RightWingRocker

Never mind the pajamas … We blog in the nude!

Archive for June, 2007

Oh Boy …

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 29, 2007

Found this in the newspaper this morning:

DID YOU KNOW?* Vehicles that idle 10 minutes per day waste more than 29 gallons of fuel each year

* 10 seconds of idling uses more fuel than turning the engine on and off

* An idling vehicle emits 20 times more pollution than one traveling at 30 miles per hour

* Idling for more than three minutes is AGAINST THE LAW!

Excuse me while I take a minute to puke…

OK. Back now.

First of all, I will tell you that this flyer was paid for with taxpayer money. That should tell you something … as in the government is explaining to us all how it is intruding into our lives.

Next, let’s do some math. You’d think their 29 gallons a year statistic would be a huge deal, but idling your car 10 minutes a day, by THEIR estimate, works out to less than .08 gallons per 10 minutes each day. That’s less than 8/100 of a gallon of gas so that you can get into a warm car or a cool one. At the current $2.75 per gallon, it comes to less than a quarter. That doesn’t mean I’m going to go out and start my car 10 minutes early now. I’m just too damned lazy for that. On the other hand, these people aren’t making a very good case against letting your car run for a bit while you fire up the air conditioner or run into the store for bread and milk.

And if idling 10 minutes only burns 22 cents worth of gas, why bother quoting a statistic involving 10 seconds of idling? If the state is so damned worried about my car idling for more than 10 seconds, they should have taken the money they spent on this stupid ad and invested it into some sensors for more of the traffic lights in the area. That’s where my car does most of its idling – and usually for minutes at a time while I wait for no one coming the other way.

Idling cars emit 20 times more pollution than cars traveling at 30 mph? Yeah, ok. I’d love to see how they got THAT idiotic excuse for a statistic. How would they explain that a car traveling at 30 mph burns about 20 times more fuel per hour than one idling, while simultaneously producing 20 times less pollution?

Honestly, I don’t give a flying fuck if idling my car for more than three minutes is against the law. That would be a bogus law anyway. What are they going to do, have some DEP beaureaucrat stand behind my car with a stopwatch and time it? These fucking idiots can’t figure out a way to get Essex County to stop smelling like a giant oil refinery, and they are telling us that WE are causing problems just by letting our cars run?

Yeah ok. That makes sense …

NOT

RWR

Posted in Liberal Bullshit, MSMadness, RWRants | Leave a Comment »

Back to the Grind

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 26, 2007

It will take a little bit to get something together.  I’m still two sheets to the wind from the weekend.

Hit up the BlogRWRoll though.  There’s lots there to see!

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

A Long Road Ahead

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 21, 2007

Long tour starts tomorrow morning (Friday). I’ll be back sometime late Sunday or sometime Monday … Hopefully with something to post.

In the meantime, please keep the trolls at bay!

See ya then!

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Comment Spam from the Ron Paul Crowd

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 19, 2007

The Ron Paul campaign has it all wrong.

They somehow are running with the notion that hitting every blog post that takes a position critical of Ron Paul with nasty comment after nasty comment. Somehow they figure this is going to get their candidate elected. All it’s really doing is exposing the Paul campaign and its supporters for the nutjobs that they are.

First, let’s make it very clear that I have no problem with Ron Paul. In fact, I posted my recent piece with the intention of proving him to be the most conservative candidate among the three I was analyzing, and even said so (proof that these comment spammers didn’t read my post before throwing around their nasty comments).

My hypothesis at the beginning was that Paul would run away with the “most conservative” label, despite his non-support of protecting Americans from terrorists, with Thompson and Hunter coming in second and third, with second place being too close to call.

After all, I do consider Libertarians in general more conservative than Republicans or (God forbid) Donks. Instead of reading my thoughtful analysis and commenting on it, these idiots decided to hit me over the head with their foolishness.

Ron Paul wants to get rid of the IRS and replace it with NOTHING! No more income taxes is that conservative enough for you? The other two neocons are just that NEOCONS! Ron Paul is the ONLY true conservative on the republican ticket. He’s the ONLY reason I am going to change my party affliation to republican and you can thank HIM for that not the NEOCONS! Thank you very much.

Richard

Yup … and I support Paul and anyone else who wants to do just that. Still, what can you say to defend your position that Paul is more conservative than Hunter or Thompson? This is not a place where you get to throw words around and put up campaign slogans. If you’re going to say something, then you had better be able to back it up.

