Why Do Minorities Still Listen To Liberals?

To quote a line from one of my favorite bands, Old Crow Medicine Show, "tell it to me, tell it to me, drink your corn liquor let the cocaine be" (the last part doesn't really apply but I like the line).

I'm confused and need someone to 'splain something to me.

Ya see, as an old farm boy, if I plant corn in a bottom and it gets flooded out every time I do it, it doesn't take me to many years to figure out maybe I ought a stop doing that. Or if I put cattle in a pasture and every tIme I do, they get through the fence, I can figure out that somethings wrong with the fence and I need to stop putting cattle in there till I get it fixed.

So here's my quandary. Why do minorities and "protected" groups keep supporting liberals?

My entire life, counting way to many decades now, these groups have listened to liberals/progressives tell them how they are being "discriminated"against. If only they put the liberals in office they will make everything right and rainbows and sunshine will come out their asses forever forward. And what has come of this when they do? I give you Detroit as example "A" and the list goes on and on from there. In virtually every case you can think of,things have demonstrably gotten worse, or stayed the same at best.

So why don't they try something different?

Yes, I know the left tells them if they elect conservatives they will be put in chains, or never get their wedding cake baked, or what ever other red herring the left can drag across their trail. But after chasing that laser dot for so long, even the dullest of dogs will eventually give it up as a lost cause. 

So why do these folks keep doing it?

The left call conservatives racists, and homophobes and bigots every time a conservative suggests that we are all people and everyone should be treated the same, no special treatment. But isn't that just what the liberals want? For everyone to be treated equally?

To view the evidence it would appear not. They want certain groups to be treated with special care. They seem to want equal outcome, not equal opportunity. But isn't that the real bigoted position. Isn't saying there must be quotas, X percentage of blacks or women of gays or whatever saying to that group, "you're really not capable of competing on an equal footing so you must be treated specially", because you aren't capable. Or worse, they told me because some folks of Scothish descent couldn't do something I needed to be given special advantages, and thus my accomplishments would always be viewed as less because everyone knew I'd been given a head start. I would be totally offended if someone were to handicap me that way. 

Now the left will come back and say things like, conservatives are just about the dollar and will never give women/blacks/gays/whoever a chance. Well that's illogical on the face of it. If conservatives are only interested in the dollar, then wouldn't they hire the best available in any circumstance? I mean that's how you get ahead, right? You put the best person in the job to get the best outcome.

Then the liberal will say, but this group or that can't compete so must be treated special. Again, the racism/bigotry of the left raises its head. 

What happens if a sports team gets beat 55-0? The team isn't given special dispensation and spotted 56 points the next time. They are expected to get better if they want a better result. Having somebody on the sidelines to pat your hand and say "that's ok sweetie we will change the rules" doesn't help them get better, it makes the whole worse.

In my mind, if these groups the left keeps pandering to REALLY wanted to improve their situations, the first thing they would do is stop thinking of themselves as a separate group. Rather they would not think of themselves as a group but just another equal member of the society. They need to stop listening to those who offer them excuses and look to those who offer them a path forward.

I mean, really, how much worse could it get than where the liberals have taken them? Why not try something different than what you already know doesn't work?

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Sent from my iPad

Kuntzmen's Hit Piece Disguised As Reporting

How in gods name can a supposed news outlet (The New York Daily News) allow a hit piece like Gersh Kuntzmen's anyplace other than on the op-ed page. And even then, to allow it without challenging some of the nonsense and out right lies is unforgivable.

Here is a quote I just cut from his article:

The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

Even in semi-automatic mode, it is very simple to squeeze off two dozen rounds before you even know what has happened. In fully automatic mode, it doesn’t take any imagination to see dozens of bodies falling in front of your barrel.

Now, I do not personally own an AR15, but I have fired one and I do own a weapon that fires the same ammo as your standard AR15. Trust me when I tell you, there is NO WAY that this weapon bruised his shoulder. The recoil from this ammo, .556/.223, is barely more than that of a .22LR. I have seen 12 year olds fire these weapons with no ill affects. For a grown man to claim to have bruised his shoulder firing this weapon strikes me as total bullshit!

