Is Wimpy Banned, Too?
Aug 26, 2009 Political
Liberals and “progressives”, are trying to co-opt the language so as not to give offense to anyone, including terrorists, I mean “extra-territorial fighters”. No more War on Terror, just the weakly titled “Overseas Contingency Operations”. Talk about mealy- mouthed, wishy- washy, weak- kneed questionably appropriate responses to what is happening- these people are actually afraid that words hurt in a physical way.
So, just to make sure that they do not offend someone, they are going into our children’s textbooks, so they can brain wash indoctrinate educate our precious little small pre- teen, adolescent children. First up is the term that has been around for as long as we have had a country, Founding Fathers. Nope, can’t have that- it has something that indicates a male presence, and that can’t be tolerated, especially from the feminists pit bulls assertive females- Founding persons, indicating an amorphous vague “person”, is Okay.
Chairman is out also- “Chair-Person” is in. Congressman is taboo- “member of Congress” is the term to use. Even the Geico Caveman has that dreaded three letter word- man, so out it goes, and “cave person” enters the lexicon of mushy, weak, cowardly words that liberals are afraid to use.
But this extends to other words- words that you might not think were objectionable. Words like “Able- bodied”– now, you might say, not that- there could be nothing objectionable to that, but apparently there are a LOT of liberals who are not able bodied, as physically able, which might explain why evidently words DO hurt them, apparently A LOT, because they are so busy feeling the emotional impact of these words, and trying, I mean actively TRYING to find words that might, in some bizarro world of their delusional paranoia justifiable worry hurt them. Liberals apparently, wear their nerves on the outside of their body. Can I say that? OK? For now?
The problem, is that these wimps deluded people A$$hats gentle people think that they should purge delete, gently lift these “objectionable” words from our children’s textbooks. They actually have the gall hubris arrogance right in their minds to do this, but it’s politically correct speech gone wrong on steroids, and will lead to less comprehension than if you had just plain speech that conveyed the gist of the idea concisely.
Now the Socialists Communists Progressives Liberals who ever in the hell they want to call themselves today want to dance around the meanings of words, and that creates a “Tower of Babel” effect, where you end up not quite sure of what someone means, and that gives the speaker “wiggle room” to vacillate like Bill Clinton did with his “Depends on what the definition of “is” is”- what arrogant BS.
What is wrong with the word “teenagers”? Now people want to use “adolescents” exclusively to describe teens. I, however, see no need to change my speech to suit someone’s very tender feelings. These people need to develop a thicker skin.
In everyday talk, black mark is now verboten, presumably because someone might object to the word “black”- likewise, indian, (excepting Indian cuisine) or any word that even one person finds objectionable. This is so ridiculous that I hardly have the words to describe this phenomenon.
I am sure “niggardly” is on the list, as is “picayune“- even though those words do not mean anything insidious, or derogatory, except as describing someone’s behavior. I guess that is enough in these wimpy times to earn a strike from the wordsmiths on the left.
They need to be careful, however, or soon they will have abandoned or deleted almost all words, except, as I have found out, apparently wingnut and moron are still fair game for them.
Probably not for us on the right.
I guess we are handicapped verbally constricted in the words we can use.
And that’s a pity- we know how to speak plainly.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: free speech, politicall correct, textbooks
HOA Wants Vet To Remove Decals From Vehicle
May 29, 2009 Political
A Homeowner’s Association in Dallas wants a Marine veteran to remove the Marine Corps stickers from his vehicle. They claim the stickers are advertisements and therefore violate the Association by-laws.
This is a ridiculous claim. The stickers are signs of pride in his service, a service that resulted in injury. He fought for the right to display the stickers and they should be allowed just as any political sticker should. I wonder if Obama bumper stickers have to come off because they are advertisements for The Won?
Fortunately for Marine Frank Larison, many of his neighbors are on his side.
Source:
My Fox Houston
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: dallas, free speech, homeowner's association, marine, sticker
I Am Woman, Hear Me Not
May 3, 2009 Political
The silence was deafening, the sound of one hand clapping, as Miss California gave the reply heard around the blogosphere to the question posed by that nobody with a notorious name, Perez Hilton.
