Featured Post

An American Coup D'etat?

This has gotten completely out of control. I never thought I would see our country's politics reduced to the degrading levels of a Banan...

Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Destroying Biden: Karma, Baby, Karma

Joe Biden: not my cup of tea, glass of IPA, shot of bourbon, caliber of gun or any other cutesy idiom you want. I've always seen him as a pompous bore, and, frankly, not terribly bright. I mean, folks, please, in 1988, he plagiarized from Neil Kinnock, yes, Neil Kinnock, another not very interesting, pompous bore full of conventional establishment "wisdom." If you're going to steal speeches from Kinnock . . . well, never mind.

In sum, if Biden ever had a "best-if-used-by" date he appears to have passed it--as we will see.

A typical old-style corrupt Democrat politician, a poor man's Edward "Watch-What-My-Oldsmobile-Can-Do" Kennedy, Biden loved cameras, spouted 1980s vintage pedestrian "social justice" slogans, and yet nestled comfortably in the pocket of banking and credit card interests. He tried to portray himself as just, "Uncle Joe, your neighbor. Let's have a beer." Yawn. A bore. Only his gaffes, ponderous lectures, and hair-transplant travails made him mildly amusing. I found surprising when Obama picked him as his VP in 2008, but, those wiser explained that it made sense: Biden could bring in some middle class male white vote; perhaps ease the concerns of powerful financial people about Obama's leftist views; serve as the voice of experience; and, of course, he would not outshine President Obama. A correct calculation? I don't know. I leave that discussion to pollsters and campaign historians. I know one thing for certain, he did not capture this white dude's vote, nor allay this white dude's concerns about the Obama misadministration.

Well, Uncle Joe got himself screwed over in 2016. It seems he thought that eight years as Obama's loyal sidekick finally would earn him, entitle him, ensure him the machine's backing for the Democrat nomination that he had sought for some 30 years. Nope. Not so fast, white guy. Obama promised that to Hillary Clinton and her powerful money printing press. Joe was talked out of running, given a "surprise" Presidential Medal of Freedom, and sent off to graze in Delaware. See ya, Joe!

As we can see from the score or so of calamities now running or about to run for the Dem nomination in 2020, the ground in the Democratic Party, the world's oldest political party, has shifted radically. Poor Joe, apparently, did not get the memo, the one that says white guys not welcome, or he misunderstood it, "That can't mean me! I love women! I love black people! I don't want them back in chains!" He thought, I guess, that he could gain an exemption from the identity politics mantra.

To prove himself worthy of such an exemption, Joe proceeded to do what Joe does best: give bad speeches. He berated "white male culture"; he made fun of English jurisprudence; and, in a bid for feminist votes, even fell for that nonsensical story about the origins of "rule of thumb." He apologized for being a white guy on the Senate committee that dealt with black Anita Hill's nonsensical accusations against black Clarence Thomas. Joe, really, really wants to be with it . . .

Joe, however, has a touching problem, literally. He likes to touch people; likes it a lot. The internet is full of pictures of Uncle Joe hugging, kissing, holding, squeezing people, uh, especially young women and even girls. Whatever the innocent explanations, he looks creepy, very much so; shall we say, he looks like a tactile reptile? Now the prog media largely had ignored Joe's habit, until, that is, he implied he would run for President, yet again. Suddenly, and predictably, "victims," nay, "survivors" of Joe's jostling began to appear.

Joe is in a fix. He doesn't know how to respond; his statements on his history of "affection" appear hollow, from another less "woke" time. Ain't gonna work. We must believe all women! The fact that these "survivors" are ardent backers of other Dem candidates, is not something the media has given much attention. As usual with these progs, they wait years, almost like old KGB sleeper cells, before they get activated and pour forth their accusations. They, we should note, stayed pretty quiet while Biden served as a loyal Obama soldier, even when he lived up to the VICE in his title.

But now, burn the old white sorcerer! I definitely saw him flying over the house!

Is Joe burnt toast?  I am not a betting man, but . . . we'll see.

36 comments:

  1. Biden could bring in some middle class male white vote; perhaps ease the concerns of powerful financial people about Obama's leftist views; serve as the voice of experience; and, of course, he would not outshine President Obama.

