Posts Tagged ‘MSNBC’

Commander in Chief Forum

Posted by Troy on 8th September 2016 in Current Events, Political

Ya know, Matt Lauer did a pretty good job.  Trump easily won the night.  Hillary spoke so slowly and rambled.  She choose her words ever so carefully in regards to the emails.  This is the sign of someone that is doing their best not to lie while not really telling the truth.  She came off as unbelievable.  She also spent the vast bulk of her time talking bad about Trump, when she agreed not to do so at the start.  This means that the only thing she really brings to the table is “I’m not Trump.”  It’s very hard to win if all you can run on is that you are not the other person.  Trump, on the other hand, gave clear, concise answers.  He came across as confident and reserved.  He also spoke a lot more about his policies than Hillary did.

Long Live the Constitution!

Toure, White Privilege, and Reparations

Posted by Troy on 28th May 2014 in Current Events, Human Nature

MSNBC host, Toure, has gotten into a lot of hot water with the Jewish community.  Apparently, Toure was discussing reparations, and a Jewish person responded that his family survived the Holocaust, came to America with nothing, and made it.  Rather than make some sort of intelligent response about this, Toure decided to write it off as “the power of whiteness.”  Which is basically Toure claiming that only white people can succeed in America, that their path is paved and all other races are barred (except for Asians…those crafty white people made sure that at least one race would surpass them so that they can hide behind this fact).

First of all, not even Toure is stupid enough to say that Holocaust survivors are privileged.  All he was commenting on was that he believes that white people can make it if they try and blacks (and other races) cannot.  This is because the deck is stacked.  So if a poor white person makes it, it is nothing to be really proud of.  The way was paved for them.  If a black person somehow makes it, they cannot be held up as an example.  They are merely an exception.  They were one of the few that somehow slipped through the cracks of the institutional racism that whites put in place to maintain the white power structure.  This really is how they view the world.

First of all, let me dispel a few myths here.  People like Toure claim that hard work will not let the other races get ahead.  I say that this thought DAMNS the other races to NEVER get ahead.  If you do not believe hard work is what it takes to succeed, you never will succeed.  This applies to school, at work, at your family life, at everything.  Nothing worth anything in this life is easy.  It all takes effort, and the more effort you put into something, the more God rewards you.  There was a story my dad once told me about a famous piano player.  After a concert, a woman told him “I’d give anything to play like you.”  He responded, “I did.”  We all start out with different advantages and disadvantages.  However, no advantage from birth can triumph over human will.  The talented musician who never practices will always pale against the musician that practices eight hours a day, every day.  Just ask Chet Atkins.  As far as reparations go, I’ve always said I would be in favor of it…as long as it comes with the following conditions: they forever renounce their US citizenship and they are banned from living in America.  If these terms are not accepted, then they are just after free money.  That’s it.

Reparations are based on the assumption that slaves should have been paid for their labor.  As such, their offspring should be paid (we’ll ignore the statute of limitations, naturally).  News flash: if they had been paid, they likely would have done what every other person does with their money: spent it.  As such, there would have been no inheritance.  Even if you think they would have saved it, then the majority of the savings would have been wiped out during the Great Depression.

Of course, what their side will say is that white Americans were only able to build their wealth due to slavery and that all whites have inherited that privilege.  As such, modern day white Americans owe modern day black Americans because modern whites are CURRENTLY benefiting from slavery.  Yeah, well…so are modern blacks.  Would any modern black American opt to move to Africa right now instead of America?  If they did, they are fools.  Their lives are infinitely better and full of infinite possibilities because of what their ancestors suffered.  Sorry, but that is true.  In fact, that person wouldn’t even exist if not for slavery.  Hell, they should get on their knees and thank God that slavery existed, for without it, they would not exist as their ancestors would not have met and born children which eventually lead to the existence of Toure himself.

And that brings me to my final point.  Black Americans invented peanut butter (Honey Roasted Peter Pan…yum), the cell phone, traffic lights, and other things.  They invented jazz and rock and roll.  They came up with Southern BBQ.  Anytime you want to get a chip on your shoulder about the past…be it the Holocaust or slavery, know this: you exist right now due to the fact that those evil things happened.  A million sperm vying for a chance to fertilize an egg.  We are each one in a million…more so given generations and generations it took for God to create us.  For whatever reason, he sent plagues and Holocausts and wars and slavery and disease and everything else imaginable because he wanted YOU to exist.  After He went to so much trouble, I just got to ask… what are you doing with your life?

