RightWingRocker

Never mind the pajamas … We blog in the nude!

Archive for August, 2006

Labor Day Weekend

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 31, 2006

Labor day weekend is soon to be upon us.

The RWRepublic will likely be quiet for the weekend, as there’s a tour to deal with, and hopefully some barbecue action on Monday.

I’ll try to get something up before school starts up on Tuesday. It remains to be seen just how much blogging time I will have this school year. Good luck to all the teachers, students, parents, and school administrators for the upcoming school year.

Oh, and fly your flags for Labor Day and especially September 11!

I’ll look forward to posting, but in the meantime, please click through the advertisers at the right, and make sure you read the important stuff on the left sidebar, particularly my Presidential Platform and the New FedeRWRalism.

Have a great weekend!

RWR

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Interesting Stuff at Moonbattery

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 31, 2006

Van Helsing’s on a rampage this week. Now that I’ve stopped laughing so hysterically,have a look at these two posts:

Dual Passports for Norwegian Perverts? (Today)

“Death to Israel” Rally in Salt Lake City (Yesterday)

And check this dude out!

Can it get any more ridiculous??

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Emperor Misha and the Obvious

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 31, 2006

My biggest inspiration in joining the blogosphere a year and a half ago was Emperor Misha. Today, he posts an awesome reminder as to why.

Just read it. There isn’t much to say afterwards.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Fratboys

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 30, 2006

Every day, I stop by and see what PJ-Comix over at DUmmie FUnnies has found. I just can’t be bothered with going over to DU myself to pick through the drivel to find the things that are funny enough to post. Besides, PJ does it better than I ever could. Yesterday, he posted about the recent South Park movie, in which Saddam Hussein was portrayed as Satan’s gay lover (which isn’t too far off the mark in reality). Apparently the US Marines guarding Saddam have made him watch it … repeatedly. HAHA You go, guys! Anyway, the DUmmie thread had the typical anti-America drivel, lightened up, of course, with PJ’s commentary. This comment caught my eye:

Bush peed hisself laughin, tho. We are the Boorish Bully Fratboy Nation.

This “fratboy” reference is a common theme in the threads that PJ finds, so I dcided to look into this whole fraternity membership business among successful people. After all, I myself wear the colors of a fraternity, and I know that many successful people have fraternity loyalties. First, let’s look into Mr. Bush‘s fraternity status.

Mr. Bush has been a member of two fraternal organizations, Delta Kappa Epsilon, and the Skull and Bones Society. His bio mentions an organization called “Bohemian Grove“, but its function is not important in illustrating my point. Suffice to say that Mr. Bush has belonged to at least two fraternal organizations.

Next, let’s take a look at the poster boy for Botox, John Kerry. Kerry’s choice of brotherhood was the Fence Club, a brotherhood of people from “old-money families from New England”. Oh, and he’s also been involved in the Skull and Bones Society, just like President Bush.

So why do the DUmmies constantly harp on President Bush’s fraternity status? This isn’t entirely clear, since their sweetheart John Kerry was one as well. Maybe we should look into their ultimate lover of all time, Bill Clinton, to see what his fraternal status is …

Clinton has been a member of two greek letter honor organizations that I would not qualify as fraternitites. However, he has also been affiliated with Alpha Phi Omega Fraternity as well, which, interestingly enough, includes the Boy Scout Oath in its pledge manual (sorry link not handy, bu it’s on page 4). So he’s belonged to a fraternity, but worked against the support of the organization after which it is modeled (remember his administration’s assault on the Boy Scouts’ right to exclude homosexuals?).

This brings some questions to the fore. 1. Who gives a flying fuck what fraternity this, or for that matter, ANY president ever belonged to? 2. If the Left’s president of choice doesn’t allow his fraternal loyalties to influence his decisionmaking, why would President Bush? Is President Bush somehow a more loyal person than President Clinton? 3. Why is ANY of this relevant at all?

I can only answer #3. It’s not relevant at all. These people are nutty to the core, and will say anything, regardless of its basis in fact, to be saying something negative about the President. What perplexes me is why. He’s given them most of what they wanted domestically.

War is hard. This president has done the right thing by fighting these terrorists. Don’t forget that EVERY war will have its ups and downs, and this enemy is the most formidable we’ve ever faced. He is a greater menace than Hitler himself. We will not be able to defeat him in just a matter of months, or even years. This president has also done right by appointing Supreme Court justices who will be guided by the simple and clear language of the Constitution.

On all other counts, he’s a socialist Democrat just like the DUmmies. Fratboy or no.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

In Memoriam: Maynard Ferguson 1928-2006

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 28, 2006

Ojai, CA (August 24, 2006) – Walter “Maynard” Ferguson, one of the most influential musicians and band leaders in the history of Jazz, passed away August 23rd at 8:00 pm Pacific Time at Community Memorial Hospital in Ventura, California. He was 78 years old. His death was the result of kidney and liver failure brought on by an abdominal infection. Mr. Ferguson’s four daughters, Kim, Lisa, Corby, Wilder and other family members were at his side when he passed away after this brief illness. He spoke by phone with his friend and manager Steve Schankman from St. Louis, longtime tour manager Ed Sargent, and friend, and fellow trumpeter Arturo Sandoval.

It seems Gabriel has been demoted to second chair.

My blogger name notwithstanding, this man was one of the greatest musical influences of my youth. May he rest in peace.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Ziobuck Responds

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 27, 2006

It seems Ziobuck from over at Brad Stine’s blog did make a couple of stops here this weekend, one on Friday afternoon, and one on Saturday evening. He said some interesting things, so let’s get right to it:

RWR:
Ya know…I’ll bet we DO have more in common than not, especially regarding libs. Ha. Okay, I’ll take back that LIB comment I directed at you. I have to admit….that WAS a low blow. Ha. Also, sorry you think I thought you were a kook. I thought I was just disagreeing with someone who I thought was WRONG (I have so much to learn).

Took back the lib comment … Check. Admitted it was a low blow … Check. Just disagreeing with someone you thought was wrong? Sorry I took a different meaning from his words? That whole lib coment labelled me as a kook. And wrong? Yeah, right. Much to learn you do have, my friend. It’s ok, though. A hard-right blogger such as myself gets used to that kind of thing, it was just a little odd having it come from my own side of the aisle.

Your illustration about McCain-Feingold actually makes my point. It is bad law. It should have been vetoed by my president (who isn’t the Reagan conservative I wish him to be) who, IMO, failed to uphold his constitutional duty by assuming the SUPREMEs would do their duty. Of course, the Supremes messed it up too.

McCain-Feingold doesn’t illustrate your point at all. McCain-Feingold is an unlawful restriction upon free speech that should never have been passed in the first place, let alone signed by the president and upheld by the courts. You are demanding that the same kind of illegal law be enforced, and you shred your own argument in the process. I have been a major opponent of McCain-Feingold from the very beginning, and you can see from my sidebar content that I have no intention of paying it any heed whatsoever (e.g. “McCain-Feingold can kiss my ass” and “Screw McCain-Feingold”).

