|
Just ask Ann Coulter about how it works. |
|
|
You stole the words right off of my laptop! So True!! |
|
If only we could find a way to make libs speechless...
maybe we could require them to only speak in 'Whale.' |
|
Waiting for the media to criticize their own will be one extremely long wait. The truth is they agree with what these radicals are saying. NBC knows their ratings will equal Air America's if they allow this stuff on the air, so they keep their "reporters" in check.
I see more rational people in church every Sunday than in a classroom at the local university. |
|
"Never mind that Maher just insulted about 91 percent of the American people as irrational, even mentally ill. The reaction from the media elites was, predictably, total silence."
So very true, except when something negative serves their purpose as in former prez carter. Read my blog Presidential "Honor." Just click my name. |
|
Sadly, "Insults, a way of life for the Right" also. And frequently the insults of the right are every bit as childish as those on the left.
My parents taught me when I was young that two wrongs don't make a right. How often do we see here, on a Political Debate site, people engaging in infantile name calling who are on the right? The answer is all to often.
It seems to me that the people who call each other names, make fun of others names, or attack someone personally just can't get their point across any other way.
Humor is different. When some writes a Humor Column Like Ann Coulter or does a Humerous TV show Like Bill Maher or SNL we expect them to be outrageous, to use over the top exageration and charicatuer. That is what makes them funny, the tiny hint of truth in the jest. Also it is the basis of good satire (TruLib is the master at this type of Satire, and it is really funny)
However many on Townhall should be ashamed of the things they write, such as making fun of the President by calling him names or twisting a serving Senators name, twisting the name of a poster etc.
Instead of making Jokes or valid political points, many on right and left just spew hate..
Tinsldr2@yahoo.com
or read my blog on civil debate at:
http://tinsldr2.townhall.com/g/465e549e-c432-4d5e-97ea-fb53 55a3c0bf&comments;=true#comments |
|
If you jump off a building, you will be squashed like a bug when you hit the ground. If you run into a fire you will burn to death. If you throw rocks at men with guns, you will be shot.
And if you taunt a wild animal, odds are pretty good that you will be mauled to death.
The only ones who cannot believe that wild animals (two footed or four) are wild animals are those who have never seen them in the wild. A caged thug or a caged tiger do not pose any visible threat; it is safe to treat them as sweeet little kitty cats or Victims of Exclusion as long as they cannot get out. As most realists know, wild things becomeo dangerous when they and you are on the same street -- especially if you cannot relate to the truth that wild animals are not kitty cats or babies.
So I would suggest that you teach your brat not to treat large wild animals as if they are the kitty cat whose tail they pull at home (with your permission), unless you prefer that they die when the big cat objects. |
|
|
The double standard from the left has been there for decades and will probably be there for decades more. The left, with the help and empathy of the media, are far better at framing the terms of the debate with slogans and sound bites, and at claiming the supposed high moral ground. Every once in a while you have someone like Ronald Reagan who can set them back on their pins a bit, but not often. It's a perpetual problem that conservatives should be dedicating a lot more time to solving unless we want to continue to shovel uphill ad nauseum. |
|
All life is precious. Human life is especially and uniquely precious.
It's one thing to joke about someone's politics or to joke about someone's job or even to joke about someone's looks. It's another thing altogether to joke about someone's death; or to somehow equate the death of a human with the death of an animal.
The vitriol of leftists-posing-as-liberals in the stories Bozell points to, is not just disturbing - it seems almost criminal. |
|
I'll carry no water for the tiger in Seattle, although I will say that if those stupid kids were taunting it, they did deserve to be attacked. Not because their lives are less important than a tiger's, but because anyone stupid enough to taunt an animal renowned as one of the most efficient killers on the planet is a shoo-in for the Darwin awards.
As for Erwin, he did deserve to die. This was a guy who made his living going around taunting deadly animals for his own amusement and for the sake of entertaining others. Anyone who watched his show became familiar with his tagline "They really hate when you do this". He usually uttered it as he was poking a poisonous snake with a stick or picking a fight with a lion. Well, Steve was right, they really do hate when you do that, and the facts of life in the wild finally caught up with him. It's just a shame that he wasn't killed by an animal he was actively provoking, although how the stingray felt about him is still unknown.