Long Live the Constitution

Why I hate reporters

Posted by Troy on 19th September 2012 in Current Events, Political

A free press is necessary for a free people.  The only way we can keep our politicians honest is by being informed about what they are doing.  However, our current media is a lap dog of the Left (as I show in 2084: the Search for Love Hope and Faith).  Here are some examples:

1) The Middle East is burning.  Instead of asking Obama what he is going to do about it, they hound Romney (who has no power whatsoever) about his opinion on the matter.

2) They report on Romney’s secret tapes, even though it was obvious that they were clipped to be misleading.  When the full tape shows that Romney was actually just saying that he wasn’t going to try to get the dependent class’s vote (as I predicted), there was no retraction.

3)  You know if the stuff going on in the Middle East was happening on Bush’s watch, you would see 24/7 coverage of burning embassies.

4)  When gas hit $3 a gallon under Bush, it was wall to wall coverage.  Under Obama, gas doubled to $4 a gallon, and not a word is said.

5)  We continually hear about Romney’s tax returns but not about Obama’s school records.

6)  A massive government coverup involving an international event (Fast and the Furious) barely gets mentioned.  Again, do you think the same would have happened under Bush?

7)  After all the criticism over the Patriot Act, the Democrats elected to renew it.  How much air time did that get?  Pretty much none, after 6 years of raving about it when Bush was around.

8)  Where are the tapes of Obama telling the Russians he’ll have more flexibility when he doesn’t have to care what we think?

9)  Where are the tapes showing that Obama knows that doing away with the capital gains rate will hurt the economy and bring less money to the government but he wants to do it out of “fairness?”

10)  Where is the report about the planned insurgency training for 2016?

11)  Where are the reports concerning all the UN treaties which will devour our rights?

12)  Why does the media seem all but silent on the fact that our debt is out of control, we are printing money out of thin air, unemployment is pretty much stagnant, and Congress has been unable to pass a budget due to Democrats (House Republicans have passed budgets, and the Senate won’t hear them).

13)  Why are Republicans blamed for stalemates when the Senate Democrats will not even bring bills to the floor for discussion or votes?

14)  Every act of violence is put to the Tea Party.  When it turns out it’s wrong, it’s barely mentioned.

15)  The Tea Party is branded a racist group even though there is a lack of evidence for that and a lot of their heroes are minorities (Allen West, Herman Cain, Mia Love, Rubio etc).

16)  Occupy Wall Street was a great movement despite all the evidence of rapes, drugs, theft, vandalism, communism, anarchism, bomb making, etc etc etc.

17)  When Bush was in power, we heard every single death in Afghanistan multiple times a day.  So much more footage, etc.  Suddenly, these deaths aren’t as big a deal.

18)  Gitmo was a huge deal under Bush.  Now?  Not so much.

I could go on and on and on.   The bottom line is that the news media makes me sick.  It’s all indoctrination.  It is clear that they are in bed for Obama and even brought the lube.  I just hope we don’t get screwed too.

Long Live the Constitution!

Chris Hayes sticks his foot in his mouth

Posted by Troy on 29th May 2012 in Current Events, Political

MSNBC host Christ Hayes has come under fire for having a problem with using the term “hero” to describe veterans.  His problem with this term is that it can be used to describe people who fight and die for unworthy causes (such as Iraq and Afghanistan).  Needless to say, this did not go well for him.

I, for one, also agree that the term “hero” is overused.  Not every police officer, fire fighter, teacher, or solider is a hero.  Case in point, Nidal Hasan was a soldier.  He killed a hell of a lot of our guys at Fort Hood.  He damn sure was no hero.  However, this isn’t Chris Hayes’s problem with the term.  It’s not the universal application of the term he has a problem with.  He believes that using the term “hero” to describe soldiers will cause us to be more aggressive at declaring war.

He is a fool.  No man, least not in America, wishes to die on foreign soil so they can be called a hero.  No, if he wants to end needless wars, he should call for the Constitution to be applied.  Wars are supposed to be declared by Congress, not issued forth by the Oval Office.  When one man can declare war, we will be in a lot more wars.  If Congress was the only one that could declare war, we would pretty much never go to war unless one of our trusted allies was in dire need or we were directly attacked.