I am fairly certain that ontheissues.org does not take into account all of the pork and unconstitutional amendments tacked on to these “conservative” bills. There is a reason that Ron Paul received the nickname of “Dr No” from his fellow congressmen. He consistently votes against unconstitutional bills, even if the bill has good intentions. Strictly following the Constitution is about as conservative as you can get. Agree with him or not, study the man, and you will find he has principles.

May I suggest (No you may not).

Chris

“No you may not” was my addition, removing a campaign commercial for Ron Paul. This is a classic example of attacking the messenger when you can’t argue on the facts. How about Paul’s non-conservative YES votes? Read the information. It’s there.

Principles, my ass. Ron Paul is the same guy who made clear that he agreed that 9/11 was the work of Islamofascist terrorists, yet he kisses as with the “truther” crowd again and again. If that’s what you call “principles”, then you’re much better off hanging out at DU.

What a joke. You don’t even explain what in the hell a so-called “conservative” position is. I wonder if you would even know it if it bit you on the tookus.

Here’s a hint: nuking Iran != conservative position. Here’s another: getting support of Bush family != conservative position. I think that just about says it all right there.

bret

Here’s another idiot who has no clue.

I explain rather clearly what I consider a “conservative” position.

In deciding what to call conservative, I considered factors such as a position’s constitutionality (which the Republicans ignore and the Libertarians obsess over) and its relevance with regard to said constitutionality and/or freedom (getting the government out of places it doesn’t belong – like your wallet).

Didn’t read the post. You’re lucky I didn’t delete your sorry-ass comment.

Nuking Iran = conservative position? Yup. It is the responsibility of those in the government to secure the rights of the American people. That includes Life, Liberty, and Property. Ahmagaynutjob has made it abundantly clear that he will involve himself in the destruction of these rights by any means possible. Just read anything the guy says any given day for the proof. If nukes are necessary to keep him at bay, then so be it.

As far as supporting Bush being a conservative position, I challenge anyone – and I do mean ANYONE – to demonstrate that I have in any way been blind in support of this president, or even that I consider him conservative to begin with. Find it. Go on. You have two and a half years worth of posts here to draw on.

*** crickets ***

I’m waiting …

*** crickets ***

You won’t find it because it’s not here. If I disagree with the president, I don’t change my opinion to comply. I criticize the president often. Of course, if I agree, I make that clear, too. I don’t just blindly disagree with him, either, as many Libertarians, and even more Donks, are apt to do.

If you think Ron Paul took the non-conservative position on guns 3 times out of 6, you have the positions labeled incorrectly. He has never voted against the Second Amendment, and never will.

Doug

OnTheIssues.com’s listing of Ron Paul’s gun control positions:

* Ease procedures on the purchase and registration of firearms. (Nov 1996) – conservative
* Allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms. (Nov 1996) – conservative
* Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005) – NOT conservative
* Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003) – NOT conservative
* Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999) – NOT conservative
* Support the Second Amendment . (Dec 2000) – conservative

Easing restrictions is a conservative position. Ron Paul voted AGAINST protecting gun manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits arising from the sale of their product – TWICE. He also voted AGAISNT easing restrictions on people’s ability to acquire arms in a timely manner. That’s three out of six. If you want to bring forth arguments as to reasons Paul may have been justified in so voting, so be it. You may even change my mind. Still, until you do, Ron Paul is 3 for 6 on conservative votes on gun control.

Hear, Hear once again! Hawkins has exposed his bias in terms of HIS idea of a conservative which ignores the fact that it used to include classical liberals of which, I am glad to report Ron Paul can be counted. He has simply ignored the information about Paul that does not suit his(Hawkins) agenda.

sage

In the interest of full disclosure, Sage is a friend of mine, and a very good one at that. He is by far the most conservative person I know, and a Bush-hating Libertarian. In our own personal discourse, however, he seems more suited to the Tom Tancredo crowd, and I’m not sure why he isn’t riding that bandwagon instead of going with these loonies. The main position that Sage takes (and you wouldn’t get this from his comments here at the RWRepublic) that causes me to think that is his position on the War on Terror. He doesn’t agree with it. He thinks it’s the wrong thing to do. But he hopes those that are prosecuting the war – those that agree with it and believe it is the right thing to do – are right. Sounds much more Tancredo to me than Paul.

That having been said, Sage, you are mistaken in pinning this on Hawk. I did this research hoping to prove Hawk wrong. It only served to prove him right (at least when it comes to Paul and his buddy Hunter). This post is entirely about what I think about the candidates and the information given. I don’t claim it to be complete, but given what I see in the reports on ontheissues.com, which has been VERY fair to ALL the candidates EVERY time I’ve gone there, this is what I see.

