Back again
Gig'em Gates!
Kerry Gets a Taste of the Medicine
Ode' to Rush
Why are we putting up with this madness?
Is the World Blind?
And you didn't believe me when I said the U.N. is a comedy.
For those that listen to polls....
What's the Point?
Religion of Pieces

Back again

Texaggie79 | 21 May, 2007 18:11

So it's been quite awhile since I updated as you can see. I thought I would return with a thought on the 08 elections.

Who do I support?

I tell you who I would like to support.

Ron Paul. Former Libertarian Presidential candidate.

Yep, one of the closest representatives in D.C. to our founding fathers ideals. Dr. Paul is a Constitutionalist, if anything. Domestically, I pretty much agree with just about everything the man says, except for some past discrepancies that seem to paint him as a little racist. But other than that, the man is spot on.

However, sadly, I must withhold my support from Dr. Paul. He is absolutely correct in how we "should have" declared proper war with Iraq, if we were going to go in. At the same time, he is also dead wrong on Iraq not being a threat.

The man refuses to see the looming threat of Islamic extremism. He also seems almost anti-semite, the way he seems to side against Israel.

Therefore, I have to ask myself, "what is more important? Our liberty and constitutional rights at home, or our national security?".

I really do hate having to make this decision, for I am a true believer of "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither". However, I am truly certain that if we do not address this extremist threat today, we will face a world wide conflict worse than all the past wars ever combined. I believe the very existence of our nation depends on squashing this threat now.

So, reluctantly, I must concede, for now, to the ever increasing big government, and the socialism that is slowly eating away at our liberty's soul, and vote for someone that will continue to fight this battle we are currently in. Fred Thomson... Please run.

Gig'em Gates!

Texaggie79 | 08 November, 2006 14:37

It's a loss for the best university on the planet, and a gain for the best nation on the planet.

Kerry Gets a Taste of the Medicine

Texaggie79 | 31 October, 2006 23:38

When I first saw the video clip on YouTube this morning, of Kerry making the now infamous statement about getting stuck in Iraq, I immediately knew he meant it as a direct jab at President Bush. Basically saying "if you are an idiot and don't get educated, you will end up like our President Bush and do something stupid like getting stuck in Iraq, which was a mistake and we are losing."

Even though I knew it wasn't aimed at the troops, it still ticked me off, since I support Bush, as far as Iraq is concerned. However, I found it hilarious how the conservative internet media and bloggers, then radio shows all opened up, full blast at John Kerry, claiming he was insulting our troops, calling them uneducated. Even the Whitehouse itself chimed in, demanding that Kerry apologize to the troops.

I couldn't help but see Kerry reaping exactly what the liberal media has sewn. I cannot feel sorry for him, after seeing the way the liberal media has completely ravished Rush Limbaugh for his comments on Michael J. Fox's political ad.

The conservative talk shows, the Whitehouse, the blogosphere, have all took Kerry's statements out of context and misconstrued them to make them say exactly what they believe he thinks anyways. Just as the liberal media did with Rush's statements.

Politics is serious business....

Ode' to Rush

Texaggie79 | 26 October, 2006 16:28

I made this little YTMND site after all the hoopla over Rush's comments on Michael J Fox.

Click on the image to see the site.

I just think it's hilarious how people don't realize how Michael J Fox fully intended to look the way he did in that commercial .

The shows he has been in the past, even if he was shaking that bad, they would edit around it.

If Rush Limbaugh made a political ad attacking Democrats, saying in sign language, that they are trying to criminalize research that could cure deafness, then I would make fun of him too.

Why are we putting up with this madness?

Texaggie79 | 09 October, 2006 15:43

I still see in the media, especially on CNN, that they are constantly focusing on the "Foley Scandal". Polling churches, showing how Republican support has dropped, how people think Denny Hastert should resign.

How can anyone with a brain not see this for the liberal sham it is? I've sat by too long and said nothing. This is just complete B.S., pardon my French.

First, ABC releases emails, the same emails that the Republican leadership were aware of awhile back. These emails contained absolutely no sexual references, there was nothing that could lead anyone to a definite conclusion that Foley sent the email for devious reasons. The biggest flag was asking for a picture after asking the older teen if he was effected by the hurricane.

The only course of action Republican leadership could have taken, was taken. They told Foley to not have any further contact with the page, or any other. Yet, "experts" on CNN and such are claiming that this was a red flag and Foley should have been thrown out that instant.