So the next thing I would address is, “What makes a hero?”  My cousin has a strict definition for this: a hero is a person that risks their lives to save another.  If you look at the military overall, you will find that the vast majority of these men would fight and die to save their brothers-in-arms and defend the Constitution and our country.  They pass muster on this test.  It is worth pointing out that Chris Hayes has never been shot at.  He has never had to save one of his friends from being killed nor watch his friends die.  However, there are plenty of heroic people who are not in the military, but I doubt he would fall into that category either.  I have a hard time imagining him running into a burning building or jumping in to defend someone who is being brutally beaten.  He might call 911, but that would be the extent of his help.

Regardless, there is a time and a place for any discussion, but on Memorial Day is not it.  It was wildly inappropriate, and he is feeling the effects now.  Regardless of his apology, this is how he thinks and what he believes.  He actually loses more respect from me for his apology than his insult.  I can respect a man who has convictions, even if they are ones that I do not share.  I cannot, however, respect a man whose convictions change as a matter of convenience.

Long Live the Constitution!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/msnbc-panel-struggles-over-using-the-word-hero-to-describe-fallen-soldiers/

Fake Libertarian Ron Paul and Abortion

Posted by Troy on 25th February 2012 in Political

Lawrence O’Donnell has called Ron Paul, the most famous Libertarian in America (with the possible exclusion of Clint Eastwood), a false Libertarian because Ron Paul does not believe in abortion.  Last time I checked, Ron Paul’s stance is that abortion laws should be left up to the states to determine.  However, let me dissect O’Donnell’s arguement.

The first thing I would like to discuss is that it would appear as though, to be a Libertarian, one must live an chaotic (or anarchist if you prefer) existence devoid of any right or wrong.  A Libertarian doesn’t think the government should be making decisions on morality.  This is the sphere of the populace and churches, not of government.  Instead, Libertarians believe that governments should be concerned with protecting the rights and liberties of citizens against internal and external threats.  This is the form of government that the Founding Fathers envisioned.  Most of the Federal powers were intended to cover dealings with foreign nations and matters which concerned more than one state.  The states themselves were meant to go about making their own laws.  In fact, this almost makes a market place for states in which they must compete.  If people want gay marriage, they will move to Massachusetts.  If they want no income taxes, they will move to Texas.  It also would prevent the nation from being dragged under by debt.  A poorly managed state can go bankrupt without destroying the country…but the same cannot be said if the country itself goes broke.

A common misconception is that Libertarians are against any government and any laws.  As I pointed out in the previous paragraph, this is not true.  Libertarians believe that the government is set into place to safeguard individuals rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  How then does the Libertarian, Ron Paul, reconcile his beliefs about abortion with his political ideology?  This is so easy it shouldn’t even have to be discussed.  This is done by defining when life begins.  To Ron Paul, life begins at conception.  If this is the view he has, he has to be concerned about the rights of the baby to its life.  I believe that the abortion debate depends largely on this definition.  If one believes life starts at conception, then abortion is murder.  It can have no other definition.  Therefore, most pro-choice people depend on the definition that life begins at birth.

People behave as though abortion is an abomination of the modern era.  It is not.  The Hippocratic Oath stated that a physician will not give a woman an abortion.  Of course, doctors have chosen to cherry pick which of the oaths they want to follow, but that is beside the point.  This means that the practice of abortion has been around since before Christ.  In nomadic hunter/gatherer societies, infanticide was a common practice.  A mother could only carry one child.  If she had two children and both could not walk, she would kill one if they had to move.  Sparta also killed infants which were deformed.  My question then becomes: “Is the definition of when life begins cultural?”  If a pro-choice person was dropped into such a culture and saw a mother smother a three month old to death, would they view it as a matter of choice or a matter of murder?  A three month old is just as dependent on its mother (or another adult) to live as a fetus in the womb.  Is it moral for someone to kill the three month old but not a third trimester baby?  What about premature births? I assume that the difference must be argued that a baby in the womb only has one means of support, that of the mother.  A three month old could, technically, be passed on to someone else.  Of course, this means that it is only murder if a suitable caregiver could be located for the child.