    It's kind of sad that such a corporatist as Obama can been seen as far left. I suppose being so far right makes you lose any sense of perspective on the political spectrum.

    ... that dealt with black Anita Hill's nonsensical accusations against black Clarence Thomas.

    Women be lyin', eh? Hill, Wright, Jourdain, Hardnett, they were only women, so you can't trust them over Thomas. No sireee.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obama's results speak for themselves.
      No, he didn't *sell* himself as a far lefty in the 2008 cycle, but he did his best to gut the medical sector... had a 'change of heart' on gay marriage... stood up for planned parenthood... toured the world kowtowing to any sovereign to would entertain his apologies for capitalism... extended dictatorial powers to both invade Libya and bypass the laws of this country to grant status to a large swathe of illegal aliens...

      I do know there are people who don't think Obama went far enough... but I think they simply don't realize how constrained Obama was by the 2010 election results. He did what damage he could with two years, then was propped up as a token figurehead President such that his further damage was limited.

      In my view, the ultimate result of leftism is naziism (as in, that's the 'final status' allowing for sequential transformations in time to result in a supposedly stable state), and I'm certain we would have gotten there with a compliant congress. Stymying him and then getting rid of him has at least staved off that result for a bit.

      If 'the average of america' is to be considered 'the center', and *nobody* wanted Obama to further his agenda because it was out of step with that center, then he's probably pretty far-left.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. One Brow, You continue to show that you either suffer from a serious inability to read English, or you are just a malicious troll trying desperately to get some attention--or both. The voices in your head have distorted completely what I wrote. Please revisit the paragraph you cite in the opening of your little post, and you will see that--surprise--you have left off both the beginning and the end of that paragraph which would dramatically change what you say I wrote.

      Re the women issue. I guess you have reverted to the old Dem party when women were just believed and black men were hanged from trees or beaten to death by mobs. You are keeping that tradition alive. Such a traditionlist.

      Delete
    3. It's almost like One Brow is scooping up contrived content from this blog and depositing it somewhere else for his own benefit? Maybe from other blogs as well?

      Delete
    4. Obama's results speak for themselves.
      No, he didn't *sell* himself as a far lefty in the 2008 cycle, but he did his best to gut the medical sector... had a 'change of heart' on gay marriage... stood up for planned parenthood... toured the world kowtowing to any sovereign to would entertain his apologies for capitalism... extended dictatorial powers to both invade Libya and bypass the laws of this country to grant status to a large swathe of illegal aliens...


      Obama's ACA, relying on corporations to provide healthcare insurance, was about as Republican/corporatist a plan as you could get. Most Republicans have also had a change of heart on gay marriage, very few run against it anymore. Most people in the US support limited abortion rights. Obama acted like any other President has in visiting foreign countries or in invading foreign countries. You have a fair point regarding the DREAMers.

      In my view, the ultimate result of leftism is naziism (as in, that's the 'final status' allowing for sequential transformations in time to result in a supposedly stable state),

      Yet, for over 80 years, American Nazis have recognized Nazism as a right-wing endeavor. I understand that right-wingers don't like to acknowledge this particular skeleton in their closet, but to pretend otherwise interferes with honest dialogue. Don't worry, you can still smear lefties with Communism.

      and I'm certain we would have gotten there with a compliant congress. Stymying him and then getting rid of him has at least staved off that result for a bit.

      Trump has behaved much more autocratically than Obama ever dared to.

      If 'the average of america' is to be considered 'the center', and *nobody* wanted Obama to further his agenda because it was out of step with that center, then he's probably pretty far-left.

      What's the part of the agenda so out-of-step that no one wants it? Not the ACA, trying to get rid of it is so toxic McConnell won't touch it. Not inclusion for DREAMers, that's relatively popular. Gay marriage has reached majority acceptance. Invading foreign countries, sure (but what will you be saying when we invade Venezuela?).

      Delete
    5. DiploMad,
      One Brow, You continue to show that you either suffer from a serious inability to read English, or you are just a malicious troll trying desperately to get some attention--or both.

