Tag: Stupid people

Changing The Rules

Freaks & Loonies, Marxists

We’ve all seen it:  Lefties, anarchists, so-called “liberals” and so on assaulting conservatives, whether on the streets, in restaurants, in gyms, whatever.

The toxicity of the resistance to President Trump has risen in recent days, with the nation’s most respected newspapers publishing rationalizations for denying Trump supporters public accommodation and for doxxing career federal employees, while a journalist found himself under physical attack from the so-called anti-fascist group Antifa, which has stepped up its violent activities since Trump’s election.
The justification for denying public accommodation came from the Washington Post in an op-ed by Stephanie Wilkinson, the owner of a farm-to-table restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. Wilkinson became famous in June of last year, when she refused to serve White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders and and told Sanders and her family to leave the restaurant. Wilkinson’s staff then followed the Sanders group in protest as they tried to find another place to eat.
Wilkinson later told the press she ejected Sanders because the Trump administration is “inhumane and unethical” and because the Red Hen “has certain standards that I feel it has to uphold, such as honesty, and compassion, and cooperation.”

Really?

“If you’re an unsavory individual,” Wilkinson concluded, “we have no legal or moral obligation to do business with you.” Better to stay home than risk the spittle. (In her new article, Wilkinson discussed the case of The Aviary, a trendy bar in Chicago where a waitress recently spat on Eric Trump, the president’s son.)

Sounds like the stakes are getting a little more serious — especially when the so-called “law enforcement” agencies are looking the other way.

But the real enablers here are the politicians and journalists who’ve championed Antifa, such as the CNN presenter Chris Cuomo, as well as the Portland authorities who have consistently turned a blind eye to the criminal behavior of the group. Indeed, Andy himself was assaulted by an Antifa activist at his gym last month and the Portland Police took no action. And he was punched in the stomach while covering an Antifa May Day protest in Portland while a police officer stood by and did nothing.

And here’s the real take:

Antifa fighters beat up and milkshaked Ngo, apparently because he was there and he was not on their side.

So “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” ?  O-o-o-okay.  Powerline puts it this way:

Liberals act as though they are spoiling for a civil war, or at least a slow-motion approximation thereof. Is that really what they want? Fighting in the streets? And, evidently, the restaurants? Do they have reason to think they would fare well if they actually got what they claim to want?

Just remember, assholes, when some Pantifa Pussy gets a .357 Mag bullet in the face for tossing a concrete-laced milkshake at someone — you started this bullshit, not us.

Escalation can come from both sides, after all.

Scarcity Scare Tactics

Business, Marketing / Advertising, Travels

Via Insty comes this silliness:

Companies in certain sectors use the same behavioral interventions repeatedly. Hotel booking websites are one example. Their sustained, repetitive use of scarcity (e.g., “Only two rooms left!”) and social proof (“16 other people viewed this room”) messaging is apparent even to a casual browser.
For Chris the implication was clear: this “scarcity” was just a sales ploy, not to be taken seriously.

Well, duh.  The oldest advertising gimmick is to threaten shortages:  “while supplies last”, “today only”, “limited to the first 50 customers”, and so on.

I’ve used Expedia quite a bit for my international travel planning (they usually handle cancellations better than the establishments themselves do), and the “only 1 room left” warning elicits a response from me of, “Oh well… if the room disappears I’ll just have to find another hotel.”

You see, true  scarcity can and does work to drive a purchase decision — World Cup tickets being a good example because it’s one event, one time, one place — but all the artificial scarcity (as above) should get just a shrug from the prospective consumer.

Even more, if the establishment uses it constantly (e.g. Expedia), it becomes just white noise:  unless, of course, the customer is a stupid dickhead, in which case they get what they deserve.

The very best reaction to this ploy is to simply say, “Well, if I miss it this time, I’ll just find another vendor or postpone the purchase until the next sale.”  Department stores, who seem only to sell merchandise when it’s “On Sale”, have learned to their cost what happens when you turn discounted shopping into an everyday event:  people only buy during “sale” periods — which is why department stores are dying.

As for the various online travel sites:  if you do find an unbeatable deal for the hotel stay of your dreams at, say, Expedia, check the same hotel’s rates at one of the other booking sites as a backup before making your decision.  (By the way, if the deal “disappears”, try calling the hotel direct;  I once got a rate lower than Expedia’s “Great Deal” at an Edinburgh hotel during the Royal Military Tattoo Week simply by asking for it.)

