Sign in to follow this  
Dglgmut

A Short Rant About the Left

Recommended Posts

One of the general differences between those on the left and right is that the right understands the left's views... You can see this with their parody and satire. Leftist characters are portrayed accurately, and sometimes, right-wing media creators can even explain the left's views better than actual leftists. The parody and satire created by leftists, though, is consistently egregious--like the description of Jussie Smollett's attackers, for example (pretty much every right leaning person knew it was bullshit immediately).

Again, it's a generalization. Obviously not all right-wingers understand the left's talking points, but for the most part, they get it... while for the left, the opposite is true. They can't even conceive of what they are arguing against. So what you end up with is ignorant, and possibly stupid, people who the right is gently trying to point out as ignorant and stupid... which reaffirms the leftist's belief that people on the right are immoral (mean). Obviously accusing someone of being immoral is worse than accusing someone of being stupid... so it's insane.

This is pretty much just venting... but it's really annoying that this is the case. Politics has become a chore where people with good ideas have to hold the hands of their attackers to help them see what they're missing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it when Rush Limbaugh plays a recording of 10 or so left wing newsies who spoke about the same issue that day. Many times they don't just parrot each other, they say "exactly the same thing in the same way." Their "talking points" come from one source. They are nearly reciting a script. The mystery is: "Who provides their thinking?" 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Peter said:

I like it when Rush Limbaugh plays a recording of 10 or so left wing newsies who spoke about the same issue that day. Many times they don't just parrot each other, they say "exactly the same thing in the same way." Their "talking points" come from one source. They are nearly reciting a script. The mystery is: "Who provides their thinking?" 

Interesting, Peter. I am impressed at how you found that a conspiracy can be detected prior to knowing the details, including even who is in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Interesting, Peter. I am impressed at how you found that a conspiracy can be detected prior to knowing the details, including even who is in it.

Don't blame me. It's Rush's fault. But I am surprised that the culprit is not known, though I believe Rush speculated it was someone at the DNC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Peter said:

Don't blame me. It's Rush's fault. But I am surprised that the culprit is not known, though I believe Rush speculated it was someone at the DNC.

It has to be bigger than the DNC. This is a steep task, infiltrating all the media and turning them into obedient slaves? I don’t mean to defend the DNC, I’m sure they do their part, but much bigger puppet masters have to be behind it, ultimately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jon Letendre said:

It has to be bigger than the DNC. This is a steep task, infiltrating all the media and turning them into obedient slaves? I don’t mean to defend the DNC, I’m sure they do their part, but much bigger puppet masters have to be behind it, ultimately.

Rush's theory was that "they the news people" call a number and learn the skewed facts they are supposed to reinforce. If you have not heard the compilations they may be on the internet. It is funny to hear them all say something like, "And so it wasn't true," over and over again.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Peter said:

Rush's theory was that "they the news people" call a number and learn the skewed facts they are supposed to reinforce. If you have not heard the compilations they may be on the internet. It is funny to hear them all say something like, "And so it wasn't true," over and over again.  

Q says the Mockingbird media gets the “4am memo” from the Clowns, as they have for many decades.

https://qmap.pub/

Search 4am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Q says the Mockingbird media gets the “4am memo” from the Clowns, as they have for many decades.

https://qmap.pub/

Search 4am

Danke Jon. I suppose the memo comes via a computer nowadays, and 4am is early enough to slant the early morning news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2019 at 11:15 PM, Jon Letendre said:

It has to be bigger than the DNC. This is a steep task, infiltrating all the media and turning them into obedient slaves? I don’t mean to defend the DNC, I’m sure they do their part, but much bigger puppet masters have to be behind it, ultimately.

Well, in that case pilgrim, I think the President should try on a helmet and fatigues to look more like General Patton, and convey a sense of “command” over the military as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution. President Trump wouldn’t need to fake it or put on airs. He IS The Commander in Chief and POTUS. An overwhelming majority of the military personally support him and on top of that he is an admired and revered boss. A huge segment of American males have been in the military. This former Army Specialist 4th class would die for him. Other veterans would die for him.

Rush Limbaugh was describing the sheer hatred the Democrats and the others on the left have for “a successful” President Trump who is everything they are not. He won the election which horrified them and now he is so successful as President, that they see themselves dwindling away into obscurity. Their dream of a socialist heaven with the “true elite” in charge is just too hard to abandon, but they must . . . . unless they go “true believer” and rebel.