      Well, ya'll need need someone to hate around here. I'm happy to be of service. I mean, I don't see how your complaints about my literacy seem valid (at least, not at the times you bring them up), and I am earnest about what I say so I don't see it as trolling, but I am not opposed to conflict. You can't understand people if you don't listen to them and engage with them, even when you disagree.

      Please revisit the paragraph you cite in the opening of your little post, and you will see that--surprise--you have left off both the beginning and the end of that paragraph which would dramatically change what you say I wrote.

      I understand that the post, and paragraph, was about Biden, and I don't disagree with much of it. I think you have nailed Biden pretty well, frankly. However, nothing in your paragraph acknowledged that Obama did not actually have many leftist views, no none of it mollified the part I did pull out.

      Re the women issue. I guess you have reverted to the old Dem party when women were just believed and black men were hanged from trees or beaten to death by mobs. You are keeping that tradition alive. Such a traditionlist.

      Just after reader #1482 tries to associate Nazism with left, you pull out the racist canards. The change from the tradition you refer to is that black men were lynched based on the testimony of white women. Last I checked, Hill, Wright, and Jourdain were black (not sure about Hardnett). No one lynched black men over raping a black woman, much less harassing one.

      Still, it was sight. Thomas, who before and since has that racism was not a significant issue throughout his career, used this one moment to play the racism card, and all the white people who *hate* the racism card cheered him while he played it. Hypocrisy laid bare for all the world to see.

      Delete
    6. whitewall,
      It's almost like One Brow is scooping up contrived content from this blog and depositing it somewhere else for his own benefit? Maybe from other blogs as well?

      Well, I did do that one time, when I thought the tangents from the comments had drifted so far from the main topic that it would be ruder to continue the conversation here. I'm pretty sure I linked to new blog post when I did that. It might happen again, but if/when it does, I will again be open about it.

      Outside of that, I'm here strictly for my own learning.

      Delete
    7. "Outside of that, I'm here strictly for my own learning."

      Doesn't seem to be working.

      Delete
    8. "Outside of -->that, I'm here strictly for -->my own learning." Browbeet

      Nice try Browlette butt your outside pigstyaroma always seems to accompany your verbiage, and just sorta hangs in the air till you leave, or the Host politely turns the page! No, I don't believe for a minute that anyone "Hates" you Uni, leastwise not hereabouts... Personally, I suspect you're just another confused and misunderstood H.S. drop-out blaming others for your broken dreams, and bad luck with the girls. Please Leave your # and I'll have a Crisis Counselor share a dose of empathy respect & warmth with you, no charge!
      On Watch~~~
      Because I Care~~~

      Delete
    9. Merkwürdigliebe
      Doesn't seem to be working.

      Actually, it is. There is a difference between learning and indoctrination.

      On Watch,

      I was being facetious. I don't anyone in here knows me well enough to really hate me, but I am grateful for your kindness.

      Delete
    10. Heh... we'll put the line at 80 years because... otherwise we have to talk about the point of the whole nazi effort? It's like trying to talk about planned parenthood without discussing the whole eugenic purpose behind it?

      "Yeah, that *was* a bad tree, but now the fruit is good... see, just try it?"

      On the other hand, and diametrically opposed, we have the USA, which was founded upon liberty. Flawed though it may have been at the time, it was revolutionary in it's intent of freedom. Can't escape your roots no matter how far you run, have to embrace them. The media has done a fair job trying to pin fascism on the right, but that's all it is, a temporary hatchet job. Hitler and Chavez were kindred spirits, both the darlings of the progressives until it became politically inexpedient.

      IMO, Trump fits the USA's centrist values much better than pretty much any president in modern history. Novel concept in modern america, sure... attempting to represent the people who are electing you.. who'd'a'thunk?
      Do the job you're elected to do.... amazing...

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    11. reader #1482,

      Heh... we'll put the line at 80 years because... otherwise we have to talk about the point of the whole nazi effort?

      You mean, the establishment of an empire for the "master race"?

      It's like trying to talk about planned parenthood without discussing the whole eugenic purpose behind it?

      To my knowledge, no one was ever forced by the government into a Planned Parenthood clinic.

      On the other hand, and diametrically opposed, we have the USA, which was founded upon liberty. Flawed though it may have been at the time, it was revolutionary in it's intent of freedom.