And ignore the bullshit.

Try This, Snowflakes

Africa, Crime

From the Daily Mail I see that Prince Ginger and Princess Caring-Slut, in a gesture of extreme virtue-signaling, are going to South Africa over the coming autumn:

British High Commissioner confirms royal tour and jokes couple will boost the economy – because there’ll be a ‘hat and frock-buying frenzy’

How precious.

Here’s a suggestion for the new parents:  by all means go to South Africa, but leave your entire security guard detail behind every time you go out.  Oh, and be sure to wear all those expensive jewels you’ve recently acquired.

The ensuing “frenzy” (of thieves going all robby, stabby, shooty and rapey) should be quite educational.

Out Of The Past 6

Africa, Old Essays, Politics, The Gun Thing

Kim The Problem

April 6, 2007
8:45 AM CDT

It’s been a while since I did this. A letter from a Reader:

For about a year, I have really enjoyed reading the GGPs and firearm essays that you post on your blog (I have been shooting since I was seven).
However, I believe that many of your political essays are absolute crap. For example, you continuously refer to Bill Clinton as a liar, while you treat GW Bush as a saint. I’m not saying Clinton wasn’t a dirty scumbag, because that would be a lie, but there is no way you can ignore all of the B.S. the Bush administration has fed us over the past few years. He lied about WMDs in Iraq, he lied about Guantanamo Bay, he lied about wiretapping, and he continues to lie about our problems in Iraq without a second thought. If you can’t see this, you’re a complete idiot.

I challenge you to find instances where I have treated GWB as a saint. My greatest quibble with President Spineless / El Presidente Arbusto (to use just two of the pejorative names I’ve coined for him) is that he’s not conservative enough for my tastes. But more to the point, the old “Bush lied about WMDs” canard is so totally wrong, it’s laughable. Everyone—Republicans, Democrats, the United Nations, the European Union, Saddam’s neighbors—believed that Saddam’s Iraq was in possession of WMDs, for the simple reason that he didn’t allow neutral inspection teams into Iraq to verify that he didn’t. And to answer the oft-repeated but still fallacious charge that Bush & Co invented the WMD evidence, it should be noted that the bulk of the evidence came not from the CIA, but from Britain’s MI5 and other European spy outfits. There is also convincing evidence, once again not from the CIA, that Saddam hastily moved the bulk of his WMDs (gas shells and such) over the Syrian border just prior to Operation Kill Iraqi Bastards.

There have been no GWB lies about Guantanamo Bay. The only lies about Gitmo have been issued by the Left: cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners, flushing of Korans down toilets, and so on. The bald fact remains that Gitmo houses some of the most implacable enemies of this nation, captured in combat (and not wearing uniforms), and held there as prisoners of war to await charges brought by military tribunal. Considering how our soldiers are treated when captured by Islamist terrorists and insurgents, we have shown incredible restraint towards these murderous fucks when we incarcerate them at Gitmo.

As for lying about wiretapping: I would ask you to name one person who has been unjustly charged (never mind convicted) as a result of an illegal wiretap. Has the FBI abused their wiretap authority? Undoubtedly, yes. Are they going to have their pee-pees whacked? A lot harder than those people who, under the Clinton Administration, used (illegal) IRS audits to go after their enemies—and lest we forget, the Clinton Administration used the really horrible Carnivore system, which was far worse than the current one. Let’s be perfectly honest, here: compared to the venal and corrupt Clinton Administration, whose leader (as you so graciously conceded) was a convicted perjurer, the Bush Administration is a shining beacon of probity. Incompetent? Occasionally, yes, and I’ve excoriated them often for that very reason (unlike what you seem to think). Evil? No. Stop believing your own propaganda. And speaking of propaganda:

I can’t believe that you think Nelson Mandela is a terrorist. He used peaceful demonstrations to bring down Apartheid, not ruthless attacks on civilians. Things like that did happen all too often, but the perpetrators were radical revolutionaries, not Mandela supporters. Mandela was also a close correspondent with MLK before he was killed, and if you’re trying to tell me that King was a terrorist I will kick your ass. You probably think I have no idea what the hell I’m talking about, but my dad and I have both met Mr. Mandela, and he is no more of a terrorist than you are.