What bothers me is the hate speech that these people engage in. You’d think they would want to attract more people to their candidate who, by the way, despite my findings here, is still a very good one. Instead, they engage in these shady practices and turn people away.

Is there anyone here who would deny that Ron Paul would be a better president than Hitlery? I don’t think so. All I did was research the level of conservatism in the voting and position records of three candidates and offered my opinion of them. Don’t you think someone who wanted me to vote for their candidate would show a little respect for that position?

I guess not.

RWR

Posted in Alternative Media, New FedeRWRalism, RWRandom Thoughts | 4 Comments »

Ron Paul: The LEAST Conservative??

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 17, 2007

John Hawkins submitted last week that Ron Paul (whom I am not supporting) is “the least conservative member of Congress running for President.” Hmm … I’d have to look into that. Maybe a little side-by-side of Paul with Hawkins’ buddy Duncan Hunter. Oh, and don’t bother following Hawkins’ link. There’s NO information there about either candidate’s voting record. For good measure, I’ll put Fred Thompson’s voting stats up as well. After all, he’s the one I currently support. Stats are from ontheissues.org, a really good site for issue-by-issue voting record research. Let’s just see who’s who here.

Issue#1: Abortion

Paul: Of 14 votes/positions, 10 Conservative – 71%
Hunter: Of 14 votes/positions, 12 Conservative – 85%
Thompson: Of 3 votes/positions, 3 Conservative – 100%

Issue #2: Budget & Economy

Paul: Of 3 votes/positions, 2 Conservative – 66%
Hunter: Of 1 vote/position, 1 Conservative – 100%
Thompson: Of 3 votes, positions, 3 Conservative – 100%

Issue #3: Civil Rights

Paul: Of 7, 4 Conservative – 57%
Hunter: Of 7, 5 Conservative – 71%
Thompson: Of 9, 7 Conservative – 77%

Issue #4: Corporations

Paul: Of 2, 0 Conservative – 0%
Hunter: Of 1, 0 Conservative – 0%
Thompson: Of 0, 0 – 0%

(note: Bankruptcy votes were not clear enough to make a proper comparison, so they were omitted)

Issue #5: Crime

Paul: Of 3, 1 Conservative – 33%
Hunter: Of 6, 3 Conservative – 50%
Thompson: Of 5, 3 Conservative – 60%

Issue #6: Drugs

Paul: Of 5, 4 Conservative – 80%
Hunter: Of 3, 1 Conservative – 33%
Thompson: Of 2, 0 Conservative – 0%

Issue #7: Education

Paul: Of 8, 5 Conservative – 62%
Hunter: Of 8, 5 Conservative – 62%
Thompson: Of 8, 7 Conservative – 87%

Issue #8: Energy & Oil

Paul: Of 10, 9 Conservative – 90%
Hunter: Of 10, 7 Conservative – 70%
Thompson: Of 6, 3 Conservative – 50%

Issue #9: Environment

Paul: Of 3, 1 Conservative – 33%
Hunter: Of 4, 4 Conservative – 100%
Thompson: Of 4, 2 Conservative – 50%

Issue #10: Families & Children

Paul: Of 2, 2 Conservative – 100%
Hunter: Of 2, 1 Conservative – 50%
Thompson: Of 1, 1 Conservative – 100%

Issue #11: Foreign Policy

Paul: Of 9, 7 Conservative – 77%
Hunter: Of 6, 4 Conservative – 66%
Thompson: Of 7, 7 Conservative – 100%

Issue #12: Free Trade

Paul: Of 8, 8 Conservative – 100%
Hunter: Of 8, 6 Conservative – 75%
Thompson: Of 7, 2 Conservative – 28%

Issue #13: Government Reform

Paul: Of 13, 13 Conservative – 100%
Hunter: Of 12, 8 Conservative – 66%
Thompson: Of 7, 2 Conservative – 87%

Issue #14: Gun Control

Paul: Of 6, 3 Conservative – 50%
Hunter: Of 3, 3 Conservative – 100%
Thompson: Of 4, 4 Conservative – 100%

Issue #15: Health Care

Paul: Of 11, 6 Conservative – 54%
Hunter: Of 11, 4 Conservative – 36%
Thompson: Of 8, 3 Conservative – 37%

Issue #16: Homeland Security

Paul: Of 17, 14 Conservative – 82%
Hunter: Of 13, 7 Conservative – 53%
Thompson: Of 9, 7 Conservative – 77%

Issue #17: Immigration

Paul: Of 6, 6 Conservative – 100%
Hunter: Of 6, 6 Conservative – 100%
Thompson: Of 3, 3 Conservative – 100%