If a rebellion occurred obviously the military would support President Trump. The vast majority of Americans would become “activists” and take up arms for the President. The rat bastards would be beaten in a few days. What should the judgement and sentence be for the hard left after they are quickly subdued? Try them for attempted murder? Treason? Should their sentences be death by firing squad? I would support executing the ringleaders and banishing or imprisoning the rest.

Devil’s Island? I have had this idea before but there are several islands in the Hawaiian chain that would be perfect. One could be wired with cameras and microphones and we could watch a reality show featuring the traitors learning to live with their lives in exile. Yuk. Seaweed and coconut again? Hey. Pelosi. Get your pretty ass over here . . .            

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Peter said:

Well, in that case pilgrim, I think the President should try on a helmet and fatigues to look more like General Patton, and convey a sense of “command” over the military as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution. President Trump wouldn’t need to fake it or put on airs. He IS The Commander in Chief and POTUS. An overwhelming majority of the military personally support him and on top of that he is an admired and revered boss. A huge segment of American males have been in the military. This former Army Specialist 4th class would die for him. Other veterans would die for him.

 

Rush Limbaugh was describing the sheer hatred the Democrats and the others on the left have for “a successful” President Trump who is everything they are not. He won the election which horrified them and now he is so successful as President, that they see themselves dwindling away into obscurity. Their dream of a socialist heaven with the “true elite” in charge is just too hard to abandon, but they must . . . . unless they go “true believer” and rebel.

 

If a rebellion occurred obviously the military would support President Trump. The vast majority of Americans would become “activists” and take up arms for the President. The rat bastards would be beaten in a few days. What should the judgement and sentence be for the hard left after they are quickly subdued? Try them for attempted murder? Treason? Should their sentences be death by firing squad? I would support executing the ringleaders and banishing or imprisoning the rest.

 

Devil’s Island? I have had this idea before but there are several islands in the Hawaiian chain that would be perfect. One could be wired with cameras and microphones and we could watch a reality show featuring the traitors learning to live with their lives in exile. Yuk. Seaweed and coconut again? Hey. Pelosi. Get your pretty ass over here . . .            

 

Unlikely.  Such a penalty would probably be regarded by the Courts as cruel and unusual, which violates the Bill of Rights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Unlikely.  Such a penalty would probably be regarded by the Courts as cruel and unusual, which violates the Bill of Rights.  

Treason is cruel and unusual. If you violate your oath of office by trying to overrule the Constitution that is very unusual. During a time of war traitors in the Army were shot by firing squads, and a "rebellion" would be a time of war. In modern fiction, a segment of the Army is "recruited" to fight against the legitimate government but it would not happen in real life.

So where would a hypothetical leftist, rebellious army come from? A small segment of The National Guard? A private army? Now Pelosi's army might "think it" but they would not act on those treasonous thoughts. I still remember the violent 60's, black rebellion, and the protests / rebellions against the Vietnam War and that is the closest we will ever come to rebellion.

My wish is that a policy of "endless war" is no longer on the agenda either. It is not on the Trump republican agenda and I don't think jokes slash serious candidates like Beto O'Rooked are going to advocate war. Is there still a military - industrial complex and conspiracy to keep fanning the flames of war? I don't see it. America has evolved. We are becoming more like our Founding Fathers wished.

Four more years! Four more years! And then another eight years of someone else who is a decent, honorable, sort as Commander In Chief and we will have fewer troops abroad. Though we probably will never have zero troops abroad, since we are a part of intelligent alliances like NATO. but no one on our side will be initiating violence or foreign "take overs." We will be out of Afghanistan and other foreign ports. Perhaps out of Germany, South Korea and Japan? I think so.            

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Peter said:

 

Treason is cruel and unusual. If you violate your oath of office by trying to overrule the Constitution that is very unusual. During a time of war traitors in the Army were shot by firing squads, and a "rebellion" would be a time of war. In modern fiction, a segment of the Army is "recruited" to fight against the legitimate government but it would not happen in real life.

So where would a hypothetical leftist, rebellious army come from? A small segment of The National Guard? A private army? Now Pelosi's army might "think it" but they would not act on those treasonous thoughts. I still remember the violent 60's, black rebellion, and the protests / rebellions against the Vietnam War and that is the closest we will ever come to rebellion.