This passage is so full of falsehoods, I hardly know where to begin. Here’s an excerpt from his biography (from the Nobel Organization, hardly a hostile source:

After the banning of the ANC in 1960, Nelson Mandela argued for the setting up of a military wing within the ANC. In June 1961, the ANC executive considered his proposal on the use of violent tactics and agreed that those members who wished to involve themselves in Mandela’s campaign would not be stopped from doing so by the ANC. This led to the formation of Umkhonto we Sizwe. Mandela was arrested in 1962 and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with hard labour. In 1963, when many fellow leaders of the ANC and the Umkhonto we Sizwe were arrested, Mandela was brought to stand trial with them for plotting to overthrow the government by violence.

So much for your peaceful protester. Mandela was head of the military wing of the ANC. In fact, the ANC, using tactics designed by Mandela, embarked on a campaign of sabotage, terrorism and assassination. Railway stations, electrical pylons and post offices were blown up, landmines were sown on rural roads, and “Boer sympathizers” (ie. anyone who didn’t actively support the ANC) were murdered. Umkhonto we Sizwe was also responsible for the construction of terrorist training camps in Zambia, Angola and Kenya. While I have as little time for the apartheid system as anyone, it would also be a complete falsehood to suggest that the ANC was ever a peaceful organization under Mandela. Likewise, there is no credible evidence to suggest that Mandela ever communicated with Martin Luther King—for the simple fact that Mandela was imprisoned on Robben Island before King ever rose to prominence. As a political prisoner, Mandela was not allowed to correspond with anyone. If he told you that when you met him, he’s still the same lying Communist bastard as he always was. After his release from prison—note, a voluntary action on the part of the same apartheid government which had imprisoned him—Mandela did indeed do good things, most notably, helping South Africa make the transition from a totalitarian minority government to a full democracy. But that was the older, wiser Mandela. The younger Mandela was a terrorist leader, and no rewriting of history can erase that fact—although you seem to be trying to.

Finally, you have a steadfast belief that all liberals are complete GFWs, but that is not the case at all. I live in Burlington, Vermont, and have a profound love for almost all guns. I currently own a High Power in 9mm, a Mauser 98K, and a brand new Vector Arms UZI Para. Both my parents used to live in San Francisco, but they support gun ownership just as much as I do. Their is not a single conservative in my class either, but almost every boy has shot some kind of gun. Just because someone is liberal, (And we are as liberal as a family can get) it doesn’t mean that they are silly unconstitutional pansies.

I likewise challenge you to find anything I have written which indicates that all liberals are GFWs. What we do know is that whenever gun control is mentioned, proposed or implemented, that action is mentioned, proposed or implemented by liberals. It’s called “profiling”: not all liberals are GFWs, but it certainly seems as though almost all GFWs are liberals. (In the United States—elsewhere, gun-control advocates are not just liberals, but totalitarians too.) The Second Amendment does not say that it’s the right of conservatives to keep and bear arms—it’s the People’s right to do so. That includes liberals, and I have never ever suggested otherwise.

So please, try to alter your biased beliefs as much as you can, because us GFW liberals ARE NOT the real problem with this country, people like you are.

My beliefs, such as they are, are based upon a set of rock-hard principles that have been tested and proven over time: that Big Government is a Bad Thing, whether in health care, welfare systems, business regulation and morality; that high taxes are an economic drag on the individual; that gun-controllers are either ignorant or evil, or both; that socialism and Communism are unworkable social systems; that our military deserves all the support they can get, both moral and financial; that a strong foreign policy (as practiced by, say Ronald Reagan) is more effective for our interests than a weak, accommodationist one (eg. as practiced by Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton), and that conservatives do a better job of running this country than liberals do.

If you expect me to change any of that, I’d advise you not to hold your breath.

Acid Trip

Freaks & Loonies, Politics

Brit TV personality Jo Brand has landed herself in hot water (warning:  link contains pics of Jo Brand) with this silliness:

The BBC has defied calls to sack comedian Jo Brand after she suggested on a Radio 4 panel show that protesters should throw acid instead of milkshakes at right wing politicians.

However, as stupid as that statement was, this was worse:

Nigel Farage accused the 61-year-old of ‘inciting violence’ and called on the police to act after her comments on an episode of Heresy.

