Saturday, September 26, 2009
And while you're taking that nice scenic drive, you'll pass through the village of Victory, Wisconsin. If you blink you'll miss it, so DON'T BLINK! While you're passing through Victory, Wisconsin, you'll see a sign for the Red Lion Pub and Eatery.
Stop there. Seriously, don't ask why, just stop there and go on in.
The Mrs. and I were out on a motorcycle ride today, and it was getting on to supper time so we were on the lookout for a place to eat. I saw the big "RED LION PUB" sign and had to hit the brakes. We pulled in not quite knowing what to expect since we were in a tiny little town. Would it be good? Bad? So-so? Would it at least feed us well?
Oh. My. Goodness.
We walked in, and they had a beer list at least 100 beers. They claim to have 80 imports. I didn't count, because after finding the Old Rasputin Stout I didn't care how many they had, I'd found the beer I wanted. The Mrs. had the fish and chips (Dusted, which means splashed with whiskey, rolled in spices and then fried) and I had the Toad in a Hole (sausages, mash, and gravy over Yorkshire Pudding). Holymoly. The food was so good we forgot we even had beers sitting in front of us. For the next ten minutes the Mrs. and I were stuffing our faces and muttering "Oh damn this is good! Here, try this! Doesn't it just melt in your mouth? Ooooo, I want a piece of THAT!" We were having foodgasms.
After dinner, we sat there belching, and I decided that since we were stuffed full of good food and good beer, it was only fitting that we had dessert. So we had the spotted dick with vanilla ice cream.
Did I mention the huge beer list? I did? Good.
All in all we stuffed ourselves, consumed damn good beer and all at a price that didn't kill our wallet. In fact, for the quality of food that we got it was a hell of a deal. The food was so damn good that after dinner all the Mrs. and I could to was sit there, belching quietly and smiling at each other. It's not just a restaurant that we might hit if we go back, this is a restaurant that we'll plan a trip around visiting.
They have Indian food too.
If you're in the area, stop there and eat. You won't be sorry.
Looking back, I'm forced to ask the question: Are they wrong because they're that ignorant, or do they simply want to shut down American commerce?
Friday, September 25, 2009
Lefties will say, "These pics aren't fair. Those aren't progressives, those are anarchists." Well, maybe there's a reason anarchists show up at your protests but not ours. Maybe it's because they have more in common with you than us. And maybe they just know where they will be welcome, and where they won't be.
So far, all the violence at protests on either side has come from the Left. You don't see a conservative protest getting tear-gassed.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
How many songs are being sung about George Washington, the one man who actually held the fact of this country in his hands not once but multiple times, and each time gave it back to the citizens of this country?
Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say “hooray!”
Hooray, Mr. President! You’re number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!
Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country’s economy number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we’re really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!
So continue —- Mr. President we know you’ll do the trick
So here’s a hearty hip-hooray —-
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
How many songs are being sung about Abraham Lincoln?
How many songs are being sung about ANY OTHER AMERICAN PRESIDENT?????
You want to know why I object to Teleprompter Jesus talking to kids in school? Because the teachers of those schools are part and parcel to the indoctrination going on all over the publik skool sistim, and not a damn one of them can be trusted. This is just another drop in the bucket. If the parents of those kids had any damn sense, they'd yank their kids out of the People's Republic of Obama as quickly as they could.
But then, if they had any sense, they wouldn't be living in New Jersey.
This includes ours. During Vietnam many draft dodgers went to Canada and were given permanent residency and eventually Citizenship. Now our Armed Services are all VOLUNTARY. So this means people that have signed up for the money, college benefits, medical, aka "Private Benjamin's Army" can skip out on what they voluntarily signed up for and essentially take our Armed Forces for a financial ride.
I do find an up side to this. This means that we have some yellow bellied AWOL deserters who become someone elses problem. Maybe we do benefit...
You can read more about it here.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Obama science czar John Holdren stated in a college textbook he co-authored that in conditions of emergency, compulsory abortion would be sustainable under the U.S. Constitution, even with Supreme Court review.
WND has obtained a copy of "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," published in 1977 and co-authored by Holdren with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich's wife, Ann. As WND reported, the authors argued involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by "climate change."
To prevent ecological disasters, including "global warming," Holdren argued the U.S. Constitution would permit involuntary abortions, government-imposed sterilizations and laws limiting the number of children as steps justified under the banner of "sustainable well-being."
I'm sorry if a conservative suggested this it would automatically be deemed unconstitutional. Though, since a liberal nut job is suggesting it you know that they will aim it at religious families that can actually support their children. Part of the joke is on them because many conservatives choose not to let their reproductive organs run on overtime and choose to only have as many children as they can support and raise responsibly. By raise responsibly I mean devote proper attention to and actually parent, something that is rapidly becoming illegal.
In a nut shell it was decided since Hispanic and Black children are getting in worse trouble than Caucasian students that they should even the playing field by making the rules unfair in the direction of the Caucasian students. Gee what a wonderful idea(scoff, scoff, scoff). You can read all about it here.
