Actually it's just some fruit that my kid brought home but I imagine a creature that believes affirmative action isn't racist, guns kill people and that ANWR is a pristine wildlife destination probably has a brain that's similair is size, shape, and color to this.
24 comments:
You've a bit of a tendency to paint us all with the same brush, you know...
DISCLAIMER: I frequently use humor, satire, and nonsensical jokes. Please do not take me so seriously.
great. Now I am totally disillusioned. Thanks Dan.
Yes, but when you glorify Ann Coulter and Joe McCarthy in the same post, it's not very easy to tell the difference.
I hope you understand that the image of the conservative movement and the Republican Party you present to the rest of us is not very good. You're free to preach to the choir, but to everyone else this kind of shallow, stereotyping "humor" comes off as either childishly offensive or just childish. I really don't know who you're trying to convince.
OK, let me be very clear. The "this is your brain on liberalism" post is a [sorry] attempt at humor.
Generally the topics I discuss are dead serious although I usually throw some sarcasm in.
I am very serious about supporting Joe McCarthy, he was a hero and a patriot. I re-read Ann Coulter books regularly and would vote for her for president.
I don't make Republicans look bad, McCain makes Republicans look bad.
That's an Osage Orange. Comonly called a monkey ball.
The wood is almost indestructable.
Indestructable like my flawless logic!
Some affirmative action programs are based on something other than race. How is that racist?
Or you could refer to them as morons...
Your phrase "believes...guns kill people" really struck a nerve - and raised the hairs on the back of my neck. Here's why: while perusing cable channels recently I came across a 2002 movie starring James Coburn I had never heard of named "American Gun". Having always liked Coburn I started watching. The storyline is this: his daughter is murdered at gunpoint. We briefly see the killers in action then learn nothing else about them (and never see them again) - not their names, them being convicted, the trial, nothing. From there the movie is about Coburn (who is mysteriously given the murder weapon by the police after the trial that we never see) tracing the ownership of the gun back to the original factory. While stopping in a gun store that sold the gun to someone he replies when asked about his inquiry: "this gun killed my daughter". Oh really, then why wasn't the gun, rather than the murderers, put on trial? As John Lott says "More Guns, Less Crime".
Terry, I don't believe that women should be socially promoted either. Do you want a woman firefighter trying to pull you out of a burning house?
I also don't want gays, drug addicts, or idiots judged on something other than merit.
Sorry for not including that but affirmative action is generally associated with race.
Speed King, that is the classic liberal mentality. They probably believe that the murderers should have a mental eval and put back into society as well.
How do you define merit? I was thinking of so-called "class based" affirmative action programs, and specifically those for admission to public colleges and universities. The reality is that a level playing field does not exist in this country. (And many of this country's more prominent liberals shamefully persist in keeping poor kids trapped in failing schools where they get a crummy education while sending *their* kids to exclusive private schools. Yes, I support school choice or vouchers.)
Let's say you have two applicants to a public college. Both have equal grades and curricula, while "A" has a 1050 SAT score and "B" has a 950 SAT score. Conventional standards based on "merit" would admit A before B. Now let's say that A comes from a high school with an average (or median, if you prefer) SAT score of 1100, and that B comes from a high school with an average SAT score of 900.
Now which applicant has more "merit" and should be admitted? In this case, A was given a superior education and underperformed, while B was given an inferior education and overperformed. Should an advantaged underperformer get in before a disadvantaged overperformer? Is A really more likely than B to succeed in college if he underperformed in high school?
He kaelri - whatsamatter.... can't take back some of what your lefty commrades have been dishing to us on the right for years?
Maybe he is just telling you the image the Democratic Party gives off. Using this logic, there is nothing wrong with it, no matter how offensive or off base it may be.
"He kaelri - whatsamatter.... can't take back some of what your lefty commrades have been dishing to us on the right for years?"
Any lefties who can't do better than this are most certainly not my comrades.
And even if they were, do you really think Daniel should be following their lead?
"Maybe he is just telling you the image the Democratic Party gives off. Using this logic, there is nothing wrong with it, no matter how offensive or off base it may be."
Um. What? (I honestly have no idea how that relates to my comments earlier...)
Wow...
Is this simple enough?:
"I hope you understand that the image of the conservative movement and the Republican Party you present to the rest of us is not very good." is what you wrote.
"Maybe he is just telling you the image the Democratic Party gives off. Using this logic, there is nothing wrong with it, no matter how offensive or off base it may be." is what I wrote.
I was referring to the bigoted, hypocritical stance many liberals take towards the very things they stand for. I wasn't attacking you, I was saying that it goes both ways.
Do you understand now? Or do I have to draw it out using stick figures? I might be forced to use gunslinger's avatar.
There's no need for belligerence.
Of course it goes both ways, I haven't implied otherwise. But this is Daniel's blog, representing conservative Republicans, ergo he and they are the ones I'm going to criticize here.
And if you think there's "nothing wrong with it," you and I clearly don't have a few ethical standards in common...
I was implying that by your logic there's nothing wrong with it. I never said that's what I think. And this is Daniel's blog, not the RNC blog.
And please don't take me seriously either.
"And this is Daniel's blog, not the RNC blog."
I'm aware.
"And please don't take me seriously either."
...that doesn't help you much.
Apparently you're not aware. He's representing himself, not conservative Republicans, which is exactly what you said.
By going both ways, I don't mean talking out both sides of your mouth.
How dare I use humor. It's wasted on some people.
"But this is Daniel's blog, representing conservative Republicans, ergo he and they are the ones I'm going to criticize here."
Seriously, I only represent myself. All other groups and individuals have disavowed any association with me and most people don't even acknowlege my existence.
But that's ok, I'm just a moderate in a world of extremists...
"How dare I use humor. It's wasted on some people."
Sorry... the problem is that I've dealt with people who say all these things and mean it.
"Seriously, I only represent myself."
Oh, if only it worked like that...
So are you saying that by default you represent all high school students?
No. But people might nonetheless make inferences about high school students based on my behavior. *I* understand that Daniel doesn't represent all conservatives - if he did, I'd be a lot crazier than I am. But people love a spokesman. Look around. One of the popular assumptions these days is that liberals want to "cut and run" from Iraq - immediate withdrawal, no matter the consequences. That's far from the truth, but after Cindy Sheehan's fifteen minutes of fame, that stereotype en't going anywhere.
People also love to judge liberals and the Democratic Party by Bill Clinton. Think it was a Coulter column quoted here: "the party that supports murder, adultery, lying about adultery..." Luckily for you, conservatives, after the Miers debacle, aren't so readily identified with President Bush.
Post a Comment