I'm cheating on my diet. Nothing major, just a little extra here and a little extra there. It's enough to slow down my weight loss to almost nil. So. I've gotta follow my diet strictly. It's how I lost weight before. It's how I will lose the weight this time around.
Gotta be more careful.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Ann Coulter Quote of the Day.
In light of recent comments by Democratic congressmen saying that more people hate America now than before (it's a badge of honor, in my opinion), I dug up this quote by Ann Coulter:
"Gore said foreigners are not worried about 'what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we're going to do.' Good. They should be worried. They hate us? We hate them. Americans don't want to make Islamic fanatics love us. We want to make them die. There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell anger. Japanese Kamikazes pilots hated us once, too. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons got their attention. Now they are gentle little lambs." - Ann Coulter
"Gore said foreigners are not worried about 'what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we're going to do.' Good. They should be worried. They hate us? We hate them. Americans don't want to make Islamic fanatics love us. We want to make them die. There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell anger. Japanese Kamikazes pilots hated us once, too. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons got their attention. Now they are gentle little lambs." - Ann Coulter
Dangerous Diet Territory.
While overall my diet has gone well, the last couple of days haven't been rosey. I fudged a bit by going over my WeightWatchers point limit. This isn't a huge deal now but, from past experience, it could completely derail my diet plan. I must be careful and stick to my points.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Idiot of the Day: Rosie O'Donnell
Sigh. Just when you think the Left in America cannot possibly grow more stupid, Rosie O'Donnell opens her piehole and states that "radical Christianity" (!?) is as big a threat to America as radical Islam.
First of all, I don't recall Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or Gordon B. Hinckley telling their followers to "kill all the infidels" and "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth". I cannot seem to remember the last time a pissed off Christian flew passenger jets into a skyscraper. Nor can I recall the last time Christian leaders told their followers to kill homosexuals.
Ms. O'Donnell needs to remember that while Christians may disapprove of her homosexual acts, that's about all we do: disapprove. Radical Islamists have homosexuals executed.
Yet "radical" Christianity and radical Islam our the same in her eyes. Congratulations, Rosie, you are the idiot of the day.
First of all, I don't recall Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or Gordon B. Hinckley telling their followers to "kill all the infidels" and "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth". I cannot seem to remember the last time a pissed off Christian flew passenger jets into a skyscraper. Nor can I recall the last time Christian leaders told their followers to kill homosexuals.
Ms. O'Donnell needs to remember that while Christians may disapprove of her homosexual acts, that's about all we do: disapprove. Radical Islamists have homosexuals executed.
Yet "radical" Christianity and radical Islam our the same in her eyes. Congratulations, Rosie, you are the idiot of the day.
Diet update.
Days six, seven and eight of the diet have been successful. It's now day nine and thus far, I'm doing fine. I've lost about five pounds and nearly one belt size. Cool!
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Day four and five of the diet: Success!
Day four and five of the diet went well though there were a few times when it was difficult to stay on. It is Sunday morning, day six. Sundays are difficult because it is easier to be idle. I'll just have to keep myself occupied with tasks that will steer me away from anything too tempting.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Diet update; Salt Lake City mayor.
Day two and three of "the diet", as I like to call it, were successful. I stayed on it. So stay tuned.
----------------------------
As many of you are aware, President Bush recently paid a visit to Salt lake City, Utah to deliver a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars at their annual convention. Salt Lake City's mayor, Rocky Anderson, instead of being a decent host and representing Salt lake and the entire state of Utah in a dignified fashion, held an anti-war rally. The speech is long and full of Democratic Party talking points so I'll just give you a few of the highlights (for the full text of the speech, you can go here) : deseretnews.com
"And who among you loves your country so much that you insist that our nation's leaders tell us the truth? So let's hear it: "Give us the truth! Give us the truth! Give us the truth! Give us the truth! Give us the truth!" Because if we had had the truth, we wouldn't be here today."
This screed was very early on in the speech. I've heard the audio and you can hear the venom and vitriol in Mayor Anderson's screaming (yes, he was screaming). The claim that the Bush administration lied is false as has been proven time and time again. Mayor Anderson is a very intelligent man. He knows this. If he truly believes the poisonous leftist propaganda he is spewing, then perhaps he isn't as smart as I thought.
