This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Politics

  • Space Force; Trump trolls media

    The president is always looking for ways to toss the media out of it’s orbit. His latest was at a San Diego Marine Corps base where he audibly ruminated about a “Space Force” to battle an enemy outside of our atmosphere, according to Associated Press.

    Saying his national security strategy “recognizes that space is a war-fighting domain, just like the land, air and sea,” Trump said at a San Diego Marine Corps base that he’s considering “a space force” that would be the equivalent of the Air Force, Army and Navy.

    Trump said at first he wasn’t serious when he floated the concept, but “then I said what a great idea, maybe we’ll have to do that.”

    Last week we were treated to the media reaction to Trump’s apparent embracing of the idea of a President for life. This week, it’s hand-wringing over the United Federation of Planets taking over the solar system.

    Expert level trolling.

  • Hillary lost because you have issues with minorities… Or something

    In Hillary Clinton’s world view, “sophisticated” and “forward leaning” people voted for her. The rest of us? Apparently, we have issues with African-American rights, minorities moving forward, women that we don’t know, etc. She also laments that some white women caved.

    Unlike the “forward looking” people that voted for her, who collectively “are” responsible for a big chunk of the economy. They voted for her. The highly educated demographics “goes without saying”. On top of that, her supporters “are” dynamic and more interested in moving forward.

    From Washington Post:

    “But what the map doesn’t show you is that I won the places that represent two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product. So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward.”- Hillary Clinton

    How long do you think it would take for her to realize that she should really blame herself?

    Never mind that her message was a “showstopper” to the people that knew better. Despite her campaign blunders; her media coverage, Hollywood support, and other factors provided tailwinds to her campaign.

    Her opponent did not have her luck, good or bad.

  • The Liberal Zombie Manifesto

    President Trump accurately identified the parties, on both sides, that were involved with violence. This was in the aftermath of the Charlottesville, VA, incident. The media, ignoring violent leftists, vilified the president for not carrying their narrative. In their eyes, only one side deserved this type of label and condemnation.

    Violent leftists were also guilty for the violence. Many in the media; however, deliberately disregarded them or deemphasized their involvement and impact.

    Shift to reporting on actual or assumed scandals and you’ll see a similar script. Liberal talking heads, and reporters, run fool’s errands regarding President Trump’s “scandals”. Yet, calls for pursuing actual scandals, by Democrats, are dismissed, swept under the rug, ignored, half baked, not seriously done, etc.

    Enter the Liberal Zombie manifesto. I also got this from the old Protest Warrior forums. As with the previous article, I did some major editing and adjustments. I also updated this as the years went by.

    The above photo is one of the protest signs that Protest Warrior used. One way they’d use this sign is to “blend in” with a group of people who were demanding gun control.

    Without further ado…

    I don’t pay for my mistakes or misfortunes.

    1. If I…

    a. Never went to college…

    b. Was born into a poor family…

    c. Am lazy…

    d. Am unmotivated…

    e. Wish to portray myself as a victim of any situation or series of events…

    It’s other people’s responsibility to extricate me from my own mess.

    2. Receiving more Social Security than I deserve is great because it rewards me for failing to put money away when I was younger.

    3. Abortion is great because I should never have to deal with the consequences of my failure to use the following:

    a. Birth control.
    b. Common sense.
    c. Keep the gates closed to irresponsible partners.

    4. Government subsidized paid abortion is a right that I have for not being responsible in the first place.

    NOTE: Please see Manifesto rules concerning my not having to pay for my mistakes. And society’s responsibility to get me out of the mess that I get myself into.

    Affirmative Action is great.

    1. If I’m a minority, I can get a job with substandard qualifications over someone that’s more qualified than me for the job. It’s not about who is qualified or not, it’s about giving me the job because I want it.

    2. If I’m white, I’ll support affirmative action to the hilt if it doesn’t affect me.

    The best thing about affirmative action is that it allows us to make protected groups think we’re helping them. Instead, we’re keeping them down by allowing them to take the path of least resistance. “Gain with no pain” is the rule. It’s easier to sway them with fake news this way.