BTW, I’m retired USAF and took my oath of commission seriously about defending the Constitution against ALL enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC!

Great. I thank you for your service from the bottom of my heart. Still, what does this have to do with the domestic enemies of the Constitution that we repeatedly elect to office such as Bush, McCain, the Democrat Party? What have you done to defend against those who allow and enforce unconstitutional federal intrusion into our constitutional rights, since you were so eloquent in bringing that up and even emphasizing “DOMESTIC”?

I think where we part company is that you think our freedom of speech is and should remain unrestricted (public and private), whereas I believe in some basic “indecency” restrictions in our free speech codes (common sense stuff, like speech you wouldn’t normally use around your mother) at the very least on our PUBLIC airwaves (notice I don’t have a problem with garbage talk in a movie, on HBO, in a Las Vegas club, etc. I can protect my kids in those areas).

Let’s take a look at this, ok? As evidence, I present the First Amendment:

Amendment I

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.

While we do agree that the founders intended this to mean political speech, there’s also the freedom to have an opinion and voice it. That’s why the semicolon appears AFTER the freedom of the press, and not between the two. Howard Stern, irrelevant idiot that he is, has every right to place his opinion of a good show into the marketplace. If people don’t want to listen to him, they don’t have to. Furthermore, you say you don’t have a problem with garbage talk in a movie or on HBO, but you have one with XM radio, which is no different from HBO – it’s a pay service. You have therefore killed your own argument.

Besides, if there weren’t an audience for Stern, he wouldn’t have a show. Market forces would ensure that. I don’t like him, so I don’t listen to him. With all the choices we have, especially this day and age, it doesn’t make sense to argue that people should be telling each other what to listen to on the radio or watch on TV. There are good choices and bad, and it’s easy to monitor. You can even turn the thing off if you don’t like anything that’s on. All this barking at and about Howard Stern is stupid. Stupider than his programming.

RWR, you suggested it was political free speech our Founding Fathers were referring to. So, why are you “protecting” someone’s right to be pornographic in word and deed on our PUBLIC airwaves? Again, just because some SUPREMEs have ruled some of that garbage as free speech doesn’t make it right (again, look at McCain-Feingold).

Again, XM is not “public airwaves”, and the SUPREMES can kiss my ass. I am a citizen of the United States of America, and I do not want people trampling upon MY constitutional rights – therefore I will defend those whose constitutional rights are under assault. Again, with so many ways for you and I not to be offended by things that come up on TV and the radio – hell, even in the news and on the internet – it just seems kind of stupid and petty to me to go after someone who’s just being himself, not hurting anyone, and completely within his rights to be what he is and do what he does.

So what do we do, RWR, when we disagree with the courts? Appeal! Get a new case to go before the bench and hopefully get a different ruling. Ensure we elect folks who can appoint GOOD judges with common sense. (Let’s VOTE okay?) I’m not [forcing] my beliefs on others as much as suggesting they should be up for a vote from the PEOPLE [versus] activist judges.

I have a different perspective on that. What I think we should do when we disagree with the courts has more to do with our Second Amendment rights than anything else. As far as I’m concerned, I couldn’t care less how much common sense a judge has as long as he’s using the Constitution as his guide and not the scriptures or foreign law. Someone who thinks in terms of original intent. Your insistence upon federal intervention (FCC) is at odds with the whole concept of limited government, and like all things that come by way of government in a small way, that way eventually becomes bigger and the program, law, department, or agency sooner or later begins to intrude upon your own rights and/or ability to sustain them. It’s all too apparent today with the socialist programs of the 1930’s and 1960’s taking so much out of your pocket today that you can hardly live on the difference, while it didn’t seem like such a big deal at their onset. People in America are expected to govern themselves.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

With rights come responsibilities. This is where my suggestion of persuading people against Stern comes in. You have as much right to your opinion and to speak that opinion as Howard Stern and, quite frankly, people who like to listen to him. Like Stern, you are not guaranteed an audience, but if your powers of persuasion and those of others like you are good enough, you may be successful. You may also be deemed a kook by the general populace, or at least by Stern’s audience. It’s a risk you take. It’s a risk I take every time I post on this blog. It’s also what freedom is all about. It’s what you stood up to our enemies to defend.

Your comments on the FCC are interesting. I’ll have to do some research. It might have saved us a lot of angst in our writings if that point was mentioned in one of your earlier posts. I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusion about the FCC. There are many many federal agencies (correct me if I’m in error) that aren’t specifically provided for in the Constitution, i.e., FBI, the Federal Reserve, IRS. Does that make them unlawful/unconstitutional? Ha (Perhaps… but they aren’t going away soon).

The FBI is authorized under Article II, Section 3. The Federal Reserve is, in concept, authorized under Artice I, Section 8, but is unconstitutional in its present form, as outlined here. The IRS is a violation of Article I, Section 8. Congress alone has the power to collect taxes.

These things are not going away any day soon because people are too busy trying to use the government to create and enforce MORE unconstitutional laws, agencies, and actions to cater to whatever personal bitch they have with this person or that – or with this group of people or that. They don’t see the long-term effects of their actions, and it doesn’t look like they will until their own rights are infringed upon. Try buying a gun this day and age, for example.

I’m sure the FCC was created to regulate radiation power, band-width redistribution, conflicting radio signals, etc., so that public safety wasn’t jeopardized. I, for one, am happy they can also regulate some of the indecency on our PUBLIC airwaves. I guess we’ll never see eye to eye on that issue. –Ziobuck the loquacious

All well and good, Ziobuck, but where does the FCC get the constitutional authority to do any of this? You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, yet you defend the very people and agencies that work to tear it down. That may make you a good Christian (I doubt it), but it definitely doesn’t make you a good American.

Ziobuck comes back Saturday evening with this:

Oh, BTW, since I won’t be returning to your pleasant Blog site (you’re right…you are a bit too conservative for me), I’ll leave you with this thought. You pride yourself on your consistency. Yet, the whole tenor of your graceless discourse, the way you mock someone who has a “mild” disagreement with you (yeah, I think I actually agree with about 90% of what you profess), the way you ridicule a “brother” in the Lord, your use of the locker room word “efing” (notice you didn’t use it on Brad’s site–trying to impress your friends here?), are very “inconsistent” with the tenets of your faith, unless, of course, you belong to one of those “kool aid” drinking sects.

Come back if you want, or don’t come back. Quite frankly I couldn’t give two shits. I’ll mock at will, Ziobuck. My disagreement with you was hardly “mild”. I tend to have SERIOUS and VEHEMENT disagreements with people who characterize my words as having “contributed greatly to the decline of civility and decency in our country.” In saying these sorts of things, you have yourself thrown civility and decency to the wind, and have invited for yourself a good mocking. You deserved it. Perfectly consistent.