Issue #18: Jobs

Paul: Of 4, 4 Conservative – 100%
Hunter: Of 5, 4Conservative – 80%
Thompson: Of 3, 2 Conservative – 66%

Issue #19: Socialist Security

Paul: Of 3, 3 Conservative – 100%
Hunter: Of 3, 3 Conservative – 100%
Thompson: Of 4, 3 Conservative – 75%

Issue #20: Tax Reform

Paul: Of 14, 14 Conservative – 100%
Hunter: Of 13, 13 Conservative – 100%
Thompson: Of 4, 3 Conservative – 75%

Issue #21: Technology

Paul: Of 4, 3 Conservative – 75%
Hunter: Of 5, 1 Conservative – 20%
Thompson: Of 2, 2 Conservative – 100%

Issue #22: War & Peace

Paul: Of 5, 0 Conservative – 0%
Hunter: Of 5, 5 Conservative – 100%
Thompson: Of 4, 3 Conservative – 75%

Issue #23: Welfare & Poverty

Paul: Of 4, 0 Conservative – 0%
Hunter: Of 4, 4 Conservative – 100%
Thompson: Of 4, 2 Conservative – 50%

I really expected Ron Paul to perform better in that last category. I would think any scaling back of the welfare state would be a yes vote for a Libertarian like Paul, yet he voted for $70 million in grants for just that – the welfare state. He also voted no on a number of conditions that would be placed upon welfare recipients – conditions that would make it harder to be on welfare – conditions that would have amounted to a significant scaling back of the welfare state, possibly even to the point of its phasing itself out.

I also expected Hunter and Thompson to be more conservative. Not more conservative than Paul, but I noticed in general that Hunter may, in fact, have turned out to be the most conservative, even of the three. So now with that having been said (these were mere thoughts), let’s tally the result:

Before doing this, let me emphasize that I consider Libertarians to be conservative – and MORE SO THAN REPUBLICANS. I don’t see the political spectrum as a big square upon which you could plot points in quadrants. I see it as a simple line along which you would plot your point as in a number line. Libertarians are CLEARLY to the right of Republicans, especially if you look at things this way. Call it two-dimensional if you like, but it is correct and a whole lot more accurate than any attempt to three-dimensionalize a political position. In a nutshell, it’s either conservative, or it ain’t.

In deciding what to call conservative, I considered factors such as a position’s constitutionality (which the Republicans ignore and the Libertarians obsess over) and its relevance with regard to said constitutionality and/or freedom (getting the government out of places it doesn’t belong – like your wallet). Also, Thompson’s votes, unlike Paul’s and Hunter’s, were made in the Senate, where there could be significant differences with regard to the actual vote. I tried to keep this in mind as well. Here we go …

Conservative Average

Ron Paul – 66% Conservative
Duncan Hunter – 70% Conservative
Fred Thompson – 72% Conservative

This study turned my understanding of the candidates upside-down. I had previously viewed Paul as a staunch Libertarian type who could seriously out-conservative any of the major candidates – certainly Fred Thompson, a Senator. My hypothesis at the beginning was that Paul would run away with the “most conservative” label, despite his non-support of protecting Americans from terrorists, with Thompson and Hunter coming in second and third, with second place being too close to call.

Instead, I do wind up seeing Hunter as the more conservative congressman (between himself and Ron Paul, at least – kudos to Hawk for picking up on that), with Thompson actually coming in a little more conservative than Hunter. Of course, as a Thompson supporter, this is a very pleasant surprise. To this point, my support for Thompson has been largely on the grounds that he is optimistic, ELECTABLE (Hunter and Paul are not), and a supporter of one of the most important philosophies of our culture (federalism), which has been coming under attack by powerful, greedy liberals. His open support of Federalism is a strong point that no other candidate has expressed.

And now we learn just how conservative he really is.

RWR

Posted in Alternative Media, New FedeRWRalism, RWR in the 'Sphere, RWRandom Thoughts | 2 Comments »

Happy Fathers’ Day

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 17, 2007

It could easily be said that there has never been a year that my father has deserved a fitting tribute than this one. I had been thinking of a list of all the wonderful reasons I am proud to be my father’s son, but I’ve been WAY too busy to write the post.

So today I’ll be enjoying my Fathers’ Day with my daughters, and hopefully getting to see the man of the hour later, maybe after dinner.

Happy Fathers’ Day to all you other dads out there!

RWR

P.S. – BIG post coming up early this week. Watch for it!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Opus: No Dad?