    3. Racism against whites is OK. Racism against minorities is horrible.

    a. If whites kill a member of a protected group, that’s a hate crime. If a member of a protected group kills a white person, it’s simply a misunderstanding of the races.

    b. If you fail to hire a member of a protected group, you’re a racist. If you fail to hire a white person, you’re doing your job in “hiring the most qualified person” for the task.

    c. If you call a white person a thief, chances are he’s actually a thief. If you call an illegal immigrant a thief, you’re a racist, even if he’s a thief.

    d. If a black kid is kidnapped and drugs are involved, only report the kidnapping. If a white kid is kidnapped and drugs are involved, report everything.

    Gender discrimination only occurs when applied against a woman.

    1. If a man hits his woman, it’s domestic violence. If a man didn’t hit his woman, but she claimed that he did, it’s still domestic violence.

    2. If a woman hits her man, it’s domestic disturbance. Don’t worry, her hitting her man is her man’s fault. Scientific data proving that domestic violence is equally perpetrated by both genders is pure baloney. Numbers based on battered women’s shelters should be taken as gospel.

    Cherry picked “evidence” is better than data obtained via the scientific method.

    3. If a husband murders his wife in the heat of rage, prosecute him to the maximum extent of the law. If a wife murders her husband in the heat of rage, it’s due to self-defense. Even if he’d been long asleep when she had to “defend” herself…

    4. If the father kills the kids in the heat of rage, prosecute him to the full extent of the law, he should have controlled his anger in the first place.

    5. If the mother kills the kids because of post-partum depression, it’s because her husband subjected her to too much stress and she cracked. She wasn’t herself.

    NOTE: If this starts to get confusing, remember… If a man does something wrong, he failed to exercise responsibility over his behavior. If a woman does something wrong, it’s because of some external extenuating circumstance “out of her control”. If a man is involved, it’s the man’s fault.

    You can’t say I’m wrong here.

    1. If you think I’m wrong, you’re just exposing your own hatred, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.

    2. There should be no restrictions on behavior or restriction against consumption of certain substances. There should be no restrictions on censorship in free media.

    3. Accepting a lifestyle only applies to lifestyles my friends and I accept. It’s okay to be intolerant of lifestyles that embrace conservatism, moderation, class, and modesty. I refuse to acknowledge the inherent hypocrisy in this.

    4. If our views of what’s “right” and what’s “wrong” came from different upbringing… Then what’s “right” and “wrong” for me is different from what’s “right” and “wrong” for you.

    5. There’s no universal rights or wrongs… There’s no absolute evil… My sense of what’s “right” and “wrong” always trumps yours.

    Drugs are good. Smoking is bad. I’ll defend that to the death!

    Censorship applies only when I want it to.

    1. Say you give me a forum and an outlet. I subsequently make a donkey out of myself.

    a. If you call attention to that fact, you’re infringing on my freedom of speech.

    2. If you refuse to buy my albums or watch my movies because of my political rants, you’re infringing my freedom of speech.

    3. If we deny you of a forum and an outlet, we’re not denying you your freedom of speech. We’re just silencing bigotry and hatred.

    Abortion is good. The death penalty is bad. I’ll defend that to the death to!

    I don’t like facts because they go against most of what I believe in.

    1. If you destroy my drivel and tripe with the facts, you’re just expressing your opinion.

    a. For the sake of not hurting anybody’s feelings, there’s no right or wrong when we debate. Facts are what my emotions say they are.

    b. The empirical evidence you present against my drivel is just your opinion.

    c. Facts are what my emotions say they are.

    d. Being right is in the eye of the beholder.

    e. If you refuse to see my emotions as fact, you’re narrow minded and stuck in a “black and white” mindset.

    Changes in society should fit my tastes.

    1. I’ve suffered a traumatic experience in my life and I have not gotten over it. Instead of changing myself and moving on, I’m going to change the world to fit my perception. It’s easier for me if the world did the hard work of changing to accommodate my habits and beliefs.