Can you imagine the fallout? A suspected gay congressman, thrown out of the republican party for "innocent email exchange" with a male page. The homosexuals would have been out protesting that bigoted Republicans were labeling Foley a sexual predator simply because he was gay.

After releasing the emails, ABC releases the sexual IM's that everyone has seen, telling us that these IM's were to a 16 year old male. Now we find that this male was 18 at the time, but the media will not tell you this.

Meanwhile, Democrats are all over TV, condemning Republican leadership for not doing something sooner, even though the only people that knew that there were sexual IM's being exchanged, held the info until elections neared.

Should Mark Foley have resigned in shame? Absolutely. Should Denny Hastert resign in shame for not condemning a suspected homosexual as being a child sexual predator, simply for being homosexual and sending an email to a congressional male page? According to Democrats, sure.

So, if Denny resigns, I want it known, we can now condemn any homosexual who has any type of friendly communication with any child. Fine by me.

Is the World Blind?

Texaggie79 | 29 September, 2006 13:35

I came across a website for cartoon submissions to counter the few cartoons about Mohammed that some dutch cartoonists made awhile back.

On the website www.irancartoon.com I came across many blatantly ignorant cartoons from idiots across the globe. One theme that seemed to be prevalent was antisemitism. Even though the dutch cartoonists weren't jewish, as far as I know.

The prevailing idea seemed to be that Israel was a destroyer of peace.

The cartoons even imply that everyone wants peace but Israel.

This is laughable on its face. What more can Israel do besides let the blood thirsty extremists from Palestine and Lebanon kill them all?

They pulled out of Lebanon in 2000, they gave back the Gaza Strip, forcing their own citizens from the area. They have bent over backwards for Palestinians, and yet they are still attacked with rockets. Their soldiers are still kidnapped.

Nothing Israel can do, short of marching into the sea is good enough for these Jewish hating cartoon artists.

How bout make a truthful cartoon and show Muslim clerics and imams shooting down doves of peace? Showing the palestinians stepping on olive branches by electing Hamas.

It's quite apparent that all Israel wants is peace. Yet the extremist, propaganda spewing, oppressive muslims (not all muslims, I have to say that because the majority of muslims just sit back and say nothing about their hate spewing brothers) refuse to ever have peace.

And you didn't believe me when I said the U.N. is a comedy.

Texaggie79 | 20 September, 2006 14:08

Hugo (The communist Dictator) Chavez stated that George W. Bush is "The Devil" today at the U.N.

He went on to state:

We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.

And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United Nations somewhere else; maybe a city of the south. We've proposed Venezuela.

That's mighty kind of you comrade. However, don't you think a country where free speech is protected, and anything can be said of anyone, without fear of retaliation is a better forum?

He stated that Venezuela could be the "voice for the 3rd world." Maybe because Venezuela IS a 3rd world country, because of thugs like Chavez.

I love how these communist dictators claim that the U.S. is the one that wants to control the world. They say that the democracy we promote is a "democracy of the elite". How does that work, exactly? Since our unemployement rate is like, what, 4%? What is your's at Chavez?

Basically all these anti-US leaders are whining idealogues who are pissed that their utopian communist fantasies have done nothing but guaranteed misery for their nations, except for those in power, while the capitalist, free market system has brought endless prosperity and strength to all the nations that have embraced it without a corrupt government that controls it.

Communism is hate. It says "You will believe as I do or I will make you." While capitalism is compassionate, saying "Whatever you want to do, whatever you want to be, you can. Live, prosper and be happy."

The only people who think capitalism is cruel are those that believe that there are some types/races of people on this earth that simply are inferior and must be helped in order to survive. They are racist, bigoted nannies.

For those that listen to polls....

Texaggie79 | 19 September, 2006 17:24

Gallup released a poll today stating that Bush's approval went from 39% back up to 44%. For those of you that actually even believed the 39% figure. I just wanted to make sure that you are aware of one little fact about these polls.

The telephone poll of 1,003 people was conducted September 15-17, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Yup. See for yourself.

What's the Point?

Texaggie79 | 19 September, 2006 12:14

I play a popular online game called Counter Strike and one of my favorite maps (levels) in the game is called awp_map. In this level, you are in a large room, with sniper rifles, and you must shoot your opponents.

One of the quirks of this map is that you spawn (start out) directly across the room from your opponent, sometimes with a direct view of them.

This gives an unfair advantage to the players that won the last round, as they spawn with their weapons, and those that died last round must run to pick up a gun off the ground. In game, it is called "spawn killing" to shoot your defenseless opponent at the very second the round starts. This is seen as cheap and is pretty much frowned upon. Usually players agree to give perhaps 3 or 4 seconds for everyone to get a gun and get to cover before they open fire.