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 15, 2007

I grew up a fan of the Bloom County Comic Strip. I wish I had more access and time to its newer incarnation, “Opus”. The thing I really liked about the strip was that it was just downright silly and idiotic at times (“Real cats don’t eat lasagne.”), and Bill the Cat was the perfect antidote to a world obsessed with that annoying cartoon cat Garfield, the mere thought of whom still makes my skin crawl.

It seems this week Berkeley Breathed touched a nerve when he published this strip featuring Opus and a couple of kids. Feminazis gloated. The anti-male-bashing crowd bitched. I might have as well, except for one thing: I read the strip. I have a completely different opinion, one a bit closer to Kathleen Parker’s position in her column today. You see, Breathed did more than put up just one more overexaggeration of the dark side we all have (both male and female). He called attention to the foolishness of those who depict men (and fathers in particular) so consistently in a negative light. He expertly implemented Rush Limbaugh’s technique of “demonstrating absurdity by being absurd”, and aroused thoughts and emotions in people. Never mind what those thoughts and emotions were – everyone is going to react differently, and a cartoonist knows that – he forced Americans to THINK for a minute.

Some got the message, others didn’t. Some simply applied whatever ideology was most convenient for them, as always happens. Ultimately, and hopefully, the end result of this cartoon will be renewed debate on the merits of fatherhood. Hmm … hold on a minute while I go hug my daughter …

You know, my girls give the best “Daddy’s Girl” hugs you would ever imagine …

The merits of fatherhood, and more importantly, the fact that a bad father is more often than not better than no father at all (as long as we’re not talking abuse). In many ways, that’s my point about this week’s edition of “Opus”. Still, I think Ms. Parker said it best.

Two mommies may work out fine for some children. And some men, just like some women, are contemptible slobs or worse. But neither observation diminishes the larger truth that children need fathers, most of whom are not, in fact, the cartoonish characters we love to loathe.Breathed’s comic strip, intended or not, revealed where we have arrived as a society in our attitudes toward male role models, otherwise known as fathers: Two lesbian mommies are cool, while dad is a violent, profane, impulsive, substance-abusing slob. In such a world, we can be grateful for an existential penguin whose voice offers a counterweight to the know-nothingness of children.

Opus Penguin asked the appropriate question: “No dad?”

No dad? I couldn’t imagine.

RWR

Posted in Alternative Media, MSMadness, RWR in the 'Sphere, RWRandom Thoughts | Leave a Comment »

RWR Troll Poll: Serious or Satire?

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 14, 2007

OK. We’ve had some pretty interesting discussions here about “John Brown”, a lib-troll blogger/commentor (hasn’t commented here) who is just so far out there that I just don’t see any way he could be anything but a very clever satirist. Still, there are others who beg to differ. They think he’s serious and real.

Soooo … Have a look at John Brown’s blog, and let’s have your vote. Poll comments are enabled, so please be sure and leave them on the poll instead of in the comment area.

Serious or Satire?
Is “John Brown” of Savage Justice a satire troll or a serious liberidiot troll??
Dude. This guy is HILARIOUS! Satire for sure!!
Probably satire, but ya know there’s always a chance …
Whoa, man. Ya know I just can’t tell.
Probably a lib-troll, but who knows …
Lib-troll for sure. Only serious people can be this seriously sick (and stupid)!
 
View Result
Free Web Polls

buy semenax

Sorry. This is not coming up properly on the wordpress site. Please vote at BlogSpot. Thanks!

RWR

Posted in Funny Shit, RWR in the 'Sphere, RWRandom Thoughts | Leave a Comment »

THIS will drive the Left NUTS !!

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 13, 2007

Our new reader, Nanc put up a link or two that I checked out. A reader on a blog that she frequents had this article linked in the comment area. It doesn’t appear to have a URL of its own, so I will paste the whole article here:

Memorial To Be Dedicated June 12
Rep. Tom Lantos Will Deliver the Keynote
President George W. Bush Invited

“The world has been reluctant to acknowledge the horrors of Communism… Now at last they will be memorialized.” – Washington Times

The Victims of Communism Memorial will be dedicated on Tuesday morning, June 12, 2007, in Washington, D.C. Rep. Tom Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, will give the keynote address while Rep. Dana Rohrabacher will deliver remarks. President George W. Bush has also been invited to speak. A crowd of 1,000 including Congressional leaders, members of the diplomatic corps, ethnic leaders, foreign dignitaries, and Memorial supporters, is expected to attend the historic event.

The dedication will take place at the Memorial site at the intersection of Massachusetts Ave., N.W., New Jersey Ave., N.W., and G St., N.W., two blocks from Union Station and within view of the U.S. Capitol. A reception will follow the ceremony.