    2. Change is good if it fits my perceptions. Evidence that this change is harmful should be dismissed as…

    a. Conservatives’ refusal to be inclusive…

    b. Right wing religious extremism…

    c. Denying a group their rights…

    d. Discrimination…

    e. Refusing to share…

    Corruption by liberals, whether moral or political, will be ignored.

    1. If you call me out on my corruption, you’re a bigot consumed with hatred.

    2. If I’m minority and you call me out on my corruption, you’re a racist.

    3. If I’m a woman and you call me out on my corruption, I’ll accuse you of being misogynist.

    4. If I’m Muslim and you call me out on my corruption, I’ll accuse you of Islamophobia.

    5. If I’m gay, and you call me on me out on my corruption, I’ll accuse you of homophobia.

    I hate guns… There shouldn’t be guns.

    1. If nobody had guns, they’d be unable to stop me from stealing their property and rights. That’s my ultimate goal.

    2. We need to think of the safety of the person that’s going to rob your house or rape your loved one. Robbers and rapists are people too.

    Exception: Only the government, representatives of the government, and my security, shall have guns.

    I attended some liberal arts school in a left-wing university and got a degree in Postmodern Feminist Studies or some such horse poop.

    1. As a result of this useless degree, I consider myself a foreign policy, political, historical, economic, and crime expert. I know better than military veterans, policemen, and other residents of the real world.

    a. I also know how to raise and educate your kids better than you do.

    b. Let’s make this simple so that you’ll know what I am talking about.

    Say I have a degree in basket weaving. Say you’re a fire fighter and we’re arguing about disaster operations dealing with fire. Say, in this argument, you’re wiping my rear end all over the floor. Even under those conditions, I’m right and you’re wrong.

    My watching fire fighters (military, police, or other profession) in action on the news, or in the movies, has more weight over what those professionals experience firsthand. Even though I may never have access to the information they have access to.

    Diversity is great only when we’re talking about having both genders, almost all races, most religions, and almost all ethnic groups being represented.

    1. Diversity does not apply to those with conservative views, to Christians, and to white males.

    a. Don’t ask why, because my explanations of this concept always tend to be circular in nature. So we’ll just skip to the end and I’ll call you a bigot, racist, narrow minded, xenophobe, misogynist, NAZI, etc., right now, to save time.

    Or, I could be nice about it and just tell you that you’re wrong.

    b. The absence of Christians, Republicans, white males, conservatives, etc. does not constitute a lack of diversity. Don’t ask about this, either you narrow-minded racist.

    All religions-especially Christianity and Judaism-are bad.

    1. Crazy Muslim radicals are the only exception to this rule.

    2. “Separation of church and state” means “A churchless state.”

    3. “Freedom of religion” means “Freedom from having to acknowledge the right to practice religion. It also means the freedom from having religious morals and values.”

    4. Atheists that follow a moral code are lumped in with the religious people.

    5. We don’t care for atheists that support religious rights for others, who are conservative, who are white, etc.

    6. All mention of religion should be kept out of schools, even if it means revising the Declaration of Independence, fudging the facts about the first Thanksgiving, or suing the school if winter break is called Christmas Break.

    I will not accept any historical-primary source evidence-that the Founding Fathers were Christians and embraced Christianity.

    I’ll quote Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, etc. completely out of context to make my case against religion and against war.

    Aggression is never good… It’s never okay to use force.

    1. Instead of using force to defend yourself, concede immediately. I’ve no concept of honor or national pride.

    2. I’d rather jeopardize my own family, economy, and security, in lieu of using force. It’s never okay to use force! Now, when my security is present, that’s a different story.

    The military should be eliminated.

    1. They’re all a bunch of brainwashed savages anyway who parrot what their bosses say.

    2. They just joined for education benefits and for the money (after we severely cut their budget).

    3. We totally support the troops, but not the military, its mission success, or its Commander in Chief-unless he is a Democrat.