Then he claims the brass "flew past my face". This weapon ejects from the right side of the frame. Unless he were firing it left handed (which he wasn't according to the picture in the article) there was no way the brass flew past his face. Though I have no doubt that this pussy was disoriented around anything testosterone producing.

He goes on to say "the smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick". The last I checked, there is no smell distinct to destruction, though to be honest, that was probably just a bad piece of writing and he did not mean to have destruction linked to "smell". The smell that affected him was most likely a mix of cordite and the shit in his pants.

He then says, "Even in semi-automatic mode, it is very simple to squeeze off two dozen rounds before you even know what has happened. In fully automatic mode, it doesn’t take any imagination to see dozens of bodies falling in front of your barrel."

I have no idea what he is talking about when he says "Even in semi-automatic mode". That's all there is on an AR15! There is no automatic mode! If he were firing a weapon in full auto mode it wasn't an AR15, most likely it would have been its cousin it was made to look like, the military M16. It is illegal to sell or own a fully automatic weapon without having a special license from the federal government, and these are not easy to come by.

He goes on to say you can squeeze off two dozen rounds before you even know what has happened. Again I say bullshit! I challenge you to right now, curve your index finger and pull it back 24 times and tell me you didn't realize what you were doing. Now imagine a little resistance on each pull.

I say Gersh Kuntzmen is an inveterate liar! He didn't go to learn or fairly report. He went to write a hit piece. I would even bet $100 (and if you knew what a cheap bastard I am you would realize this is a significant wager for me) that in his heart of hearts, if he were to tell the truth, he had fun firing the weapon.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

We Get The Government We Deserve

Well London, it's started. You voted a muslim in as your mayor recently and the inevitable creep towards sharia law has started. Sadiq Khan has been in office only a short time and he has already introduced a ban on sexy women in advertisements on public transportation. The snowball has been pushed over the edge of the hill and if it isn't stopped soon it will get so big with so much momentum it will be unstoppable. All of London will become a muslim ghetto under sharia law. No it won't happen next month or even next year, but it's on the way.

This is part of the world domination plan. Particularly in western cultures. They have stated they are going to destroy us from within. And this is how they accomplish it.

Here you see the first pieces of the plan coming together. Sadiq Khan says it's because he has daughters and doesn't believe they should be exposed to the scantily clad women. Sounds sort of reasonable. It's for the children, don't cha know. But it is the first step on the road to putting women in burkas.

When you have an uneducated electorate, and by that I mean an electorate that delves no deeper than the ads they see or the actor/musician endorsement they hear, you get situations like this. The London mayor unilaterally banning a type of advertisement. What will he ban next? Alcohol advertisements? And then what? Openly gay establishments, because his children shouldn't see such things? And so on and so on.

And once they have got you accepting these small encroachments on your liberties, they will just keep pushing the boundaries to see what they can get next, until they have taken control.

You think I'm being an alarmist? Look at the arc of social change that the "progressives" continue to use. Little by little they get what they are after by asking you to compromise. "Just move a little our way and we will be happy." But then they ask for a little more, and so on. Notice they are never willing to compromise in the opposite direction.

The "caliphate" is taking a page directly out of the progressive play book. They are demonstrating acts of horrific violence and then asking you to follow a Neville Chamberlain like approach to them and just compromise a little to appease them. And thus the inevitable slide into oblivion.

So if the electorate is so idiotic as to vote a person into office whose first allegiance is to their religion over their country, or to vote for someone whose only real selling point is they have a vagina, or their racial affiliation. Well..... We get the government we deserve.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Response To Most Recent Shooting Shows Progressive Inconsistency

Here we go again. Another tragic shooting by a suspected radical islamist. This time in a gay club in Florida.

The injured victims aren't even all treated and the gun control loons are already squawking for guns to be outlawed.

Now if these folks making all of the noise were consistent I could have a little respect for them. They would still be wrong, but I would respect their opinion. But of course they are not.

If they were consistent they would ask that all doctors be outlawed because in 2014, in the US approximately 2668 lives per day were ended by a few abortion doctors. They would also want all those of islamic faith to be removed from the country due to the fact that the majority of mass killings recently have been committed by them.

So if these folks truly are interested in saving lives, their purported reason for wanting guns banned, wouldn't they be out there demanding all the abortion clinics be banned? They really would be saving thousands of lives every day if they did that. Wouldn't they be marching in the streets to have ALL muslims be rounded up and something be done with them? Destroyed maybe? That's what they want to be done with all guns when only a limited number of folks actually use guns to maliciously harm others.

