Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Love those smoothies now, liberals?

Ahhh, the taste of a smoothy.  So fresh.  So fruity.  Soooo liberal!

Why, when I go out for a smoothy, when I have that luscious cold icy strawberry goodness pass through my lips, I just feel like..like...

Like I want to go out and save some whales!

But doggone it, why should I have to pay an extra dollar for it that some conservative swine-flu-carrying-hate-filled-scumbag-should-be-dropping-dead-because-I-hate-his-living-guts doesn't have to?

There's this bar - the I Love Drilling Juice & Smoothie Bar - that's doing just that.  Conservatives have to pay $4.95 for a delicious, liberal-inspired smoothy, while us extremely-tolerant, good-for-everything liberals must pay a dollar more.  Why?  Is it because we're the best of society?  That we always have good intentions?  Well, I know some of us tried to blow up a bridge and all - I'm just saying - and some of us think cop cars are just another port-a-potty when raping, er, making love on Wall Street, but that's because we're always the best of society and always have the best of intentions in mind.  So doggone it, when the bridge is blown to smithereens I want to relax with a nice smoothy and not have to pay a dollar extra for it!

 And it bugs the shorts outta me when some conservative comes out of church, all pretty and clean, and with a smiling wife, all pretty and clean, and three smiling kids all pretty and clean, and they appear in the I Love Drilling Juice & Smoothie Bar that's on 510 East Main in Vernal, Utah, and they don't smell like the inside of a cheap tent from Wall Street...and they get the smoothy I should be getting for a buck less?  Why, I just want to take my tolerance and shove it up their $^%(&%#^!!!

I hate those people!  Hate them, hate them, hate them!

And that extra dollar I have to pay?  Going to the Heritage Foundation?  That's a low-down, despicable, hate-filled, intolerant, bigoted, trashy-ugly conservative organization!  They just need to drop dead!  Commit suicide!  Step in front of a bus doing 70 in a 30 zone while the driver does some weed!  Why, if I had my way, those extra dollars would be going to MY causes, like Planned Parenthood, because I believe people have a right to choose.

Except when choosing to increase the price of a smoothy.  Or being a conservative.  Or being Christian.  Or engaging in First Amendment rights.  Nope, they can't do that.

Nor can they choose to throw me out of the I Love Drilling Juice & Smoothie Bar on 510 East Main in Vernal, Utah.  How dare they say I need a bath!

Sincerely,
The  Tolerant Liberal

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

The equine name for liberal stupidity

Let's play "Connect the Dots".  Can you connect the dots in the picture below?


Can you make a pretty picture after you connected the dots?  Is it a bird?  A dog?  A whale?  A tulip tree?

How about a jackass?

The image was published a couple weeks ago in the New York Journal.  It is an interactive map, which means you can go to the Journal's website, click on any of the dots, and see if you, or your loved one, or a respected neighbor is packing a gun.  All of these dots are registered gun owners; full names, addresses, and what kind of guns they own, and how many they own.

These dots are something else as well.  They are all law-abiding citizens who legally-purchased their guns, and legally-registered them.  Some of them are active and retired police officers, some are active and retired military.  All have a Second Amendment right to own a firearm, and they own guns to defend their lives, their loved one's lives, and their property.

And then there's that jackass, with "liberal" written all over it's face, in this case it's the editors and reporters of the Journal.  They published that map with all of those addresses available in an effort to "out" all legal gun owners.  Why?  Because of the mass-murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.  They want to paint all law-abiding gun owners just as mentally deranged as the individual who shot and killed all of those children there on December 14, so in a mental derangement of their own they got all of their names and where they live from public files and slapped them on display for everyone else to see.

And everyone else seeing this map aren't just the people living there; it isn't the politicians or the conservatives who are fed up with liberal antics.  It's the criminals who are seeing it all, and they can click on the dots and see Joe Smith packs a Magnum at 123 Elm; Steve Jones packs a Ruger at 127 Elm; Bob Riley lives right between them at 125, and he's not armed at all.  Which means the bad guys will break into his place first, steal his goods, peek out the windows to verify Steve and Joe have left, then break into their homes to steal their guns.

Did the liberal clowns running the Journal ever stop to think about that?  Nope.  Did they ever bother to think - they do think, don't they? - that a lot of those unarmed people now in the bad guys cross-hairs are liberals themselves?  Remember, liberals are always posting everywhere that they are so much smarter than the rest of society, they couldn't possibly be a party to the posting of that map.  Not them.

But it's too bad that the definition of a jackass is: 1. a male donkey;  2. an extremely stupid and/or foolish individual.  it fits them well, not just for what they published, but for the anger directed at them for publishing it.  The editors and reporters at the Journal decided they weren't going to take the backlash handed to them for publishing their silly map, so instead of fixing the problem and deleting the map they hired armed guards.  You read that right.  There new guards are armed.  And they ain't packing pea-shooters, either.