    What’s that? Pointing out indefensible contradictions in my ideology? Why you fascist narrow minded racist, misogynist, xenophobe, Islamophob! Did you have to point that out to me with one or more big, long, multi paragraphed posts when you could’ve said it with less?

    I’ll never accept the fact that sometimes, people just get offended.

    That’s life in my world. In my perfect world, nobody-except conservatives-would ever be offended.

    I refuse to follow the rules of logic or rhetoric.

    Proper debate rules do not apply to me. I can argue however I want; please see my rules on what constitutes fact.

    I must win every argument even if I have to pull things out of my arse to do it!

    1. You must cooperate with me by not pointing out the errors of my argument.

    2. You must cooperate with me by using less words. Remember, less is more when you argue, more is more when it’s my turn.

    3. You must cooperate with me by conceding to me without requiring me to do the same.

    4. If I can’t win, I’ll resort to insults such as calling you a racist, anti-gay, right wing… By giving you a name that matches “Fantasy land” or any other false and derogatory descriptions.

    I refuse to acknowledge the validity of an analogy or metaphor.

    When you use them, I’ll make sarcastic remarks and/or give myself some omnipotent powers in dealing with the analogy.

    Say we’re arguing about gun control. Then you use an analogy. You point out the fact that gun free zones, and other gun laws didn’t stop mass shooting. Then you ask me if criminals, who didn’t follow the current laws in the books, would all of a sudden follow these new laws. I’ll tell you that we’re not talking about psychology. I might talk about some cartoon character. I’ll get emotional with you. Or I’ll simply conduct the verbal equivalent of evasive maneuvers.

    The best way to react when my statement has been disproved is for me to repeat myself.

    1. You’ll eventually get tired and give up, which is my actual goal. If you don’t, I’ll simply call you names.

    2. If you don’t fall for my ploy, I’ll accuse you of repeating yourself and ignore the fact that you’re doing so because I’m repeating myself.

    a. You see, only I can repeat myself. You can’t.

    Censoring conservative dialog is not censorship but preventing hate speech.

    1. If you’re minority, and you’re debating as a conservative, you’ll be labeled as a sell out to your race, ethnic group, etc… Even if you use proper debate etiquette and follow the rules.

    2. If you’re a woman that’s arguing as a conservative, you’ve sold out your gender.

    3. If you’re a democrat that’s arguing as a conservative, you’ve sold out the Democratic Party.

    4. If you’re a Republican arguing as a liberal, you’re arguing your conscience. You’re also a part of the center and the mainstream.

    It’s OK to criticize the the United States, but not OK to criticize the UN or any other country that hates the US.

    1. If you’re a foreigner and you bash your own country, you’re ashamed when you shouldn’t be.

    2. If you’re American and you bash your own country, you’re giving good and honest criticism.

    3. If you point other nation’s shortcomings out, you’re preaching hate.

    4. If these nations bash the United States, they’re giving “legitimate” criticism.

  • “Gunsplaining” to Adam Weinstein

    Adam Weinstein complains in the Washington Post that pro-2d Amendment folks are guilty of “gunsplaining” to the gun grabbers and we make it impossible to have a discussion on gun control.

    While debating the merits of various gun control proposals, Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology. Perhaps someone tweets about “assault-style” weapons, only to be told that there’s no such thing. Maybe they’re reprimanded that an AR-15 is neither an assault rifle nor “high-powered.” Or they say something about “machine guns” when they really mean semiautomatic rifles. Or they get sucked into an hours-long Facebook exchange over the difference between the terms clip and magazine.

    Has this happened to you? If so, you’ve been gunsplained: harangued with the pedantry of the more-credible-than-thou firearms owner, admonished that your inferior knowledge of guns and their nomenclature puts an asterisk next to your opinion on gun control.

    It can feel infuriating, being forced to sweat the finest taxonomic distinctions between our nation’s unlimited variety of lethal weapons. I know this feeling acutely, having covered gun violence critically for the better part of a decade and having just buried an old mentor, killed in the Parkland massacre.

