grasp:
Hi kids. Ready? Good.
Say Mitt and 9 of you Democrats own equal stake in a corporation.
Now say that company's profit last year was $10,000,000. That means Mitt made $1,000,000 and so did each of you Democrats, but you don't get to take-home nearly that much.
First, before passing-out the money among its owners you guys have to pay $3,500,000 to D.C. This is the so-called "Corporate income tax." Yep. 35% of your earnings disappear from the pool before it gets divided-up. You see, it's not a "tax on corporations," there never has been nor can there ever be any such thing, even if someone calls it that. It's a tax on your income that you made through a corporation.
O.K. Your total is now $6,500,000 to split ten ways. Did you think you were getting $650,000? Silly Democrat. ALL Democrats demand your income that you JUST PAID 35% on has to be taxed again as it's parceled-out to you. You're going to pay another $97,500 in "capital gains" tax (the 15% Mitt was talking about) leaving you with $552,500 before you pay your State and local taxes.
Now do the math with me if you know how to subtract and divide: From your $1,000,000 you actually got $552,500 meaning YOU paid D.C. $447,500 in taxes. Yep. 44.75%
Now you have a number to throw around. I want all of you Democrats to stop with the generalities and just tell everyone you think paying 44.75% in Federal taxes is not nearly enough.

By the way, did I mention most owners of corporations are working class people with retirement accounts and Union pensions? Add that to your rant of pride. Be sure and tell everyone that you think Union laborers should be PAYING D.C. WAY MORE than 44.75% of their RETIREMENT income. Don't back away from it. ALL of you Democrats are constantly saying so, you just keep leaving out the specifics of who pays and how much.
Stop it. Man-up and be honest. I won't tell the DNC so you won't be thrown-out of the party.

Monday, January 9, 2012

Why do left wing Americans still see Europe is the model despite the headlines coming from there?

You mean the violent unrest, shooting sprees, uprisings, the welfare state being completely broke and the people rioting to overthrow their governments?
That WHY American leftists see it as their model!

Is mentioning your ex-girlfriend to a potentially interested girl okay?

Of course. You're trying to drive her off, right?
Whaaaa . . .? You're interested in her? That's a shame since it's never going to happen now.
Seriously, when you can't avoid it without lying or inexplicably changing the subject, you should give contextually appropriate information about an ex. To as much as imply that one exists otherwise is to label yourself irredeemably non-datable.
You see, unless and until you have the new girl's unconditional trust, she will assume the only possible reason you could have an ex is because you're a horrible monster of a man who fiendishly and maliciously did all you could to break your poor set-upon ex's little pure heart.
So, bet the house this "potentially interested girl" you mentioned sees you that way now. Good luck with that.

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Will Obama have to tear his opponent down, rather than run on his own record this coming election? When taking into consideration that most people seem to believe that this country is headed in the wrong direction according to most polls? What are your thoughts?

Of course. In fact, that's his published plan. It's not hard to get on his campaign mailing-list to learn such things.
According to the Obama campaign, their plan is to ridicule any mention of any fact about his record and to focus on ways his opponent is like a Democrat.
Really. The Democrat message for 2012 amounts to a two-pronged strategy:
> We have no record and have never done anything. Anyone who says we ever did anything is a lying retard.
> Don't vote for our opponents. They're too much like us.

Is instant coffee better than real coffee?

Most instant coffee is real coffee. Coffee is brewed then has the moisture extracted. You reconstitute it.
That being said, the target market for instant is people who aren't big coffee aficionados in the first place so it makes no economic sense to use the best coffee to produce instant.
In other words, most regular instant users will likely be unimpressed by the best of coffees while coffee fans will shun instant except as a last resort.