"Let no one deny we are patriots. We support our nation's troops. Let's hear it for our nation's troops! We have so many veterans here today. Let's here it for the veterans! We are grateful to our veterans who have sacrificed so much for our freedoms."
Mayor Anderson may believe he supports the troops by opposing the war, but it is simply impossible to do both. I believe Mayor Anderson doesn't want to see our troops hurt. But there is a big difference between wishing good health to our servicemen and actually supporting them. Let's put it this way, if we showed our troops in Iraq the text of Andersen's speech, do you really believe that our troops would feel they were supported by him? I don't think they would. It's like saying "I support (then) presidential candidate John Kerry (in 2004) but I voted for President Bush." If you voted for President Bush, you really didn't support Kerry, did you?
"So to James Evans and these folks who financed this massive radio campaign these last few days, let them understand that blind faith in bad leaders is not patriotism. A patriot does not tell people who are intensely concerned about their country to just sit down and be quiet; to refrain from speaking out in the name of politeness or for the sake of being a good host; to show slavish, blind obedience and deference to a dishonest, war-mongering, human-rights-violating president."
No one--and I mean no one--is telling people concerned about our country to "sit down and be quiet". This is a lie perpetuated by Mayor Anderson and his lefty buddies. And no one is showing "slavish, blind obedience" to our leaders. This is rhetoric of the worst kind. Perhaps Mayor Anderson should listen--honestly listen--to conservative talk radio where dissenting opinions--from callers and guests on the left and the right--our heard every single day. The right in this country have been critical of the Bush administration on a number of fronts--including the war in Iraq. There is strong disagreement on many issues among conservative talk show hosts. And can not think of one talk show host--not Hannity, not Limbaugh, not anyone--who has shown slavish and blind odedience to the administration. Just the opposite. All conservative talk show hosts have questioned the war in Iraq. And while most support it still, not every one of them does and some do so reluctantly. And, just to point out a fact, the administration isn't dishonest, Mayor. Show me exactly where they are dishonest? These accusations without example are easy to make, harder to prove.
"What incredible ineptitude and callousness for our President to talk about a Crusade while lying to us to make a case for the invasion and occupation of a Muslim country!"
Dude, you need a history lesson. Crusade is the most appropriate term for our war on terror. The Crusades several hundred years ago were justified as it was Islam--just like today--that declared war on Christianity first by invading Europe and putting people to the sword who refused to convert to Islam.
"In September, 2002, President Bush made the incredible and absolutely false claim that "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam."
Um, Mayor, that's Bush's opinion, not necessarily policy. Your claim that Bush's words are a false claim is a false claim.
"Our President and Vice-President, along with an unquestioning news media, repeatedly led our nation to believe that there was a working relationship between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, a relationship that threatened the United States."
Is this Mayor Anderson fella serious? The news media attacked the president daily during the lead up to war and scoffed at any connection between Al Queda and Saddam. There was a connection, arguably not a strong one, between Al Queda and Saddam. A prominent Al Queda leader was granted refuge in Iraq before the war, for hell's sake! Mayor Anderson lies again--or he is extremely ignorant.
"President Bush, by the way, finally admitted nine days ago on Aug. 21 during a press conference that there was no connection between the attacks on 9/11 and Iraq. It's terrific that the President has now admitted what others have known for so long — but where is the accountability for the tragic war we were led into on the basis of his earlier misrepresentations?"
There you go again. The administration never claimed there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam even though Saddam was quite giddy with happiness after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon. This is a lie perpetuated by the left and the mainstream media. Find me a quote by any official in the Bush administration stating a connection between the two. While there was a connection between Al Queda and Saddam, there is no evidence Saddam had anything to do with 9/11--and the president never made that case!
Anyway, Rocky goes on to scream--literally--about President Bush's lies. Lies which cannot be proven, folks. Rocky also accuses the right of slandering those who disagree with the war as unpatriotic. This simply isn't the case. Few, if any, prominent Republicans or conservatives have accused the left of being unpatriotic. However, the left accuses the right of being unpatriotic all the time. Anderson does it in his speech with phrases like the first one I use in this blog entry where Anderson is quoted as saying that people on the right blindly follow the administration and that isn't patriotism.