My wish is that a policy of "endless war" is no longer on the agenda either. It is not on the Trump republican agenda and I don't think jokes slash serious candidates like Beto O'Rooked are going to advocate war. Is there still a military - industrial complex and conspiracy to keep fanning the flames of war? I don't see it. America has evolved. We are becoming more like our Founding Fathers wished.

Four more years! Four more years! And then another eight years of someone else who is a decent, honorable, sort as Commander In Chief and we will have fewer troops abroad. Though we probably will never have zero troops abroad, since we are a part of intelligent alliances like NATO. but no one on our side will be initiating violence or foreign "take overs." We will be out of Afghanistan and other foreign ports. Perhaps out of Germany, South Korea and Japan? I think so.            

treason is the only felony defined in the Constitution. It means making war against the United States or given aid an comfort to any party making war against the United States.   Violating an oath of office would be a reason for impeachment and removal, but it is not war.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

treason is the only felony defined in the Constitution. It means making war against the United States or given aid an comfort to any party making war against the United States.   Violating an oath of office would be a reason for impeachment and removal, but it is not war.

 

As Johnny Carson playing Carnac to Ed McMann said: Thanks for the clarification, oh bearded guru. Mea culpa. People who confuse the words “burro” and “burrow” don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some cuts from what little I saved on the topic of Treason.

From: Chris Matthew Sciabarra To: Philosophy of Objectivism List* Subject: OWL: Re: More on "sympathy with the enemy in wartime" Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 07:26:45 -0400 . . . Still, I think she had a strong reaction against those New Leftists who had objected to the Vietnam war because they had an ideological affinity for communism.  Note that Rand expresses no objections to those who refuse to serve in the armed forces because they reject conscription as a violation of individual rights.  She also has no objections to those who refuse to serve "on the ground of . . . convictions, even if they were religious ones."  What she ~does~ object to is any refusal to serve because of ~communist~ sympathy.  She writes: "But those who objected neither to the draft nor to war, as such, but to this particular war, do not deserve amnesty, because their motive was not one of principle but of sympathy with the enemy."  Here, I do think she means "sympathy with THIS enemy."  Here, I do think she means "sympathy with the ~immoral principles~ of the Vietcong." She continues:  "The most outrageous examples in this category are the men who expressed sympathy with North Vietnam and publicly carried the Vietcong flag—at a time when Americans were being killed in Vietnam. Such men are never to be forgiven."

Now, putting aside the question of amnesty (which is very complicated), Rand does seem to enunciate what appears to be a universal principle at the end of her letter (the comment I cited in a previous post):  "One is free to disagree with the government of one's country on any issue, including its foreign policy, but one has no right to express one's sympathy with the enemy in wartime, because this amounts to sanctioning the killing of one's countrymen."  I do believe that Allen has raised some very important objections to treating this principle as some sort of acontextual maxim.

From: William Kent To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Re: TREASON Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:03:31 -0700 (PDT). First of all, let me say that I realize that the question of treason in Aynland is a rather large leap in the legal understanding from the simple principles that Rand and other Objectivists have formulated. This is simply a subject that I thought might bring forth some interesting discussion. So, on to the argument.

John Enright responded: I don't agree with this argument, but I want to put it aside for a second.  It strikes me that there is a more direct kind of treason, namely that of taking up arms against your own country.  That is, take the case of Wesley Mouch, a disgruntled citizen of Aynland.  Suppose he takes money from Kimland, takes delivery of a suitcase nuclear device from Kimland, and sets the bomb off in Gotham City (by remote control.)  Has he committed treason or not?  I would say that he has. end quote

Certainly someone who kills people and/or damages property is a criminal. As far as Wesley Mouch and his nuclear bomb is concerned, I would be inclined to simply consider him a mass-murderer. I suppose that since the bomb was supplied by the enemy state, Kimland, that it could be called treason. However, I would be more inclined to call it treason if the bomb, nuclear or otherwise, were directed at a governmental target. My concern when I asked the initial question was, is it Objective for the government of Aynland to establish laws barring its citizens from trade with hostile states. Here is an example: Philip Sellall, a citizen of Aynland, sells his cattle and oranges to Kimland because the people of Kimland have few food resources. Their purchase of cheap food from Sellall has allowed them to use their excess funds to finish building their bomb, which they ship to Aynland. The Kimland bomber blows up the Capitol building in Galt's Gulch, killing hundreds and doing massive property damage. Is Philip Sellall endictable despite the fact that his personal activities did no direct damage to the people of Aynland? Is the government of Aynland entitled to bar its citizens from trade with Kimland? William A. Kent

From: "William Dwyer" To: objectivism Subject: OWL: RE: TREASON Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:05:23 -0700. Wiliam Kent wrote, "I stipulate that a citizen of Aynland who trades with the enemies of Aynland, in general, is in no more violation of Objective law than someone who sells a gun to another citizen of Aynland, who uses the gun for criminal activity."

