Home

Details

Liberals are innately more logical and sciencey than conservatives, as liberals inform me all the time. So it's wonder they can't see the logical flaws in this claim:

"The US is very right wing. If you compare it to Europe, the most left wing American politician is still only center right."

A: This assumes Europe is the baseline, not the US.  Looked at the other way, every nation* in Europe is extremely left wing, which is obviously a far more reasonable conclusion (Because I say it is).

2: This confuses mean and median.  Do you even statistic, bro?

c} Why do you assume the US and Europe are even on the same scale? You're comparing apples and rutabagas here, given the cultural backgrounds of most of Europe--civic minded subjects of monarchies, vs the background of the history of the US--rebels, refugees, transportees, slaves and their descendents, and adventurers.

IV) Europe is a continent of smaller nations, with actually quite a variety of political orientations. Are you claiming Russia is left wing these days? Do you even know what Poland's politics are? Or are you focusing on Scandinavia--several very small nations, France, Germany and the UK to the exclusion of the rest?  Using that logic, California, New York and Illinois prove the US is actually quite a bit further left than your own claims.

E] What about all the other nations in the world? Why aren't they counted?  You're choosing majority-white Europe out of deep-seated, inherent racism.

A liberal can ALWAYS choose the postulates he wants to prove he's correct, even when he's talking out of his ass.

And will usually be racist in the process.





*The nations the liberal deems relevant, not those inconvenient non-liberal nations.

Details

Way back in the early 1990s at a sci fi con I attended regularly, on a circuit I attended regularly, I was hanging out with a bunch of friends. One was a woman who we could call a friend with benefits.  Another would be later.  Three guys who also threw themed parties, a DJ and his assistant, two other women, and one who is the person in question.

She was mutual friends with my FwB, the guy she was with, and another. We'd interacted, hung out, been at convention parties.

That evening, it became obvious she was interested.  A couple of hours later, we were back in my room. Making out, chatting, making out some more.  I lost my shirt. 

A few minutes later, she was sitting astride my hips, and peeled her dress over her head.  No bra--she had the youth and stature that didn't need one, and she did not have small breasts, either.  She was quite well built in all dimensions.

We both finished undressing, and had sex in several positions. Oral each way, she astride me, missionary, from behind, missionary again.  A good time was had by all.

We lay there for a while, talking some more, quick rinse in the shower together, clothes back on, and back out to socialize with the rest.

She disappeared.

Two hours later, my FwB shows up with her current date.

"What happened tonight, Mike?"

"What, with ___?"

"Yes."

"What do you think happened?" (I generally try not to share specifics with others unless cleared to.)

"How did her dress come off, Mike?"

At this point I had a massive adrenaline surge. I mean, you saw the list, it was obvious to me it was all consensual...I thought. Did I miss a signal? No, she asked for several things specifically.

"Um....she took it off...while astride me."

There was silence, and I asked, "Is this going to be a problem?"

FwB says, sigh, "No, she's done this before."

Get that? She'd done this BEFORE.

I ascribe some of this to hangover societal puritannical bullshit (though the Puritans demanded sex be an active part of marriage both ways), compounded by Victorian bullshit.

You see, Nice Girls don't do things like that.  So if a woman has absorbed this belief, but actually likes a load of cum in her face, or being fucked in the ass, or shoved against a wall and her skirt yanked up, or two cocks at once, then she's a slut. 

But, if she wasn't really into it, and she was just going along with it, then she wasn't really a slut, so it's okay.

But there's a line between misplaced puritanical guilt over enjoying yourself and A FALSE ACCUSATION OF RAPE.

PART TWO:

An acquaintance is an EEO officer for a large military installation. Divorce is sadly common in the military due to relocations, duty cycles, separations for deployment, and occasionally for things like infidelity (less than you might expect. There's a half-joke about "Are you married?" "No, I'm temporary duty." And a lot of couples tolerate or enjoy that just to take some of the stress off, with the understanding that once those months or years of separation are done, they're a couple)(they're not asking for your moral judgment, so stuff it).

He reports that several times a MONTH, a woman (spouse) filing for divorce would come in, and accuse the service member of abuse, violations, etc.

He could immediately tell which ones were fake. They were literally word for word from a popular TV show episode about this.

But, every one of these cases must be "investigated," which pulls someone off duty for questioning, and impedes anything in their mission that involves a security clearance, and costs YOU, the taxpayer, tens of thousands of dollars.

Because some lying whore wants a bigger cut of a pension, or to fuck someone's career over and hurt them for life because they're angry at how their life isn't a fairy tale.

You know who else suffers from this?

ACTUAL VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS of abuse and sexual assault, who try to speak, and get a response of (eyeroll), oh, god, not this shit again.

