Posted on 12/05/2008 3:47:25 AM PST by Kaslin
Whenever I refer to liberals in print as pinheads, chowderheads, morons and flakes, I can always count on angry responses. Invariably, they will accuse me of stooping to insult them, instead of dealing with specific issues.
The fact is, I am always dealing with issues, be it the left’s adoration of the U.N.; their cockeyed belief in man-made global warming; their constant attacks on the first two amendments; their intolerance of Christian traditions and symbols, which, by the way, relies entirely on an intentional misreading of the Constitution, a document which does not and never has contained the words “separation of church and state”; their contempt for the U.S. military; the alleged supremacy of gay, Islamic and illegal alien, rights; their opposition to capital punishment; their support of judges who legislate from the bench; and their affinity for professors and journalists who feel their duty is to indoctrinate rather than educate or report.
It’s only in the context of taking liberals to task that I ever make my ad hominem attacks. And please believe me, when I call them pinheads, lamebrains and ignoramuses, I honestly believe I am being kind and letting them off far easier than they deserve. Would they really prefer traitors, Quislings and Communists? If so, I’d be only too happy to oblige.
The truth is, it’s left-wingers who make a practice of evading the issues. For instance, I have yet to have anyone on the left enumerate the rights he lost because of the Patriot Act. I have yet to have any of them explain how it is that we invaded Iraq for oil but failed to confiscate even a single drop. Also, I have never had a liberal name all those countries that hate America because of George Bush. Even when I offer to help them get started by suggesting Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, North Korea and Cuba, they refuse to engage.
I have also never had a leftist explain his love affair with socialism and communism, forms of tyranny which have led to unparalleled human misery wherever they have been introduced. But, then, what sort of freedom lovers side with the PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah, against Israel and make cultural icons of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara?
Silence is the same response I get when I have asked liberals, who allegedly favor honest elections, why they have never spoken out against ACORN, and why, although they pay lip service to free speech, people like David Horowitz and Ann Coulter require bodyguards when they appear on college campuses. And why is it that liberals, who already control newspapers, magazines and TV, are pushing for the “Fairness” Doctrine in a blatant, fascistic, attempt to keep conservative voices off the radio?
What sort of people are they who will defend the rights of pornographers and pedophiles to promote themselves in the public marketplace, but feel entitled to banish the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Miller, Kevin James, Sean Hannity, Lee Rodgers, Michael Reagan, Larry Elder and Bill O’Reilly, from the marketplace of ideas?
If I had to describe liberals in a single word it would probably be “feminine.” In most cases, I wouldn’t regard that word as a pejorative. In its best sense, it conveys sensitivity and an emphasis on the emotional. As it relates to liberals, it simply means that feelings trump everything else. So it is that liberals love the idea of the U.N., excited by the notion of a lot of nations sitting down and talking out their problems, as if to a marriage counselor. Unfortunately, when dealing with evil nations with evil intentions, the U.N. is nothing better than a bad joke. Partly that’s because it is inept and partly because it’s as weak as its weakest link and, for good measure, is as corrupt as Chicago politics.
Liberals are in favor of open borders because they feel sorry for those people sneaking across. It doesn’t occur to liberals that American citizens suffer from the influx of millions of impoverished illiterates. They are not concerned with the drain on schools, hospitals, jobs and prisons, because what’s important for liberals is that they feel good about themselves. It’s a unique type of selfishness because it’s disguised as an altruistic concern for others. It’s the same reason they oppose capital punishment. They don’t care about the victims or their loved ones. Any schmuck, after all, can sympathize with innocent people. But it takes a very special kind of individual to hold a candlelight vigil for a monster who had raped and murdered a child. A very special kind, indeed.
Recently, the voters in California voted against legitimizing homosexual marriages. The first thing that happened after the election is that our governor, the ex-actor whose biggest muscle is located between his ears, said that he hoped the courts would overrule the electorate. It’s not an idle wish. California’s voters have become accustomed to having their votes ignored. The second thing that took place was that large numbers of homosexuals went on a rampage, like the spoiled adolescents they so often tend to be.
The third thing that occurred is that L.A. County’s Board of Supervisors took the matter under advisement. Because I happened to be acquainted with one of the five supervisors, I sent him the following e-mail. (His name has been changed for our purposes.) “Dear George: I trust you won’t be party to overturning Proposition 8. It’s time that the people got to have their way at least once. By the way, are you still playing poker?”
He replied: “Burt: Thanks for your e-mail. The Board of Supervisors has joined with a number of others in challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 based on the equal protection provisions of the State constitution. This is an issue that affects the County because we issue marriage licenses. You and I appear to disagree on this, but the constitutionality issue has to be resolved. I hope all is well with you. I have not played poker in quite some time, and given the economy, I couldn’t afford to play anyway.”
I replied: “Don’t fall for that B.S., George. The homosexuals have equal protection and equal rights. They can all marry members of the opposite sex. What they are demanding, as usual, is to prove that George Orwell might have had California in mind, as well as the Soviet Union, when he wrote about the farm where all animals were equal, but some were more equal than others. It appears that you folks want things resolved once again by overriding the will of the majority. Californians have voted against same-sex marriages, in favor of capital punishment and against benefits for illegal aliens, and each time the liberals have found an obliging judge who happily disenfranchised the electorate. It won’t take too much more of this before people begin to regard voting as a futile exercise and will view the courts with utter contempt. On top of that, at this point, it would appear that you people are simply caving in to mob rule, inasmuch as the punks are expressing their pique by vandalizing churches and intimidating businesses and individuals. This is no time to support the barbarians. As for poker, you could afford to play if you won.”
