I've come up with a new game. It's really easy to play, and works best on social media - although newsblogs like Huffington Post or Daily Kos work well too.
The name of the game is "Bagger Baiting". The point of the game is to troll "Tea Party" baggers into mouth-frothing idiocy. While many of them start off in this state - it is seriously fun to poke and prod their fellowbaggers along to join them.
There are a few rules:
1) No cussing. Cussing requires use of the "Swear Jar" - proceeds go to me.
2) You must present totally TRUTHFUL, legitimate arguments, and be prepared to slap down a link to a neutral news site to back yourself up.
3) As soon as one of them plays the "n" word card(nazi), you must be prepared to immediately invoke Godwin's Law.
4) Under no circumstances should you ever allow yourself to be provoked to breaking Godwin's Law.
5) Remember, Free Republic, Foxnews, and other bagger sites are NOT legitimate links, and such needs to be emphasized.
6) The use of foul language, name-calling or causing the invocation of Godwin's Law automatically constitutes a "win" for you. Take a shot - or chug a beer - or just LYFWAO.
A lot of these baggers are actually corporate shills, spewing TeapubliChristofascistEvangeliban talking points for the glorious recompense of $0.05 per post. They're easy targets, as they really don't have much more than their original talking-point as ammuntion, so they will fall for the Godwin gambit - or be forced to contribute to YOUR swear jar.
Enjoy.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Why I prefer the "dark side"
It is really a sad thing - that forever we've as a species considered darkness to be equivalent with evil and/or danger. I understand where some of the prejudice comes from, those ancient ancestors of ours huddling around a fire, afraid of the carnivores they could not see. But really....
When we take it to the point where a person with dark skin is automatically considered to be a danger, a threat - evil, so to speak, isn't that just pulling the fabric a bit too taut? Similar to the restriction against boiling a calf in it's mother's milk being taken to the point of making tasty, tasty cheeseburgers a sin?
Darkness is where we heal, during sleep. Darkness is cozy. Darkness is cooler than the harsh, scalding rays of afternoon. The coolness of darkness can be mitigated by adding another layer of clothing - but you can only take off so much in the heat of the day before you become a "sex offender" in the eyes of the law.
Fetuses gestate in the darkness of the womb. Gently rocking in a warm, dark place with the comforting beat of the mother's heart... they cry when the light hits their newborn eyes.
In these hot hot hot hot hot summer days, I am always looking forward to sundown, when the temperature plummets and I can curl up with a book and relax - in the comfort of the darkness, away from the noise, and bustle and glare of the light.
When we take it to the point where a person with dark skin is automatically considered to be a danger, a threat - evil, so to speak, isn't that just pulling the fabric a bit too taut? Similar to the restriction against boiling a calf in it's mother's milk being taken to the point of making tasty, tasty cheeseburgers a sin?
Darkness is where we heal, during sleep. Darkness is cozy. Darkness is cooler than the harsh, scalding rays of afternoon. The coolness of darkness can be mitigated by adding another layer of clothing - but you can only take off so much in the heat of the day before you become a "sex offender" in the eyes of the law.
Fetuses gestate in the darkness of the womb. Gently rocking in a warm, dark place with the comforting beat of the mother's heart... they cry when the light hits their newborn eyes.
In these hot hot hot hot hot summer days, I am always looking forward to sundown, when the temperature plummets and I can curl up with a book and relax - in the comfort of the darkness, away from the noise, and bustle and glare of the light.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Shooty Shooty Bang Bang
I don't like guns. I don't like the noise they make, I don't like what they are manufactured to do, I don't allow them in my home.
However.
I do not believe that we as a country need to BAN all guns. I don't think that everyone should be forced to turn in their guns. In a perfect world there would be no need for guns. This is not a perfect world.
But I do think that we have a problem with the 2nd amendment, and I think that it needs to be ammended.
First off, the biggest problem I see is that everyone and his 3rd cousin twice removed with a clubfoot believes that the 2nd amendment to the Constitution outlines a GOD GIVEN RIGHT to own whatever firearm they desire. That anyone, and everyone, has a RIGHT to have a weapon.