    Yeah, well, the problem is that the gun grabbers want to regulate firearms and they don’t really understand the things that they want to make illegal. The most egregious example is this exchange between Tucker Carlson and Congresswoman Caroline McCarthy who wants to regulate barrel shrouds for some reason;

    She ends up calling the barrel shroud “the thing in the back that goes up”.

    Now, to prevent teachers from being armed in the classroom, the gun fascists are complaining that the ammunition for the AR-style rifle leaves the barrel at three times the speed of the standard 9 millimeter ammunition. That’s true but at the range of a few feet, the difference is negligible. It doesn’t make the teacher more vulnerable. But, that’s the scare tactic employed in order to make it seem more rational to forbid the sale of black rifles.

    Gunsplaining, though, is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, it’s less about adding to the discourse than smothering it — with self-appointed authority, and often the thinnest of connection to any real fact.

    Well, then, the Left needs to get up to speed on the discussion. I hate explaining everyday that there is no “gun show loop hole”, that a bayonet lug doesn’t make a gun more dangerous. That there are already “universal background checks”. That gun registration has never prevented a crime.

    [W]e need to take away the incentives for gunsplaining, for spurning conversation in favor of condescension. Can that happen anytime soon? I’m not optimistic — not as long as the pro-gun camp continues to suppress debate with heavy rhetorical firepower, instead of just shooting straight.

    The main incentive for “gunspalining” is the total ignorance of the gun grabbers who don’t even know what it is that they want to seize from the law abiding public.

    Adam Weinstein hates guns. Every time he tries to write about guns, he explains that he owns guns – it’s like a racist who explains that he can’t be racist because he has a black friend.

    If you want us to stop “gunsplaining”, know what is that you want to jerk out of my hands. Quit trying to outsmart yourself. Well, unless you don’t want to tell us what it is you’re trying to do.

    By the way, Weinstein is the chief editor at Task & Purpose – stop sending me links to that dumpster fire.

  • Kokesh for President

    Kokesh for President

    DSC_0108

    Someone spotted this hideous affront to the senses in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania yesterday;

    Adam Kokesh, Iraq veteran of the Marine Corps Reserve variety and former front man for Iraq Veterans Against the War was arrested in Washington, DC five years ago for taking a video of himself loading a shot gun a couple of blocks from the White House. He did four months in jail for that stunt.

    Last year he was arrested by Secret Service agents in front of the White House on a fugitive warrant for not showing up for court in Maryland when he caused a ruckus at a TSA screening point at BWI airport.

    Kokesh was at the White House to protest the U.S. bombing of Syria, according to one of the protest participants. Heather Mullins said things were just about to begin when he was approached by Secret Service officers.

    Mullins said the TSA conducted an investigation into the airport incident and decided to let Kokesh off with a warning. However, the citation he was issued required him to appear in court in Glen Burnie, Maryland, which he apparently did not do.

    At a court appearance Tuesday, a judge declined to grant Kokesh bail and sent him back to jail.

    Earlier this year, he was arrested in Texas on a drug beef.

    DPS spokesman Lt. Lonny Haschel said in an email Kokesh was stopped around 12:45 p.m. Tuesday for a traffic violation on U.S. 380 in Decatur. During the stop, troopers called for a K-9 officer. The K-9 alerted on Kokesh’s recreational vehicle, which led to a search where officers found Kokesh to be in possession of drugs, according to Haschel.

    Kokesh filmed the traffic stop, and the video has been uploaded to his YouTube page. In the video, Trooper Patrick Garcia tells Kokesh he was stopped for going 74 mph in a 65 mph zone.

    “At this point in time the dog did alert, so we’re going to a whole ‘nother level,” Garcia says. He then tells Kokesh to turn off the camera.

    I should probably mention that Kokesh tried and failed to run for Congress in his home state of New Mexico in 2010 as a Republican with support from Stuart Rhodes at the Oath Keepers.

    And now he wants to be your President on the Libertarian ticket. His goal is to dismantle the Federal Government on his first day in office, he says.