Miss California was asked how she felt about Gay marriage, and she gave an honest reply. The trouble is, it was not a politically correct reply. Her reply was that she thought that marriage was between a man and a woman, which was how she had been raised,but it hit a sour note with the woman hating Hilton, who, I am guessing, is gay. Now, he/ she can be a hater all he/ she wants, but Hiltie was a judge in this contest, and says in his/ her videoblog, that that answer is what cost Miss Prejean the crown for Miss America.
It really is such a shame that someone is punished in this country for free and frank (that means Honest, Pervez) speech. Free speech is something you do not have to like, but you DO have to respect, if you want this country to remain a great country.
Now Hilton is free to hate what she said, but as a judge, he shouldn’t have used his/? judgeship as a cudgel against Miss California. Still, this continues a pattern of sexual abuse and verbal battery of women who are not liberals. I was surprised, but only mildly, that none of the women’s groups that seemingly espouse feminine causes said ANYTHING- not one thing.
Indeed, the Miss America officials attempted to have Miss California recant, or at least “dress Up” her remarks, much like Joe Biden has to “clarify” his remarks. There’s a world of difference here, however- Joey misspeaks chronically, while Miss California knew what she was saying, and said it concisely.
Miss California is not the first woman who Womens Groups have hung out to dry, forsaking their false call of “Sisterhood”, for the hypocritical one of “Liberal Sister”- no, Sarah Palin should have been embraced by at least one of these groups. You might think these groups, which lie when they say they are all about the freedom of speech, and “those other pesky rights, (except the one with guns)”, might have at least said that while they do not agree with Governor Palin’s stance on many issues, they welcome the fact that women have come so far that they feel comfortable cursing her as she runs for national office.
These alleged women could not even have the good grace to do that. Instead, they go after Gov. Palin’s daughter, because she committed the unpardonable sin of becoming a pregnant Republican. Just because the parent preaches abstinence, does not ensure that the child will listen. But did these nurturing women forgive Bristol, and give her moral support in her time of need? Did they rally around the flagpole of a shared heritage? Oh hell no- despite the fact that Bristol made a choice, it was not the choice that these women wanted- they wanted, I guess, the blood of a dead baby, probably to sacrifice on the altars of sisterhood. The witches in Macbeth have nothing on these creatures.
This, of course, is the feminist version of their contribution to stifling free speech- if they do not agree with you and the comments you make, you will hear the unearthly screech of the Harpy Platoon descending to verbally rip you to pieces, probably along with the Gay (but not happy) Air Force, and,of course, abetted by every other civilization- splitting minority that feels a grudge coming on, just because you might have an independent thought.
Here’s a revolutionary thought, ladies and ?s- you do not have to like everything I say, but neither do I have to say everything you want to hear. THAT is what is truly free speech- get used to it, because I have run flat out of tact and diplomacy, and from now on, I WILL call a skank a skank. And, Wow-
You sure are unpleasant people.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: choice, free speech, hypocrisy, perez hilton, sarah palin
Rules Regarding Our Rights
Dec 27, 2008 Political, Second Amendment
The last presidential election demonstrated that we need some controls on who we allow to vote. I had suggested that people should have to pass a test in order to vote or that people should receive more votes based on how much money they pay in taxes. This is not my idea and has been explored by others. The idea is like those who own stock in a company. Those who own more get more votes and in the case of elections, those who pay more in taxes would have more votes because they are providing more of the capital to run the country.
I remember when I made these suggestions I had a few folks who said that what I wanted amounted to racism and discrimination because I would require people to qualify to exercise a basic right. I see nothing wrong with giving a person a basic civics test and making him pass before he is registered to vote but for some reason this gets the panties of some in a wad. The videos in the bottom right siderbar clearly demonstrate why some folks should not be allowed to vote but even the stupidity displayed is not enough reason for the crowd that believes people should have unfettered access to the polling places (unless a Black Panther is intimidating people).
It is interesting to me that people would oppose an idea that would impose qualifications on a so called right. Keeping in mind that the Constitution does not give anyone a right to vote we will assume that it does for the sake of argument. That and that states have set up voting as the method to select people for office. Why would people feel offended that we would impose a qualification to exercise a right?