Oh goodie goodie, they are now altering original U.S documents and indoctrinating students with more Koolaid
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Whether you are or are not able to tell me what is wrong with it, you can go here to either be educated or outraged.
The reality is that I understand the vast majority of the American public can not understand the reason for the wording being what it is. I even understand explaining it to them. The thought of changing the words and teaching them as the original just sickens me.
American citizens outraged by President Obama and the actions of Congress have set their sights on a new target – the so-called mainstream media – with tea-party protests now set to boil in front of more than 30 press offices across the U.S.on the growing popularity of "Operation: Can You Hear Us Now?" taxpayers are making plans Following a WND report to bring their protests to the front doors of major media outlets.
You can go here to find out more information.
Sgt. Michael Ferschke was killed in Iraq in 2008, leaving his widow and infant son, both Japanese citizens, in immigration limbo: A 1950s legal standard meant to curb marriage fraud means U.S. authorities do not recognize the marriage, even though the military does.
Ferschke and his bride had been together in Japan for more than a year, and she was pregnant when he deployed. They married by signing their names on separate continents and did not have a chance to meet again in person after the wedding, which a 57-year-old immigration law requires for the union to be considered consummated.
"She is being denied because they are saying her marriage is not valid because it was not consummated - despite the fact that they have a child together," said Brent Renison, an immigration lawyer in Oregon who has advised the family.
As Heinlein said, "A government-supported artist is nothing but an incompetent whore."
I can remember when the government telling artists what art to create would have stirred up howls of outrage from the left. I guess that's fallen by the wayside.
Let's see here - slick, commercially produced signs? Check. Official bumpersticker statement? check. Official Obama logo? Check. Yep, they're astroturfed. Any sense of irony these people once possessed has been sucked out of their skulls by the vacuum created when their morals fled at warp speed.
When you get down to it, A.C.O.R.N. employees -- experts, highly-trained and -valued employees -- were willing to countenance slavery -- child sex slavery -- in order to Stick it to the Man.There. Is. No. Good. Deed. That. Can. Wash. That. Away
Just so you know, Big Dick's Place is NOT SAFE FOR WORK, but the guy's name is Big Dick so what did you expect?
And now, coffee. No, really, I'm off to drink some coffee.
Although I used whole wheat flour, so that whole "white purity" angle just went out the window. Because I'm all about the diversity.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Regarding arguments against gay marriage...
The argument that the minority status of a population is demanding equal rights and treatment as the majority of the population is rational cause for discriminating against is the very definition of prejudice, bigotry and oppression. This is the most twisted, silliest logic I've ever read to rationalise bigotry. As I've already stated, even a kindergartener would see this denial of marriage to gay men and lesbians as unfair and unjust.
No, the demands that we re-write a millenia-old definition of marriage to fit the political agenda of a minority of the population is completely skewed. And while I'm certain that a kindergartner would certainly agree with you that it's mean, a kindergartner cannot even describe what civilization is, much less give any dissertation about the roots of said civilization. Cry bigotry all you want, I'm used to it, as well as the charge of racism. It's the preferred epithet of someone who has nothing else on their side.
Destroying traditional marriage to fit the demands of a minority makes it a "special" right, Mr. Sellers. Not one proponent of gay marriage has come forward with anything resembling a true alternative. They have simply sought the destruction of the status quo.
Granting marriage to a minority group doesn't make it a "special right" for them, it simply transforms this "special right" straight people enjoy into a "right" for all.
Saying that gay men and women have a choice of marring the opposite sex is a moronic argument -- one option is the opposite of a choice.No, you have the same right to marry that I do. You simply don't like the options. Again, that might be mean of me to put it in such a fashion, but it's also still the truth.
Same-sex marriage goes back centuries. Here's one example of an article online:Did you even bother to read that article with anything resembling a scientific eye? "Can be interpreted", "if accurate"? You're going to have to offer up something more that a kinda-maybe-sorta article from a far-Left propaganda source.
I'll be happy to provide others that go back even further than Biblical times. It's been millenia of oppression which have prevented gay men and lesbians from marrying for eons, not the lack of desire for such unions.
Using the inherent bigotry of the world's top religions is hardly a viable argument to justify the current arguemnet. And these relitions themselves have changed their views on several issues over time. During the Middle Ages the Catholic church encouraged the burning of Jews and Gallileo spent the last days of his life under house arrest because he dared to say that the Earth was not the center of the universe.Ah, well then, let my discard my "bigoted" Christianity, and only use straight scientific evidence, much like Charles Darwin did.
Using Darwin's Theory of Evolution, gay men and women should NOT be allowed to marry in any fashion, because they are genetic abnormalities who, if allowed to follow their urges, would fail to pass on ANY genetic traits. Since the Theory of Evolution posits that successful species pass on the traits which help the species strengthen itself, and gays would not pass on their genes at all because they do not commit acts that lead to procreation, gays should be considered not only genetic abnormalities, but genetically inferior. Therefore, for the sake of evolution, gays should be segregated from the rest of the population who do not suffer from said genetic abnormalities.
