We also have to figure out how best to utilise the $10 million recently provided to us by a mysterious donor. This was not given to us by the same bloke who chipped in $10 million to Andrew Breitbart. It wasn't from George Soros either.
Ok, the above was silly and not even funny. There won't even be a DFQ2 store.
My ultimate fear is donkeytale will attack me for posting mailed-in entries that one could find any day of the week at random blogs. You know the ones. They are on some form of current event. They contain a screenshot, a link or two, a copy and paste, and then a youtube video.
Well, I'm sorry. I like to once in a while socratise a current story with the aforementioned formula.
What's up with his hair? The dude who shot up the movie theatre is obviously nuts. So let's discuss the death penalty.
Colorado has it. But it doesn't look like they will use it. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, Colorado has only used it once.
There are many arguments against it. I think the biggest reason it shouldn't be used on James Holmes is because he's nuts. He's obviously the one who did this, so no one can say the wrong dude might be executed.
There's actually an even better reason to not kill him than because he's a nutjob. It would be hypocritical. You'd be doing to him what you say he did which was so immoral.
I'm not going to socratise this story nor the death penalty much more than I just did. I'm more fascinated with the roots of hypocrisy than with any debate on the costs of the death penalty, the dude's internet history, his biography, why America has so much violence, or anything else we could muster up for interaction.
How come so many Christians are pro-death penalty? I'm assuming many are. We know GW Bush took great delight in killing Texans when he was governor. This link vouches for the fact GW Bush has been a self-proclaimed believer with a man crush on Reverend Billy Graham.
What doesn't add up then is this. What part of Thou Shalt Not Kill don't Shrub and other pro-death penalty Christians understand?
This is actually no surprise concerning GW's hypocritical sadism. It's fact that his mom in 2003 went on record as saying, "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
The Snopes lady tried to justify what Babs said by saying it was taken out of context. Talk about a fail. If more people had considered what an invasion of Iraq would have meant in terms of destruction and loss of life, perhaps we'd have never gone there in the first place. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The Bush Administration had been itching to invade Iraq well before the WTC towers were attacked by planes. According to Paul O'Neill, the illegal war was hatched as soon as GW entered office.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" O'Neill said.Hmmm, wasn't the first Iraq War justified because Hussein had illegally invaded Kuwait? All countries are born equal, but some countries are more equal than others? If I felt up to it, I'd get into April Glaspie and perhaps also how the Kurds were left to rot in the mountains. But I want to move onto a few more examples of right wing hypocrisy followed by a youtube video to polish up this mailed-in entry.
Look at the Breitbart Cult. They claim all these things about Brett Kimberlin and Neal Rauhauser including how they smear folks. Well, what have they done to Ron Brynaert? Robert Stacy McCain claims he is into facts, that he's a journalist who must maintain certain standards of proof. Then why has he linked to and posted claims that Brett Kimberlin ordered the four SWATs? What about Aaron Walker asking for folks to submit drawings under their real name and location mocking Mohammed, since he was doing the same as Aaron Worthing? How was that not hypocritical?
Finally, there is a right wing blogger named Zilla Stephenson who has actually graced some DFQ2 pages with her presence. She is probably a complete dollface in real life when not discussing politics. However, she recently came up with some ridiculous hypocrisy of her own.
Oh, Those “Compassionate” Leftists!
(excerpts) The idiots like to stereotype, they make the assumption that all Conservatives hate gay people; they think everyone on the Right is of a single mind, like they are – but we are not collectivists like they are, we do not have a Hive Mind like they do, and there is a wide range of where people stand with regards to gay issues among individuals who think for themselves, just as there is a wide range of where Conservatives stand on many other issues. I personally do not care whether or not a person is gay, and I never have...Hmmm. Why did Zilla put compassionate in quotes and not leftists? How is she not stereotyping the left based on a few trolls who are giving her and her friends some trouble?
It is the LEFT that is obsessed with race and identity politics, and that has always been the case. Assuming that everyone on the Right is racist is just ignorant, and it reveals the bigotry of the stalker trolls who have a nasty habit of stereotyping people despite their fictitious claim that leftists are open minded, tolerant, and caring – well you can see above just how “tolerant and caring” they are, especially in how they treat a person who is fighting a devastating and potentially life threatening illness.
There is a lot more of the kind of stuff posted above (and worse) that has been sent to me or “from” me, but I think you get the idea. Whoever is doing this is/are simply malevolent, and clearly not particularly intelligent or “compassionate”.
These are right wing bloggers who are in bed with the Breitbart cult and their BK as Satan hoax. Thus, Zilla and her ilk are part and parcel of the spreading of false memes declaring leftists as supportive of terrorism.
They ought to be ashamed. They ought to also do something about their widespread authoritarian personality disorder.
Altemeyer studies what he has called the "right wing authoritarian" (RWA) personality type. This is the type who follows a strong leader and believes in a hierarchical social structure.
Altemeyer has now written a book himself which summarizes his 30+ years of work and posted it online for free.
You can read it here: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
The chapters that may be [of] most interest to those who visit this site have to do with the correlation between RWA personalities and Evangelical (or Fundamentalist) Christians.
I think it is important for anyone who tries to debate "conservatives" to understand their world view and this book will help in that effort.