      Kind of like Planned Parenthood.

      The media has done a fair job trying to pin fascism on the right, but that's all it is, a temporary hatchet job.

      I don't trust the media take on this at all. I trust the opinions of actual, modern-day Nazis, who associate with figures from the right.

      Hitler and Chavez were kindred spirits, both the darlings of the progressives until it became politically inexpedient.

      Hitler was initially supported by noted conservatives such as Ford and Lindbergh.

      IMO, Trump fits the USA's centrist values much better than pretty much any president in modern history.

      Are we really that racist? Hmmmm...

      Delete
    12. Mr. Brow, it is the most cherished leftist distortion of all time that National Socialism is a right-wing phenomenon. Personally, I think the word "socialism" in there is like, you know, sort of a kloo as to its essential nature.

      You may have heard of Benito somebody or other, who made a short leap from socialism to fascism a while back. He said once of fascism, "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." The National Socialists back then were also often referred to as fascists and Benito and You Know Who were quite close.

      If you can conclude from this that National Socialists were actually right wingers and that American National Socialists knew none of this and thought of themselves as Ripon Society members with attitude then I think you are desperately in need of professional help. No rightist of my acquaintance worships the state. Is that a core element of right-wing thinking in your mind?

      Who knew?!

      Delete
    13. Lindberg was solidly anti-war, anti-jew, pro-eugenics, and pro-racial segregation.
      These are all 'progressive' causes. All major progressive organizations are anti-Israel, most to the point of repeating timeless blood-libels.
      Progressives strongly encourage the ghettoization of minorities through their mantra of 'multi-culturalism'. They don't want to call it segregation, but the intentions and effects are clear. And eugenics is one of the first and foremost causes in the progressive agenda ever. It's almost the reason for the word 'progress' behind it. The point is "to build a better society" and that includes 'social justice', nominally implemented through segregation and eugenics.

      And no... the US did not set out with the vile goals of Sanger's planned parenthood. PLanned Parenthood started out with the horrible, destructive goals that they currently propagate. The US *had* proper goals, but has been led off track towards intolerance and dictatorship by the progressives who know that "there's no other way to achieve a 'just' society" (in their infinite wisdom).

      Don't get me wrong.. our progressive elites will not claim these things, they just speak around them.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    14. Richard Ong,
      Mr. Brow, it is the most cherished leftist distortion of all time that National Socialism is a right-wing phenomenon.

      I completely understand why right-wingers would want to believe that. However, as I daid, the real evidence is the history of the American Nazis, which have been consistently right-wing throughout our history. If you have a real beef here, perhaps you should explain to them that Tucker Carlson does not have rhetoric to emulate and they should not be voting for Trump. See their reaction for yourself.

      Personally, I think the word "socialism" in there is like, you know, sort of a kloo as to its essential nature.

      The way you believe "Democrat" is sort of a clue to the essential nature of the Democratic party?

      If you can conclude from this that National Socialists were actually right wingers and that American National Socialists knew none of this and thought of themselves as Ripon Society members with attitude then I think you are desperately in need of professional help.

      The Ripon Society? Not at all. They considered themselves the equivalent of modern-day Stormfront, dead-set on protecting the status of white men everywhere, on preserving and reinforcing the status quo. Aka, staunch conservatives.

      No rightist of my acquaintance worships the state. Is that a core element of right-wing thinking in your mind?

      Why, yes. Right-wingers support government intervention in personal rights. They support an aggressive police force. They call a military responsible for 45% of the world's military budget too weak. Those are all aspects of supporting the government.

      Who knew?!

      Delete
    15. reader #1482

      Lindberg was solidly anti-war, anti-jew, pro-eugenics, and pro-racial segregation.
      These are all 'progressive' causes.


      In the 1930s, they were causes supported by a lot of Democrats, when the Democrats were the more conservative party. Among progressives of today, only "anti-war" qualifies.

      All major progressive organizations are anti-Israel, most to the point of repeating timeless blood-libels.

      Thank you for acknowledging the Democratic Party, which is firmly in the pocket of AIPAC, is not progressive.