This is a mutually beneficial agreement, as it prevents all players from being unfairly spawn killed. However, if you come across a player or players that do not respect this rule, even though it is seen as cheap to do, you must stoop to their level and spawn kill them back, so as to make it unfair for them as well, in hopes that they will see the benefit of waiting.

This same logic applies to the Geneva Convention agreements. Nations of the world saw it as mutually beneficial to refrain from barbaric treatment of enemy soldiers, so as to prevent the same fate from happening to their own.

I challenge someone to tell me how continuing to follow the Geneva Conventions when one's enemies does not is beneficial. All it does is cripple us. Just as if I were to follow the "no spawn killing" rule in Counter Strike, when my opponent did not. All it would bring me is more deaths. So what if I can say "I didn't stoop to his level." What the crap use is saying that if you are dead?

A general rule of war is, "All is fair". That means, anything you have to do to win, you do. Our very own founders did this during the American Revolution. It was uncivilized to wage war with the guerrilla tactics our colonial army used. The British army stayed true to their honorable fighting style, while the colonists hid, ambushed, and brutally slaughtered their soldiers.

The Geneva Conventions was a result of civilized nations coming to civilized agreements that benefited all, and the entire premise of that agreement was "we won't do these things if you don't".

Why cripple ourselves when the enemy uses it to its advantage? Why would the enemy stop from torturing and murdering our soldiers that they have captured, if they know we would never do the same to them, no matter what? We are giving them free licence to torture and kill our boys over there, even if they are captured alive.

Religion of Pieces

Texaggie79 | 16 September, 2006 11:45

Palestinians attacked 5 churches in the area in retaliation for the Pope's statement earlier. What other religion in the world would riot and bomb churches all over the world because another religious leader said something bad about their religion?

It just further goes to prove that what the pope said, seems to be right.

How is it not painfully obvious to you libs that the extremists in this religion, are set on forcing their beliefs on the world with a sword?

Can it get no more apparent that we have no choice but to eradicate the extremists from the face of the planet?

How many times a day do famous people in the U.S. and Europe say horrible things about Christianity? Hell they even have art exhibits like crosses in jars of feces.

Do you see Christian groups out bombing the art museums? Do you see Christians rioting int he streets whenever some notable person insults Christianity? Could you imagine the outrage if they did?

Why is it that we need to "understand" the extremists Muslims? "Respect" their wishes?

Are liberals just too damn scared?

Never Forget

Texaggie79 | 11 September, 2006 21:42

The Networks are too affraid to show it, but everyone needs to remember.

Thanks to LGF

ACL(where are)U

Texaggie79 | 08 September, 2006 19:17

So, the Democrats in the U.S. Senate have threatened ABC if they air The Path to 9/11 , stating, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

Hmm, why didn't they say anything about the farce of a movie called Fahrenheit 9/11 that has been proven time and time again to be a fabricated lie?

I guess, it's only when a movie that these democrats agree with, and could possibly damage reputation that they want to call for restrictions. It's completely fair game if a movie lies about their foes.

What is funny, only the first part of the movie has been seen by some critics, and better yet, pretty much none of the congressmen calling for this to be pulled have seen it. The second part of the movie focuses on the Bush administration years, and I'm sure won't be that pleasant to that side of the isle as well.

I ask though, where is our beloved ACLU? Why are they not fighting against this attack on our first amendment? ABC is not ran by the government, do they not have a right to run whatever they wish, so long as it falls within public decency broadcasting laws?

I have no doubt that if Fahrenheit 9/11 had been put on ABC, and the republicans acted the same way, the ACLU would be all over them.

More evidence that the Democrats believe in the Constitution, only when applied to them and their ideas.

Israel Hatred Continues

Texaggie79 | 04 September, 2006 11:19

My buddy over at logicandsanity.com makes a good point about some of the European countries' blockade on Israel. Apparently some nations are forbidding El Al from landing at their airports.

It seems that all of Europe has become France. They will appease anyone who threatens them to no end. Europe has become infested with Islamofascists, and the nations of Europe are cowering, hoping that they can keep the potential terrorists happy.

How does it feel to have completely sold out, and turned up your backside? I often wonder how citizens of Spain, who voted how the terrorists demanded, after a bombing attack, feel about their own cowardice.

Europe is no longer an ally in the free world, but a nuisance.

Complacency is leading to terror

Texaggie79 | 31 August, 2006 11:24

Miss England, who happens to be Muslim, has made statements about relations between Muslims and the rest of her country.