Rocky was on a local radio show last night talking about the speech. He lauded himself for his bravery in speaking out againts Bush. He claimed he was one of the few in the nation--other than Newsweek, Time Magazine, the New York Times, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, all of Hollywood, and nearly every one of the over two-hundred and forty Democrats in congress--who dared and that those who believe the war is wrong can now speak up.
I'm simply stunned at Mayor Anderson's ignorance.
Oh, by the way, the reason why Utahns were so upset that you spoke out against President Bush during his visit is not because we don't want to hear dissent, it's because what you said in your speech, just like you did two years ago when President Bush visited last time, were lies. Lies and venom and vitriol and garabage. You weren't respectful at all. It's about respectful dissent, you clown of a mayor. It's not about acting like a spoiled first-grader and namecalling and throwing a fit, which is how you acted.
That's all.
The guy is so full of himself. It's quite breathtaking. He may be the most arrogant politician in the USA.
----------------------------
As many of you are aware, President Bush recently paid a visit to Salt lake City, Utah to deliver a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars at their annual convention. Salt Lake City's mayor, Rocky Anderson, instead of being a decent host and representing Salt lake and the entire state of Utah in a dignified fashion, held an anti-war rally. The speech is long and full of Democratic Party talking points so I'll just give you a few of the highlights (for the full text of the speech, you can go here) : deseretnews.com
"And who among you loves your country so much that you insist that our nation's leaders tell us the truth? So let's hear it: "Give us the truth! Give us the truth! Give us the truth! Give us the truth! Give us the truth!" Because if we had had the truth, we wouldn't be here today."
This screed was very early on in the speech. I've heard the audio and you can hear the venom and vitriol in Mayor Anderson's screaming (yes, he was screaming). The claim that the Bush administration lied is false as has been proven time and time again. Mayor Anderson is a very intelligent man. He knows this. If he truly believes the poisonous leftist propaganda he is spewing, then perhaps he isn't as smart as I thought.
"Let no one deny we are patriots. We support our nation's troops. Let's hear it for our nation's troops! We have so many veterans here today. Let's here it for the veterans! We are grateful to our veterans who have sacrificed so much for our freedoms."
Mayor Anderson may believe he supports the troops by opposing the war, but it is simply impossible to do both. I believe Mayor Anderson doesn't want to see our troops hurt. But there is a big difference between wishing good health to our servicemen and actually supporting them. Let's put it this way, if we showed our troops in Iraq the text of Andersen's speech, do you really believe that our troops would feel they were supported by him? I don't think they would. It's like saying "I support (then) presidential candidate John Kerry (in 2004) but I voted for President Bush." If you voted for President Bush, you really didn't support Kerry, did you?
"So to James Evans and these folks who financed this massive radio campaign these last few days, let them understand that blind faith in bad leaders is not patriotism. A patriot does not tell people who are intensely concerned about their country to just sit down and be quiet; to refrain from speaking out in the name of politeness or for the sake of being a good host; to show slavish, blind obedience and deference to a dishonest, war-mongering, human-rights-violating president."
No one--and I mean no one--is telling people concerned about our country to "sit down and be quiet". This is a lie perpetuated by Mayor Anderson and his lefty buddies. And no one is showing "slavish, blind obedience" to our leaders. This is rhetoric of the worst kind. Perhaps Mayor Anderson should listen--honestly listen--to conservative talk radio where dissenting opinions--from callers and guests on the left and the right--our heard every single day. The right in this country have been critical of the Bush administration on a number of fronts--including the war in Iraq. There is strong disagreement on many issues among conservative talk show hosts. And can not think of one talk show host--not Hannity, not Limbaugh, not anyone--who has shown slavish and blind odedience to the administration. Just the opposite. All conservative talk show hosts have questioned the war in Iraq. And while most support it still, not every one of them does and some do so reluctantly. And, just to point out a fact, the administration isn't dishonest, Mayor. Show me exactly where they are dishonest? These accusations without example are easy to make, harder to prove.
"What incredible ineptitude and callousness for our President to talk about a Crusade while lying to us to make a case for the invasion and occupation of a Muslim country!"