  • Are You a Liberal Zombie? Liberal Zombie Q & A

    These day’s Gun control arguments and activism is a taste of the Liberal Zombie Apocalypse. They’re all over the place, on your news-feeds, on your browser, on your social media, on message boards, on the streets, etc. They don’t want your brain or flesh… Just a piece of your gun rights. They want the government to take more of your money, and make it harder for organizations to earn it.

    On top of that, they want to turn you into one of them via their version of “discussion and compromise”. This involves you being in listen mode, while they try to convert you.

    The following is a breakdown of their “line of reasoning”. I saw the original version of this on the old Protest Warrior forms. It was funny, but needed adjustments for easier reading. I improved, adjusted, and expanded on it over the years. This is a humorous take on the profiles of the liberals, embellishers, and phonies that we’ve came across.

    Without further ado:

    Q: First of all, what is a liberal zombie?

    A liberal zombie is a former human that used to have a brain and was once capable of carrying out a debate. Today; however, said individual no longer has a brain and can only parrot leftist/Anti American tripe and drivel; facts are completely useless to him/her. This is also a person that doesn’t believe in personal responsibility and accountability. They choose to blame some outside factor for their demise instead. They’ll utilize the, “But they do it to,” argument in response to your pointing out their errant arguments and actions.

    Q: What kind of defenses do these zombies utilize when shocked into reality by the facts?

    Typical responses to the facts include rebuttals consisting solely of insults but no substance, name-calling, comments such as, “This thread is stupid”, and comments pulled from ones behind — or out of thin air. Other defenses include accusing you of being in denial, of being a phony, of arguing from assumptions, and of arguing from perception.

    One defense used by these zombies is a severe emotional reaction to an analogy that forces them to question their flawed reasoning.

    They’ll also tap dance around straightforward questions that you ask them. Or, they would simply ignore these questions.

    If you want to get an idea of what they will tell you in advance, go watch and read some liberal news sources. Touch up on some conspiracy theories while you are at it. Don’t forget to watch and read foreign news sources as well, like those immediately to the right of Vladimir Lenin. Their reply will certainly be a refresher of these sources.

    There’s a typical defense used by a borderline zombie whose perception of things come crumbling down like a house of cards… Whose misconceptions have been shattered as a result of being exposed to facts and/or logical arguments. This defense comes in the form of accusing you of having no debating skills, of accusing you of being brainwashed, or an accusation that your response had no substance when the facts dictate otherwise.

    Treat these borderline zombies with care, any more exposure to the facts could send them hurtling down the path to becoming full blown zombies. Flaming them with the facts could accelerate this change.

    Q: Where do these liberal zombies come from?

    Most, if not all, liberal zombies begin as thinking human beings. But mainstream media propaganda likes to brainwash their audiences. Brainwashing includes thinking that the USA, its rich people, and its conservatives, are the causes of all of the world’s problems. It also includes making these liberals think that they are only presenting one of many “right” answers. Other people, unfortunately, do a Castro “face dive” into news sources that are based on emotion and not on fact.

    But once facts and logic are applied to their dishonest tomes, leftist propaganda quickly falls apart as their ideology cannot stand up to intellectual scrutiny. Thinking people, on the other hand, are quick to see the facts and are very quick to connect the dots. They’re not suckered into confusing emotions as facts.

    SOME humans; however, cling tenaciously to this leftist line of reasoning in spite of the facts. This causes their brain to literally begin to decay in their skulls. They have the appearance of humans, but – upon closer inspection – their glassy eyed stupefied stare and pungent aroma quickly identify them to be liberal zombies!

    Q: Should I shoot them?

    Heavens NO! You’ll only re-enforce the propaganda that they’ve been forced fed, about veterans, law-abiding citizen gun owners, and conservatives. You’ll end up going to jail.

    Q: Should I debate them?

    NO! This is about one of the most dangerous things a human being can do when confronted by this type of zombie. They’re IMMUNE to facts, to rational thought, and to logical reasoning. Debating them encourages them to repeat their liberal vitriol and drivels and may in fact attract MORE zombies. It’s best to ignore them, or hurl insults at them.

