Comments

  1. Charles Martel says

    Chuck Martel thinks it’s important to remember that modern racism was invented by Democrats, and now that “progressives” have taken over the party, they have yet to repudiate the party’s fundamental racial notions:

    —According to laws passed by Democrats and never deratified, a person is black if he/she has only one drop of “black” blood. Thus, Barack Obama is America’s first black president and can never be its first mulatto president. If Obama had been only 1/16th black, he would still be, according to Joe Biden, a presentable Negro.

    —A dark skin automatically confers a certain worldview—or should. Thus, black-skinned people like Thomas Sowell or Lynn Swann who do not espouse “progressive” politics are not authentically black and are traitors to their race. (As Martel reminds us all, a black person’s first loyalty is to his race. To not be loyal is racist. Since only whites can be racist, this means that such dark-skinned persons are actually white. To avoid incoherence, do not read the first point above.)

    —The sweetest thing that Democrats have ever done for black people, aside from easily accessible abortuaries and family-strengthening welfare, is the creation of public schools. These islands of sanity and quiet scholarly pursuits have lifted blacks faster and higher than any other government program in history. It is racist to suggest that the taxpayer monies used to create and sustain these sanctuaries could be diverted to private schools where demeaning disciplinary practices and violations of the right to carry firearms stigmatize black children.

     

  2. says

    We like the new “Chuck Martel” locution.  We think it’s almost as good as having AlBore come and pontificate here.  (We actually don’t know if AlBore refers to himself in the third person, but it somehow seems as if he ought to.)

  3. says

    After looking at psychological in general and on the Left specifically, I would have to conclude that normal methods of debate and rationality do not work when put up against the Left’s false consciousness. Thus the obvious solution is to break through the Left’s false consciousness by exposing hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance. If they are truly invulnerable to the argument that their positions are inconsistent, then we should work to make their positions so inconsistent that not even the Left can handle them. They have always claimed that torture was wrong but bombing people from the safety of their air conditioned political offices was right and proper. It wasn’t until Osama got killed that we arrived at the perfect opportunity to contrast Leftist lies with Leftist lies. Waterboard or no? Before it was always about the “mythical” terrorist attack. Well, now it’s about the non-mythical, very real, assassination and execution of OBL.

    DQ once posed to Z here on the topic of waterboarding whether Z would scorn its use regardless of how many terrorist attacks waterboarding would prevent. Now we have Z defending Obama’s mistakes on OBL and talking about how “OBL is dead”, based upon intel acquired from waterboarding, yet Z still wishes to block enhanced interrogation methods such as waterboarding. Not even the dumbest useful idiot of the Left, no matter how ignorant they are or seem, can hold up this house of cards for long.

    Leftist hypocrisy is immune to reason and logic. But humans are limits in all things. Even the Left.

  4. says

    Ymarsakar: DQ once posed to Z here on the topic of waterboarding whether Z would scorn its use regardless of how many terrorist attacks waterboarding would prevent.

    What was Z’s actual argument? Please be specific. 
     
     

  5. Charles Martel says

    The MGMMMM has noted SADIE’s warm welcome and says he will try to live up to to the high expectations that have followed him ever since he whupped Mohammedan a** at Tours.

  6. MacG says

    The Martel:modern racism” Thank you for my next flag word dodge and screeching liberal brake.  It works like this: “You’re a racist!” “Oh.  That would depend, do you mean a traditional racist or a modern racist?” This does one of two things, it either gives them the equivalent of a mental blue screen of death and they lock up so I can make my point  or because I seem  more informed than those idiot Republicans they may respond like this “You seem pretty up on the subject what do you mean?”  To which I would answer along these lines: “Traditional racists would not live in the Canal district of San Rafael for they lothe the brown and yellow people and have built fences to keep them separated.  The modern racist unwittingly keeps reparing those fences with such quaint divisive phrases as ‘African American’, ‘Mexican American’, ‘Asian American’.  Me, I only see Americans so I’m neither. Which are you?”

    I once employed this tactic on a young unsuspecting UC Santa Barbara student who found out I was listening to Rush on my Walkman (remember those electronic bricks?).  After he could not defend his spoon fed position about Rush being all things evil (one of which was, I kid you not, he was fat) he stammered aggressivley “You you you Pro-Life?!!!” Even being nearsighted I saw where this was going and replied “I am Pro-Innocent life”.  He took a breath ready to spout but realized I had not used his trigger word there was a quizzical pause,  and asked in a much more relaxed stance “Uh, What’s that?”  FIRE! “Every abortion stops a beating heart, functioning liver and kidneys of a being with an independent blood type of the mother and in most cases the presence of brain waves.  Call it what you want but what was once alive is now dead.  I also believe that people that commit capital crimes are eligible for the death penalty.”  “Huh”.  “Don’t believe what somebody said that somebody said.  Listen for yourself.  What better way to know what your enemy is saying than to actually hear it for yourself.”  His parents were Bainbridge Island laywers so that probably rang true as the hearsay rule. That was the end of that moment but I bet he remembers it for along time.

    Book:
    AlBore in the first… I do not not know (However Bob “Pineapple” Dole sure did) but during the campaign every sentence began with “Bill Clinton and I…” At first I thought he was a Stepford wife re-skinned for the campaign.

  7. Charles Martel says

    “At first I thought he was a Stepford wife re-skinned for the campaign.”

    LOL!

    “Traditional racists would not live in the Canal district of San Rafael for they lothe the brown and yellow people and have built fences to keep them separated.  The modern racist unwittingly keeps reparing those fences with such quaint divisive phrases as ‘African American’, ‘Mexican American’, ‘Asian American’.  Me, I only see Americans so I’m neither. Which are you?”

    Great insight, MacG. Thanks for giving me some new ammunition, too.

  8. Michael Adams says

    Don’t forget “With Bill Clinton and I in the White House.”  This assault on the English language just about drove my wife and I (stet) around the bend, and me and her (stet) were still Democrats. We strongly suspect that the assault on the Constitution began with the assault on language, which, when well begun, moves one, quite rapidly, forward in the attack on other aspects of logic and reason.
    If I might offer a comment here on another thread, I hope that I have not been rude to anyone.  It’s not that I am so nice.  My sixteen year old daughter could lay out chapter and verse for you that I am not.  It’s that I do recognize that we must all go over Fools’ Hill, and I believe that gentle suasion will move most people over the crest a good deal sooner.

  9. SADIE says

    “…do you mean a traditional racist or a modern racist?”


    Macnificent.
     
     
    Your fine examples reminded me of a fella, who crossed my path many years ago. Anxious to make my acquaintance, he stood in front of me and introduced himself followed by “I am Italian”. I stood there somewhat stunned for a moment and politely responded, “is that suppose to excuse anything you say or do now?”
     
     
     

  10. Charles Martel says

    SADIE, LOL.

    Still, a better way of introducing himself would have been, “Hands up, I’m robbing you,” which would have eliminated any need for you to ask whether his subsequent actions were excused.

  11. MacG says

    Charles,  Glad to make a contribution to the stockpile of such an accomplished marksman.
     
    Sadie, I do believe that is your most Mactacular pun evah! :)

Leave a Reply