You wouldn’t know my faith if it bit you in the ass. I have no “brothers in the Lord”, as I keep my faith betwen God and myself. How I choose to worship, or for that matter not worship, is my busiess exclusively, and I have a major problem with people who call themselves Christian who can’t accept the fact that their version of Christianity isn’t the only one that exists. My “sect” happens to be the one I personally developed through reason. I’m sure it’s not perfect, but what is? Scripture? Talk about inconsistency. We could go on for days about faith and what it is and what it means to be a Christian.

Don’t forget the basis of Christianity, Ziobuck. It’s not about scripture much beyond John 3:16. If you believe Jesus is the Savior, then you are a Christian. That opens the door for a LOT of different versions of Christianity, and those versions would far outnumber the number of “sects” that you refer to.

I’ll use whatever words I like on my blog. It’s my blog. It’s my interpretation of the First Amendment that is being exercised here. Same goes for Brad Stine. I avoided certain words on Brad’s site not because I’m trying to impress anyone here, but because there it’s HIS BLOG, and it would be the height of disrespect to do so there. When you’re in someone’s house, you live by their rules and traditions.

At the RWRepublic we use that kind of language for one reason and one reason only … because we think it’s FUN. Try it sometime; you may find you agree. We also think it’s harmless. Here, watch – FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK. See? No ambulance or medical attention necessary, and probably most people who read it are laughing right now, for whatever reason. No one died. No one was maimed or injured. Best of all, those who didn’t like it are free to point their browsers elsewhere. Are you suggesting the FCC should come and shut down my site because I used the word FUCK? If so, I’d posit that you are liberal, at least on that point.

I have enjoyed our spirited debate, though. I’d say I’m sorry if any of it made you uncomfortable, but I’d be lying. My true position is more like “tough shit” (with a smile, of course). I defended Stern, and will continue to do so, because I wouldn’t want someone pulling that kind of crap with me. The truth hurts sometimes, but facing it is always the best course of action.

See ya at Brad Stine’s Blog Nation
!

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Tour

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 25, 2006

Got tour this weekend. I’ll try to catch up Sunday, if not Monday.

In the meantime, Have some fun with the Freder posts, and as always, the New Federalism, which is always important, but especially so during an election year.

Heck, check out my “presidential platform” as well.

Links to all of the above are on the left sidebar.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

ArmyBryan Reports

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 24, 2006

ArmyBryan, who was actually in Iraq at the time Freder_Frederson and I made our wager, has just reported in from Korea (he still gets daily reports from Iraq):

First, from the comments section:

So, FF loses again. Isn’t his record almost as dismal as Kos’s? There is no civil war in Iraq, the IDF is much improved from a year ago, although they still have a long way to go to measure up to our standards, but things are getting better, albeit somewhat unevenly. I talk with guys on the ground daily and read there reports, so this is first hand info I get. Sorry it took so long to post, but I am busy with an exercise in Korea right now.

armybryan | 08.23.06 – 8:25 pm | #

And this from an email I received tonight:

Sorry that it has taken so long to get online, but they were still setting the network up here in Korea, so I just got access. Anyway, long story short, Freder loses the bet, the IDF are improving and starting to move away from the tribal model and more towards the professional soldier. This is only the beginning steps, but it beats them going the other way. Some units still have problem with members moonlighting as nilitia members, but they are slowly being expunged from the ranks. So, while it is not all daisies and cupcakes, the situation is getting better. Gotta run for now.

Any chance Freder will admit to this?

I doubt it. He’s living in a world of delusion.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

RightWingRocker – A Liberal with a Conservative “Handle”

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 22, 2006

I love Brad Stine. Earlier this month, I posted a comment to a post regarding Howard Stern and his idiocy. Brad’s point was spot-on, but I felt the example he used was weak:

by RightWingRocker on Wed 09 Aug 2006 03:20 AM CDT

… Somehow he has created in his mind a 1st amendment concept that believes the founding fathers true hope and dream for this country was that that one day Americans would be free to listen to shows that include people defecating live as well as sex by albino midgets. …

While I agree with your point, I don’t see this as a particularly good illustration.

The Founders were referring to political free speech in their bringing the First Amendment to the fore, but certainly they did not mean to silence an irrelevant idiot like Howard Stern just because his views carried the stench of immorality.

I’m a firm believer in simply changing the station if you don’t like or agree with the programming. If Stern has an audience, let him play to them. If you and I don’t want to be bothered, let’s listen to or watch something else. Like you, I’m not at all interested in a program that deals with watching people defocate or albino midgets having sex, but if Joe Schmo down the street wants to, I don’t see why we should be standing in his way, even if we think he’s an idiot for wanting to do so.

The rest of your post is right on the money, as is the point that you were really trying to illustrate.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

I must have hit a nerve with one of the other guests, Ziobuck … He came at me with this:

by ziobuck on Thu 10 Aug 2006 03:21 PM CDT

This attitude of “live and let live”, not saying anything about the “wrongs” in our society (JUST TURN THE CHANNEL) has contributed greatly to the decline of civility and decency in our country.

Does the rant above mean we should give up? Not at all. But, unlike RightWingRocker, I think it’s abominable to just let Joe Schmo down the street do whatever he wants. We have plenty of laws on the books for all types of deviant public behavior. What we don’t have are people with the courage to take a stand against these people (and those who would defend them–ACLU-types). I agree with Edmond Burke, “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.”

This only includes the things in his coment that appeared to be directed towards my comment, but it’s easy to see where he’s coming from.

by RightWingRocker on Fri 11 Aug 2006 03:39 PM CDT

It appears I’ve been misunderstood …

**This attitude of “live and let live”, not saying anything about the “wrongs” in our society (JUST TURN THE CHANNEL) has contributed greatly to the decline of civility and decency in our country.**

**But, unlike RightWingRocker, I think it’s abominable to just let Joe Schmo down the street do whatever he wants.**

My comments were not geared toward “live and let live” or letting people “do whatever they want”, and I’m frankly insulted that they have been presented in this way.

If you have a problem with something that someone is doing that is both wrong but within their rights as an American, you are not obligated to simply sit by. Understand what changing the station does. It removes audience. Removing Stern’s audience would take him off the air in very short order. You work to educate and show people the error of their ways. Stick to constitutional means, in other words.

Just remember that they may not agree. If you can’t turn them, and you’ve done everything in your power, then you did what you could.

Interfering with people’s Constitutional rights works both ways. How can a Christian advocate restrictions on people’s First Amendment rights given the way Cristians’ own First Amendment rights are being trampled every day in America by the ACLU and their minions?

I think that is the essence of my point. Stern is an idiot. People like to listen to him. You don’t try to shut up Stern by having him thrown off the air. You show his audience why he’s an idiot and why they’re wrong to listen to him. Persuasion will always be the best way. Trying to ban non-Christian actions and beliefs is exactly the same as the ACLU trying to ban Christian ones, and it’s wrong.