If you sell a gun to someone you know is a criminal and who you know will use it to rob and murder people, then you are his accomplice.  You have furnished him with the means to accomplish his nefarious ends.  The same principle applies to selling weapons to foreign enemies. -- Bill

From: "Lance Neustaeter" Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 17:52:00 -0700. William Kent wrote: Unfortunately, I have never read (of course, I have not read all of the available literature) any material by Rand or other Objectivists explicitly delimiting what constitutes treason against an Objectivist nation. end quote

Upon reading the question, one principle that stands out for me is the fact that crimes can only be committed against individuals.  I can't grok "treason", other than it possibly being a crime which affects a large number of individuals and which has been elevated to some "worse" status in the minds of certain people because it somehow offends a statist/nationalist mentality.

William Kent wrote: Perhaps this is simply because no one has ever tried to write an Objective common law. end quote

A bit of an oxymoron.  No one has tried because it is impossible for a person to self-sufficiently create that which, by its nature, arises via spontaneous order. Lance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Michael won’t mind but I found a little bit more of interest about “treason.” To this day I will not watch anything with Hanoi Jane in it. Peter

From: Andrew Taranto To: atlantis Subject: ATL: McVeigh a Traitor? Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:36:10 -0700 (PDT) "George H. Smith" wrote: McVeigh, in claiming that he was waging "war" against the American government, apparently regarded himself as engaging in revolution rather than resistance. And it must be admitted the American government, by 18th century standards, long ago became tyrannical, owing to its systematic violation of inalienable rights. But Americans also insisted that no revolution should be sanctioned or undertaken without a reasonable prospect of success (which requires mass support), because a failed revolution will only make things worse by forcing a government to become even more oppressive. Thus McVeigh's "revolution," apart from its total lack of concern for innocent people, would have been condemned on this ground as well.

I wasn't quite aware of this about McVeigh, i.e., that he actually claimed to be "at war". With this in mind, does anyone know if he was charged with treason? Article 3, section 3 of the Constitution reads: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

(My understanding of Constitutional jargon, e.g., "Corruption of Blood", is limited, so I'd appreciate commentary from anyone in the know.) Is treason -- or can it be -- a capital offense? If McVeigh wasn't charged with treason, what might be the significance? Somehow, I'm inclined to think that there's some importance to the question. If he wasn't so charged but easily could have been, is there something ominous about that? Could a charge of treason have excluded murder charges? That seems to be the implication of his claim that the "casualties" amounted to "collateral damage". Laissez-faire, Andrew Taranto

From: "a.d. smith" To: Andrew Taranto Subject: Re: ATL: McVeigh a Traitor? Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:18:26 -0400 (EDT) "(My understanding of Constitutional jargon, e.g., "Corruption of Blood", is limited, so I'd appreciate commentary from anyone in the know.)" 

I

t means that no matter how severe a penalty is imposed on the traitor himself, his children and grand-children will not suffer legal penalties and the loss of citizenship. This marked quite a change from the traditional English treatment of traitors. Under the medieval Statute of Treasons, a convicted or attainted traitor not only lost his life, but his right to bequeath his property, title, and nationality as well. In many European countries, the idea of guilt by association was taken even further -- in France the relatives of convicted regicides up to first cousins were exiled under pain of death and more distant relatives were forced to change their surnames! Of course, the idea of the guilt of the fathers being visited on their children was anathema to the individualist framers of the US constitution, so corruption of blood did not become part of the U.S. law of treason. (BTW, there have been relatively few executions for treason in post-Revolutionary US history in comparison to the same period in British history - perhaps greater tolerance for treason was one of the results of the Revolution.)