    Q: Do liberal zombies KNOW they are zombies?

    In most cases no, they still think they’re rational human beings. They’re usually completely devoid of a sense of humor.

    There are issues and areas that make perfect sense to them, though facts — current and historical — do not support what they think makes sense. They believe that their drivel makes perfect sense to other people, even when common sense dictates otherwise. They see anyone, that dares to use the facts to discredit their tripe, as brainwashed sheep incapable of coming up with their position… Without rational thought and without instruction by some “right-wing” higher source.

    If someone claims that the liberal media — such as the New York Times, BBC, CNN, MSNBC, and their ilk — are “centrist” or reliable news sources, for example, there’s a 99.99% chance that they’re a liberal zombie.

    A liberal zombie, upon seeing this post, will demonstrate denial by claiming that they could take each of the criteria here and apply them to conservatives.

    This is consistent with their “blame the other guy” mentality.

    The ones that are truly in denial will try to go through this list and explain why they are not liberal zombies, or why others are zombies.

    Q: Are all liberals zombies?

    No, although liberals do have zombie like tendencies, there are many liberals that retain some higher brain functions and can hold an open debate. Then there are liberals that are borderline zombies, as mentioned earlier.

    Warning: too many facts at once can overload a borderline liberal zombie, and fling them into full-blown brain melt down, handle these people gently!

    Note: If you come across a classical liberal, don’t panic, they’re perfectly human and are very capable of analytical thinking. Their liberal like appearance is just a defense mechanism. This also applies to the fair and balanced modern liberals, who have maintained their brain functions. The latter is just being well intentioned and don’t mean any harm, their consistently being wrong should not be mistaken for zombie behavior.

    Q: Are there other ways to spot this type of zombie?

    My word yes!

    Merely mentioning the following will often send any liberal zombie within earshot into a frothy frenzy of spewing utter nonsense:

    * President Trump (or Republican politician),

    * President Trump’s policies and accomplishments,

    * Our right to defend ourselves and to act in our best security interests,

    * Why gun control won’t work,

    * Tax cuts given back in the percentages that they were paid,

    * Responsibility and accountability,

    * Why tax cuts are not income redistribution,

    * Evidence that the liberals are wrong… Or a strong logical argument against liberal tripe,

    Or support for the candidate that believes in these things.

    If you want to quickly spot some liberal zombies, simply talk about liberal zombies. This will cause liberal zombies to come out of the woodworks and go straight for you. Use this trick with care.

    It’s best just to walk away and ignore these zombies when this happens; or hurl insults at them. This may cause them to call you an oil hungry imperialist, fascist, sheep, (well versed in the army doctrine if you are in the military, no matter which branch), brown shirt, brainwashed, NAZI, racist, xenophobic, misogynist, sexist, homophobic, etc., before going away.

    Q: Can liberal zombies ever say anything intelligent? Can we communicate with them?

    The classical liberal and the fair and balanced modern liberals are the types that could hold an intelligent conversation on a regular basis.

    The liberal zombies also can and do say something intelligent once in a while that is NOT 100% retarded. But they usually follow that with name-calling or insults.

    Q: But thebesig, there are conservatives on This Aint Hell that utilize name-calling and insults, does that make them zombies as well?

    If this happens, there’s a very good chance that the recipient of this label is actually an idiot, or what they are described as. This is not an insult on the account that this poster is calling it like it is.

    This is different from someone calling you an idiot because they do not have a factual or logical reply or because they simply don’t like what you said.

    Q: Do these zombies have a sense of humor?

    No.

    Q: If someone doesn’t have a sense of humor does that mean that they’re a liberal zombie?

    They either don’t find you funny or they just simply lack a sense of humor. More criteria will have to be utilized before determining whether someone is a liberal zombie or not. If it’s the former, it’s possible that they take things to seriously. In this case they might become candidates for being real liberal zombies in the future.

    Q: What should I do if I accidentally try to be rational with one of these zombies?