It’s been a week now and I haven’t heard back.
An L.A. County supervisor, by the way, makes $178,789 a year. I have to assume they will soon be giving themselves a pay raise based on the cost of living and playing poker.
Aw, go ahead. Name him.
In other words, the law means nothing when it opposes their feelings.
I have another description: spoiled brats
Count me among those opposed to capital punishment, at least as currently practiced in this country. I'm not against the concept of capital punishment - lots of criminals deserve to die for what they've done. What I AM against is the fact that whether or not you're convicted, irrespective of innocence or guilt, depends so much any more on the political ambitions of the prosecutor, media attention to the case, how deep your pockets are, and consequently how good your lawyer is (witness OJ Simpson).
I look at the death penalty as just another government program gone wrong, unfortunately.
For instance, I have yet to have anyone on the left enumerate the rights he lost because of the Patriot Act.
Amen to that. I see a post on DU every time I go over there that bitches and whines about how they've lost so many of their rights under Bushitler, but the NEVER enumerate a single one they've lost. EVER.
“i have another d4escription: spoiled brats.”
correction: “spoiled, totalitarian, sc^&Bag brats.”
(can “swine” also be fit in there somewhere?”)
imho
They will do anything to stop the Patriot Act, and if India had something like the Patriot act the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai would probably never have happened
Like everything else, capital punishment goes wrong in liberal states.
>> If I had to describe liberals in a single word it would probably be “feminine.”
I believe the word the author was looking for was “neurotic”.
Bump for the money quote.
FReeper little jeremiah has offered occasionally that it would be better if women did not have the franchise in the U.S. (she's a woman and definitely in the minority on this one).
I would think that Prelutsky is closer to it, by identifying emotive, feeeeeeling-privileging non-thinkers as the civic underperformers. After all, Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin and Laura Bush have never had any trouble figuring it out.
Other intelligent women come to mind -- even the gay Democrat-supporting art professor Camille Paglia, who manages to support labor unions on the one hand and yet have perfectly civil conversations over lunch with Rush Limbaugh, seems to understand the unhinged nature of modern "progressivism" and, like Burt Prelutsky, recognizes that gay activists have modelled themselves on the extremist "street" politics of the 1930's that gave the world a Second World War.
Thus, it might be better to keep the Paglias and Tammy Bruces and Laura Bush in the electorate, and kick out Alec Baldwin, Larry Flynt, and Rosie O'Donnell instead. Maybe we ought to bring back civic literacy testing -- add a logic module -- that'd do it!
“The truth is, it’s left-wingers who make a practice of evading the issues. For instance, I have yet to have anyone on the left enumerate the rights he lost because of the Patriot Act. I have yet to have any of them explain how it is that we invaded Iraq for oil but failed to confiscate even a single drop. Also, I have never had a liberal name all those countries that hate America because of George Bush. Even when I offer to help them get started by suggesting Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, North Korea and Cuba, they refuse to engage.
I have also never had a leftist explain his love affair with socialism and communism, forms of tyranny which have led to unparalleled human misery wherever they have been introduced. But, then, what sort of freedom lovers side with the PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah, against Israel and make cultural icons of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara?”
A breath of fresh air right there.
Although I have to disagree with his “feminine” quote.
If he means “feminine”, as in “weak” or “wussy whiner” - then I’d have to agree.
But that isn’t how I understand the word “femine”.
Compare Hillary to Sarah Palin, and which one is more feminine?
“I have another description: spoiled brats “
hubby and I were watching the pbs special about Hoffman, Seale - and a whole bunch of other hippy/anarchist/freaks the other night.
When it was all over, all I could say was “spoiled brats.”
bttt
The term pinhead should be reserved for use in describing Bill O'Reilly.
I’ve seen this challenge on a “non-partisan” (about 80% left-wing) message board from one of the badly outnumbered conservatives:
“Ever since we invaded Iraq, thousands of Muslim radicals have streamed into Iraq for an opportunity to kill Americans: but these are heavily armed Americans in body armor, with training in the art of war. If our troops were not in Iraq, these thousands of Muslim radicals would have come to the United States to kill Americans, and here, they would have been killing defenseless women and children.
“On September 11, 2001 we saw how many civilians could be killed and how much economic damage could be done by just 19 Muslim radicals, armed with plastic knives and boxcutters.
“So here’s my question: how many American skyscrapers, train stations and suspension bridges, packed with civilians, would you have been willing to watch explode and collapse into smoldering rubble if it meant that we would never invade Iraq?
“How many?”
My conservative friend never gets an answer to his question from the left-wingers, except what he accurately describes as “shucking and jiving.” As a result, he goes even farther than Burt Prelutsky and calls them “f—king morons.”
Communism is not the greatest danger to this country.
Fascism is not the greatest danger to this country.
Racism is not the greatest danger to this country.
Religion is not the greatest danger to this country.
A failing economy is not the greatest danger to this country.
Terrorism is not the greatest danger to this country.
China is not the greatest danger to this country.
LIBERALISM is the greatest danger to this country.
Your tagline is dead on as well. I had the misfortune to be assigned to dump the trash for a barracks in the Philippines when a troop of the vicious little things were inspecting the dumpster (close enough to a barrel) for food. Monkeys can indeed be terrifying little creatures.
Please oblige. Call them what they are: MARXISTS!
Yes, I am shouting.
I am a woman and I agree!
I would also go back to making the ownership of property a requirement as well, and increase the minimum age to 35.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.