However, just as we all know that an automobile, or a chainsaw, or any other sharp, pointy, heavy, or otherwise dangerous piece of equipment should be kept out of the hands of those who are incompetent to operate them safely (me!!) - but for the damned 2nd ammendment, guns fall into that category as well.
Yes. We need to educate people on the safe use/handling of firearms. In fact, I need to get some education on that myself. Not that I will EVER purchase or otherwise own a firearm, but should I encounter one that I need to move, or transport or take away from a child, I want to know the correct way to do so.
Now, I'm almost 57 years old. In 57 years I have NEVER ONCE needed a gun. Maybe I'm just unbelievably lucky - but I don't think so. I think that a lot of people who think they NEED a gun, are actually people who just WANT a gun - for whatever reason. Maybe they WANT it to shoot at targets. I'm ok with that. Maybe they are farmers/ranchers who WANT it to keep varmints from their crops/livestock. I'm ok with that. Maybe they are sportsmen who WANT to hunt and eat their kills. I'm ok with that. Maybe they WANT it because they live in a very crime-ridden neighborhood with few law enforcement officers and think they need it to protect their homes (don't get me started on stupidity like concealed-carry and stand-your-ground bullshit). I don't like it, but I'm ok with that.
I am NOT ok with those who want to own guns as penis-extenders or penis-replacements (women) - who think owning/carrying a gun makes them badass, macho, sexually attractive. I'm NOT ok with people who think they need a gun in case someone is elected to public office whom they do not like/agree with (or has the wrong-color skin), so they can "water the tree of liberty".
In my mind and opinion, both those kinds of people are just as mentally disturbed as Adam Lanza or James Holmes. I don't WANT an army of George Zimmerman clones shooting up my neighborhood because of their racial prejudices and Rambo-Wannabe-ism.
Now, the NRA and their dupes will parrot bumper-sticker-phrases like "If we criminalize guns, then only criminals will have guns" or "Maybe we should ban all cars", or "Everyone talks about doing something about guns - how about doing something about mental health instead"? Nobody has ever been able to tell me what should be done about mental health, however.
Suggesting limiting gun ownership to those who have passed a qualifiying psych exam turns ordinarily sane people into rabid, mouth-foaming Ted Nugent fans, clinging to their rifles and screaming epithets.
And to that end - I think we need to repeal the 2nd amendment. I think it needs to be REPLACED with something that acknowledges that while there ARE some reasons to own a gun - not everyone is suited for owning one. We don't allow blind people to drive cars. We don't allow people to drive who haven't been trained to do so! We should not allow mentally disturbed people to own guns - or to live in places where guns are accessible. (See Adam Lanza)
Gun ownership needs to be like a driver's license - a PRIVILEGE, not a "Right". Something a responsible gun owner, just like a responsible driver, never needs to worry about having revoked. No, this won't eliminate gun violence. It will not eliminate gun-handling stupidity. BUT... It may make some gun owner be just that TINY bit more careful. It might keep a firearm out of the hands of the next mass-murderer. It might keep some well-intentioned but not-trained person from blowing up their kid because they don't know how to handle a firearm safely.
Ok, Piston... ZW... Billy... Roger... Go ahead and slam me. This is MY opinion - and I'm sure you'll come back with at least one or more of the talking-points I've already mentioned. Just be sure to give YOUR solution, if you're going to slam mine, k?
However.
I do not believe that we as a country need to BAN all guns. I don't think that everyone should be forced to turn in their guns. In a perfect world there would be no need for guns. This is not a perfect world.
But I do think that we have a problem with the 2nd amendment, and I think that it needs to be ammended.
First off, the biggest problem I see is that everyone and his 3rd cousin twice removed with a clubfoot believes that the 2nd amendment to the Constitution outlines a GOD GIVEN RIGHT to own whatever firearm they desire. That anyone, and everyone, has a RIGHT to have a weapon.
However, just as we all know that an automobile, or a chainsaw, or any other sharp, pointy, heavy, or otherwise dangerous piece of equipment should be kept out of the hands of those who are incompetent to operate them safely (me!!) - but for the damned 2nd ammendment, guns fall into that category as well.