The day’s activities will conclude with a gala dinner at the J.W. Marriott Hotel, at which a Truman-Reagan Medal of Freedom will be presented to William F. Buckley, Jr., and the late Senator Henry M. (Scoop) Jackson. Senator Joe Lieberman will present the Medal of Freedom to Senator Jackson’s daughter, Anna Marie Laurence.

To make reservations for the day’s events and for further information, please contact [name deleted] at [contact information deleted].

June 12 will be an historic day for the victims of communism and for those who love liberty. We hope to see you there!

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, Copyright 2007

A monument in Washington memorializing the victims of communism – Just when you thought America was already in the shit from things like communism on our soil, a (hopefully) big monument goes up alerting the world to its evils. Do you think America will get it now?

Don’t hold your breath. The handouts that communists and socialists promise are far too tempting, and those who have taken advantage of those already in place have allowed themselves to become dependent upon them.

You know, this tinfoil hat just isn’t making me any more liberal. I think it’s time to retire it.

RWR

Posted in Confronting Libs, Conservative Wins, New FedeRWRalism, RWRandom Thoughts | Leave a Comment »

Wise Words at RWN

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 12, 2007

I visited this post today over at RWN, and added my input to the comment thread. I found my words particularly wise, and those of the other commentors well-meaning but missing the point.

Hawk had posted an excerpt from President Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall” speech (one of the greatest speeches ever made by any orator), and the first comment was from a liberal troll calling himself “rmiller”.

So simple, yet one of the most subversive statements of the late 20th century.

Posted by rmiller
June 12, 2007 7:51 AM

Of course, the conservative defense of Ronaldus Maximus came right away, starting with Don_cos, normally a very reasonable and intelligent commentor, who basically accused rmiller of ulterior motives in his comment. Rmiller defended himself, and another lib rushed to his aid.

At no time, however was there a comment about the REAL issue generated by rmiller’s comment, which, while being a pretty dumb thing to say, was still thought-provoking. What about the issue of whether Reagan was right to say subversive things about a regime as evil as the USSR? That’s where my comment came in:

Subversive?

Hmm …

Subversive – a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system

Systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system? Check.

So what?

The question we should all be asking ourselves in this thread after reading this negative and asinine, yet thought-provoking comment by rmiller is this:

Was President Reagan right to make subversive statements with regard to the Soviet Union?

With 20/20 hindsight as our guide, no reasonable person could possibly disagree with the assertion that President Reagan was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT in his utterance of EVERY WORD. Let the libs say the USSR would have crumbled under its own weight all they want. It didn’t happen that way, and if it did, it would only have served as more proof of the idiocy of the communist/socialist culture they advocate.

Until Americans begin to understand and espouse the concept of the Founders’ vision and denounce socialism once and for all, we are at serious risk of facing the same fate as the USSR.

A very wise commentor at my blog once said, “A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master every four years.” We must begin immediately to dismantle the socialism that eats away at the very soul of our nation. The very freedoms we hold dear are in jeopardy.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

Posted by RightWingRocker
June 12, 2007 7:46 PM

Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century. His domestic policy brought forth economic growth the likes of which had never been seen before in peacetime, and his foreign policy brought down an evil empire.

I believe my response to this thread at RWN to be the appropriate defense of President Reagan – not the “yeah, well he brought down the Soviet Union so never mind what you think of him” defense.  The fact that President Reagan made subversive remarks is merely academic, especially when those subversive remarks inspired millions of people to stand up to those forcing socialism and communism into their lives.

If only Americans cared as much about their own freedom.  Who will inspire Americans to stand against the socialists here in our own land??

RWR

Posted in Alternative Media, Border SecuRWRity, Confronting Libs, Conservative Wins, Liberal Bullshit, New FedeRWRalism, RWR in the 'Sphere | Leave a Comment »

Blogging in a Tinfoil Hat

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 11, 2007

I dunno …

Maybe I’m just too conservative for the world. Maybe I need to become more liberal. But how? The world isn’t going to change just because I said it should. Maybe I need a little help …

Until further notice, I’ll be doing all my blogging wearing this tinfoil hat. Hopefully Reynolds is a good enough brand.

I just don’t know, though. Does anyone believe this will change me????

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

RWR

Posted in Funny Shit, RWRandom Thoughts | Leave a Comment »

Civil War in Iraq

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 7, 2007

Well it seems Freder_Frederson finally got his civil war in Iraq.

Too bad for him it’s just terrorists fighting each other over something neither of them really controls.