The very same liberals who get bent out of shape at some sort of litmus test to exercise the right to vote have no problem setting up barriers for those who want to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment. You see, the right to keep and bear arms is absolute. The Founders used wording that acknowledged the right existed prior to the founding of this nation. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But it is infringed each and every day. Many states impose restrictions on who may and who may not own a gun and they are very strict on allowing people to carry them. In Maryland, assuming one meets all the checks for criminal record and mental health, one must demonstrate that he is in danger or has been the victim of threats. In some states people must register the gun, submit to a background check, attend safety classes and then, if the state feels generous, the person might get issued a carry permit. These permits and the background checks all come with fees that the gun owner must pay.
Imagine if there were a fee to register to vote. Suppose a person who wanted to vote had to fill out a form, pay a fee and then get a background check and pass a test before being allowed to vote? The ACLU and many other alleged civil rights organizations would be lined up to file the lawsuits crying about the denial of a right. They seem pretty comfortable with these restrictions on a right that is clearly enumerated in the Constitution.
Suppose that Congress made a law that people who wanted to go to church had to pay a fee and have a background check before they could attend services or be affiliated with a religion. Suppose people had to pay fees and pay to get speech training before they could exercise free speech. All of this would not sit well with the very liberals who attacked me for my suggestion that there be a voting test and yet they remain silent when it comes to the rights of the citizens to own and carry firearms.
Well, they are not exactly silent. They are usually speaking out in favor of gun control and against the rights acknowledged in the Constitution. These are the folks who will vote for candidates who want to exercise extreme gun control and who want to ban certain types of weapons (so called assault weapons). They seem to be able to rationalize that it is OK to infringe on one right if they disagree with the right but not on any right they hold sacred.
The “right” to an abortion is not spelled out in the Constitution. The word abortion does not appear in the document and yet the Supreme Court found that right in Roe vs. Wade. This decision overturned all the laws states had regarding abortion and now the left is so wrapped up in this murderous practice that anything sensible is an assault. Require minors to tell their parents, a violation of the “right.” No abortions after the third trimester, a violation so let’s go on and have partial birth abortions to ensure that babies are murdered any time the woman wants to exercise her “right.” God forbid any lawmaker tries to write some kind of law that places any restriction whatsoever on abortion because then the left gets up in arms and sees it as an affront to a basic “right.”
Not so much for gun ownership. The left wants to impose extremely restrictive rules on the law abiding citizens who want to exercise a right that, unlike abortion, is clearly spelled out.
As we move into the anti gun administration and as people like anti gun Caroline Kennedy look to be put into office we will see more restrictions put forth in bills at the federal level. States will try to impose even tighter control. As they do, ask how you would react if these impositions were directed at the other rights that are held as sacrosanct.
Barack Obama said that he felt the government could impose common sense restrictions on rights (he was speaking about the right to keep and bear arms). If this is the case then my common sense restrictions can be placed on voters. I am all in favor of a criminal records check to buy a firearm so that criminals do not buy guns. I am also in favor of a common sense approach to voting. I wonder if Obama will feel that voting should have some common sense restrictions placed on it…
Without the Second Amendment there would be no First and if the liberals get their way it too will be in jeopardy.
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: abortion, free speech, gun control, Second Amendment, voting
School Bows To Obama Supporters
Oct 9, 2008 Political
The University of Texas had a rule barring students from displaying signs in their dorm windows and that rule has been around a while. Two cousins, Connor and Blake Kincaid, decided that the rules did not apply to them and put an Obama sign in their dorm windows. They were not allowed to register for Spring classes because of their refusal to remove the signs.
The school has decided to suspend the rule and will now allow students to display signs. The school is worried about free speech concerns and the cousins said that this was a basic free speech issue.
NO IT IS NOT.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Schools, workplaces and private establishments may decide what people can display and what they may discuss. Your boss can tell you not to discuss politics at work. The Constitution says that government will not make laws abridging free speech. This is nothing more than people being rewarded for breaking the rules, kind of like the Wall Street bailout. If I were the president of the school they would have removed the signs or been expelled. And before the Obamabots get their panties in a wad, I believe in the rules so if it were a McCain sign I would feel the same way. No signs means no signs.
It is now up to another student to see how much this school is really in tune to free speech. A student needs to put a sign with the Confederate Flag on it in his dorm window.
Anyone want to take wagers as to whether that student’s free speech will be honored?
This must be what Obama meant when he told his followers to get in people’s faces. These kids better be glad Big Dog is not in charge or they would find out real quick what a pucker factor is.
Source:
My Way News
Tags: free speech, liberal idiots, rule breakers