So when Christine Ford can't remember if it was 2, 4, or 6 people present at a party where she admits she was drinking underage, or where it was, or how she got there, or how she got home, and didn't tell anyone, and 6 of the 4 witnesses say it never happened, and she couldn't get to Congress on Monday because she's terrified of flying, but has 100,000 frequent flyer miles from vacationing in the Pacific...

It's reasonable to assume she's LYING about remembering absolutely that it was a candidate she opposes politically, who belongs to a party she's publicly vowed to hinder in any way possible.

And stop with the bullshit that she has "nothing to gain," because she's already gained $500,000 from a gofundme, notoriety, headlines, and may even get a book deal. And most importantly, might fuck with our constitutional process to make it easier for her Nazi fucking Demorrhoid Party to control the government.

She's a lying whore, and anyone with any analytical sense has known that from the beginning.

Details

This is a working hypothesis of mine and it's well supported by my research.

Recently:

Liberal: Trump is anti-semitic, and his son makes secret anti-semitic signs on TV!

Me: Wait, how do you know about these secret signs?

Liberal: We have a list!

Me: 70% of Trump's cabinet are Jews, so is one son in law.  He recognized Israel's right to exist, to have Jerusalem as their capital. How is he anti-Semitic?

Liberal: He's just using those Jews for his advantage.

Me: What advantage?  Why have a cabinet full of people you allegedly hate?

Liberal: He's only got Jews on the cabinet because they're good at banking strategies and money handling. They're making him rich.

Me: Wait, what? Did you just stereotype an entire religion and culture? And imply they're corrupt?

Liberal: No, not all Jews, just those Jews.

Me: Then why bother with Jews if he hates Jews? Are you saying he can't find other bankers?

Liberal: FUCK YOU!

 

~~~

Then there's the liberal claim that they're not anti-semitic, just anti-zionist.

Me: So, you don't oppose Jews, just a Jewish national state.

Liberal: Yes.

Me: But a Palestinian national state is okay?

Liberal: Yes, because they were there first.

Me: The Jews have been there for 3000 years.

Liberal: Yeah, but they left and came back.

Me: No, some of them left. There have definitely been Jews there for 3000 years.

Liberal: Well, they need to stop being terrorists.

Me: How many suicide bombs has each side set off?

Liberal: FUCK YOU!

~~~

Please help test my hypothesis.

Details

FACT:  Kavanaugh and Christine Blowme Ford were minors.

FACT:  The crime of "sexual assault" did not cover groping in that place and time.  "Simple assault" or "battery" are the only credible legal claims.

FACT:  As they were minors, any such charge would have vacated by now.

FACT: Even if he was 18, statute of limitations is DECADES past.*

FACT: Per her own reports, they were both intoxicated.  We have no evidence to support her claim he was, but she has confessed to a criminal act.

FACT: 6 of her 4 witnesses call bullshit.

FACT: Without something more substantial than "somewhere, sometime, and I have no idea how I got there," no charges are possible.

FACT: She admits she went to a "party" with two or four, she's not sure, males and no females, to get intoxicated and...do what?  At a place with no chaperonage.

FACT: The FBI only investigates federal or interstate crime, and this would have been neither. They cannot investigate it.

FACT: Regardless of what may have happened, the claim is unsupportable bullshit.

FACT: We've now reached a point only seen in bad satirical movies of the 1990s (The Running Man: "She had sex with three, sometimes FOUR men in the same YEAR!") for condemnation of men.

FACT: If you believe any of her bullshit, you cannot possibly claim to be logical or deductive.

FACT: If you're "literally made ill" by this lying drunken slut's bullshit, you better be petitioning for Keith Ellison to be deposed on the ACTUAL POLICE REPORTS and ACTUAL HOSPITAL RECORDS of his ex girlfriend, and of the several women who have accused Bill Clinton of not groping, but FORCIBLE RAPE, and open the records on Teddy Kennedy's "forgetting" there was a woman drowning in his car when he crashed it in a river while intoxicated, and somehow was never punished, and ask your party WHY they re-elected Klansman Robert Byrd for life, and tolerated his utter racism to the end (he voted against EVERY black judiciary candidate, even when his party endorsed them).  Because if not, you're a vile, rape-endorsing, domestic violence-endorsing, fucking RACIST.

You are not logical, you are not deductive, you are not even human fucking beings.  You are utter fucking filth, and we really do need to invest in Caterpillar D9 bulldozers.

 

 

 

*FACT: In America, we don't retcon crimes to suit the modern day. Ex Post Facto.  It's covered in the Constitution, and you subhuman, anti-American, anti-intellectual, worm-ridden pieces of cholera-infected maggot shit need to read it. Ask an educated 12 year old (HINT: their parents didn't vote for the D) explain the big words to you.

 

  1. A Timeline of Events
  2. Why We Should Still Be Talking About Killing Communists

Guns

Shirts

  • You are here:  
  • Home