Yup, the Shi’ites have been hanging in there in trying to establish something that may resemble (on some level) a free nation, and the Sunnis and al-Qaeda have obviously been so frustrated with their resolve that they’ve taken to fighting each other.

Who was it that said they wouldn’t advocate the US sending soldiers into Iraq for purposes of containing a civil war?  I say just get everyone else out of the war zone and let the terrorists all kill each other – then drop a bomb on those that are left.  For a civil war that was supposed to force us to turn tail and run, this is really awfully funny.  They’re saving us billions of dollars in ammunition and countless lives.  All in the process of annihilating themselves so that we can achieve our victory with them doing all the work for us.

Somebody please pass the popcorn.

RWR

Posted in Border SecuRWRity, Funny Shit, KABOOM!, TerrorAsses | Leave a Comment »

Answers for Ol’ BC

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 6, 2007

Ol’ BC first came to the RWRepublic in its infancy. Since then, he is without question the most loyal reader I have. Last night, he posted some interesting questions in the wake of the incredible waste of time that passed for a debate. There were, of course, largely obvious answers to all of them, so I figured, Why not …

Do the Democrats who are running REALLY think they represent the views of a majority of Americans?

Yup. They think Americans are stupid socialist idiots who not only believe that they have no clue whatsoever how to run their own lives, but that they need a Barack the Schlock or a Hitlery to run it for them. They really believe that the backlash against President Bush is because he’s a Republican and not because he’s nearly as liberal as they are. Why else would they be promising all this stuff that no one really needs or wants?

If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, do some of these candidates REALLY think the Islamic terrorists are just going to terrorize one another and leave the non-Muslims alone?

Worse. They think the terrorists will cease to be terrorists and live quiet, happy lives sitting around campfires singing “Kum Ba Ya”. They think that only Americans are capable of greed and selfishness and that making everyone’s situation the same (poverty by force if necessary) will lead to peace. They think that they are the only people who are capable of making anyone happy, and that even the terrorists will “see the light” if only we just appease them (Neville Chamberlain was unfortunately unavailable for comment).

How are the deaths of those in the Darfur region different than the hundreds of thousands of deaths of Arabs and Kurds under Saddam Hussein?

In one very important, but nonetheless rather irrelevant way. What’s going on in Darfur is actually a bona-fide Civil War, unlike anything we’ve seen in Iraq.

Pro-choice versus Pro-life, what’s with the exceptions? If I was born in 1955 or 1975 as the result of a pregnancy by rape or incest or if my mother died during childbirth, am I less of a person than the majority of the other people? If not, why the exceptions? Is a fetus a life or not at conception? At one month? At two months? Are most pro-lifers only part time?

Every American grapples with this issue, whether pro-life or pro-child murder. No child is any less a person just because he/she is still in the womb. The reason we make exceptions has to do with violation of the rights of the mother. It’s very difficult to reconcile this. If it is clear that the mother is going to die from carrying the baby to term (an EXTREMELY RARE situation), then her God-given right to life is threatened, and we have a responsibility to protect it. How do we also protect the baby’s similar God-given right? At this time, we are in the unfortunate position of not having any idea. In the interests of preserving her family unit, and with the understanding that one of these very important people (the mother or the baby) is going to die, we make a choice as to whom we save. In choosing to save the mother, we preserve her ability to bring more children into the world in the future, and we save her family from the emotional and economic disaster that might have followed. Nonetheless, we grieve the loss of the child.

As to rape and incest, we make these allowances as a peace offering to the pro-murder crowd. Of course, it’s gotten us nowhere. The Constitution Party states that we shouldn’t be punishing the child for the sins of his/her father, but if a woman has not consented to the act, then should she be considered to have consented to the pregnancy? Conversely, doesn’t it solidify the pro-life position if the position is taken that by consenting to an act that is known to have pregnancy as a consequence, one has consented to the resulting pregnancy?? After all, that is precisely the position taken by those who advocate a woman killing her baby and simultaneously advocate forcing a father to finance a child’s life against his will should the mother choose life.

What happened to the specific powers granted to the federal government in the constitution? I missed the entire education and healthcare section. There has been a lot of talk about heaping on more and very little about rescinding any. What about all others being reserved for the states? Eerie silence.

Those specific powers are still there, along with a slew of others that have been added illegally by those elected to office with the consent of their constituents. This question is truly what the New Federalism seeks to address. America needs a wake-up call.

Do that many of the candidates REALLY think that if they grant amnesty to illegal aliens already in this country no more are going to sneak in?