From: Russell Madden To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: Jane Fonda in the top 100? Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:49:42 -0600. For a related story re: Jane Fonda's wonderful acts, see the current interview with Holzer in _Full Context_ magazine. Russ Madden

PCFROMDC. BILL EDWARDS ----- Original Message ----- From: Clyde Clausen To: Joe Dodson ; Starla Elliott Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 22:42 Subject: HONORING A TRAITOR. KEEP THIS MOVING ACROSS AMERICA -- HONORING A TRAITOR

This is for all the kids born in the 70's that do not remember this, and didn't have to bear the burden, that our fathers, mothers, and older brothers and sisters had to bear. Jane Fonda is being honored as one of the "100 Women of the Century."

Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still countless others have never known how Ms. Fonda betrayed not only the idea of our country but specific men who served and sacrificed during Vietnam. The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot. The pilot's name is AF Col. Jerry Driscoll, a River Rat. In 1978, the former Commandant of the USAF Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison, "the Hanoi Hilton."

Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell, cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJs, he was ordered to describe for a visiting American "Peace Activist" the "lenient and humane treatment" he'd received. He spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and dragged away. During the subsequent beating, he fell forward upon the camp Commandant's feet, which sent that officer berserk. The AF Col. still suffered from double vision (which permanently ended his flying days) from the Vietnamese Col.'s frenzied application of a wooden baton.

From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the 47FW/DO (F-4Es). He spent 6 years in "the Hanoi Hilton." The first 3 years he was listed as "missing in action". His wife lived on faith that he was still alive. His group, too, got the cleaned/fed/clothed routine in preparation for a "peace delegation" visit. They, however, had time and devised a plan to get word to the world that they still survived. Each man secreted a tiny piece of paper, with his SSN on it, in the palm of his hand. When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each man's hand and asking little encouraging snippets like: "Aren't you sorry you bombed babies?" and "Are you grateful for the humane treatment from your benevolent captors?" Believing this HAD to be an act, they each palmed her their sliver of paper. She took them all without missing a beat. At the end of the line and once the camera stopped rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs, she turned to the officer in charge and handed him the little pile of papers. Three men died from the subsequent beatings. Col. Carrigan was almost number four but he survived, which is the only reason we know about her actions that day.

I was a civilian economic development advisor in Vietnam, and was captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Vietnam in 1968, and held for over 5 years. I spent 27 months in solitary confinement, one year in a cage in Cambodia, and one year in a "black box" in Hanoi.

My North Vietnamese captors deliberately poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a nurse in a leprosarium in South Vietnam, whom I buried in the jungle near the Cambodian border. At one time, I was weighing approximately 90 lbs. (My normal weight is 170 lbs.) We were Jane Fonda's "war criminals."

When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, the camp communist political officer asked me if I would be willing to meet with Jane Fonda. I said yes, for I would like to tell her about the real treatment we POWs received and how different from the treatment purported by the North Vietnamese, and parroted by Jane Fonda, as "humane and lenient." Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees with outstretched arms with a large amount of steel placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane till my arms dipped.

I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda for a couple of hours after I was released. I asked her if she would be willing to debate me on TV. She did not answer me. This does not exemplify someone who should be honored as part of "100 Years of Great Women." Lest we forget..."100 years of great women" should never include a traitor whose hands are covered with the blood of so many patriots. There are few things I have strong visceral reactions to, but Hanoi Jane's participation in blatant treason, is one of them.

Please take the time to forward to as many people as you possibly can. It will eventually end up on her computer and she needs to know that we will never forget. Eric Benson, Senior Advisor to the Deputy Secretary Dept of Veterans Affairs 202-273-6338 God Bless America!!!

From: "Dennis May" To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Jane Fonda Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 11:50:41 -0600 Russell Madden wrote: >Thanks to Andy Lochner for the link re: the urban legend of the POW torture directly related to Fonda. Of course, as the article says, it is still obscene that she is being "honored" in a top 100 women.

This is a case of urban legend mixed with the truth.  My best friend in college was one of those beaten almost to death as a result of spitting on Fonda and calling her names. He received other unspeakable tortures unrelated to Fonda as did a Lt. Col. I used to work with. Fonda's apologies mean nothing.  She and her father before her had a very carefully thought out political agenda not in America’s interests. The stupid young girl story doesn't cut it. Dennis May

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Peter said:

As Johnny Carson playing Carnac to Ed McMann said: Thanks for the clarification, oh bearded guru. Mea culpa. People who confuse the words “burro” and “burrow” don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground.

 

witty.  Very nice

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this