Dude, you need a history lesson. Crusade is the most appropriate term for our war on terror. The Crusades several hundred years ago were justified as it was Islam--just like today--that declared war on Christianity first by invading Europe and putting people to the sword who refused to convert to Islam.
"In September, 2002, President Bush made the incredible and absolutely false claim that "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam."
Um, Mayor, that's Bush's opinion, not necessarily policy. Your claim that Bush's words are a false claim is a false claim.
"Our President and Vice-President, along with an unquestioning news media, repeatedly led our nation to believe that there was a working relationship between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, a relationship that threatened the United States."
Is this Mayor Anderson fella serious? The news media attacked the president daily during the lead up to war and scoffed at any connection between Al Queda and Saddam. There was a connection, arguably not a strong one, between Al Queda and Saddam. A prominent Al Queda leader was granted refuge in Iraq before the war, for hell's sake! Mayor Anderson lies again--or he is extremely ignorant.
"President Bush, by the way, finally admitted nine days ago on Aug. 21 during a press conference that there was no connection between the attacks on 9/11 and Iraq. It's terrific that the President has now admitted what others have known for so long — but where is the accountability for the tragic war we were led into on the basis of his earlier misrepresentations?"
There you go again. The administration never claimed there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam even though Saddam was quite giddy with happiness after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon. This is a lie perpetuated by the left and the mainstream media. Find me a quote by any official in the Bush administration stating a connection between the two. While there was a connection between Al Queda and Saddam, there is no evidence Saddam had anything to do with 9/11--and the president never made that case!
Anyway, Rocky goes on to scream--literally--about President Bush's lies. Lies which cannot be proven, folks. Rocky also accuses the right of slandering those who disagree with the war as unpatriotic. This simply isn't the case. Few, if any, prominent Republicans or conservatives have accused the left of being unpatriotic. However, the left accuses the right of being unpatriotic all the time. Anderson does it in his speech with phrases like the first one I use in this blog entry where Anderson is quoted as saying that people on the right blindly follow the administration and that isn't patriotism.
Rocky was on a local radio show last night talking about the speech. He lauded himself for his bravery in speaking out againts Bush. He claimed he was one of the few in the nation--other than Newsweek, Time Magazine, the New York Times, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, all of Hollywood, and nearly every one of the over two-hundred and forty Democrats in congress--who dared and that those who believe the war is wrong can now speak up.
I'm simply stunned at Mayor Anderson's ignorance.
Oh, by the way, the reason why Utahns were so upset that you spoke out against President Bush during his visit is not because we don't want to hear dissent, it's because what you said in your speech, just like you did two years ago when President Bush visited last time, were lies. Lies and venom and vitriol and garabage. You weren't respectful at all. It's about respectful dissent, you clown of a mayor. It's not about acting like a spoiled first-grader and namecalling and throwing a fit, which is how you acted.
That's all.
The guy is so full of himself. It's quite breathtaking. He may be the most arrogant politician in the USA.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Day one of my diet plus Super Bowl prediction.
Yesterday was day one of my diet (for a look at my trails and tribulations with my weight, read previous post). It was a success. Thus far, I'm having no problems on day two. I'll update tomorrow.
----------------------------
Every year for the last twenty years I have made my Super Bowl prediction right before the start of the regular season. Tomorrow, the NFL's regular season starts. This year I've had a bit of a problem picking the champions of the AFC and NFC. The AFC is filled with strong teams: Denver, Kansas City, possibley San Diego, possibley Oakland, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, maybe Baltimore, Cincinnatti, New England, and possibley Miami. That's ten teams but only six will make the playoffs. Which one to choose? I will immediatley discount the "maybes" so Oakland, San Diego, Baltimore and Miami are out. Pittsburgh had a miraculous season last year being the sixth seed and grabbing win after win on the road. In a tough AFC, I don't think the chances of Pittsburgh repeating are good. New England isn't the same team they were when they won three Super Bowls in four years so I reluctantly exclude them. Cincinnatti hasn't proven to me that they can play defense so they are out. So we're down to KC, Denver and Indy. KC is an intriguing choice because the presence of new head coach Herm Edwards alone will likely make the defense better. And KC certainly doesn't have problems on offense. Denver is a good choice as well as they were one win away from the Super Bowl last season. They are strong on offense and defense. As for Indy, they went an amazing 14-3 last year including the playoffs. As badly as they played against Pittburgh in the second round of the AFC playoffs, they still almost won. They've lost Edgerrin James but their running game still looks good. And they've added Mr. Clutch, kicker Adam Vinatieri. Had they had the King of Clutch last year, they probably would have beaten Pittsburgh. He could be the difference. I predict he will be the difference. Colts win the AFC.