I'll shed no tears for people too stupid to take care of themselves, and I won't pretend I'm angry because someone is willing to say it out loud. These people were idiots and the human gene pool is better of without them.
|
|
I don't believe you are thinking through some of your statements.
justpaul writes: "...if those stupid kids were taunting it(a tiger at a zoo), they did deserve to be attacked." Please note; IT WAS AT A ZOO! I could understand your statement if you were talking about a tiger in the wild. We're talking about a ZOO! We should expect safety protocols that serve to protect people and animals.
justpaul writes: "I'll shed no tears for people too stupid to take care of themselves, and I won't pretend I'm angry because someone is willing to say it out loud. These people were idiots and the human gene pool is better of without them." I would seriously reconsider that statement. It sounds very similar to the rationale used by Nazi's for their infamous extermination of humans.
I ask that you reconsider because I don't believe you are as cruel and inhuman as your comments make you sound... |
|
No, Phileo, I don't need to reconsider anything I said.
Yes. Those stupid kids were at a zoo. Do you have some idea that all of the animals in a zoo have been rendered "safe"? If so, why do you think they have fences in the zoo? To protect the animals from the visitors? The whole idea of a zoo is to be able to see wild animals, dangerous animals, animals you cannot go see in your back yard because they are too dangerous. These kids were old enough to understand that.
There were safety protocols, Phileo. There was a fence, a moat, and basic common sense. All three of them failed because these kids ignored them. It's not the tiger's fault.
"I would seriously reconsider that statement. It sounds very similar to the rationale used by Nazi's for their infamous extermination of humans."
What a completely fatuous statement. That you would even try to drag the Nazis into this is all the evidence needed that you haven't even considered what you are saying and that you are grossly unaware of how the Nazi's in Germany actually operated. The Nazis killed people they felt were undesirable for political reasons. They did not kill people who took risks for the sake of risk taking. Beyond that, I haven't proposed killing anyone, Phileo. I simply said that I will not shed a tear for people too stupid to care for themselves. And I stand by that. I don't cry for basejumpers who wait too long to throw out their chute. I don't cry for skiers who run into trees and break their necks. I didn't cry for Dale Earnhardt when he drove his car into a wall at 200 mph. I expect people to take responsibility for their actions and their safety. If these kids in Seattle really were taunting the tiger, they chose not to take responsibility for their own safety. Steve Erwin made a living out of not doing that. He paid the price. |
|
ok...hilarious.
Ever see the Dicovery channel show where the guy crawls into the Crocdile nest to pull one out to measure it? I keep waiting for the following headline;
"Conservationist Eaten by Crocodile During Measurement Attempt."
"You know they really hate it when you do that."
And I'll go one step further and say I shed no tears for Bent Bozel writing an article about how his newsbusters group wrote an article about what some other cultural nit-wit said and that sensible people ignored and went on with their day.
We have all the time in the world for internet pornography but one guy make a call of the wild joke and everybody goes nuts?
No way and Ye Gods! |
|
The left is a conglomerate of small special interest groups that have small little agendas. Alone each group has a snowball's chance in Al Gore's inconvenient future. But, these groups do show up to vote in high percentages, often 90% or better, and so are targets of convenience for left-leaning candidates. You promise them their one little issue and they vote for you, even if every other of your politcal views are harmful to the majority of Americans.
Therefore the left does not have double standards, they have thousands of standards, one for each special interest group, and they pick and chose the most convenient standard for that particular situation.
At least the religious right is predictable. They have only one set of principles embodied in the ten commandments, and they have been taught to be submissive (turn the other cheek). Easy pickens for the Bill Maher's of the world. Notice he doesn't attack Muslims because they retaliate with deadly conviction.
It is hard for conservatives to play the game when the other side keeps changing the rules for their side, and applying the most inconvenient set of rules for your side. |
|
"As for Erwin, he did deserve to die. This was a guy who made his living going around taunting deadly animals for his own amusement and for the sake of entertaining others. Anyone who watched his show became familiar with his tagline "They really hate when you do this".
You give wild animals too much credit. They are incapable of human emotions like "hate". They react to situations based on fight or flight, Darwinian first principles.
While it is possible that one or two of the people mauled by this tiger "deserved it", there were others injured or killed who had no part in the taunting. What about them? Should the officers have not shot the tiger because she was doing what comes naturally? The tiger made no such judgement and cannot tell one human from another. They all smell like meat. |
|
|
I thought humans were the only creatures who killed for fun. In the wild, tigers will kill humans for food just like any other animal smaller than them. They also would be killed by an elephant if it tried to attack a newborn calf. Why is it OK for the elephant to kill an attacking tiger, but not humans? According to Darwin, its kill or be killed. We should be thankful that we capture these animals and display them in zoos rather than just kill and mount them in museums. |
|
As usual, Flash, you are trying to muddy the waters.