RWR

I think I hit it pretty much spot on, Don’t you? So here’s his response:

by ziobuck on Mon 14 Aug 2006 11:48 AM

**I’m a firm believer in simply changing the station if you don’t like or agree with the programming. If Stern has an audience, let him play to them. If you and I don’t want to be bothered, let’s listen to or watch something else. Like you, I’m not at all interested in a program that deals with watching people defocate or albino midgets having sex, but if Joe Schmo down the street wants to, I don’t see why we should be standing in his way, even if we think he’s an idiot for wanting to do so. **

RWR: Please…, you feel insulted because I misinterpreted (I don’t think so) your post above? Put a helmet on! Maybe you missed the idea that some of us do not think it is an American “right” to be obscene, especially when there are laws on the books in most states about this. Some how, our liberal activists judges have convinced America that EVERYTHING is permissible under the First Amendment, i.e., that PORN in our public library is free speech, that gutter talk on our public airways is free speech, that burning our country’s flag is free speech. As you and both Brad said in different ways, free speech was targeting “political” speech, not the obscene kind of trash that would no doubt get you thrown in jail during the Revolutionary War.

**If you have a problem with something that someone is doing that is both wrong but within their rights as an American…**

Yes, I have a problem with someone who is doing “wrong” but within their “rights”. It is never right to do wrong. Liberals lawyers and activist judges have so warped our First Amendment “rights” that the Founding Fathers would have been horrified at what we’ve done to pervert their original intent. Yes, I am a law abiding person, but we have some seriously bad laws in this country. I agree with JOJ that this kind of thinking/activism is what we have to VOTE out of office (impeach if they are on the bench). Somewhere in Scripture it is said, “Woe to those who call Good “evil”, and evil “Good”. Frankly, I don’t see equivalence of a Christian trying to ban obscenity and the ACLU trampling freedom of my religious expression.
–Ziobuck not buying into the “moral equivalence” argument

So he’s got a problem with people exercising their rights. Plain and simple. Let him throw around the idea of “moral equivalence” all he wants. Insisting that someone’s First Amendment rights are respected is hardly “moral equivalence”. This guy’s religious zealotry is enough to make a person consider becoming an atheist. Another commentor, “spaceship”, chimed in:

by spaceship on Mon 14 Aug 2006 12:14 PM CDT

The United States is a nation of laws. In order for something to be illegal, one must go beyond the “I think it’s wrong” argument. This is a good thing, because otherwise liberals might have already made driving an SUV illegal.

So will someone please explain to me the legal tenets under which the government should have the power to tell people how to have sex?

A perfectly legitimate question, right? Here’s what Ziobuck said:

Spaceship:
Would it have helped your understanding if I said, “God thinks it’s wrong?” Yeah, I thought so!

Then he goes on about how the US is a nation of laws, but that many laws are not enforced, and went off on spaceship over the legal tenets of some of the stupid liberal things going on in the schools. My position was simply that there is no law that Congress can legally make that will protect someone from idiots like Howard Stern, and it is up to the individual to take care of himself. You know … the rugged individualism that the Founders so cherished? School choice would render his arguments about the schools completely unnecessary. Why doesn’t he advocate more for that instead of insisting upon the enforcement of laws that are probably unconstitutional anyway? And what’s with this “God thinks it’s wrong” crap? God doesn’t write our laws and he didn’t write our Constitution. How exactly is this relevant to the atheist who doesn’t even buy into our religious beliefs?

Another commentor, shortstopjpc, made some wonderful points, none of which seemed to advocate the sweeping thought/morality police that Ziobuck did. Unfortunately, it was very long. Here’s the link to it. Anyway, here’s what I said to Ziobuck:

by RightWingRocker on Wed 16 Aug 2006 02:17 PM

**It is never right to do wrong.**

And it’s also never right to impose your interpretation of right and wrong on others.

When you do this, as you seem to be trying to do here, then you’re no better than the ACLU or the Islamofascist terrorists that are plaguing our world.

RWR

Spot on, and this is basically what shortstopjpc was trying to say. I liked the kinds of solutions that shortstop was presenting, because they emanated from the individual. Vote … Bring your children up properly … etc. Better to do your part in spreading the truth than to insist that the government overstep its bounds in doing it for you.

**And it’s never right to impose your interpretation of right and wrong on others**

RWR: Regarding your comment above, you might get an argument from those who are trying to enforce the law! Ha. I guess through your “free speech” lens you missed the main point of the discussion which was to enforce laws already on the books. I did intimate that there are bad laws on the books that need rectifying, but rather than impose my interpretation of right and wrong on someone, I propose to take the issue to the people and (like JOJ said) and have them VOTE on it, rather than have some activist judge circumvent the law and REALLY impose his idea of right and wrong on the public.

Your statement above sounds like LIB rationale for anything goes, there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, it is just “what you feel” is right. Gee, sounds like a receipe for anarchy to me.

BTW, the “right and wrong” commentary is a good theological discussion item. Who determines right and wrong? RWR? The ACLU (Heaven forbid—we share that scare)? Islamofascists? I don’t think there is moral equivalence between my faith (Christianity) and that of the ACLU (read “Godless”–Coulter’s book on the church of Liberalism) and Islam. I believe that man was given the freedom to choose God (His precepts; His commandments), or figure out “right and wrong” (good vs evil) on his own. Well, we know what happened there, don’t we? Without God’s standard, we end up like the ACLU (defending those NAMBLA predators who use the “free speech” umbrella to tell other deviants how to get away with committing felony sex acts on little boys), or like the Islamofascists who “kill folks” who draw cartoons.
–Ziobuck getting his “right and wrong” from God’s WORD

Isn’t this cute? I’m going to get an argument from people trying to enforce illegal laws. Poor baby. The absolute standard for right vs. wrong with regard to what you do in your life can be the scriptures if you like. But with American law, the absolute standard is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. While these items are related, scripture is subservient to the others in matters of law. Rightly so, because not everyone agrees that scripture is the absolute, and the right to that disagreement is clearly set forth in the First Amendment.

***I believe that man was given the freedom to choose God (His precepts; His commandments), or figure out “right and wrong” (good vs evil) on his own.

.. And what exactly gave you the right to take that freedom away?

RWR

So he believes that people have the freedom to figure out right and wrong on their own, but that unconstitutional laws and regulations are ok to take away people’s rights to figure it out on their own. I think my response was spot on.

by ziobuck on Thu 17 Aug 2006 08:12 PM CDT

RWR said, “And what exactly gave you the right to take that freedom away?”

Let me try to answer you this way.

(I believe) God gives us the freedom to choose because He wants His creation to love Him like He loves us. God knows that LOVE cannot be coerced. He gave us some rules (heard of the Bible?) to help us on our life’s journey because He loves us. He knows when we “don’t follow His guidelines” (sin), life is going to get more difficult for us. Sin has consequences. (You and I have been on this planet long enough to know the consequences of our errors.)

So, God and I (we’re friends) really aren’t taking YOUR freedom away. Say and do what ever your heart desires. But understand this: YOU WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE for the choices of your freedom, if not in this life…in the here after. Choose wisely.