"Even moderate Muslims are turning to terrorism to prove themselves. They think they might as well support it because they are stereotyped anyway."

She apparently is almost excusing terrorism, because of stereotypes.

How well would that work for other races or religions that are stereotyped?

Say if you were a minority in a nation filled with people who thought that all people of your particular race were criminals and thugs. Would you help your race's cause by then becoming a criminal?

She went on to say:

"Muslims have been stereotyped negatively and feel they have to take actions to prove themselves."

Well, that may be true, but is she honestly arguing that the best way to fight a stereotype is to become that stereotype?

It seems to me, if there were people within my religion or race, and they were doing things to hurt the image of my race or religion, I would do what I could to put an end to them.

Now, the closest thing I can think of is maybe Vidor, Texas. A town that is well known for its pro white racism. There really isn't much I can do being as far away from there as I am, except call them inbred, hick, ignorant wastes of life, which they are. However, if I lived in the area, I would do what I could to report any illegal activity, boycott any service or product that goes through the racists' hands, actively campaign for local politicians that would crack down on the racists, go to the racists' rallies and let my voice be heard about how much I detest their ignorant ways.

I would basically do what I could to make life hell for the bastards. So, is this what "moderate" Muslims do? Do they show up to these "anti-semite" protests that extremists put on and let their voices be heard? Do they report all anti-semetic and anti-american hatred going on in their mosques?

I recall an arabic woman, awhile back, who had the guts to go on Arabic telivision and speak the truth. She is, however, not religious at all.

So where are all the "moderate" Muslims? Why do they continue to look the other way? If they REALLY wanted us to believe that they did not support terrorism, they should speak up, and speak up loudly.

Inaction can be just as bad as terrorism, when it allows terrorism to exist.

Tolerate Hatred?

Texaggie79 | 23 August, 2006 15:22

Over the past several years the liberals cry that we need to understand Muslims, and not to profile all of them as terrorists or terrorist supporters. We have a media that covers up violent stories of muslims attacking Jews or others in America. We have our very own government protecting Mosques from "racists" who might attack peaceful muslims. Our public schools are teaching tolerance and understanding of muslims.

Why is this not expected from Islam though? Why do we sit here and do nothing when hatred of Jews and infadels is openly professed and taught in Islamic countries?

Why do these liberals not care that Muslim children are being taught to hate Jews, and are brainwashed with lies about them.

Israel has had malicious intentions since ancient times. Its objective is the destruction of all other religions....They regard the other religions as lower than their own and other peoples as inferior to their level. And on the subject of vengeance — they have a certain day on which they mix the blood of non-Jews into their bread and eat it. It happened that two years ago, while I was in Paris on a visit, that the police discovered five murdered children. Their blood had been drained, and it turned out that some Jews had murdered them in order to take their blood and mix it with the bread that they eat on this day. This shows you what is the extent of their hatred and malice toward non-Jewish peoples.^{16 -} King Faisal of Saudi Arabia

It is everyday, common practice to incite hatred towards Jews in any Islamic society. They praise anyone that kills innocent Jewish women and children.

If you ask a liberal though, it is the U.S. who is to blame. We force Muslims to hate us, because we screen them more thoroughly at airports, or we call all muslims terrorists.

Well, I propose to that perhaps if you got mulsim mosques and schools to stop teaching hatred and that murdering in the name of Allah is great, and if you got Islamic governments to stop indoctrinating and inciting hatred towards the Jewish people, then perhaps the stereotype would die down.

It just amazes me how blind the left of the U.S. is today. They could care less that little Mohamed Shubalulu is being taught, in Saudi Arabia, that all Jews eat the blood of non Jew babies, and that they are to be killed wherever they are, however these same liberals are enraged when Little Johnny's dad tells him he's not riding in a plane with a muslim.

The same liberals that care less that Islamic governments forbid women to go out without a man, or to drive, that kill anyone that speaks out against the government. Why is it that they don't care you ask? Because that just would not help their agenda. Well, then they would have to support America and everything it stands for. Capitalism, individualism, self responsibility. For the avid liberal, their socialist mission far outweighs some 3rd world country that kills its own citizens for not worshiping the right god, or because they speak out against them. Hell, if that government is a socialist, communist government, well that's a good thing.

Senator Barack Obama is Dumb

Texaggie79 | 16 August, 2006 19:53

Recently at a "Town Meeting" Senator Obama stated that the war in Iraq was a "dumb war".