There. That's pure, cold science for you. Aren't you glad I'm a Christian?
By the way, it was the Spanish church that encouraged the burning of Jews, and Galileo was was persecuted for political reasons rather than theological ones.
The argument that the purpose of marriage is for the procreation of children is completely mistaken. Millions of humn embryos are fertilize every day in the bellies of unmarried females. And there a millions of married men and women around the world who do not have, and doe not want, children. I have a cousin of my own who is a very kind woman who made it clear when she married over a decade ago that she loves children but she has no desire to be a mother herself.
Marriage is the institution that developed over thousands of years in order to raise a family in a secure, stable environment. Using modern statistics only secures the fact that the nuclear family in a traditional marriage is the best way to raise children. Children from a traditional nuclear family do better in school, do better in their social contact, are generally happier and healthier than children raised in a single parent home, and have less emotional and mental conflict than their counterparts in other than traditional homes.
Let me quote someone who has spoken/written extensively on the subject:
Marriage isn't an adventure or a form of recreation. It's about children, long-term planning, and striking roots into the soil of one's chosen locale. A community of any sort is always made up of families, never of individuals. The reason is the unique biological stability of the family, its ability to endure and prosper over time. A healthy community cannot be founded on the mobility and variability of unmated individuals, though an existing one may tolerate an aliquot of singles as long as they don't disturb the public order. There are more single adults than ever before, and they have more latitude than any singles have ever had in the history of Western civilization. So far, we've withstood the perturbations to which they've subjected our communities, but can we withstand the removal of all presumptions of permanence from the institution of marriage?Marriage, as I've stated before, is one of the bedrocks of civilization. One of the founding pillars of civilization all over the world, which is why whenever you have found marriage, that marriage has been between a man and a woman. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule, but those exceptions PROVE the rule, not void it.
Marriage is a legal union. If couples want to "tie the knot" in a religious ceremony, that's their choice, but religion plays absolutely no role in the legal union of a man and women. That's why there are millions of happily married atheist couples in the world, too.And yet, when given the option of civil unions vs. marriage, the pro-gay marriage groups threw an absolute fit. If you wanted the legal protections you could have done what my wife and I did BEFORE WE EVER SPOKE OF MARRIAGE - go see a lawyer, and have paperwork drawn up to deal with issues such as property, wills, etc. When we bought our land, we weren't married, and yet the land legally belonged to the both of us.
Civil union are a legal union. Marriages, before they were co-opted by the state were RELIGIOUS FUNCTIONS. Before the USA ever existed, marriage was a religious sacrament in Christianity, and held massive importance to other religions all over the globe.
And for anyone wringing their hands at night fretting over the lack of a definition of marriage, I offer one here:
Marriage is the legal union of two consenting adults.
There, now you don't have to worry about women marrying goats or men marrying sheep or adults marrying children anymore.
Now make it stick in court. Then maybe I'll believe you.
All rational arguments aside, the only reason anyone would oppose gay marriage is pure prejudice and bigotry. Any so-called "logical" arguments against it are petty and trite fabrications, just like the arguments agains allowing openly gay men and women in the military. Even the greatest military minds in history, Alexander the Great and Caesar, had male lNow you're just spitting into the wind. Discarding thousands of years of traditional marriage to fit your political agenda is a petty, trite fabrication. Ignoring millennium of history in order to justify your demands is petty and trite. Name-calling because you can't refute an argument is petty and trite. Saying "So and so had male lovers" only highlights the fact that the EXCEPTIONS PROVE THE RULE.
Now, if you have any arguments that can't be disproved by anyone with five minutes and an internet connection, please feel free to post them in the comments. But I reserve the right to post any comments you do leave to be held up for logical critique.
Hell, maybe I'll even go over this post again this evening. Just for fun!
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Michelle Obama said women are being “crushed by the current structure of our health care” because they often are responsible for taking care of family illnesses, arranging checkups and monitoring follow-up care.
She shows such complete and total ignorance in that statement that I can barely begin to count the ways, so let me give you two.
1. Unlike socialized medicine we are able to make appointments and the doctors actually try to help us get better instead of waiting all day for doctors who misdiagnose because they don't care because they are completely overburdened to meet their quote so they can bring home something that resembles minimum wage!
2. Hey honey, it's not me that spread my legs for you to have that child. Having children is a life choice, just like having a pet. If you can't handle it, there are more than a dozen forms of birth control. More over this just brings me back to there being a reason for traditional roles in the home. In today's society one person job will always suffer for the children and it is usually the wives. But an even bigger travesty in this is all the women who have chosen to become single mothers and the unwitting fathers are frequently the victims.
But this is just my two cents worth, maybe women are being crushed by their choices, but I don't think it's the current structure of our healthcare.