I didn't say "They hate when you do that". It was Erwin's tag line. As for what wild animals are capable of, however, I believe you are wrong. I think that they really do "hate" when you do something to provoke them because they don't want to be provoked. But whether or not this qualifies as what we humans call hate is irrelevant. If you poke a poisonous snake with a stick long enough, you're going to get bitten. How the animal feels about that won't really matter to do as you lay there dying.
As for the other people at the Zoo: Please show me where I said that the officers should not have shot the tiger. I simply said that the kids who taunted it into jumping out of its cage (assuming that it was happened; this still seems to be an open question) do not deserve my sympathy nor are they entitled to my being banned from saying out loud that they were idiots who got what they deserved. I reserve my sympathy for the other people who were put in danger by these morons.
But that's the classic problem with our society these days. It's far too polarized, and far too many people see it as all black or all white. I refuse to feel pity for those unwilling to take responsibility for themselves, so I must be rooting for the tiger? No, Flash. I'm rooting for all of the people who understand that no matter what Hillary and Obama promise you, it will remain a dangerous world in which you have to look out for yourself and in which a little common sense goes a long way.
|
|
|
That Radical Leftists are similar to Muslim Terrorists? They are civil to each other, but ANYONE who disagrees with them are seen as subhuman and only good for target practice. |
|
Jp says: "As usual, Flash, you are trying to muddy the waters...It's far too polarized, and far too many people see it as all black or all white."
I am not trying to muddy the waters, but only to carry out your line of reasoning to it's oviously absurd conclusions to prove a point. Logic dictates that an error in the beginning in an error in deed. Hence, the only way a solid line of reasoning can reach absurd or contradictory conclusions is if the premise from which the line of reasoning began was wrong.
You cannot apply different sets of reasoning (rules) to get the result you want. If one line of reasoning works with one set of conditions, that line of reasoning should also work with other sets of conditions, else the line of reasoning is invalid.
That, I believe is what is being referred to as double standards. One side has one set of values, and the other side has a myriad set of different values each taylored to reach the end it wants. In other words, not one set of values, but no set of (consistent) values. The division is the fault of the left's lack of a common set of principles for the right to debate.
|
|
Try showing me where I erred or where I used a double standard instead of rambling on about what you meant to do. I expect all people to take responsibility for themselves and their actions, and I do not require others to refrain from pointing out when people act like idiots. There is no double standard there.
End of story. If you find that offensive or too indelicate for your sensibilities, tough.
I would note, however, that Bozell himself is using a double standard here. He has no problem taking liberals to task for what he considers their failings. In fact, he makes a living out of doing so. So why is he so upset that someone else is making a living off of telling the truth about idiots like Erwin? Because he didn't think of it first?
Peace to you all. I've got things to do today. |
|
|
but Flash gets the best of you in this argument. |
|
The day will come when Bill Maher will achieve the dream of many attorneys. It will be the dream of a lifetime. He will get to argue his case before the Supreme Court... the real Supreme Court. That is, if the court decides to hear his case.
Tibby |
|
Every cat lover -- myself included -- at some point has indulged the fantasy that the great cats are at heart gigantic versions of domestic cats. Tigers are really adorable cuddly tabbies, if only we gave them the chance. These kids, though in no way "deserving" of being attacked, wouldn't understand that.
The fact is the tiger, the product of millions of years of evolution, is an efficient killer. That's how they survive in the wild. (Come to think of it, domestic felines are less than peaceful when they're outdoors stalking birds of rodents.). Those instincts don't disappear just because they are in captivity. |
|
If a liberal talks on the radio or tv, and no one is there to hear it, do they really say anything?
|
|
Apparently "the flash" knows as little about Steve Irwin's work as he does how to spell the man's name.
"Danger, Danger, Danger" and "What a beauty!" were his signature phrases, not any of this "they hate when you do that," crap.
Steve Irwin had a risky line of work, and always understood and respected that. He died in an environment he himself confessed he was not comfortable with - undersea wildlife exploration. He also accomplished more in 44 years most men could accomplish in 3 lifetimes. He knew the risks and believed that what he was doing was worth taking those risks - unlike some folks that are terrified of death and need to cling to a government entitlement program or a trust fund to get through the day.
Libs like Steve Maher hate Steve Irwin for a lot of reasons - chief among them being that he presented an alternative message to their Big Government Eco-Socialism.