But no, we can't blame all muslims for what a few do........Yet they are more than happy to blame all gun owners for what a few do.

So if I'm reading this correctly, liberals/progressives don't really give a shit about who gets killed. Or even how many. They just have issues with a particular means of someone's demise. "Oh, it's a shame that those people were killed by that knife wielding muslim lunatic in Oklahoma and that poor woman was beheaded." Not a word about licensing knives. The young couple who were bludgeoned to death in Tennessee was it? Nobody out looking to make bats illegal. Islamists blow up how many people at the Boston Marathon, nobody wants pressure cookers regulated. But let some folks get shot, their bodies aren't even cool and the gun control crowd is out there demanded action be taken against guns!

Wouldn't it make more sense to look for and eliminate the individuals who use the tools for malicious reasons than trying to ban the tools?

Inconsistency thy name is "progressive"!

Or so it seems to an old farm boy.

Feminists And Anarchists And Revolutionaries, Oh No!

Let me start out apologizing right up front. Usually I know exactly where I'm heading as I start to write these little screeds, but today, there seems to be several topics wrapped up in my head. By the time you read this there will be a title and that should give you a clue. So let's just see where this goes.

Over the past week I've been watching the protests (riots) against Trump and Milo Yiannopoulos take place. In both cases it appears that the object is to keep them from speaking or those who wish to hear them from hearing. This would seem to be the hallmark of someone who recognizes their position is unable to stand on its own merits in the marketplace of ideas and thus must keep the alternate ideas from receiving a fair hearing.

If these folks truly believed their position was the best for the most and that Milo and Donald were offering only "hate", I would think they would want as many people to hear the hate as possible. Then their ideas could be seen as vile and unworthy of support.

Additionally, they should organize an event of their own so they could detail the merits of their position. Sunlight being the best disinfectant, the more folks who hear both positions should allow for the false one to be overcome by the light.

Secret societies like the KKK didn't become marginalized and irrelevant by staying hidden, but rather by folks learning how repellant their precepts were/are.

Since Milo and Donald seem to be the ones pushing to pull the shades back and let the light in, one on the bullying tactics of the far left and the other on the cesspool of career politics, it would appear it is they who have the faith in their positions. Not those who are seeking to have their ideas locked away so none can hear. Kind of reminds me of the position the church took in regards to Copernicus and others back in the day.

So just who are these folks out there trying to control the thought and speech of others? (Speech which just happens to be protected by our founding documents. Freedom of speech wasn't protected to keep someone's "feelings" from being ruffled. It was protected so all sides could be heard and judged one against the other.)

To look at the crowds and their actions, it would appear to me that they are made up of revolutionaries and anarchists. Folks who do not believe in America.

I believe they tell us that themselves. If they came to America to become Americans, would they wave Mexican flags and hold signs that literally say "make America Mexico"?

While the anarchists are there to cause chaos. Destroying public and private property. Accosting those who support America.

Neither of these groups are interested in what is best for America. And if you went to school like I did, back in the day, you were taught how it was the anarchists who lit the fuse to start World War I by killing Arch Duke Somebody or other in the Balkens. They seem perfectly happy to do that again.

The third group making up these protests are the Social Justice Warrior crowd. Again, a minority of thought police bullies who are out to try and control your thought and speech with the willing compliance of the mainstream media, Hollywood and the self anointed "elite" liberals. They look to do this by trying to publicly shame people for thinking or speaking in non approved ways.

These are the special snowflakes and pearl clutchers who can't abide hearing something that might offend their delicate sensibilities. And thus demand that adults who speak with reason and fact be silenced and that they be offered "safe spaces" where they can receive "counseling" to recover from the trauma of seeing a name chalked on a sidewalk, or hearing about someone with a different idea. (Note they themselves would NEVER go to actually hear what someone else had to say, but only to disrupt the speaker so others could not hear.)

These are the folks who support Hillary and Bernie. They want America to have no borders and want to take from the earners and give to the indolent, because they themselves ARE the indolent, and God forbid they actually become productive members of society instead of propagating their ridiculous 3rd wave feminism or BLM thought.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.