I know that this is Britishland, where the fuzz can arrest you for making an off-color comment on Twitter, but my main point is quite simple.

As long as the loony Left (and few are loonier than Jo Brand) can continue to talk trash like this and remain unpunished, the better for all of us — because, as Longtime Readers will know only too well, I’ve often suggested tying socialists to a chair and beating them to death with a baseball bat.  It is, of course, just hyperbole;  I don’t really want to beat anyone to death (except maybe for a few of the worst socialists), and I’m reasonably sure that if some loon decided that a little acid be tossed in, say, Jeremy Corbyn’s face on the “good for the goose, good for the gander”  principle, that Jo Brand would be “shocked, shocked ” that someone took her at her (jocular) word.

Ultimately, of course, this is going to turn around and bite the loony Left, for two reasons.  In the first case, most ordinary people would be horrified if, say, Boris Johnson or Mike Pence were to get a faceful of acid, and the political repercussions would be severe — the loonies would alienate even more voters from their side than they’re already doing.

The second case, and I speak here of the U.S. specifically, would be a lot worse than simple political repercussions:  some would-be acid-tosser [sic]  would be quite likely to get a .45 bullet in his  face the minute he raised the jug.  And the rest of America would cheer the shooter to the rafters.

Once again, I say that the Left seems to be all about violence because they think we’re evil;  but I don’t think they’ve really thought this through, unless they have a martyr complex (and they might — they are that twisted).

As long as they keep talking shit like Jo Brand has, we can just laugh at them, until, that is, some loony gets “triggered” into action.  But using the rozzers to arrest people for talking shit is wrong — I believe that’s covered in one of the Constitutional Amendments, somewhere — because the minute we conservatives support that nonsense, it’s going to get used against us, a lot more than against them.

Remember:  words mean nothing (in terms of legal action);  it’s deeds  that (rightly) engender a response from agents of the State.

Or a response from a concerned conservative (see “.45 bullet” above).  The Brits don’t have that 0ption, of course, because they have no Constitution and no real Bill of Rights so the fuzz can fuck with the citizenry all they want, but that’s their  problem.

And now, if you’ll excuse me, I think I’ll go and oil a length of rope.  Then it’s range time.  Those .45 bullets won’t aim themselves, you know.

Goals Matter

Sports

 

Oh, good grief.  This is what you get when you have ignorant people talking about matters they know nothing about:

Should The U.S. Women’s World Cup Team Have Run Up The Score Against Thailand?
Not only did they run it up to an absurd outcome (13-0), say critics, but they danced their way through it, celebrating after most goals. At what point is an opponent sufficiently beaten and even humiliated that mercy can be shown?
The answer is: Never, bro. This is Trump’s America now. The cruelty is the point.

Oh FFS, this has sweet fuck all to do with Trump, or “Trump’s America”.  Here are the facts.

In professional football (okay, soccer) competitions, goal count matters — both for and against.  If two teams are tied in terms of wins, losses and point totals (usually, three for a win, one for a tie and zero for a loss), then the deciding factor is the goal difference between the total number of goals scored by  the team and the goals scored against  the team.  All other things being equal, the team with the higher differential will go through into the next round, or (in the case of league tables) be named the champion.  All teams know this, and there’s no “mercy” in professional soccer, no “running up the score” and certainly there’s no “cruelty” in scoring as many goals as you possibly can against your opponent.

And I’ll finish with this:  assume that the U.S. team’s group results showed that (say) Germany won their matches 4-0, 5-0, 4-0, 3-2 and 3-0 (5×3=15 points, goal difference:  17),  while the U.S. team won their matches 13-0, 2-1, 3-2, 2-1 and 2-1 (also 5×3=15 points, but goal difference:  18).  In this scenario, had the U.S. not run up the score against Thailand, then Germany would win the group and go on to the next round.

Under these circumstances, not running up the score and failing to progress would probably cause the U.S. team’s manager/coach to be fired, and rightly so.  As I said earlier:  goals count in professional soccer.

This weepy-waily shit about cruelty  and running up the score  comes from the modern pussified culture where participation trophies are awarded, scores aren’t kept and the won-lost record isn’t tallied.  In the real world, as with everything else, life is less forgiving.

As for the so-called reporter who wrote this silly article:  ignore everything else he ever writes, because if he screws up something as easy as this, he’ll probably screw up something important.