"Enemies in Iran and North Korea, along with terrorist groups bent on doing the United States harm, are getting stronger while the U.S. is bogged down in Iraq."

And just what does Senator Obama think would be the case with Iraq, had we not taken Saddam out of power, hmmm?

Oh, that's right. All the Iraqi's would be living in harmony, the insurgence would not exist, because all the men of the insurgence would be living peacefully and in a tolerant country. Saddam, would probably help us keep Iran in check. We could make him a friend of the US again.

Yes, I'm sure Saddam would have made the situation with Hezbollah and Israel much less complex. Oh, if only Saddam was still in power, we would have it so easy when dealing with the Middle East problems today.

Here are some more gems from the highly intelligent senator:

"The push for excellence in the classroom should go along with a push for a higher minimum wage. People who work full time should be able to support a family, and not struggle in vain to make ends meet. The minimum wage has not been raised in 10 years and currently has less purchasing power than in 1955."

Oh boy, class warfare. And just where does Senator Obama think this magical money for the minimum wage increase is going to come from?

Oh, that's right. The greedy ole' business owners who make WAY too much profit. They will just pay that extra amount to the minimum wage earners out of their own pocket, that's fair. So that takes care of that.

Well wait, what about the ones who earn now, what minimum wage will be increased up to? I'm sure they will be happy to now be making minimum wage, when as before, they were making more than minimum wage. Surely they aren't going to want a raise as well, nor the people making just more than they are.

Yeah. No way will that domino up to force a pay raise increase to evey single wage earner in the company. And hey, even if it did, the greedy business owner can foot the bill. I mean, come on, he's just making way too much profit.

I completely agree that any person who works full time should be able to support an entire family. Hell, jobs shouldn't pay what they are worth in the market place. What the hell is that capitalistic crap? Jobs should pay what we want them to pay. If you are a janitor, and refuse to get educated enough to get a decent job, well then, you have every right to demand that your employer pay enough to support a family of 10, for your no skilled job.

Barack, I have seen the light!!!

Passing the ?

Texaggie79 | 14 August, 2006 16:17

"My communist mentor has passed on to me, the stick that has been up his ass all these years."

Homeless Soccer World Cup?!

Texaggie79 | 13 August, 2006 15:28

Yup, you heard me right. There is a HOMELESS world cup, with teams from all over the world. There is actually a U.S. charity that raises money to have homeless soccer teams, and games.

An article on the CBC documents how homelss men are competing for spots on their national homeless soccer team.

Don't worry the U.S. has its own team as this article points out:

``Homelessness is about detachment,'' says Grunberg, a sociologist who publishes the street newspaper BIGnews, which the homeless of New York often sell in the subway. ``Sports is a way to facilitate attachment.''

What I am interested in is, how many jobs have come out of this little project? I mean, this is what today's liberalism is all about. Feel good ideas that rarely accomplish real goals.

Don't get me wrong. I'm happy that these people are finding joy in something, but how is playing on a soccer team going to train them and help them get a job?

That's ultimately what is keeping them homeless. They have no way to make money. Playing soccer at your local "Y", or wherever they play, does not bring in money. I highly doubt they are going to find very many Peles in these teams that can go pro.

How is all this money, that is going into this "feel good" idea solving these people's REAL problem?

What do liberals care? All they care about is how it makes them feel. Giving a shopping cart to a homeless person may not actually help that homeless person, but it makes the liberal who gave it to them feel good. That's what matters right?

They don't want to hurt these homeless people's feelings by telling them they need help in getting jobs. They just want to make them feel fine about living in a shelter, or box by making it a little more confortable.

See us mean ole' conservatives are just stubborn in our determination for actually solving problems. These same issues can be seen in many things that liberals and conservatives disagree, such as the current situation in Iraq and Lebanon. The entire liberal stance is based off of, "what makes us feel better?"

Because, after all, our feelings are all that matter.

Fanatic Tactics

Texaggie79 | 09 August, 2006 11:43

Andrea Peyser writes in an article that she hopes Joe Lieberman "knows what he thinks he is doing" when he leaves the democratic party to run as an independent. She states that the voters have spoken, and Joe isn't listening.

I don't think Andrea or many of the Lamont voters know what they are doing.

They have shown that they are willing to ostracize any loyal democrat simply because they don't hate Bush and oppose every single thing he stands for, no matter if it's right or wrong.

You will see the news papers and programs show how many people "oppose the war in Iraq" when they mention this battle that took place, and it was quite obvious that the Lamont crowd wants everyone to believe that's the reason, but it's not.