You have freedom (temporarily) to say what you want in the USA (bet that won’t work in North Korea or Iran), but be prepared for the consequences. You threaten a public official with your freedom of speech, you may end up in jail. With your freedom of speech you yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater, and you will probably be fined or jailed. You talk smut on the public air waves with your freedom of speech, you can be fined by the FCC. So, you’ve heard it before…with freedom comes responsibility. –Ziobuck wondering how he took someone’s rights away by giving an opinion

Of course, he didn’t even address the police state he advocated, or even bother to justify it. My response:

by RightWingRocker on Sat 19 Aug 2006 20:02 CDT

**So, God and I (we’re friends) really aren’t taking YOUR freedom away.

By doing what you advocate above, you are attempting to do just that.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

So he and God are friends. Big fucking deal. I agree 100% of the time with NONE of my friends. So what was the point of bringing that up, even if God and he were better friends than God and I (which I highly doubt)? Still, what he advocated in his comments was an attempt to abridge the freedoms of non-Christians everywhere. Religious freedom isn’t only for Christians, it’s for ALL Americans, and if we Christians want to exercise the right to post the Ten Commandments wherever we want, we will have to respect others’ right to post whatever dissenting opinion they have as well. Remember, the rationale for posting the Ten Commandments in a court of law has nothing to do with the religious aspects of doing so. It has to do with the foundation that those commandments laid with regard to law. This is not to say that we govern the United States by the Ten Commandments, but rather to recognize and honor their historical context, and their significance with regard to the laws that we do have. One very important aspect of the Ten Commandments is their brevity and simplicity, an important tenet of law that has been largely ignored by our lawmakers. But I digress …

RWR:
I have to tell you….that you amuse me to no end. In your effort to be “brief”, you are incoherent. Taking my comments out of context is a liberal ploy. I’m beginning to sense you are a liberal with a conservative “handle”. Tell me I’m wrong. Better yet, why don’t you define for me what is right and wrong and how you came up with it? Common sense? Because the ACLU believes it to be so? Because it is a law (never mind it could be a BAD law)? Whose interpretation of right and wrong should we follow in this wonderful country of ours? RWR’s? Our Constitution (remember judges interpret it differently at times)? I’m all for democracy and the “will of the people”. How about you?

On all of our counter remarks to me, you’ve never addressed the fact that your precious FREEDOM of SPEECH has consequences. You assume Howard Stern has freedom of speech (but apparently people like Brad, JOJ, and myself do not because we think differently than you). We were saying (but you keep ignoring) that if Howy breaks the law, you know, says obscene things against FCC regs (the LAW), he should be fined. You seem to think THAT is a violation of his free speech and that we need to merely tune out this guy (or persuade him of the unrighteousness of his ways…yeah right!). All you’ve shown me is that YOU have a lawless bent with no moral compass.

–Ziobuck agreeinig to disagree

OK so I take one sentence that very clearly summarizes everything he attempted to say, and I’m taking him out of context. Cute, but wrong. He continues to rant on about Howard Stern breaking an unconstitutional law, and in the process calls me a liberal with a “lawless bent and no moral compass”.

My response:

by RightWingRocker on Tue 22 Aug 2006 13:33 CDT

Nice try, Ziobuck.

You obviously haven’t taken the time to read my blog. You might find me a little TOO conservative if you did.

I am a Libertarian-leaning-New Federalist-Reaganite-registered-Republican-but-independent-voting CONSERVATIVE. I took a stand in defense of someone’s free speech rights in this comment section, and you came about and made me out a kook – even called me a liberal. Why? Because I defended someone’s First Amendment rights.

We can agree to disagree on many things, but to call me a liberal when I stand up and defend the Bill of Rights is to yourself have no moral compass, at least not one that respects the Constitution.

At no point did I ever assert that you, JOJ, or Brad (I’m a fan, after all) do not have free speech rights. The FCC is unconstitutional, and bears no legitimacy with regard to the law. There is no provision for it in the Constitution, and its mere existence, like McCain-Feingold, is a violation of the First Amendment.

Again, I think you and I would agree more often than not, Ziobuck. I think you would be well-advised to read my work, and decide for yourself.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

So I stand up and defend someone’s right to free speech and I get called such things. This is the kind of bullshit rhetoric that gives the Donks the opportunity to say that religious fanatics have taken over the Republican Party. Ziobuck would probably agree with me on most matters. Unfortunately, it seems that he is of the opinion that the First Amendment should only apply to Christians. As a Christian, I strongly disagree.

The funniest part of this was the guy calling me a liberal. I can think of only one issue where I could be considered liberal – sex. I’m not even pro-abortion! I’m in favor of the tax cuts that Ziobuck probably supports; I’m in favor of dismantling the welfare state, as Ziobuck probably supports; I’m in favor of increased border security, which Ziobuck probably supports; I support the Second Amendment, as Ziobuck probably does; but oh, no – defend some irrelevant loudmouth prick’s First Amendment rights, and I’m a liberal with no moral compass.

Ziobuck, I hope you got a chance to read this. The point is that the Bill of Rights isn’t just for those of us who are Christian, it’s for ALL Americans, including those with whom we disagree. I don’t like Howard Stern any more than you do. I don’t agree with everything he says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it. It doesn’t make me liberal. It makes me CONSISTENT.

ME – a LIBERAL! Can you imagine that?!!!!!

HAHAHHAHAHA

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The Joys of Wal-Mart

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 22, 2006

Van Helsing over at Moonbattery has put it quite nicely.

Read it. Then go shop at Wal-Mart.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Who’s Next

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 21, 2006

For a little insight into the next front in the War on Terror, check out this quote I found today over at Moonbattery:

If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender.

This is exactly the kind of talk that landed Saddam Hussein a nice cozy prison cell and some pretty serious war crimes trials. He’s saying the we have to bow and surrender to the Iranians, or they will force us to do so?

Besides, this asshole is a dictator. What the fuck does he know or care about the Iranian people?

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

August 19th – Liberidiot Day of Reckoning

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 19, 2006

It was a year ago that Freder_Frederson predicted his doom-and-gloom scenario for Iraq. A few days later, I called him on it.

If you want to check out a few updates that were posted along the way you can find them here (8/26/05), here (7/27/06), here (7/28/06), here (8/7/06), and here (8/9/06).

So what exactly is the situation in Iraq today?

Well, as of the moment I’m typing this post, It’s 109F in Baghdad (feels like 113) with fair skies and 8mph winds out of the northwest. Pretty hot, but for that area, I guess it would be considered a pretty nice day.

CENTCOM’s site is quiet with regard to “civil war”, but things are far from perfect. Still, it’s statistically safer to walk the streets of Baghdad than it is to walk the streets of our own nation’s capital. Reports from ArmyBryan are still forthcoming. In a recent email correspondence, Omar at Iraq the Model had this to say with regard to whether or not the situation there is, in fact, a civil war:

I will call it a foreign intervention from regional powers aiming at sparking a huge civil war.

We’re not there yet but we will if those foreign hands are not chopped and taken off Iraq asap.