The NFC is not nearly as strong as the AFC. In my mind, there are only three teams worth talking about in the NFC: The defending NFC champs Seattle, plus Carolina and Dallas. It would be easy to pick Seattle because they were so dominant in the NFC last year. And they have pretty much the same team returning this year. Carolina, with the addition of receiver Keyshawn Johnson, makes wideout Steve Smith even more dangerous. But it's the addition of Terrell Owens in Dallas that I believe will give the Cowboys the NFC title. Owens is the most talented player ever to line-up as receiver and he's only one of three players in the NFL that can score from anywhere on the field (Tomlinson and Vick are the other two). TO gives Dallas so many more options on offense now. Bill Parcells will take advantage of it. Dallas wins the NFC.
Super Bowl Prediction: Indianapolis Colts versus Dallas Cowboys. I'm not going to predict a winner.
Incidently, last year I picked Indianapolis and Philadelphia. Guess I really screwed up on that one, eh?
----------------------------
Every year for the last twenty years I have made my Super Bowl prediction right before the start of the regular season. Tomorrow, the NFL's regular season starts. This year I've had a bit of a problem picking the champions of the AFC and NFC. The AFC is filled with strong teams: Denver, Kansas City, possibley San Diego, possibley Oakland, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, maybe Baltimore, Cincinnatti, New England, and possibley Miami. That's ten teams but only six will make the playoffs. Which one to choose? I will immediatley discount the "maybes" so Oakland, San Diego, Baltimore and Miami are out. Pittsburgh had a miraculous season last year being the sixth seed and grabbing win after win on the road. In a tough AFC, I don't think the chances of Pittsburgh repeating are good. New England isn't the same team they were when they won three Super Bowls in four years so I reluctantly exclude them. Cincinnatti hasn't proven to me that they can play defense so they are out. So we're down to KC, Denver and Indy. KC is an intriguing choice because the presence of new head coach Herm Edwards alone will likely make the defense better. And KC certainly doesn't have problems on offense. Denver is a good choice as well as they were one win away from the Super Bowl last season. They are strong on offense and defense. As for Indy, they went an amazing 14-3 last year including the playoffs. As badly as they played against Pittburgh in the second round of the AFC playoffs, they still almost won. They've lost Edgerrin James but their running game still looks good. And they've added Mr. Clutch, kicker Adam Vinatieri. Had they had the King of Clutch last year, they probably would have beaten Pittsburgh. He could be the difference. I predict he will be the difference. Colts win the AFC.
The NFC is not nearly as strong as the AFC. In my mind, there are only three teams worth talking about in the NFC: The defending NFC champs Seattle, plus Carolina and Dallas. It would be easy to pick Seattle because they were so dominant in the NFC last year. And they have pretty much the same team returning this year. Carolina, with the addition of receiver Keyshawn Johnson, makes wideout Steve Smith even more dangerous. But it's the addition of Terrell Owens in Dallas that I believe will give the Cowboys the NFC title. Owens is the most talented player ever to line-up as receiver and he's only one of three players in the NFL that can score from anywhere on the field (Tomlinson and Vick are the other two). TO gives Dallas so many more options on offense now. Bill Parcells will take advantage of it. Dallas wins the NFC.
Super Bowl Prediction: Indianapolis Colts versus Dallas Cowboys. I'm not going to predict a winner.
Incidently, last year I picked Indianapolis and Philadelphia. Guess I really screwed up on that one, eh?
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
The many purposes of the blog; weight loss is one.
When I first set up this blog, I set it up with the intention of it not just being a political blog or a sports blog or a blog about my personal life. It is supposed to be all of those things. I've tended to write about poloitics most of the time but that isn't the sole purpose of this blog. In that spirit, and for the forseeable future, this blog will be my weight loss diary.