It's about one thing, like I said. Hating Bush. The extreme left of the Democratic party want a campaign to be ran for the election as a HATE BUSH campaign. They want candidates that will curse Bush's name and denounce any policy his administration has supported.

I mean, sure, there are gullible people found within that extreme left faction of the Democratic party that actually think that we really need to pull out of Iraq, and the magical fairies will work their magic over there and somehow all the islamofascists will suddenly stop their quest to destroy the western culture and to force Islam on the world.

These people sit over here in the safe, comfy U.S.A. where the current administration has prevented any new attacks since 9/11, and try to appear as sophisticated and more intelligent than the rest of America. They bloviate how the U.S. is a bully state, and that our actions in the Middle East are all about oil. Even though we haven't taken over one single oil field in Iraq, or taken the oil. They tell us how the U.S. is the reason for all the conflict in the world.

One thing they never do is actually look at what it is we are fighting. They turn their ear away when the islamofascist leaders of Iran, and Syria say that Israel must be destroyed. They think, for reasons beyond me, that peace can be had by appeasement.

These are just a few of the leftists though. The rest of them honestly don't care about the future. They care not that there are millions and millions of extremist muslims that will not stop until the western liberal world, these lefists love so much, is destroyed. The only thing that these fanatics care about is hating Bush. They are against the war because Bush started it and they would be just as much for it, had Clinton started it.

Lieberman, I may not agree with 90% of what you vote for, but I completely respect your desire to save your party. Because I'm sitting here watching it drown, at the hands of the extreme leftists like Sharpton and Lamont who haven't a clue that this nation will never support their socialist, appeasing, French ways.

Nazi Gibson?

Texaggie79 | 01 August, 2006 20:16

Is he anti-semetic? I'm not gonna judge him based on one night of drunken banter. Stupid..... very stupid, I will make that judgment.

I do think there may be some merit to the words of all the critics stating that Mel's true feelings came out that night, but I really think it was just in the moment.

Let's think about this. Mel's biggest known movie as of late is The Passion of the Christ. A movie that came under enormous criticism from Jewish groups, calling the movie, itself, anti-semetic. Something which I am sure got under Mel's skin.

I am also pretty confident that he has heard quite a bit of that same criticism all throughout his travels and at social functions.

Perhaps it was something even more recent and disturbing to Mel. Perhaps someone in the business he worked with did something to really anger him. Maybe the CEO over at Disney, whom produced his latest movie, who is jewish.

I'm not trying to excuse Mel's behavior, I'm just trying to "help him understand where the words came from", as Mel has requested in one of his recent statements.

We all have had moments of weakness, where someone has rubbed us the wrong way, or screwed us over, or something to really piss us off, and we are tempted to just blame it on some stereotype.

"F***ing MEN! They are all good for nothing"
"F***ing WOMEN! They are all good for nothing"
"F***ing KIDS! They are all good for nothing"
"F***ing (insert derogatory name for race here - and yes even cracker-) They are all good for nothing"
"F***ing CANADIANS! They are all good for nothing"

It's not an excusable behavior, no. But it's not unreasonable for a decent person to fall under that type of anger, in a moment of weakness.

Mel has alot of ass kissing and recovery to do, but I just don't think we can write him off as an anti-semite.

If he truly felt this way, you would think, after all these years in the business he is in (not saying Jews run it... but come on, the big boys table of hollywood is certainly not lacking in Jewish participation) people he has worked with would be coming out right now stating how they always knew he felt that way. SOMEONE would be coming forward.

You simply can't be filled with hate for a group of people and no one close to you in every day life notice it.

Mit Finds Himself a Tar Baby

Texaggie79 | 31 July, 2006 11:17

Gov. Mit Romney of Massachusetts used the term "Tar Baby" when describing the Big Dig, upsetting "Black leaders".

He stated he was not aware the term was offensive to some.

Well, EVERYTHING is offensive to someone. Get the hell over it people. A tar baby is a great descriptive of a sticky situation. It seems these "civil rights leaders" want to take every word and phrase that has ever been uttered by some racist hick in a derogatory manner, and brand it as an offensive term, no matter how it's used.

To my friends in Alabama, I guess you can't call em "Coon Dog's" anymore. Change the name of the famous "Coon Dog Cemetery".

Also we need to take the word "Black" out of our every day terminology. We need another, non offensive word for black. Um, how about zombo?

Hook, Line and Sinker

Texaggie79 | 31 July, 2006 09:55

We are buying it guys. Exactly what Hezbollah and the rest of the Islamo-fascists are selling.