Some believe that Ron Paul is a sexist because he doesn’t support abortion.  Why on Earth are these viewed as mutually exclusive?  I am sure that Ron Paul believes that women should have equal opportunities and equal protection under the law and equal pay for equal work.  However, as I mentioned before, if he believes that a baby is alive pre-birth, he must also be against abortion.  Only Democrats and members of NOW believe that being pro-woman necessitates being pro-choice.  Isn’t it interesting that no one is calling for greater personal responsibility?  Oh, they will always throw the “What if they were raped?” scenario out there, but how often is that the case?  I find it hard to believe that most abortions are rape related.  Equating the right of contraception (and I don’t know of anybody that thinks that only men should have access to contraception) and abortion to equality is silly.  This format means that men want to prevent women from having an abortion as a means of control, i.e. that they can knock a girl up and force her to marry him and stay at home and raise the kids.  This is the single most moronic thing I’ve ever heard of.  No one believes this, or is it anybody’s reason for being pro-life.  Pro-lifers are pro-lifers for one reason only: They believe that the fetus in the womb is a live human being and is granted all the rights of any other living being.  It has nothing to do with women’s rights.  Also, the sexual revolution (the pill, etc) has led to a culture in which casual sex is the norm.  I should image that most sexual encounters in the past were between people who knew and cared for one another.  An unplanned pregnancy could result in a successful marriage.  This is not the case of unplanned pregnancies which result from purely casual sex or recreational sex.  So we have traded the right to have meaningless sex, a mere moment’s pleasure here and there, for a lifetime of hardship.  This seems like a bad bargain.  It would be far better if both men and women refrained from having sex unless it is with someone with whom they would not mind having a baby, if a pregnancy were to occur despite precautions.

Let us next consider the whole concept of “choice.”  If a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, it is a matter of choice.  If the father slips something into her drink to cause a miscarriage, it is treated as a murder (in most states), and I believe that Democrats and members of NOW would demand that these cases be treated as murder and not as a civil case for loss of property.  So, that means that it is only a matter of choice when the woman decides (“My body, my choice”).  Fair enough, would Democrats and NOW be for allowing men to sue for an abortion then?  That is to say, if a man does not want to be inconvenienced with raising a child or making child support payments, can he sue to force a woman to have an abortion?  I bet the vast majority of Democrats and NOW members would find the concept abhorrent.  Why then cannot the man make the argument that “It is her body and her choice.  I told her that she should have an abortion.  As such, if she has the baby, it is her choice to do so, and I should not have to pay a cost for her choosing to have a baby when she could have just as easily chosen not to have a baby?”  I don’t think that Democrats and NOW would be up for that either.

I am not arguing the morality or immorality of abortion.  I am merely pointing out that Ron Paul’s stance is much more consistent than that of a pro-choice person.  The Libertarian does not withhold moral judgement of a person’s action.  They merely seek laws that protect one person’s rights against that of another.  A Libertarian can believe that prostitution should not be illegal for a variety of reasons but still say that going to prostitutes is wrong.  In America, you can burn Bibles, and it is free speech.  Virtually no one will hurt you, even though most people (including non-Christians) would say that doing so is distasteful and would frown upon such activities.  Try doing that in a Muslim country with the Koran, and see what happens.  In both countries, it is believed that you shouldn’t burn these books.  However, in one you are punished for doing this and the other you are not.  In no way does Ron Paul’s stance of abortion makes him a false Libertarian.

Long Live the Constitution!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/msnbcs-odonnell-rips-fake-libertarian-ron-paul-over-contraception-abortion/

MSNBC’s Guns in America

Posted by Troy on 22nd August 2011 in Current Events, Political

I just watched the single most asinine thing I’ve ever seen in my life.  Granted, MSNBC is crazy, wacko, liberal, but this was inexcusable.  If you watched this show, you may believe that guns are owned by two groups of people: crazy militants and gang members.  The fact of the matter is that over 99.9% of all guns will not be used in a crime.  Mostly, they are owned by ordinary people that choose to have them for self-defense or sport.  In the long litany the program spews at the end, the producers lay the blame for America’s gun violence at the feet of the Founding Fathers, sportsmen, gangs, the street dealers, the gun store owners, and the strawmen purchasers.  No where in there do they place the blame where it belongs.  The vast amount of gun violence is in gangs, and the vast majority of these gang members come from households where the father has abandoned the family.  This is the problem.  There are no more or less guns in American than there ever was.  What is missing is the loving family to instill character in their offspring.  This is no offense to single mothers who do the best they can, but one person cannot do the job for two, no matter how hard they try–with the exception of a few exceptional people at any rate.  You cannot blame poverty.  Poverty has always existed and always will.  You cannot blame drugs.  Drugs have always existed and always will.  What is to blame is a lack of character which is a direct result of a lack of character in those fathers who choose to abandon their family.  There is no way I would ever advocate the abolition of guns.  Criminals would still get the guns, and we would be completely at their mercy.

Not to mention:  An armed man is a citizen.  An unarmed man is a subject.

Long Live the Constitution!