Omar.
www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com

In other words, no civil war (as of ten days ago). I doubt much has changed since then. Furthermore, a post just this past Tuesday by Omar suggests that the political factions in Iraq seem to be working together in at least some spirit of mutual respect. Check this out:

BAGHDAD, Iraq – The head of the main Sunni bloc in parliament called Tuesday for the Sunni speaker of parliament to step down to help the stability of the unity government after Shiite and Kurdish parties insisted on his removal.(quoted from Yahoo/AP by Omar)

So the Sunni leadership called for its own speaker’s resignation. Why? Because the Shi’ites and Kurds wanted it. That’s not at all indicative of a civil war, my friends. In fact, it’s more cooperation among parties than we get in Washington!

Am I saying that civil war cannot break out in Iraq? Am I saying it can’t happen in the near future? No and no. It is clear that the Iraqis have a lot of work to do in bringing themselves together in the proper spirit of freedom. They have a lot to learn about being free. After all, many of them have never tasted freedom before.

Still, anyone who had any faith at all in the Iraqis would have known that they are basically good people. Good people don’t just rush to war with each other, especially when they have 30 years of being oppressed by a ruthless animal in common. Maybe the problem with our liberal friends is that they have had too little faith in the Iraqi people and too much faith in Saddam. Something to think about. Anyway …

It may not even be the end of the world if a civil war does break out. The natural yearning of the human spirit is to be free. Therefore, freedom always wins in the end. Having to win a war against the terrorists and their supporters will bring a greater appreciation of freedom to those who will have won it.

Make no mistake about it, the situation in Iraq is not all rosy and sweet, but to call the situation a “civil war” when CENTCOM doesn’t, US Intelligence officers don’t, and people living in Baghdad don’t is stupid.

From Omar’s email, it’s pretty easy to see what’s going on in Iraq today. FOREIGN terrorists, sponsored by terrorist nations, have entered the country and committed acts of terrorism in an effort to (1.) confront American presence for the purpose of attempting to stop American efforts to bring freedom to Iraq and (2.) turn Iraqis against one another for the purpose of getting them to blame one another for the terrorists’ deeds and bring about that civil war that Freder so desperately wants.

Their ultimate goal is the same as for all of their activities – get Iraqis (and the rest of the world) to live under their oppressive Islamofascist worldview, by force, if necessary, and kill anyone who refuses or resists.

I should have insisted on that steak dinner. Oh well. Ruth’s Chris is probably a little pricy for Freder anyway.

Expect an update when I hear from Bryan.

RWR

Update: Audio updated today as well.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Judicial Activism

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 18, 2006

A judge has ruled the terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional.

While I have been (and continue to be) a fence-sitter on this issue for some time, concerned both for the First and Fourth Amendment implications of this program, I have ruled this decision a clear-cut case of judicial activism.

I’ve read the opinion, and after doing so, I’m still unsure of the constitutionality of the program. I’m no closer to an opinion than I was before. The judge has clarified NOTHING.

First of all, I have an issue with granting blanket constitutional rights to non-Americans, especially those who openly depise America and call themselves our enemies. These people have made their intentions very clear: Convert to their ultra-wacko brand of Islamic religion and espouse their Islamofascist backwards way of life or die. All free people in the world are their targets, and they have vowed martyrdom in achieving their goals.

The very Constitution that protects Americans and our rights to life, liberty, and property is under assault by these people, and they have now succeeded in using it to their advantage by extending constitutional protection to those who seek to destroy the very same Constitution.

Regardless of the constitutionality of the program itself, it is very clear what the ACLU and its minions are up to here – protecting the terrorists.

Of course, the judge was anything but impartial.

It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another. It is within the court’s duty to ensure that power is never “condense[d] … into a single branch of government.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 536 (2004) (plurality opinion). We must always be mindful that “[w]hen the President takes official action, the Court has the authority to determine whether he has acted within the law.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 703 (1997). “It remains one of the most vital functions of this Court to police with care the separation of the governing powers . . . . When structure fails, liberty is always in peril.” Public Citizen v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 468 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

Cite the “parameters” if you care to have Americans agree with you. The whole purpose of this case was to determine just that – whether any rights were disregarded. While these things are addressed in the rest of the opinion to some degree, this is the most vital place to mention them, given their proximity to such strong words as “blatantly disregard”, a phrase I have myself used here to describe judicial, legislative, and executive actions that were unconstitutional.

I also take issue with Judge Taylor’s statement about checks and balances. Clearly, it’s been liberal activist courts that have “condensed” all the power int their favor over the past hundred years. Why else would there have been such a clamor over judges like Roberts and Alito, who had established in one way or another that the Constitution would be their guide? Who will “police with care” the courts?

Here’s more proof of bias …

The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution itself.

This judge should have recused herself from the case due to known personal bias. There is no way a judge making a statement like this in an official court document will rule with impartiality.

The Defendant’s argument here (and Judge Taylor knows this) is that the Constitution and the laws of the Congress provide provisions for intgelligence gathering with regard to known enemies like al-Qaeda. Here’s the actual text of the Constitution that is being used to defend the program:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States … (Article II, Section 2)

Does this grant the President broad intelligence-gathering privileges? Judge Taylor does not address this directly, as any reasonable American should expect, but does make a roundabout reference to a 1952 case regarding a president’s order to sieze steel mills, the so-called relevant text being this …

In the Youngstown case the same “inherent powers” argument was raised and the Court noted that the President had been created Commander in Chief See generally Youngstown, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)of only the military, and not of all the people, even in time of war.

Of course, she does not address the fact that intelligence-gathering is a military operation, and that the wiretaps involved known or suspected enemies of the United States. She does not address to what extent the First and Fourth Amendments apply to foreigners, particularly sworn enemies of the US; and she does not make any statements regarding to what extent these rights should apply to those who sympathize with or, apparently have professional responsibilities that include working with these animals, such as lawyers and reporters.

Our founding philosophy states that all men are created equal and with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). Our Constitution guarantees these rights.

Still, how do these rights apply to those, particularly foreigners and sworn enemies of the US, who wish to take those rights away from us, and those who associate with them? I don’t know, and Judge Taylor has been no help.

Judge Taylor, if the program is unconstitutional, fine. If it’s constitutional, fine, but check your own agenda at the door. You failed to do so in this case, and you haven’t persuaded me one way or the other.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Interesting …

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 17, 2006

While I admit that I do look at my traffic stats every day, I look at them merely as a guide to knowing about how many people are reading here at the RWRepublic every day. I don’t live and die by SiteMeter. I just look and say, “yeah, ok.”

One month I decided to see if I could get a thousand hits for the month. I stepped up posting and succeeded, but I’m really getting maybe 25-50 hits a day even when I’m soaring.

Again, it never really meant much to me, since I don’t have the time or desire to do what it takes to land 10,000 hits per day like the big guys do. My advertising is cheap (click the link at the right for proof), and I don’t even guarantee one post a day.

Today, I came in from making travel preparations for an upcoming tour, and just as casually as usual, hit my SiteMeter link. At 2PM, I was in the ballpark of 120 hits so far FOR THE DAY!

No significant increase in comments, but wow.