I reserve judgment on the folks in San Diego until all the facts are made available. They may have contributed to their own demises unnecessarily, but seeing an animal in a zoo is not the same thing as seeing an animal in the wild. They were not "asking for it," in any appreciable way - even if they were acting stupid. |
|
|
the above is addressed to "justpaul" in response to the comment titled: "Whatever Flash" |
|
Steve Irwin was a professional doing a job who found a way to make some money for it. That is how Australians deal with wild animals who encroach on human space. Their laws don't allow trapping and tranqualizing. At least, this is the explanation that an Aussie friend gives. Steve Irwin was not there "provoking" wild animals. He was relocating them so they could go on living in the wild like they were meant to. The zoo he worked for needed money, so he created his TV show to help with that. He wasn't, according to my friend, working at the time of the sting ray attack. Such attacks are not uncommon in Australia. Sting rays can be aggressive. So, no, he didn't deserve to die, even though he had a job that was inherently dangerous.
Second, the kid who got too close the tiger. Dumb! If my daughter's cat didn't weigh 8 pounds, she'd be dangerous, so there's no way my children would be foolish enough to climb through the moat seperating the public area from the animal area. Of course, we live in Alaska, where we encounter real wild life (no protective barriers) on a regular basis.
Still, the kid was stupid, but that doesn't mean he deserved to die.
I think anyone making a joke of someone's death is in need of some therapy. It's not funny! I can think of a few people I'd not be sad to hear had died - Osama bin Laden -- but even then, his death is a tragedy because anytime someone dies without Jesus there's an eternity of death awaiting them. That's not funny! There is nothing humorous about it and these supposed humorists really need to get their heads shrunk to find out why they believe otherwise. |
|
aurorawatch wrote:
"He wasn't, according to my friend, working at the time of the sting ray attack. Such attacks are not uncommon in Australia."
He was actually staying one extra day on location to get some footage for a show his daughter was going to be hosting. A camera man got in front of the sting-ray while Steve was over-top and it instinctively flexed its tail in a twitch response and hit Steve just ~ so ~. It was a one-in-a-million fluke, but when you take enough risks you can't be totally surprised.
Steve took a job that was inherently dangerous and did a lot of good with it for conservation. PETA and their Kool-Aid-drinkers hated his guts. He ate meat. He didn't support their efforts to eliminate domesticated beef. His charitable work actually went towards wildlife conservation instead of lobbying firms. He made them look like like the hypocritical, self-serving, cowardly, humanity-hating little sods they are. |
|
How many PETA members does it take to change a light bulb?
"That's not funny!" (said the PETA representative) |
|
|
No offense taken. In importance, JP fits his moniker. |
|
Liberals want the environment restored to it's pristine, original state. Somehow, they exclude themselves from this obligation...I guess they rationalized that they're 'more evolved' than people like me and therefore need yachys, planes, poodles, horses, Harley's, new BMWs, Hummers(only used when out appreciating nature), vintage Rolls, beach house, NYC brownstone, villa on the Riviera, facials, pedicures, biannual respites from their dreary humanness to remote Swiss spas followed by pilgrimages to Tibet searching for a monk who can open their soul.
The monk, being a smart monk who wants an 'offering' from his wealthy, liberal novice might say, "Let nature be your guide!"
When I think about nature being my guide all that comes to mind are my dogs who eat eachother's poo. They swallow baby bunnies in one gulp. If I brush one the other one is catching the hair balls in his mouth. They 'clean' themselves (which is bad enough) without any self-awareness. They don't care if they're covered with mud. They don't care if they're covered with mud and poo and they don't care if it dries and takes 5 months to crumble off.
I'm waiting for liberals to return the countries of their forefathers, live in mud huts eating berries and slugs. No fire, though!! It's bad for the environment. |
|
|
believe that animals can talk, laugh, cry, make plans and reason. After all, the animals always do this on TV. |
|
I happen to be a misanthrope. That means I hate humanity in general. That's not to say I hate indivdual humans. I do love my friends and family, but other than that, I am apathetic towards society. Mainly, it's a result of envy for the simpletons in this country who work without a care in the world, and raise their families. I curse my heightend sense of intelect because I end up thinking of every conceivable way of making myself angry.
For example, I hate people who use cellphones while driving their cars because I see them as a bunch of pretentious putzs. They think they look so sophisticated driving around and yakking their mouths off about their important business, like "What clothes are you wearing" or "Did you get that from Saks Fifth Avenue or the Banana Republic?" Newsflash, people: You look like jackasses when you're talking on the phone while driving.
