Thursday, January 13, 2011
"Here's my, my take in it. I think that, as film makers, as politicians, as artists, we have to understand that all, whatever we do goes out in the universe. And you should be aware of what you're doing. And you cannot just say "Well I just did this and, and my - had nothing to do with what happened." That's, that's not, that's not the case. Also the United States of America is the most violent country in the history of civilization. And this NRA thing. We gotta turn this around. You know these, these guns are out of hand. And I know they have a very powerful lobby but something has to be done about the gun control in this country. That's my opinion."
Hat tip:Media Research Center
And the left gets SO annoyed when they are accused of hating their country.
Spike was on the Today to promote his line of children's books, but maybe if Spike cracked open a few books himself, he might actually be embarrassed to be spewing such laughably false bullshit.
I don't care what metric you try to use, that is nothing but an American-hating fantasy. Don't make me have to break it down for you. If you can't think of something to dispute it right off the bat, you are an ignorant jack-off.
But the real kick is this little biographical note:
"His personal life has become somewhat well known, too. He had a relationship with Halle Berry and started a family with Tonya Lewis Lee, with whom he has two children."
Got that? This guy has two kids and unless I missed his move to France, he still resides in the good ole' USA. So, he chooses to raise his children in "the most violent country in the history of civilization."
Me? I like children in general, and am really fond of my own, and if I found myself living in the demonic abattoir that he apparently believes the United States to be, I would move them the fuck out, especially if I had the juice to do it. Spike sure does, so I can only surmise he really does not care about his kids all that much, or he REALLY digs violence. Maybe both.
"Lee is also known to have an obsessive love of the New York Knicks."
Interesting. Spike hates his country enough to slander it viciously, but he has a profound love for perpetual losers.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Case in Point: Gawker
"Sarah Palin Blames the Media for 'Blood Libel'
After the horrific Tucson shootings last weekend, future U.S. president Sarah Palin retreated to her prayer cave and prayed for guidance. Today, she's announced her findings: The real tragedy here is "journalists and pundits" who "manufacture a blood libel."See, after days of a left-wing orgy of accusations that Sarah Palin was a blood-soaked murderer for all intents and purposes, the editors and readers of Gawker are now pissed at her for calling bullshit on bullshit.
It is now readily apparent to anyone with remaining brain cells, or who is not a complete ideological hack, that the tragic shooting in Tuscon was in no way related to ANYTHING happening in this reality politically, despite numerous claims to contrary from the left. Everyone from Palin, to Rush Limbaugh, to Republicans, the Tea Party to the right in general were told "YOU DID IT, YOU BASTARDS!" by the media and the left-wing moonbats, but then I repeat myself.
It is also BLINDINGLY obvious that despite the lack of facts early on, and then in spite of them later, the left attempted to exploit the tragedy in Tuscon for political gain, trying to stoke incendiary anger against the right while decrying all things incendiary. Oh, wait, did I say "attempted", as in past tense? It still continues with fucktards like Bill Maher and the cretins at Gawker.
Of course, this is, in a sense, brilliant. Having being caught out, AGAIN, as dishonest fanatics, the Left will try to Ju Jistsu the discussion back to Palin, the topic of discussion being, as always, "Sarah Palin is an asshole because we were losers in high school, and still are. So there!"
Apparently, Gawker feels it is unfair and insensitive for Palin to use the term "blood libel" when describing the vicious smear campaign the Left engaged in over the shooting in Arizona.
First, we would not really need to go further, would we?
Pot. Kettle. Unfair Asshole.
Basically, Gawker is saying:
"How DARE you use overheated rhetoric and make ridiculous accusations that point out our overheated rhetoric and ridiculous accusations!!"
Short note to Gawker.
Is "blood libel" really an unfair use of the term? Let's see how Gawker explains their umbrage:
"Maureen O'Connor pointed out that "blood libel" actually "refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays." Is Sarah Palin accusing the liberal media of murdering Jew babies? Where does the ADL stand on this? "
The whole accusing the media of murdering Jewish babies line is not just meant as a witty crack. It's meant to distract from the fact that the metaphor immediately previous is actually pretty accurate when read.
The Left is continually trying to pin the actions of lunatics who go on murderous rampages on the right, either by claiming they were of the right (when they are most typically, NOT) or that the right influenced their decision to kill. As has been pointed out numerous times over the last few days by others, it was done in the case of JFK, RFK, Oklamahoma City, and even 9/11. It happens when the maniac is even demonstrably of the left mindset.
So the left is repeatedly making collective false accusations of murder against sections of a population, claiming they do so to further their ideology, libeling them.
So, HOW does this analogy not work again?
Of course it does. It's accurately pretty on target (heh) as analogy or metaphor, but it cuts way too close to the truth; it demolishes yet again one of the Left's precious narratives that make them feel superior despite their bitter mediocrity.
So Gawker and its cretinous cohorts act like it is some sort of bizarre comparison, claiming Palin was saying something she was not, making cracks about "prayer caves", because, you know, anyone who prays is a primitive.
It would be entirely infuriating if it were not for the fact that their smug delusional asses are getting whacked in public opinion. Our job is to make sure to kick them while they are down, and if you have a trouble with that violent rhetoric, kiss my fucking ass!
Hey, looks like a whole lot of people agree with me, right and left!
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Even for someone who loathes the Left, and sees their worldview as destructive, I am in awe of the balls on display here. There is just simply too much bullshit to tackle out there, but luckily there are many people on the case. Let me focus in on a particular piece of trash that I just came across:
Democrats move to limit guns, threatening language in shooting's wake
Reacting to the assassination attempt on one of their own, two House members on Monday said they will introduce legislation that would ban certain ammunition clips and make it illegal to threaten a federal official, both of which they say contributed to the mass casualties in a shooting rampage in Tuscson over the weekend.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., plans to introduce a bill that would ban high-capacity ammunition clips like the one used by Jared Loughner, the gunman accused of killing 6 and injuring 14, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., as they gathered at a “Congress on Your Corner” event.
And Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pa., will introduce legislation that would make it illegal to uses threatening words or symbols or incite violence against a lawmaker or federal official."
The gun control issue is a farce in its own way, but I want you to reread that last bit.
At least 2 levels of bullshit here...
First, why make it illegal to just threaten or incite violence against a Federal official or lawmaker? Don't we ALL deserve equal protection under the law? Is what we need right now even more special privilege for our Lords and Ladies?
If I am a working dad, or single woman, who has some psycho stalking me, sending me or my family psycho shit, should I not also get to drop the legal hammer on his ass?
Second, can we make this more vague? Make it illegal to use threatening words or symbols? And what, pray tell, would be defined as threatening words or symbols, and who would get to define them?
Why, I do believe it would believe it would be some of the same Lord and Ladies who feel themselves worthy of special treatment!
This is a bad, bad, BAD idea, wrapped in supposedly good intentions with a crunchy, candy coating of crisis. What it will be used for is make, with the force of law behind it, freedom of speech unacceptable when it comes to close to challenging authority. What is "threatening" will be applied both liberally and selectively, to suit the needs of those already wielding power.
We already have laws covering harassment, terroristic threats and the like to deal with true threats from fanatics and nut-jobs. Making certain terminology or metaphors verboten is just one more way the authorities try to rig the game in their favor.
Sorry. We are paying attention now, and are onto your game.
BTW, I have gone back and forth over using strong language and frothing at the bit, or trying to be more measured on this site. I have decided I can't do either exclusively. I will try to be measured in my words and tone as much as possible, but when something pisses me off, I intend to vent. God KNOWS I need to vent. If you have a problem with that, then fu-, er, go away....