Wednesday, October 28, 2015

What do you mean you won't vote for Donald Trump

Here's my problem with the "establishment" types.  They despise "The Donald" so much that they wouldn't vote for him no matter what.  Really?  What's the alternative, Hillary; a fucking avowed socialist.  Say what you will about Trump, at least he's not them.  With them you know they are trying to ruin the country, you actually know their intentions are bad and that they are pushing us to moral decay and insolvency (which is a direct result of moral decay).  On the other hand you have Trump who said some upsetting things about Mexican rapists (don't want to offend those guys).  He may be a blowhard and an egomaniac, but one thing is for sure, he's not Hillary or a democrat.  The one truth in these times of ours is that there are no centrist democrats (Joe Lieberman being a possible exception and they kicked the Jew out).  Every last one of them is dedicated to hardcore leftist ideas.

All Republicans should have one rule for their vote, anybody but a democrat.  If they can't get that right, then they're already to the left.

For the interested, here's Jeff Jacoby stating his intention not to vote Trump:
THE TV NEWS was on, and there was a story about the leading candidates in the Republican presidential field.
"So if Donald Trump gets the nomination," my liberal friend needled me, "are you going to vote for him?"
"He's not going to be the nominee," I said, "but I wouldn't vote for him in any case."

Monday, October 5, 2015

Why are you answering?

The big problem with dealing with the liberal media is that they constantly push a liberal point of view.  Conservatives who talk to these people are in a bit of a no-win situation.  The sad fact is that these people control what the public sees and conservatives have to go through them to get to the American people.  Maybe that will change, but for now conservatives feel that the liberal media is necessary.

Nonetheless, if you must go and talk to liberals don't let them intimate bad things about you.  If a media person lies or distorts a statement and then proceeds to ask for your reaction to that lie or distortion, do not begin by saying that's not what you said.  These people are scum for phrasing the question that way in the first place.  Say it!!!!  Say to that person who just lied to you and the American people, "why are you lying about what I said".  Make them answer the question about their low moral character and their outrageous deceit.  Do not give a liar and a charlatan any credibility.  

Whenever conservatives dance around blatant lies it shows their weakness and their lack of understanding of the other side.  The other side doesn't care about the truth and will say and do anything to advance their agenda.  Do not engage with them as if they were a honorable partner.  They aren't.  Attack them for what they are; liars, cowards, cheats, power hungry elitist, narcissistic douche-bags.  Hate them the way that they hate you.  That's the only path to victory against an implacable enemy.   

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Men and Marriage

The reason for reading if you're a columnist or blogger is to get new ideas on things.  Now I don't really think there are many new ideas out there, they've all been said before, but I guess by reading I might learn something new.

I'm reading Men and Marriage by George Gilder and I have to say there's a lot of interesting information in there.  The book started off a little in the I'm making this shit up direction, but it's since moved into the there's some reason and research to back this shit up lane.

His basic premise is that men and women are different.  Got that, next.  He then tries to make the case that women are sexually superior to men.  The point he's making is that being a woman (and I think that's what he's really talking about when he refers to sex) is a passive action.  The very definition of woman doesn't require her to do anything.  In addition, her role as woman is defined by nature and the superiority in her sex that he's referring to is derived from the richness of her experience as a woman (i.e. child bearing and rearing).  Men from a sexual standpoint only have one function, the act of sex.  Beyond that their sexual identity is non-existent and what it means to be a man is undefined.

The essential question he's answering is the essence of the sexes, what it means to be a man or woman.  His point is that for women the definition is well defined and clear but not so for men.  What it means to be a man in modern society is defined by society and largely by women.  Without that definition, men and their need to define themselves as men takes other, possibly more destructive forms.

It's an interesting theory and one that I'm enjoying reading about.