I'm putting a lot on the line here as I'm not comfortable sharing intimate details about my life. I'm overweight (at least I think so--my friends and family don't understand the fuss) and I feel the need to lose the extra pounds. Three and a half years ago, I weighed 245 pounds and, over the next eight months, I dropped 50 pounds. I was down to 195. But since then, I've put the weight all back on and then some. I now weigh 256 pounds and I'm not happy about it. I know what to do to lose weight, I know what works (Weight Watchers). It is just a matter of will.
My goal weight is 200 pounds. I remember what it was like when I weighed around 200 about 3 years ago and it felt good. I know that keeping a journal of my weight loss--with goals spelled out--will help me (I hope) and sharing my struggle with the 3 of you that read this blog may give me the incentive I need to lose the weight a second time.
It's on the line. I start today. Thanks for your help.
I'm putting a lot on the line here as I'm not comfortable sharing intimate details about my life. I'm overweight (at least I think so--my friends and family don't understand the fuss) and I feel the need to lose the extra pounds. Three and a half years ago, I weighed 245 pounds and, over the next eight months, I dropped 50 pounds. I was down to 195. But since then, I've put the weight all back on and then some. I now weigh 256 pounds and I'm not happy about it. I know what to do to lose weight, I know what works (Weight Watchers). It is just a matter of will.
My goal weight is 200 pounds. I remember what it was like when I weighed around 200 about 3 years ago and it felt good. I know that keeping a journal of my weight loss--with goals spelled out--will help me (I hope) and sharing my struggle with the 3 of you that read this blog may give me the incentive I need to lose the weight a second time.
It's on the line. I start today. Thanks for your help.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Idiots on parade
If you want a good idea of what the left really believes, check out this article and the response it has generated at newsarama.com. Comic book writer/artist Frank Miller simply states that America should win the war on terror and adds “I draw and write comic books. One thing my job involves is making up bad guys. Imagining human villainy in all its forms. Now the real thing had showed up. The real thing murdered my neighbors. In my city. In my country. Patriotism, I now believe, isn’t some sentimental, old, conceit. It’s self-preservation. I believe patriotism is central to a nation’s survival.”
The lefty idiots immediately attack Miller as a right wing kook and, of course, the responses to the article quickly degenerate into namecalling (not legitimate namecalling), more lefty lies about the War on Terror and Iraq, and, ultimately, Miller, of course, is compared to Nazis. What is so hysterical about the response from the left is they feel somehow Miller's comments are an attack on their patriotism which they are offended by even though they readily admit patriotism is a silly notion! And then they imply (and I infer) that Miller is the one that is unpatriotic. In this context, Miller is belittled because Miller believes himself to be patriotic and the responders believe Miller is not patriotic and attacked their patriotism which they (the responders) think patriotism is silly in the first place!
Take a look. And you tell who is being unreasonable, Miller or the comic book kooks?
Full disclosure: I read comic books.
The lefty idiots immediately attack Miller as a right wing kook and, of course, the responses to the article quickly degenerate into namecalling (not legitimate namecalling), more lefty lies about the War on Terror and Iraq, and, ultimately, Miller, of course, is compared to Nazis. What is so hysterical about the response from the left is they feel somehow Miller's comments are an attack on their patriotism which they are offended by even though they readily admit patriotism is a silly notion! And then they imply (and I infer) that Miller is the one that is unpatriotic. In this context, Miller is belittled because Miller believes himself to be patriotic and the responders believe Miller is not patriotic and attacked their patriotism which they (the responders) think patriotism is silly in the first place!
Take a look. And you tell who is being unreasonable, Miller or the comic book kooks?
Full disclosure: I read comic books.
Global warming versus Islamonazism.
Al Gore spoke at the MTV Music Video Awards the other night. A former vice-president of the United States of America has stooped lower than any former vice-president I can think of. Nixon was once vice-president and a failure as a president but even in the darkest days of the Watergate-era, Nixon never--never!--helped celebrate an institution that has done so much damage to society. Twenty-five years of MTV has reduced women to nothing more than sex objects. Yet MTV touts itself as progressive and for womens' rights.
Think about how absurd that is. There is nothing progressive about the dehumanization of women.
Al Gore spoke about the alleged threat of global warming and how it's the biggest danger to humanity. He received cheers. I guess if your anti-global warming, it's okay to dehumanize women.