Yes. We need to educate people on the safe use/handling of firearms. In fact, I need to get some education on that myself. Not that I will EVER purchase or otherwise own a firearm, but should I encounter one that I need to move, or transport or take away from a child, I want to know the correct way to do so.
Now, I'm almost 57 years old. In 57 years I have NEVER ONCE needed a gun. Maybe I'm just unbelievably lucky - but I don't think so. I think that a lot of people who think they NEED a gun, are actually people who just WANT a gun - for whatever reason. Maybe they WANT it to shoot at targets. I'm ok with that. Maybe they are farmers/ranchers who WANT it to keep varmints from their crops/livestock. I'm ok with that. Maybe they are sportsmen who WANT to hunt and eat their kills. I'm ok with that. Maybe they WANT it because they live in a very crime-ridden neighborhood with few law enforcement officers and think they need it to protect their homes (don't get me started on stupidity like concealed-carry and stand-your-ground bullshit). I don't like it, but I'm ok with that.
I am NOT ok with those who want to own guns as penis-extenders or penis-replacements (women) - who think owning/carrying a gun makes them badass, macho, sexually attractive. I'm NOT ok with people who think they need a gun in case someone is elected to public office whom they do not like/agree with (or has the wrong-color skin), so they can "water the tree of liberty".
In my mind and opinion, both those kinds of people are just as mentally disturbed as Adam Lanza or James Holmes. I don't WANT an army of George Zimmerman clones shooting up my neighborhood because of their racial prejudices and Rambo-Wannabe-ism.
Now, the NRA and their dupes will parrot bumper-sticker-phrases like "If we criminalize guns, then only criminals will have guns" or "Maybe we should ban all cars", or "Everyone talks about doing something about guns - how about doing something about mental health instead"? Nobody has ever been able to tell me what should be done about mental health, however.
Suggesting limiting gun ownership to those who have passed a qualifiying psych exam turns ordinarily sane people into rabid, mouth-foaming Ted Nugent fans, clinging to their rifles and screaming epithets.
And to that end - I think we need to repeal the 2nd amendment. I think it needs to be REPLACED with something that acknowledges that while there ARE some reasons to own a gun - not everyone is suited for owning one. We don't allow blind people to drive cars. We don't allow people to drive who haven't been trained to do so! We should not allow mentally disturbed people to own guns - or to live in places where guns are accessible. (See Adam Lanza)
Gun ownership needs to be like a driver's license - a PRIVILEGE, not a "Right". Something a responsible gun owner, just like a responsible driver, never needs to worry about having revoked. No, this won't eliminate gun violence. It will not eliminate gun-handling stupidity. BUT... It may make some gun owner be just that TINY bit more careful. It might keep a firearm out of the hands of the next mass-murderer. It might keep some well-intentioned but not-trained person from blowing up their kid because they don't know how to handle a firearm safely.
Ok, Piston... ZW... Billy... Roger... Go ahead and slam me. This is MY opinion - and I'm sure you'll come back with at least one or more of the talking-points I've already mentioned. Just be sure to give YOUR solution, if you're going to slam mine, k?
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Monday, March 18, 2013
Little Flaps of Skin
Amazing how humans put such incredible importance on what amounts to just a few, fragile, little flaps of skin.
Virginity. At least Female virginity. Male Virginity is entirely different. But female? A tiny flap of skin - often ruptured inadvertently through exercise, horseback riding, etc. A tiny flap of skin that somehow represents a woman's "chastity" or "purity". I guess we can forget the fact that she might could have been giving blowjobs to the entire NFL lineup and all the sportscasters - as long as that tiny flap of skin is "intact", she's pure as the driven snow - men will blow themselves up for Allah to get to her...
The worth of a woman has for centuries hinged on this tiny flap of skin. Never mind if she is as stupid as a box of rocks, if she has a face like a peach-stone. It matters not - if she is a "virgin", her worth is secured. Of course, there are oodles of men out there who are more than eager to reduce that value - but when one succeeds, it is not the MALE who is blamed for the reduction in her value (as one would expect, since if one damages the goods of some shop-owner, one is expected to make-good on the reduced value) - no - it is the FEMALE who is automatically at fault.