Do you honestly think that Hezbollah doesn't want innocent Lebonese women and children killed?

It is exactly their tactic to get as many innocent civilians killed in Lebanon as possible. That way, gullible saps like us in the U.S. can cry and blame big, bad Israel.

Why else would these terrorists fire their rockets from streets next to civilian homes, only to dawn civilian clothes and hide among the women and children?

These terrorists' own families even stay for the very purpose of being collateral damage. It is all part of their strategy.

They send their own children to public places with bombs on their chests, and in the same cause they get their own children killed in attacks on their arsenal, just to turn the world against Israel and the U.S.

Meanwhile the new Hitler over in Iran is rubbing shoulders with North Korea and other communists states trying to make the case that what is happening in Lebanon is proof of why Iran needs nuclear weaponry. As everything Hezbollah is doing is being orchestrated from Iran for that very purpose.

And here we sit, my fellow Americans, pointing our finger at mean ole' Israel.

Peace in our time?

Texaggie79 | 21 July, 2006 12:34

The antiwar crowd out there all have this utopian view that if the USA and Israel were to stop their "aggressions" in the Middle East that it would be a peacefull and happy place.

Can we live in peace with the extreme islamic countries of the Middle East?

All you need to do is look at their culture and society. Look to their laws, their punishments. It's easy to see. What is the point of a burka?

Muslim extremists do not believe in avoiding sin through personal responsibility. It is the Islamic way to avoid sin by removing all temptation by any means necessary. This is why their women are covered, because if a man were to rape a woman, it wouldn't be his fault. No, of course not. It would be the fault of the woman for tempting him.

This is the mindset of the extreme muslim society and unfortunately, unlike the other religions, the extreme part of Islam is the majority of it.

So we can look to the past and see how these extremist countries lived in peace with other westernized countries. They simply kept to themselves. The westernized culture stayed in those countries and the extreme muslim culture stayed in the muslim countries.

That is no longer the case. In today's technological age, the world is becoming more and more intermixed. Cultures are spread throughout airwaves, media forms like musical CDs and movies.

The extremist muslim countries can no longer keep out what they see as the evil infadel ways of the west. It creeps in through satellite TV, through the internet, through cell phones, through movies. And of course, muslim men cannot be to blame when they act on temptation, it is the party who caused the temptation that is. Therefor, they see that their only option is to destroy or convert the entire western society.

It is simply not possible for these extreme muslim countries to live amongst the rest of the world in peace any more.

So I ask you socialist, USA hating antiwar peaceniks to choose. Do you want peace through Islam conquering the world and having every human under its rule? Or would you rather have world peace through smashing and obliterating extremists muslims so that we can finally live in a peaceful, tolerant world?

Those are the two choices, and I challenge any lefty to come up with a different way.

Where are Your Ideas?

Texaggie79 | 19 July, 2006 14:37

Pat Buchanan put out an article today criticizing Israel's tactics in Lebanon, and more over, Bush's roll in the matter.

He tells us how Lebanon is mainly a pro-American nation and how stupid it was for Bush to give the green light to Olmert to start dropping bombs.

Well tell us Mr. Buchanan, I mean, you have made your objections quite clear for some time now about Bush's policies in Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East. Tell us, what do you propose?

I think it's quite obvious that you wish to be an isolationist and basically just turn a blind eye to the Middle East. You certainly, at least not that I have heard, have not offered up any solutions to put an end to the terrorist orgs.

You simply just keep telling us that what we are currently doing is making more terrorists. So tell us already, how to make less terrorist? How Patrick, when these terrorists' sole mission is to drive all the Jews out of Israel, and to convert or kill the entire western world?

You sound just like the democrats. All you can do is criticize, and now, you are just as much of a joke as they are.

Bush and Israel are actually taking proactive steps to securing peace in the future, as opposed to walking on eggshells hoping not to anger the terrorists as it seems you would have the US do.

"Olmert seized upon Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers to unleash the IDF in a pre-planned attack to make the Lebanese people suffer until the Lebanese government disarms Hezbollah, a task the Israeli army could not accomplish in 18 years of occupation. "

So what is the solution Pat? What should they do? Just give into their demands and trade some of the prisoners that murdered jews back to Hezbollah? Just keep taking the rockets and not doing anything?

Hezbollah is not someone you can reason with as time has proven.

I hate it for the Lebanese but if they can't keep Hezbollah in check, Israel has no other option but to retaliate, which is exactly what they are doing.