But are they law-abiding armed guards?  With their penchant for preferring and coddling criminals, in the near-future they may be victims of their own stupidity.

Did I also mention that other, third definition of a jackass?  What political party is trying to enact legislation to curtail Second Amendment rights now?  What political party is seeking to pin the blame for Sandy Hook on legitimate gun owners rather than the nutcase who committed that horrible act?  What political party is supported completely by a slobbering, fawning editorial staff at the New York Journal?  The Democrats.

They don't have a jackass as their mascot for nothing, you know!

Friday, January 4, 2013

So easy, a caveman did it!

Part of the message of Conservapedia is that the site takes a stand for Creation, which is the act of God in the first chapter of Genesis.  The site does not believe that evolution is nothing more than a theory; in fact, Conservapedia declares evolution to be a complete and utter fraud.

A big part of saying that is is a fraud has to do with the evidence at hand - specifically, the fossil record and the interpretations handed to the general public by evolutionists of that fossil record.  For example, there are a group of dinosaurs called "coelurosaurs" which scientists declare to be the direct ancestors of birds.  Why?  Because they have a similar-looking semilunate carpal, which is a bone in the wrist that makes the flight stroke possible,  "and was probably co-opted by birds for flight from a grasping function" that this site says.  The words "looking", "probably", and "co-opted" in the previous sentence are words meant to declare that they are guessing, they are assuming, and they are making those guesses and assumptions based on nothing more than looking at it.  No testing at all, yet they are declaring their interpretations to be fact.  Overlooked in this example is the fact that a coelurosaur skeleton has a forward-positioned pubic bone in the pelvis; a bird has it facing backwards.  Got that fact by looking it as well, but a scientist is just to busy concentrating on the wrists to be bothered by that minor discrepancy.  Birds evolved from dinosaurs, the wrists prove it, and they probably had hip-replacement surgery somewhere along the line.  Go figure.

Which leads to Rover.

The main explanation for evolution - one they say is supported by the fossil record - is to put it simply Animal A changing into Animal B.  Fish turn into frogs.  Frogs turn into lizards.  Lizards turn into birds.  Of course they are going to argue with the writer here on the semantics, i.e. lizards didn't turn into birds (dinosaurs did that!), the writer just doesn't understand science, why don't you look (there's that word - look!) at the fossil record, and so on.  And they will demand that we all "look" at the fossil record - look at that little horsie grow into the bigger horsie, with all of those other horsies in between?  "We see the beginnings of the characteristic horse-like ridges on the molars."  Emphasis added.  They see.  They didn't test.

Which leads to Rover.

They say that Animal A changed into Animal B.  All by themselves.  But, there is one case which they say (there's that other word - "say"!) man helped it out.  Good ol' Rover.  The domestic dog.  Canis familiaris, esquire.  Well, now it's Canis lupus familiaris, but that's another story.  According to the evolutionists that be, Rover descended from the matings and selected breedings of wolves (the lupus above) several thousand years ago, and because of that breeding we all have our poodles, our wiener dogs, our lap dogs, our huskies, great danes, shepherds, hounds, pointers, setters, and those spotted things slobbering all over the clean seats in the fire trucks.  All of them, the scientists say (that word again!) came from wolves.

Now, scientists are supposed to be smart guys, with I.Q.s higher than the surrounding neighborhood, so their word (again, it's what they say) has to apply.  Wolves were the ancestors of domestic dogs.  They said it.  Having said that, are domestic dogs known only from fossils?  Nope.  Are wolves known only from fossils?  Nope.  Are both alive today?  Yep.  Wow, that means that the wolf-to-dog scenario can be tested in the lab!  And these guys are scientists, which means they are smart guys, which means they can do it.  They can replicate the conditions in the lab that the supposed first breeders of dogs did originally several thousand years ago.

After all - to paraphrase GEICO commercials - it's so easy, a caveman can do it.  And it was cavemen - not scientists - who supposedly did the wolf-to-dog breeding.  So say the scientists.

And when that was posted in the talk pages of Conservapedia, what did the detractors produce?  Foxes.  They produced evidence of fox selective breeding; they looked for particular foxes with floppy ears and good dispositions, mated them, and got mixed results - and those same detractors are telling us that we should accept the foxes as evidence that the cavemen did the same thing with the wolves.

The detractors never produced evidence of wolf breeding.  The wolf is from genus Canis.  The dog is from genus Canis.

The fox is from genus Vulpes.  Different animal.

But they still say it happened.  Not a shred of evidence, either from the lab or from Slag Flintrock's cave, but they say it happened.  We have their word on it!