Nope. They know all too well what will happen – and it’s exactly what they want. Face it, with all of their support of killing off babies that could have been voting for liberal candidates, they’re running out of people to vote for them. It’s happening a lot faster than they anticipated. Liberals need a new constituency, and if they can import one, all the better for them. Do you really think they are fighting this hard so that these people can vote for conservatives??? If these people seriously cared about bringing more people into the prosperity that is America, they’d be falling all over themselves trying to get large numbers of Israelis to move here so that the terrorists could have the land they want. Why isn’t THAT happening??

It’s not happening because Israelis generally would be voting in favor of fighting off terrorists, lowering taxes, and bringing government back to within its legal limits. They are largely well-educated and well-off. Those they are trying to get your heart to bleed over are largely neither. They’re not looking for people who will be independent. They are looking for people who will need liberals for their well-being.

Have that many of the candidates forgotten that learning English opened doors to success for millions of Germans, Italians, Israelis and scads of others for years and years?

Nope. The problem is that they don’t want those doors to be opened. They want the doors closed so that they can have their little dependency class and force you and me and the rest of America to pay for it.

Why weren’t signs and information printed in eighteen languages for all those years if it is that critical?

Because it’s not critical at all…

Could it actually hold people back and keep them living at a subsistence level?

That is precisely the point, and it’s exactly why there is a move on to force every language but English on all of us. I’m not saying that English is what makes people successful. What I’m saying is that English, by sheer luck of the draw, has been the language of successful people. To be successful in the world today, you ALMOST HAVE TO surround yourself with English-speaking people. Telling those who would otherwise do this that it’s ok not to ultimately slows their success, which is exactly what the liberals want. People who claim to be the smartest people in the world can’t possibly be stupid enough to ignore these facts.

Do people REALLY think that catering to a Palestinian state, whose sole mission in life is the eradication of Israel, is going to lead to peace in the region?

Nope. If they did, they’d be inviting scores of successful Israelis to naturalize as Americans. The real problem is that they are more ideologically inclined with the Islamofascist philosophy espoused by the terrorists than they are with the more liberty-minded philosophy of the Israelis.

How about if that Palestinian state is on land that was previously Israel and is presently adjacent to Israel?

All the more reason to eradicate it, in their opinion. These people value freedom, but only for themselves. Everyone else, including you and I, is expected to take orders from them, Constitution be damned.

Maybe I’ve been listening to Sage a little too much, but I doubt it. Just because I have this cynical outlook on liberals doesn’t mean I’m not an optimist. America’s brightest days are ahead; I’m convinced of that. Still, we must overcome these very dark times when many among us would surrender our constitutional rights and succumb to a socialist regime just because they’re too lazy or ignorant to stand up and fight.

RWR

Posted in Border SecuRWRity, Confronting Libs, Liberal Bullshit, MSMadness, New FedeRWRalism, RWR in the 'Sphere, RWRants, TerrorAsses | Leave a Comment »

This was Fun

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 5, 2007

While studying tonight, I took frequent breaks and followed John Hawkins’s LiveBlog of tonight’s Republican Debate.

What made it most fun was reading the LiveBlog without watching the debate. So John would comment on something someone said without quoting him, and I’d just be reading what he had to say about it. Hilarious!

Well come on. Any Republican debates going on now are a total waste of time and energy for the candidates and for us. Same for the Donks. What does anyone really expect to accomplish NOW? The likely primary winner on the Republican side hasn’t even joined the race, Giuliani and McCain are RINOs, Hunter and Gilmore are nobodies, so are Tommy, Sam, and Huck, and Tanc and Paul are Libertarian nutjobs who will get elected MAYBE if all the liberals in the Democrat and Republican Parties can be killed off in time for the primaries.

It’s all a big joke. We have a war on in this party. Rush is absolutely right about that. We federalist conservatives MUST win it, and BEFORE the primaries, so that there is a true winner standing for the principles of freedom and federalism that have made America great on the ticket to beat Hitlery and Barack the Schlock. This is MUCH more important than these silly irrelevant debates.

The Revolution has begun, and it WILL be televised.

It will be hard work, but saving America from those who would turn it over to the government will be well worth the effort.

RWR

Posted in Alternative Media, Border SecuRWRity, Confronting Libs, Funny Shit, Liberal Bullshit, MSMadness, New FedeRWRalism, RWRandom Thoughts, TerrorAsses | Leave a Comment »

John Turner on Insanity

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 4, 2007

Camokitty (a.k.a. Princess Natasha) linked this article today.

You just can’t get any closer to the truth without it slapping you square dead in the face.

RWR

Posted in Confronting Libs, Liberal Bullshit | Leave a Comment »