That's just one example of why I loathe humanity in general: because too many of them act like idiots. I'm not saying they are, but they certainly do a good job at acting the part. There's so many different reasons I could list about my dislike for humanity, but I'd probably run out of room on this message board about two times over, so I'll leave it at that. |
|
her name was Tatiana. The three kids, two brothers and their buddy, were the worse for substances. There were other people available for mauling, but she singled out her tormentors. It's not smart to torment tigers.
Imagine, Bill Maher being politically incorrect. Isn't that the name of his show? Those who whine so shrilly about double standards need stick-ectomies. Nothing is sacred. Imbeciles!
I'm reminded of an old joke: Mr. Bozell, your proctologist called, she found your head. Hard to believe there was room for it, what with the giant stick, and all.
Rush, that impotent drug addict, should be ashamed of himself. Well, that's probably his real problem, that self-loathing thing. Kind of like Larry Craigg. The only time I use a wide stance like that is when I'm takin' it in the rear! May they all find peace with themselves.
Steve Irwin did seem to enjoy tormenting dangerous beasts. Yeah, his catchphrase was "cor, what a beauty!", but he frequently said "they hate it when you do that". His death would have been truly hilarious if he had died right after saying that. Alas, it was just sad.
|
|
First of all, as someone who has sat on both sides of the political fence, I can say honestly that there are individuals on both sides that are uncivil to each other. I see it here by both liberal and conservative posters. I see it on another political message board I frequent, again both liberal and conservative.
Again, not saying ALL, but there is an element. Those of us who can remain more civil should step forward so that we can debate the issues in a more productive manner, one that might just lead to a resolution of a problem that both sides can live with.
Second of all, Irwin. Never really watched his shows. He was a bit of a blow-hard IMHO, but I wished him no ill. From what I understand, he did do a lot for conservation, for bringing awareness to animals that were not cute and fuzzy. It was sad when he died and I feel for his family. I don't think he deserved it under the circumstances. It was a freak accident.
|
|
Finally, the Tiger, IF the kids taunted, it's a twofold problem - 1) It's dumb to taunt a wild animal or any animal. In some way you are asking for it and 2) I believe the enclosure was not up to standards, so BUT FOR that, even the taunting would not have resulted in injury or death because the animal would not have been able to get out.
I don't take away the tragedy of somebody dying in general, but to taunt a wild animal is just sheer stupidity, I'm sorry. It doesn't mean that I think the Tiger should have lived. Unfortunately, when you keep animals like that, you have to be prepared that something like that might happen and they have to be killed. Animals are supposed to fear us to a certain extent. If you feed bears human food and then object to one being destroyed because it went into someone's house to get more human food, that's just pure stupidity.
We survive as a species because the wild animals don't walk into our neighborhoods and lie in wait to make us dinner. As tree-huggers are apt to say - we have to share the planet. Well, that means we have to defend ourselves as well, and that means keeping animals in fear of us to avoid the necessity of having to destroy one that has become too familiar and thus a danger. To say it's okay for a Tiger to defend itself, but we can't is simply ludicrous. It's a 2 way street.
The Tiger in question also injured somebody a year ago. After that, unfortunate though it may be, it should have been destroyed. It obviously had no fear, and taunting it was certainly not going to end in a pleasant way, especially if the enclosure was not up to standard.
Anyway, that's just MHO on the subject. You may return to your regularly scheduled program.
:) |
|
|
Bill Maher is an a-hole , enough said |
|
|
I remember when Rush first played his "Barack the Magic Negro" spoof back in March/April. He did the spoof after specifically citing an article written by David Ehrenstein of the LA Times that was titled, "Obama the 'Magic Negro': The Illinois senator lends himself to white America's idealized, less-than-real black man." After the spoof had been played, Rush told his listeners to watch him get attacked by the media for this without any mention of the LA Times' article and they'll make it appear as if he invented the term "Barack The Magic Negro". The whole spoof was based on the LA Times' article and meant to prove what the media does and how they react. And once again, Rush was right! |
|
Dear Brent:
As long as that many "newsmen" identify themselves as leftists, the propaganda scourge will continue. Inherently, leftism rejects the notion of truth as an absolute value and embraces the Leninist concept of anything that advances their political agenda as being "moral". Little wonder that the left's pundits and politicos can say and do whatever they want and get a more-or-less free pass. For decades now, every time a conservative sets foot in the public discourse, he does so with that foot immersed in a bucket liberal-mixed concrete.
Until their stranglehold on the media is broken, traditional America is at a disadvantage from the onset. The good news is that even a little truth from sources that the liberals don't own can go far to casting doubt upon their slanted worldview. |
|