Anyway, I’m wondering where all these readers are coming from. Are they curious about the upcoming deadline for the Iraqi Civil War to start? Are they coming over from RWN, where I’ve been posting rather heavily lately? Maybe from the Rottie, where I’ve dropped a pithy or two in the last couple weeks?

If you’re new here, or think you may be part of the wave of comments today, please comment. Inquiring minds want to know.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Islamic Extremists Demand Sharia Law in Britain

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 16, 2006

How quaint. We prove to these idiots yet again that we are perfectly capable of foiling their evil plans, and they come out making moronic demands.

The Brits, somehow assuming that these assholes are really interested in ending terrorism, brought a few of them to the table, and asked what they would do to fight terrorism. Instead of answering the question, they made demands.

I thought this one especially interesting:

Dr Syed Aziz Pasha, secretary general of the Union of Muslim Organisations of the UK and Ireland, said: ‘We told her if you give us religious rights, we will be in a better position to convince young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens.

GIVE you religious rights? As if you don’t already have the same religious rights as everyone else. What rights are these people demanding? Get this …

Ramadan and Eid-ul-Adha – should be made public holidays for followers of the faith.

Now I’m not 100% sure about Britain, but I know around here (in the US – the destination of the planes that had the bombs), religious holidays are honored for those whose holidays don’t fall on the “public holiday” calendar. Our First Amendment right to free practice guarantees that we are able to do this. Of course, there’s plenty of religious freedom in Great Britain:

Britain does not possess a written constitution so there is no constitutional clause guaranteeing religious freedom. However, Britain is signatory of international covenants, which guarantee religious freedom, and/or which outlaw religious discrimination and incitement to religious hatred.

That’s all anyone else gets. That’s all you get. Tough fucking shit if you don’t like it.

Sharia law, which is practised in large parts of the Middle East, should also be introduced in Britain, they argued. While it specifies stonings and amputations as routine punishments for crimes, Dr Pasha said he wanted it only for family affairs.

OK. The Brits are supposed to impose Sharia law upon British Musilims, even though only a third of British Muslims would support this. Nice try, goat-man, but we’re not buying it, especially that crap about using it only for family matters. We know the deal. Today Sharia law for Muslims only and only for family matters, tomorrow Sharia law for Muslims, period, the next day you’re gonna want all Brits to live under Sharia law, even though they don’t want to.

Here’s a cute idea for ya. If you want to live under sharia law, just live under Sharia law. As long as you’re not breaking any laws in the process, I honestly don’t see any reason anyone else in Britain would give a flying fuck. You want your boys to pay dowries when they get married? Then do it. No one is stopping you. You want your estate distributed according to Sharia law? Put it in your will. I don’t see what the fucking big deal is. Most people would see it as honorable that you are true to your religious faith like that.

You guys are committing acts of terrorism over this? Spare me.

But Dr Pasha claimed the legal changes he proposed would help convince young Muslims to integrate better into British society.

Sounds to me like you’re trying to get British society to integrate better into your loony-ass worldview. Look. If you want to take off of work for Ramadan or whatever religious holiday you wish, then do it. It’s your religion. You have that right. If you want to be paid for it, take it up with your employer. If you don’t like the answer, go work for someone who will give you the answer you want.

Better yet, why not just move somewhere that has a system of laws and holidays that you like? That’s the beauty of the free world. Don’t like socialism? Come to America. We don’t like it, either. Don’t like the brutal New England winters? Move to Florida; they don’t even have winter there. Don’t like the blazing Arizona heat? Move to Wisconsin. It’s usually pretty cool there.

Shit, if you don’t like freedom, you’re even free to move to the oppressive socialist, fascist, or even Sharia paradise of your choosing, and completely without fear of retribution by any government of the free world, just as long as you leave us alone.

Don’t like how we treat terrorists? Stop them from terrorizing, and we’ll stop responding. Just spare us the imposition of your religion upon the rest of us. We don’t want anything to do with it, thanks. Oh, and siteherder … THIS is what you can expect when someone decides to “negotiate” with the terrorists. PHHT.

RWR

h/t: Moonbattery

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Welcome MoveOver-MoveOn!

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 15, 2006

Every now and again, you will see John Hawkins welcome a new advertiser. Today, I get a chance to do the same.

Welcome MoveOver-MoveOn.org!

I’ve gone over and checked the site out, and it really looks good.

My nutty cousin will be shaking in her shoes … HAHAHA!

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

How to Educate a Peace Activist

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 12, 2006

I generaly avoid “discussion board” formatted sites. They’re a little rough on my eyes. Every now and then, though, I’ll stumble upon something at such a site. Following a link from RWN, I happened upon this discussion board, and before I could avert my eyes, noticed a comment thread entitled, “How to Educate a Peace Activist“. Somehow, I still don’t think they would get it, but the procedure sure does make the point well.

How to educate a peace activist

With all of this talk of war, many of us will encounter “Peace
Activists” who will try and convince us that we must refrain from
retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11,
2001, and those who support terror.

These activists may be alone or in a gathering…..most of us
don’t know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or
one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike
up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas.
They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people
who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably
use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and
they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings
about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter.
Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved
attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit
them much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 25 times until the desired results are obtained and the
idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an
unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is
unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost.

We owe our military a huge debt for what they do for
us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like
these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep
getting hit in the nose.

Lesson over…class dismissed.

I know a few peace activists who could use a punch in the nose anyway. This would definitely serve as good therapy.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Penn and Teller

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 12, 2006

Penn and Teller have put together a series called BULLSHIT!, and it’s all about things they think are, well, bullshit.

This one’s about gun control. Watch it. It’s too important to miss.

(excellent quote from the show: “You can’t stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws. That’s insane!”)

Check out this one too: Environmentalism.

RWR

h/t: Hot Air

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Late-Night RWR at RWN

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 11, 2006

One thing about blogging I really like is its ability to keep me busy during my many insomnia attacks, often brought on by euphoria from a great performance by myself and/or others. Last night, after stumbling upon an excellent new band quite by mistake, I was awake to the wee hours yet again, and dealing with liberidiot bullshit. This time, “shiteherder”

So yeah, look at the British example of purest competence. Look at Spain, and the fact they didn’t go on the warpath (and neither did the Brits after their terrorist attack). Look at America’s color-coded election-years-only Republican-controlled terrorist alert system, a Rovian political thing way, way before being a public-service tool. Look at the selling off of ports to Middle Eastern countries with dubious credentials. Look at America going after terrorists everywhere they ain’t, ignoring ’em where they are, locking up whoever the hell they want in Guantanamo, torturing en masse, manhandling the Constitution like a frat boy with rape on his mind…I know you all love blood and gore, your “happy residuals of lusty war” (Smithe), the abstraction known as “terrorism” never flattened and forever teased into larger, bigger, stronger shapes, and you say YOU love America more than we liberals do? Ha! If you support all of this incompetence that’s not incompetence at all (it’s by design, by professional wreckers), you despise this country, and I challenge you to say otherwise, substantively.