      However, there is a big difference between "anti-Jew" and "anti-Israel"; there are no small number of people that both fight antisemitism and condemn Israel's apartheid state.

      Progressives strongly encourage the ghettoization of minorities through their mantra of 'multi-culturalism'.

      Ghettoization occurred through policies of red-lining and community contracts, and continues today through selective marketing and landlord/real estate broker discrimination. Did you know it was only this year that Facebook made it a policy that real estate broker were not allowed to use race to decide who could see advertisement for their homes?

      They don't want to call it segregation, but the intentions and effects are clear.

      By all means, do explain how multi-culturalism enhances segregation.

      And eugenics is one of the first and foremost causes in the progressive agenda ever.

      Yes, I can see how not allowing people to sell wormy bacon, and forcing a 40-hour work week, came from the notion of eugenics.

      Wait, I can't see it any more. Could you please explain that?

      It's almost the reason for the word 'progress' behind it. The point is "to build a better society" and that includes 'social justice', nominally implemented through segregation and eugenics.

      The point of social justice to create inclusion, which is the opposite of segregation.

      And no... the US did not set out with the vile goals of Sanger's planned parenthood.

      So, you don't believe in liberty?

      PLanned Parenthood started out with the horrible, destructive goals that they currently propagate. The US *had* proper goals, but has been led off track towards intolerance and dictatorship by the progressives who know that "there's no other way to achieve a 'just' society" (in their infinite wisdom).

      I'm sorry people don't want to tolerate forcing women into childbirth and hatred for people based on skin color. I know it must be a terrible oppression for you to not be able to force women into childbirth and to force people to live somewhere based on their skin color, which is the type of integration you could support.

      Delete
    16. A little reluctant to reply as I don't think I've checked in here for something like a year, but...

      As a Canadian, I get it when many of my compatriots and some Americans have an idea of the political spectrum in which Obama is the centre, or maybe just centre left with Hillary at the centre, and among the GOP even Jeb Bush might be considered quite well to the right. I don't share that view, but I get it. It's easy to get much farther left even than Obama, by most lights, and still be within the mainstream of constitutional government in the West.

      OTOH, I get it up to a point when those on the American right do the opposite. In the context of American history to this point, taken in the round, the Democrats are quite a bit left of centre now. Obama's rhetoric of fundamental transformation speaks more of the progressive radical than the liberal democrat, and he did start out as the quintessential post-Marxist job description of community organizer from the outside. Traditional communities, even when they rallied around some outsider for leadership, didn't think or operate in those terms. The language you speak and the concepts you use are indicative of your worldview.

      On the whole, I try for a sense of the political spectrum that takes the whole of the West and the last 200 years in context. I'd put the Bushes as loosely centre right and Obama and Hill at variously centre left.

      For the historical stuff, there's more nuance than either side sees. Jonah Goldberg, once the Neocon bane of the left and now a more acceptable liberal, overdid it with his book Liberal Fascism, although the actual origins and reasons for his title were valid.

      The progressive vision of today is cloaked in fairly genuine belief in racial equality, for example, and looks to a multiracial and eventually uniracial future for America that is emphatically not white people. That's new compared to the old progs. In practice, it seems to assume that non-white Americans are eternal clients of the state and can do no better, so sometimes I wonder. It retains the idea of a technocratic state managed by an elite-educated class and professional managers, with limited scope for the action of politics or the degree of difference or conflict in that politics, which always was the core mission. Similarly, and again with less overt racial content, it seems to have policies on abortion and other social problems consistent with those of the past.

      Whether all this is conservative, liberal, progressive, right or left is not entirely a mug's game of analysis but it does pose problems. For my part, I notice the kind of technocratic agenda I suggest above, versus an emphasis on less restrained competitive politics whether electoral, partisan, congressional, federalism, or ideological, as well as an emphasis on utilitarian versus trad values, whatever their content, are important dividing lines.

      Delete
    17. As to the Nazis, I do not quite share the very American, libertarian inflected tendency to say they were socialists and have done. They placed themselves on the right, mostly, allied with the right, mostly, and did fit within the spectrum of the German right, mostly. OTOH, they did consider themselves socialist, were in large degree socialist by any standard esp those of the times, and were by their lights aiming at revolution, to create a future utopian society based on a new and better people, at the expense of other people then existing and through the medium of a totalitarian party state and war.

      I'm willing to, correctly, see them as functionally on the right of their era and in general for most purposes, but it's impossible to call them particularly defining of the right, let alone conservative or even reactionary. Considering the actual future they spoke of, they only just barely qualified as German nationalists, and then only instrumentally. And for those of us looking at the spectrum in terms of ultimate objectives and concepts being used, there is that sense of ultimate upheaval of all that was past in the Nazis that qualifies their inclusion on the right with a big asterisk.

      And while I remember the Democrats used to have a conservative wing, with the term applying in variouis degrees and ways depending on the member, I can't see any validity in which the Dems were the "more conservative" party in the 30s. Using the definition of conservative of any era, then or since.

      Anyway, I hope these read clearly. This window is veeeery small for editing myself.

      Delete
    18. random observer,

      I hope it's not a year before you check in again.

      Delete
  2. D'Mad,

    You almost compared Ol' Unk Joe to "Lost Linc" Chaffee! So complete the comparison: which one is better able to … errr … I really don't know what. But Lost Linc did fill the space that was waiting for Ol' Joe.

    Green Bear

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unfortunately for former VP Biden. The fix is in, again. The Democrat candidate has already been selected. It's Kamala Harris, and she will select Robert O'Rorke as VP. For the perfect intersection of race, sex, and hipness. All the traits that appeal to the left. Their positions on issues, doesn't matter, as long as they say, "Orange man bad".

    ReplyDelete
  4. But this is a good thing. The race to oust Biden from his position of inevitability AND destroy him so he never raises a transplanted hair out of Delaware again is funning full steam. And like the Lefts move against their onetime VP Candidate Lieberman, when they take out Joe another chunk of Democrat voting base will walk away also.
    Let the intersectionalists squeeze their party down to a caucus of 3.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just Hold It right there Pilgrims!
    If it weren't for Smokin Joe Biden's fancy foot work, and blarney stone BS in the clinches -- Cryin Paul Ryan mighta survived the ROUT and kept Mitten's caboose on track toward a GOPe WIN! As it was tho, the Pretendin 'Publican Contender arrived at the next venue suckin air, and Candy Crowley HipNOtiZed the Wobbly MorMan when she held up more fingers then Mitty could count so Mitty's MaMa threw in the towel, and the rest is history! No tellin what that bunch of expatriate Mexican banditos would have pulled off if they made it into DC!?

    Best thing 'The Donald' could do now is appoint Mittens the Ambassador to Russia, ship him Par Avon c/o Vlad Putin and Ed Snowden for special roadwork training in Siberia!
    OW~~~

    ReplyDelete
  6. man.. sometimes I have *no* idea to whom you are referring to with some of your nicknames for political figures... this is one of those times... I mean.. I know who Paul Ryan is... but I recognize nothing else there. :)

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No worries 1.483 it's only a quiz, you still have time to do research for your EOT paper. One avenue of inquiry that you may want to traverse, is the results of, and the after-effects from the Biden-Ryan VP debate. While the tussle wasn't exactly the 'Thrilla from Manilla', most scorecards had the bout 60/40 for 'Plugs Biden, he was firing on all 4 cylinders, that is, he was "SMOKIN" that night, and had Ryan on the canvas with 8 counts in 7 outta the 15 rounds I saw! Point is, if not for Joe Biden's Heavy Left Hand and Paul Ryan's Glass Jaw, Senor Mittens, might have charmed enough votes outta the fence sitters, as it happened tho, his Campaign continued to head south of the border...last seen with a Dog on his roof! Good Riddance and 3 Cheers for the Delaware mauler, who went on to coach US wimmins in Defensive Home Shotgun Techniques!
      Prof. OWit Stillhurtz ~~~

      Delete
    2. ok.. biden.. mittens.. got it..
      I really don't know what's up with Biden... but the progressives certainly eat their own... Lieberman, Biden.. the digested-and-excreted carcasses of their erstwhile heroes are piling up and forming a huge stink.