    Quickly realize your mistake, ignore them, and then walk away – OR hurl insults at them until they call you an imperialist, fascist, brown shirt, brainwashed, in denial, xenophobic, misogynist, racist, homophobic, etc. and walk away.

    Q: Hey thebesig, what do you do when the liberal zombie just won’t go away?

    One common zombie fighting tactic is to instantly reply to their post with a cut and paste from a site that has nothing to do with the original thread, let me give you an example:

    Thread title: Man-made global warming is real!

    Your initial reaction is to debunk this with facts, but remember; this is NOT a rational human that we’re dealing with here, but a liberal zombie. Respond to the thread with cut/pastes from sites that have nothing to do with the original post. For example, an article on someone going full bore “trigglypuff”, a copy and paste of a sports event, or growing garden plants. Remember, Google is your friend!

    Using President Donald Trump’s tweets greatly offends these zombies hint hint!

    Q: Dear thebesig,

    What should we do if we are accidentally bitten by one of these zombies? Their soulless behavior isn’t contagious, is it?

    Please… I need answers quickly… I’m starting to feel like… like… like…. I…Am… Feeling… triggered!

    Liberal zombie conversion is not spread by bites. It’s self-inflicted when a rational thinking human being clings tenaciously to leftist mantras in spit of facts and logic proving otherwise. Their brain suffers a massive meltdown and begins to rot in their skulls.

    If you “feel” like you are becoming a liberal zombie, put the iPhone, iPad, games, etc., down and get a job… The feeling will soon pass.

    Q: Hey thebesig, are there other types of zombies that I should be aware of?

    There are these anti-western zombies that despise anything western and do not restrict their hatred to the US. These zombies honestly think that without western civilization, the world would be a utopia paradise with ever lasting peace. The criteria used on liberal zombies applies to these zombies as well.

    Also, there’s the “Stolen Valor” zombie. These guys will do things like tell you about the nature of their service. Then, when you ask them questions about their service, they’ll tell you that “it’s secret” or “classified” or something like that.

    Q: Thebesig, what do I do when name-calling does not work?

    If this liberal zombie is immune to name calling (a rare and extra annoying type of zombie) then simply say, “Oh be quiet!” Then walk away. Don’t waste your time with these zombies, you’ll get better reception arguing with the walls.

    Q: What’s the best way to recognize one of these zombies on websites like this?

    Watch for the “clever” – you got under my skin – responses to this post.

  • USA! USA! USA!

    I’m putting this in my top 5 sport memories.  Yeah, I cried a little, ain’t gonna lie.  And then I drank a bottle of Baileys.  And if I can find the front door I am streaking around my neighborhood with the stars and stripes chanting USA USA USA until I am on Live PD or the little bit of Irish in me starts getting frostbit.

    What a beautiful win.  A liquor store manager, an environmental consultant, an R&D specialist, and a Dick’s Sporting Goods store associate made me proud of my country when I was sober at 2:30 am and chewing my fingernails off.  Good on ye boys!  Love you bunch of rejects almost as much as the 2004 Red Sox.

    Live look in on John Shuster and the team:

    If Tom Brady was on the team though Sweden would have conceded in the second and I would have gotten some sleep.

    Screw the WWE, this is what Gronk needs to go into.

  • US Jerusalem Embassy to open this Spring

    Mick sends us a link to Fox News which reports that the US Israel Embassy will open in Jerusalem in May, 2018 ahead of schedule and in conjunction with the 70th anniversary of Israel’s declaration of their independence.

    A ribbon-cutting is being planned for mid-May. Israel proclaimed independence on May 14, 1948.

    The May opening marks a significant acceleration. Vice President Mike Pence had said previously the embassy would open by the end of 2019. And Tillerson had said it could take years.

    Initially, the embassy will consist of just a few offices inside an existing U.S. facility in Jerusalem.

    In October, 1995 the House and Senate passed a bill called the “Jerusalem Embassy Act,” which formally recognized the city as the country’s capital and called for the U.S. Embassy in Israel to be moved there from Tel Aviv by 1999. That was three presidents ago.