Kinda like Islamonazis and the way the dehumanize women--and non-Muslims. No, anti-global warming zealots are not on the level of Islamonazis--not even close--but it's a good segue.
Islamonazis commit terrorist acts almost daily in India. They've recently committed (or attempted to commit) terrorist acts in Germany, the United Kingdom, Thailand and the U.S. Earlier this week an Islamist terrorist used his SUV as a weapon and ran down fourteen people in San Francisco (a terroist act the mainstream media has covered up). A year ago (October 1st, 2005), a Muslim student tried to blow up the football stadium at the University of Oklahoma during a game in which 84,000 people were attending. Then there was the DC sniper case a few years ago.
And 9/11.
And Al Gore says global warming is the biggest threat facing humanity? While there is some evidence for global warming, it takes three enormous religious leaps of faith to come to the conclusion that global warming is the threat Gore says it is.
First, you must believe global warming exists (not a huge leap of faith because there is some evidence for regional warming in different part of the globe--I guess that could be global warming of a sort).
Second, you must believe human beings caused it (huge leap of faith--volcanic explosions do more damage to the environment than human beings have ever done).
Third, you must believe that it threatens our very existence (this is the biggest leap of faith because there is not one shred of evidence that human-caused global warming--if real--would be able to threaten the existence of mankind).
Al Gore and his ilk are dangerous because like an Islamonazi, they are true believers. You can't reason with them because it is not about facts, it's about faith.
For those of you who fear Christians and Judeo-Christian values, tell me which is more dangerous: A Christian or Jewish "zealot" who believes in the Ten Commandments (no stealing, no murder, no lying, etc.) or an anti-global warming zealot who will try to destroy the economy by stopping alleged toxic emmissions, take your land in the name of enviromentalism, and curb your rights in the name of progressive policies?
I have no answer, no solution. I don't think Al Gore and most anti-global warmings folks are evil, but they are most definitely morally confused.
Human evil--Islamonazis and their kind--are far more dangerous to the survival of mankind than global warming.
Think about how absurd that is. There is nothing progressive about the dehumanization of women.
Al Gore spoke about the alleged threat of global warming and how it's the biggest danger to humanity. He received cheers. I guess if your anti-global warming, it's okay to dehumanize women.
Kinda like Islamonazis and the way the dehumanize women--and non-Muslims. No, anti-global warming zealots are not on the level of Islamonazis--not even close--but it's a good segue.
Islamonazis commit terrorist acts almost daily in India. They've recently committed (or attempted to commit) terrorist acts in Germany, the United Kingdom, Thailand and the U.S. Earlier this week an Islamist terrorist used his SUV as a weapon and ran down fourteen people in San Francisco (a terroist act the mainstream media has covered up). A year ago (October 1st, 2005), a Muslim student tried to blow up the football stadium at the University of Oklahoma during a game in which 84,000 people were attending. Then there was the DC sniper case a few years ago.
And 9/11.
And Al Gore says global warming is the biggest threat facing humanity? While there is some evidence for global warming, it takes three enormous religious leaps of faith to come to the conclusion that global warming is the threat Gore says it is.
First, you must believe global warming exists (not a huge leap of faith because there is some evidence for regional warming in different part of the globe--I guess that could be global warming of a sort).
Second, you must believe human beings caused it (huge leap of faith--volcanic explosions do more damage to the environment than human beings have ever done).
Third, you must believe that it threatens our very existence (this is the biggest leap of faith because there is not one shred of evidence that human-caused global warming--if real--would be able to threaten the existence of mankind).
Al Gore and his ilk are dangerous because like an Islamonazi, they are true believers. You can't reason with them because it is not about facts, it's about faith.
For those of you who fear Christians and Judeo-Christian values, tell me which is more dangerous: A Christian or Jewish "zealot" who believes in the Ten Commandments (no stealing, no murder, no lying, etc.) or an anti-global warming zealot who will try to destroy the economy by stopping alleged toxic emmissions, take your land in the name of enviromentalism, and curb your rights in the name of progressive policies?
I have no answer, no solution. I don't think Al Gore and most anti-global warmings folks are evil, but they are most definitely morally confused.
Human evil--Islamonazis and their kind--are far more dangerous to the survival of mankind than global warming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)