You can’t do it, but try…
by shiteherder on 2006-08-10 18:38:47

You gotta love these people. Don’t you? I took issue with a few specifics, especially given the sorry excuse for a challenge at the end.

we wanted police action, covert intelligence work, ANYTHING but bombs-dropping madness. And we were written off as imbeciles.

Because you ARE imbeciles. Police work wouldn’t and won’t get these people, and the bombs have done quite nicely.

but there was no terrorism emanating from Iraq pre-9/11

Clear proof that you have no clue. Saddam Hussein openly and publicly encouraged terrorism against the US. Zarqawi was in Iraq prior to our invasion, WMDs were known to be there and some were even found. I wonder if you had any idea what the airliner fuselage that was found there was for. Training pilots maybe? Kinda tough with no engines …

look at America going after terrorists everywhere they ain’t, ignoring ’em where they are, locking up whoever the hell they want in Guantanamo, torturing en masse

Plenty of terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq (and the leaders were hiding where?? .. ), and most of what we have in Gitmo are from there. Who exactly are we ignoring?

Show me one example of torture – and if you say Abu Graib, you will be laughed at. What happened there is child’s play compared to the torture the other side is engaged in WITH THE BLESSING OF THEIR “LEADERS”. Get a clue.

manhandling the Constitution like a frat boy with rape on his mind…

Don’t get me started. The Democrats and the Left have been raping and manhandling the Constitution since the ’30s. Why, all of a sudden, do you see cause for alarm?

you say YOU love America more than we liberals do?

Given your side’s blatant attempts to repeal the Constitution, I’d say there’s more than ample evidence that we do.

you despise this country, and I challenge you to say otherwise, substantively.

Bring it on. I will submit that I despise the unconstitutional socialism that your side has foisted upon this country. I despise your side’s efforts to thwart a war that MUST be fought and won.

I am not saying that everything that can be done is being done, but for you to come here and tell me that you love America more than I do, given your side’s efforts to dismantle it, is deplorable at best.

Bring it on.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

by RightWngRocker on 2006-08-11 01:51:33

I guess I must have hit a soft spot, because what I got back was this …

You know, we would stand on most things together, I think. RightWingRocker, let me tell you, if the chips were down I’d take a bullet for you, if it was the enemy coming over the hill and fighting with our backs to each other, Custer style, kill the bastards drop ’em in their own blood…yeah, brother, I’d take a bullet for you, as an American falling for a countryman, but if you can understand this, the American I’m willing to fall for and die for is NOT the current, Bushian America. It’s just not. This is an America that – in all my born days – is crazier than ever, and substantially at that. America is no more than a flailing thing, anymore. It’s a disgarce to its roots, to its Englightened depths – rendered that way by plotting and scheming mothers who are (and this is gut feeling, right here, the rawest stuff I can offer you of myself) all but worthless as human beings.

Now, that is nothing I would EVER say, not even joke about or hint around…not normally, anyway. But these times are not normal, and I don’t like where things are going. Yes, there is terrorism in the world, and yes, there is an easy way to, if not outright contain it, at least curb it, and that way is: go to the TRUE root of the problem – Israel/Palestine – as well as America/Western countries “occupying” portions of the Middle East where those countries aren’t desired, and so tension results and possibilities for havoc abound. It doesn’t have to be that way; we could remove our troops and work night and day FOR REAL to solve the Israel/Palestine problem. That is eminently fair and correct and moral and just and empathetically dignified – to the people who were displaced by Israel’s creation, and who are PEOPLE, motherflubbing yo. PEOPLE. Try to process that and work everything from there. You’ll be glad you did.

At some point, some American administration is going to have to negotiate with terrorists. Almost guaranteed, the terms will be: presence removed from Middle Eastern countries; Palestine given generous tracts of land and full assurances of sovereignty.

That is the path to peace. Everything else is a pissing joke.
by shiteherder on 2006-08-11 02:31:42

Do I hear clueless??

At some point, some American administration is going to have to negotiate with terrorists.

AFTER they have been brought to their knees like the Nazis and the Japanese.

Plead with me all you want, and spare me the “I would take a bullet for you” crap. You obviously refuse to support those who have supported YOU since the creation of Israel, the Israelis.

America is a disgrace to its roots because of the socialism that has been forced upon it over the last 100 years. Our president has refused to do many things (properly securing the borders and detaining/trying/deporting as many illegals as possible for one) that would reduce the threat of terrorism domestically, but the actual war that we are fighting today has been a long time coming, and this president has demonstrated amicable and exemplary courage in standing up to fight it.

All Carter could do was wait out the terrorists, while President Reagan’s threat to fight them was sufficient to secure the freedom of those taken hostage by the terrorists. When terrorists bombed a Pan Am flight over Scotland, President Reagan fired upon the government that sponsored the act. Which did more to stop terrorism in your view?

President George H. Bush’s response to Saddam annexing an ally nation? Let loose the war machine and drive his sorry ass out. President Clinton’s response to the WTC attack in 1993? We’re still waiting for it. Which did more to stop terrorism in your view?

I’m not going to sit back and let people demonize this president over one of two things he has done right as our president (the other being Constitutionalist judges like Roberts and Alito – with our help, of course). There are plenty of things to attack him over. Why take this moronic stance that everything he does is wrong, espeically with regard to such an important issue? I’m sure that I could find something (if I looked hard enough) that your sweetheart Clinton did right.

Almost guaranteed, the terms will be: presence removed from Middle Eastern countries; Palestine given generous tracts of land and full assurances of sovereignty.

That is the path to peace. Everything else is a pissing joke.

by shiteherder on 2006-08-11 02:31:42

Wrong. The terms will be knock off the terrorism or die. We can talk about land and/or sovereignty after that is accomplished.

As long as pro-freedom anti-terrorists are running the show, that is.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
by RightWngRocker on 2006-08-11 03:03:05

Then he puts it all into perspective.

Nothing wrong with Socialists. Always been a Socialist myself, frankly.

by shiteherder on 2006-08-11 02:41:58

That about says it all, doesn’t it? This from a guy who complains that President Bush is “manhandling the Constitution like a frat boy with rape on his mind”, then in the next breath tells us he’s a socialist. Who has been raping and manhandling the Constitution for the last 100 years? Hmm?? What a moron. I posted a non-response in my frustration.

Don’t get me started.

RWR
by RightWngRocker on 2006-08-11 03:03:57

An admitted socialist is complaining about people circumventing the Constitution. The US Constitution. Am I the only on who sees the irony in that? Until people actually sit down and READ the Constitution before they make these kinds of accusations, the Constitution is facing an uphill battle.

Are you prepared to fight?

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Fox on the Rant

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 11, 2006

The lovely and gracious Ranting Fox has put her position on Islamofascist terrorists about as plainly as anyone could.

Now, I’m not going to be very sensitive here, but living together with a group of people who have stated they want to KILL ME because I’m a Christian female who dares show her face to people other than her immediate family is BULLSHIT. You don’t live with cockroaches or spiders you find a fucking can of RAID and drown the lil bitches in it. Before they bite you and before they’ve multiplied.

Try arguing with that. I guarantee you’ll lose.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »