As intellectually deep as your nearest dried up mud puddle
I am confused here, I thought the Left desired tolerance? Is Mr. Robertson not able to ask a question? I mean considering that about 98 or 99% of people prefer heterosexual intercourse to, well, what Chris Hayes’ guest obviously prefers, is it that odd that Robertson might pose such a question? As for me, I have often said I do not give a rip about who you sleep with, but I do not understand Homosexuality. I mean how would a man watch Salma Hayek dance in From Dusk Till Dawn and NOT have dirty thoughts? Does asking such a question make me Homophobic? Of course not. But, of course, the aim here is not really inclusion or tolerance, it is rather to destroy freedom of speech. Not by legislation, but by intimidation. If we are afraid to speak, the Left will have won, so, therefore I stand with Robertson, and I stand against the bullies on the Left.
What? Oh, OK, I will offer, strictly for context, the Salma Hayek scene I referenced.
Yes, I know, it is mean to mock those less intelligent than the average four-year-old, but when someone boasts about a degree in Social Justice and Peace Studies, or a Masters in Gender Studies they have it coming.
We all have dreams. Some dream of feeding all the starving people in the world. Some say, “F**k the starving people. I want all the meat for myself.”
Those people would probably love the idea of Steak ‘n Shake’s new 7×7 Steakburger.
Though the idea of a 7×7 cheeseburger isn’t new — In-N-Out, for one, has been willing to pile as many layers of patty and cheese onto a bun as you’re willing to request for as long as I can remember — the idea of a major chain putting such a burger in writing on a menu is raising some eyebrows.
But wait, the shock doesn’t end there: because according to Huffington Post, the 7×7 appears exclusively on Steak ‘n Shake’s new AllNighter Menu. Yup, you’re encouraged to eat this 1,330 tower of cheap dining excess exclusively between the hours of midnight and 6am.
A wealth tax? Another disciple of the lunatic Karl Marx displays the incredible stupidity of Marx, and those that still follow his moronic rantings.
Ah yes, Marc Lamont Hill. How did this boob ever become a professor? If I talked to this guy for two minutes, I would know he is not bright enough to be trusted to mow my lawn. In fact, if he did mow my lawn, it would take him two days, the yard would be half-mowed, my lawn mower would be broken, and he would want to charge me three times the quoted price! Seriously, this guy is a fool! He cannot grasp that a “wealth tax” would require another massive, and intrusive government agency. Stupid should hurt! And this buffoon is Phil Donahue stupid!
Two things I noticed. First the hippy was respectful, so maybe the Left has devolved over the years? Maybe they are more hostile now? Second, Friedman summed up, in just a few words, why “equality” as the Left defines it, is nothing but a shortcut to totalitarianism
Then there might be hope for him. But, as Smitty notes, Krugman is a classic example of why a “good education” does not equal real intelligence, and it certainly does not mean the one has common sense or wisdom.
Easter Sunday is probably inappropriate to use Paul Krugman as a punching bag. But it’s not a sin if Krugman does it himself, and this blog merely provides a communications path, is it?
In my next life I want to be a conservative policy scammer. Think of how much nicer it would be. Instead of constantly being accused of having evil motives, I’d be presumed to have noble intentions no matter how much the actual content of my policy proposals was at odds with such claims. Instead of being accused of saying bad things I never said, I’d be given credit for supporting good things I’ve never supported. Life would be great! OK, I’m whining. But the continuing defense of Paul Ryan is a remarkable phenomenon. He’s still being treated by many pundits as a man deeply concerned about deficits, when the fact is that his policy proposals are all about redistributing income upward, and make no serious effort to curb debt. He’s even given credit for advocating higher taxes on the rich when he has more or less specifically rejected the things for which he’s given credit.
Redistributing income upward? That is funny, I do not seem to recall Ryan calling for such a thing at all. Of course, I do not live in the alternate reality that Krugman does. Krugman thinks that we can spend our way out of a crisis caused by grotesque OVERspending! He also believes that we ought to be taxing the “rich” to redistribute wealth in classic Socialist fashion. This type of disconnect from reality is amazing to witness. Krugman has numerous historical examples to look at. He even has Europe, in a sorry state financially to look at. And yet, Krugman can do no better than call for not just a continuance of the policies that got us here, but an ACCELERATION of those policies.
Do-gooders in the government are quick to pat themselves on the back for their generosity with other people’s money. Of course, each promise they make, each handout they give, comes with strings attached. They’ll pay the rent, but only if you live where they say. They’ll buy the groceries, but only if you eat what they allow. They’ll pay the medical bills, but only if you see the doctor they say and accept the limited treatments they provide.
In short, big-government types want one thing: your submission. And they’re wasting no time teaching the youngest Americans, that if they want theirhandouts, they too must submit to the state’s will.
How absolutely true. It is all a trade-off, you give up some liberty, some of your individualism, and they, the state, will give you something in return. The end result of such trading, of course, is that you cede your natural rights when you accept Marxism. And rights once surrendered are seldom recovered are they? Sooner or later, you realize that you are now nothing more than a slave, totally dependent upon the mercy of the state for all your needs.