      The only defense of a progressive against other progressives is fabulous wealth... :)

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    3. Yup! Those vertebrate carcases are beginning to pile up on the Left side of the asile, Predictable imho... Heck, "America's Anchorman" has been warning US for years about the unholy matrimony between the Democrats and their Enforcers in the media! That's Right, the 'Dr. of Democracy' his own damnself shared his personal prescription with his audience on many occasions: Saying, "The media didn't make me, and they can't break me" I suspect The POTUS took him at his word! Danged if he too isn't immune to media bytes, even when they're SWARMING! the leetle beasties!

      So I did a search and found out that even King James Instructional manual on Morality, is fairly forthright, and predictive on the topic: "Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean --->creeping things,[sounds like BUZZfed Prog Parasites to my trained ears!] and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty." OUCH! I'm getting me a swatter! to go with my can of RAID!

      ON Watch~~~ still swattin sprayin ~~~
      "Let's Roll"

      Delete
    4. I really don't know what's up with Biden... but the progressives certainly eat their own... Lieberman, Biden.. the digested-and-excreted carcasses of their erstwhile heroes are piling up and forming a huge stink.

      Neither Lieberman nor Biden are progressives, so it's not actually "eating our own". By the way, that's an odd way to say 'not be hypocritical'. When a politician acts against our core values, should they not be called out for it?

      Delete
    5. I'd actually agree with that one. Lieberman and Biden are liberals, not progressives. Eating liberalism from the inside has been an element of progressivism, properly understood as an effort to supplant and transcend liberalism by both extending liberal premises to new fields and grafting on non-liberal premises. Lieberman and Biden are liberals, for sure.

      Delete
    6. Remember when Joe Biden was the Senator from Mastercard?

      Delete
  7. This blog has entirely too much realism ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Et Tu Pottsy!
      ~~~~~OW~~~~~
      ~~~~~ ;~) ~~~~~

      Delete
  8. I get all the stuff but I can't believe what Mitt has turned into. I voted for him in 2012 as I thought a technocrat like Mitt would be able to turn the country around.
    As to the debate between Biden and Ryan, I thought Biden to be bordering on unhinged. If you were to watch that debate again you would see my point.I'm not sure what Ryan could have done about it other than become nasty and combative.
    Mitt now seems to have found his place as John McCain (never saw a country he didn't want to bomb.) And, of course, a massive Trump hater. He is a huge disappointment to me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I hear you Ms babs {{{{{Loud n' Clear}}}}}

    With reference to Mittens tho, I think his transformation was more like just removing his mask! Many if not most Americans decided it was better to stay home than to vote for the GOPe ticket. As it turned out, they showed up at the mid-terns and BO didn't get to complete his Doomsday for America Agenda!
    As for Paul Ryan, what Mittems needed was someone on the Ticket w/TEETH! All I saw with Ryan was a PussyCAT, ready& willing to lick up whatever Biden spilled on the floor! Both Romney & Ryan would have been worse than useless, as history has shown again and again, and I fear Mittens and dirty Socks aren't finished screwing with the USA yet!
    On Watch~~~

    ReplyDelete
  10. Speaking of "Bring(ing) out your Dead", el Sultan (Daniel Greenfield) tossed out a pair of King James type carcases, starting with the lingering finality and moldy "wet thud" known as the Mueller report. Followed by the dying imagery of the usual cadre Democrat buzzards (Rep. Adam Schiff, Rep. Maxine Waters, Rep. Jerry Nadler, Rep Ted Lieu, etc,etc, hawking their undigested tripe -- and bringing up the rear-end of the Obomanable procession of carcases, comes America's #1 all-around Harpy, Shillary Shia~roo (who said that?)... coughing, hacking, wheezing, glaring, stumbling, pissing n' moaning whilst men with no stomach for flushing her toilet, ponder how best to let the broken-winged predacious witch escape the Judgment & Punishment she surely deserves?! Back now to the wisdom of the Sultan~~~ OW~~~
    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2019/04/hold-hillary-clinton-accountable-for.html#comment-form

    ReplyDelete
  11. There must be something nice to day about Crazy Uncle Joe Biden. Hmmmm.... Here goes.
    His wife Jill is nice looking.
    That is all.

    ReplyDelete