Your rhetoric makes it seem as though you want Israel to be like a bad parent, who is too soft to discipline their kids to obey in the first place, and just do what they can to prevent their kids from getting into trouble by removing any opportunity for them to that they can. Their kids grow up thinking it's okay to do those things, so long as you can find a way to do them.

I'm Christian, same as you Pat, but turning the cheek in this case is just suicide.

Whose Fault?

Texaggie79 | 18 July, 2006 22:08

So, this family is in trouble. Seems that they are up a creek without a paddle; and who's fault is this?

From the looks of it, CNN would have us believe it's big bad Israel for daring to defend itself. I mean, what blame can you place on a father who took his family on vacation to a nation that cannot control terrorist organizations within its own borders (that are ran by Syria and Iran)?

Don't get me wrong. I pray for the safety of this family. But let's just examine the tone of this picture, shall we?

Looks to me as if they are saying, "Hey US government, we thought it would be a good idea to take the fam to the great nation of Lebanon who is the current home of a Iran ran terrorist organization that has been rocketing Israel for some time. Now Israel has the gall to bomb this nation and defend itself while our family is here. You better bail us out US government. Where are you?"

Ya..... some gall.

An Old Band-aid

Texaggie79 | 17 July, 2006 14:19

You ever had a band-aid on a big scrape, that you have been wearing for a few days? The type you just dread taking off, because you know your blood has encrusted into the band-aid and it will rip off the top of your scrape when you pull it off?

You know you have to pull it off, and you know it's going to hurt. Sometimes you might put it off for later. Hopeing maybe it wont hurt as much.

The fist thing you must decide before you do it is; will you pull it off slow or fast?

If you choose fast - as most people do - you are hoping that you will have it completely taken off before your mind realizes that it hurts. You basically are conceding that it's going to hurt. You just want to make sure you get it all the way off before it hurts too much to chicken out.

Now if you choose slow, you are hoping to perhaps reduce tearing out as much of the scar as possible, and perhaps getting lucky enough to avoid pain. However, if you chose wrong, this is usually the most painful method.

On top of your prolonged pain, you get to watch slowly as the flesh is peeled away from your bloody scrape.

Well that is were we are with Syria and Iran. We all know their extremist, terrorist supporting dictatorships must be taken out if we are ever going to have peace.

So the question is do we do it slow, or fast?

Now this question is way more complicated than the scrape question but I guess I can try to make parallels.

First we must realize that this scrape has become infected. So by prolonging the time we take to pull off this band-aid, we greatly increase the possibility of death.

Liberals, however don't have the capacity to see that far down the road. All they care about is the pain it will cause now. Ultimately, they would rather just leave the band-aid on, and not look at the injury, and just hope that somehow it magically gets healed.

If the infected scrape causes some pain, some liberals will consent to maybe opening up the band-aid just a little and spraying a little ointment on the area. So long as it doesn't hurt.

If after the ointment treatment it still hurts, they might agree to pulling the band-aid back a little more and spraying some more ointment. But never will they concede to removing the band-aid, even though it is keeping us from cleaning out the wound and getting the proper medicine to it to prevent spread of infection, and ultimately death.

To make a long story short, I think that we are at a place with the situation in the Middle East to just rip off the terrorist supporting regimes and bathe those wounds.

I know liberals want to point to Iraq and say that we can't succeed there so why should we expect to succeed with Iran or Syria.

Let me go back to the scrape analogy again. Imagine if the scrape we are focusing on is surrounded by other separate infected scrapes. Now we can clean out the one infected scrape as much as we want, but if we leave those other infected scrapes untreated, they will just reinfect the one scrape we are focusing on, over and over and over and over until we rip off all the damn band-aids and clean out every last open wound.

So the question now is; how bad do we want peace?

Who the Hell Are You?

Texaggie79 | 15 July, 2006 16:36

So the President of Venezuela opens his mouth again in on the situation in the Middle East.

First let me ask, why the hell should anyone care? Why is the press even giving the guy play on the air?

We get it, Chavez. You are a bloviating pompous ass who thinks that everyone in the world should listen to you because you run one of the last communist states in the world.

Hell Castro should have more airplay than you simply because he is closer to the USA.

Finally Blogging

Texaggie79 | 15 July, 2006 16:07

I have finally given in to all my buddies and family telling me I need to blog, since I'm so opinionated. So the only question remains is, do I have the self discipline to keep it going.

Only time will tell.

Congratulations!

Texaggie79 | 13 April, 2005 11:59

If you can read this post, it means that the registration process was successful and that you can start blogging

May 2007
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
April 2005

General [29]

Friend Blogs
Logic and Sanity
Political
Free Republic