And then there is the foreskin. A tiny flap of skin on the end of a man's most priceless treasure, that which he worships with all his heart, and all his mind, and all his soul. That which a vast majority of the population has created their "god" in the image of. A god, no less, who has decided that removing this tiny flap of skin will prove the devotion of the man who does so to the deity he has created. Not everyone agrees. There are even groups now who are trying to forbid the removal of this tiny flap of skin - calling it "mutilation".
Now, there are those who claim that removal of this little flap is done for cosmetic reasons only. There are those who claim it is religiously based (see above). There are also those who claim it is for reasons of health and hygiene. There are debates on the issue.
I've seen both kinds - cut and uncut. Honestly, I have no preference. They're all just silly little willies to me, and hardly worth the extreme adoration given said members by their owners. So much for cosmetics.
The religious thing is between the family and their deity, IMNSHO. If they really do believe that offering up a little flapoid of skin off the end of their kid's johnson is going to bring him closer to god... well... weird god, is all I can say.
Virginity. At least Female virginity. Male Virginity is entirely different. But female? A tiny flap of skin - often ruptured inadvertently through exercise, horseback riding, etc. A tiny flap of skin that somehow represents a woman's "chastity" or "purity". I guess we can forget the fact that she might could have been giving blowjobs to the entire NFL lineup and all the sportscasters - as long as that tiny flap of skin is "intact", she's pure as the driven snow - men will blow themselves up for Allah to get to her...
The worth of a woman has for centuries hinged on this tiny flap of skin. Never mind if she is as stupid as a box of rocks, if she has a face like a peach-stone. It matters not - if she is a "virgin", her worth is secured. Of course, there are oodles of men out there who are more than eager to reduce that value - but when one succeeds, it is not the MALE who is blamed for the reduction in her value (as one would expect, since if one damages the goods of some shop-owner, one is expected to make-good on the reduced value) - no - it is the FEMALE who is automatically at fault.
And then there is the foreskin. A tiny flap of skin on the end of a man's most priceless treasure, that which he worships with all his heart, and all his mind, and all his soul. That which a vast majority of the population has created their "god" in the image of. A god, no less, who has decided that removing this tiny flap of skin will prove the devotion of the man who does so to the deity he has created. Not everyone agrees. There are even groups now who are trying to forbid the removal of this tiny flap of skin - calling it "mutilation".
Now, there are those who claim that removal of this little flap is done for cosmetic reasons only. There are those who claim it is religiously based (see above). There are also those who claim it is for reasons of health and hygiene. There are debates on the issue.
I've seen both kinds - cut and uncut. Honestly, I have no preference. They're all just silly little willies to me, and hardly worth the extreme adoration given said members by their owners. So much for cosmetics.
The religious thing is between the family and their deity, IMNSHO. If they really do believe that offering up a little flapoid of skin off the end of their kid's johnson is going to bring him closer to god... well... weird god, is all I can say.
Friday, March 01, 2013
Sorry Guys
I hate having to do this, (even for you, Bill... *grin) but I've got that annoying 'word verification" thing set to "on" now because 1) I don't need Cialis, 2) I hate spammers and 3) I've got an attitude today. Deal with it.
Fuck you, Spammers.
I hate spending 15-45 min. a week deleting the fucking spam that keeps getting commented to my ancient post about "Can't catch me 'cuz the rabbit done died". (I love that song - of course, it is OLD Aerosmith.. *evil grin*)
The sn*w has finally arrived. It hasn't arrived in quantity here as yet - although I hear Piston's area has gotten seriously hammered.
I got some piccys of Amelia via the Facebook thingy, here is one, because I like it.
Fuck you, Spammers.
I hate spending 15-45 min. a week deleting the fucking spam that keeps getting commented to my ancient post about "Can't catch me 'cuz the rabbit done died". (I love that song - of course, it is OLD Aerosmith.. *evil grin*)
The sn*w has finally arrived. It hasn't arrived in quantity here as yet - although I hear Piston's area has gotten seriously hammered.
I got some piccys of Amelia via the Facebook thingy, here is one, because I like it.
 |
| Naturally Beautiful - and with a wicked grin! |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
