Thursday, March 12, 2015
Monday, March 9, 2015
Thursday, March 5, 2015
What’s going on with the Democrat Baal Tyrants?
I think a lot of people are shocked that the left
wing media seems to be going after Hillary and suggesting other establishment candidates should run
against her. I’m thinking that maybe
they are thinking the RINO strategy worked so well over the past couple of
elections that they want to try it. They
will have a bunch of establishment Democrats run against each other so that the
votes will be split among them and then the more left-wing candidate will win
the nomination. However, I’m sure they
think their strategy will work differently than the RINO strategy in that the
candidate nominated will defeat whoever the Republicans nominate.
I pretty much defined the RINO strategy when I used
to post my theorem on the Politics Forum.
Here is my theorem:
RINO will willingly lose elections if, in
so doing, it prevents Conservatives from winning them.
Hypotheses
1.
Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results.
2. RINO are not insane (this one is
debateable). Therefore, there must be a
method to their madness.
3. RINO know that their policies are weak. But they think that their policies are more
acceptable than Democrats’ and Conservatives’ policies.
4. RINO prefer Democrat policies over
Conservative policies.
5. RINO try to make their policies more
acceptable to voters by calling the Conservatives extremists.
6. RINO know from experience that they cannot
win against Democrats. People who want
Democrat policies vote for Democrats and people who want Conservative policies
vote for Conservatives. There aren’t
enough people left to vote for RINO to get them elected.
7. Even though RINO know they cannot win against
Democrats, they will work to get nominations to run against Democrats so that
the Conservatives cannot even compete against the Democrats.
Proofs
1. Even though RINO
John McCain had lost to Democrat Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential
election, RINO Mitt Romney ran against Obama in the 2012 presidential
election. Romney was in a series of
Republican debates where he was pitted against several Conservatives. Because he could get the “moderate” vote and
the other votes were split among the Conservatives, he won the Republican
nomination. Romney then went on to lose
the election against Obama.
2. Even though RINO
John McCain lost to Democrat Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election and
RINO Mitt Romney lost to Obama in the 2012 presidential election, RINO Jeb Bush
will run against Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential
election. Bush will be in a series of
Republican debates where he will be pitted against several Conservatives. The Republican National Committee is limiting
the number of these debates because of the fear that one Conservative could
over the course of too many debates become the leading candidate. Because Bush will get the “moderate” vote and
the other votes will be split among the Conservatives, Bush will win the
Republican nomination. Bush will then go
on to lose the election against Clinton (ala 1992 Bush vs Clinton).
3. Jeb Bush said on Dec. 1, 2014
“A nominee should lose the primary to win the general”. Of course, being a politician, he says the
opposite of what he thinks. He really
means “A nominee should win
the primary to lose the general.”
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Monday, March 2, 2015
A Catholic tyrant’s spin on the Pope
Please also see my previous post by another Catholic
“Is this why no show (82122.4)?” at BaalTyranny.blogspot.com.
Also, see BaalTyranny.blogspot.com CANON button.
Some quotes from the article:
The Pope is engaged in a struggle to bring the
Church into the modern age. And American conservatives are fighting him every
step of the way.
The world’s most renowned Christian theological
guide is, of course, the Pope.
Each Pope, therefore, must make use of the richness
of Church tradition, while also ministering effectively to a world of
ever-evolving challenges and realities.
Legendarily plainspoken Philadelphia Archbishop
Charles Chaput said that the right wing of the Church “generally have not been
really happy” with Francis’s papacy.
In May 2014, conservative Catholic writer Michael
Brendan Dougherty published a provocative op-ed in The Week arguing that
“Catholics must learn to resist their Popes—even Pope Francis.” Dougherty suggested that the legitimacy of
papal teaching—and in a sense, the principle of papal infallibility—was subject
to review by the greater body of Catholic faithful. The duty of the believer,
he concluded, “is not just to rebuke and correct those in authority ... but to
throw rotting cabbage at them, or make them miserable.”
There have always been grumblings about popes, but
the differences in opinion between Francis and the movement collectively known
as the “American right” appear especially numerous.
Irving Kristol, an influential neoconservative,
wrote in his 1976 essay “What Is a Neoconservative?” that conservatives should
be “respectful of traditional values and institutions” as a central tenet of
their politics and practice. Kristol believed that obligation to “the
sovereignty of traditional values” kept people moored to the past in a way that
prevented the nihilism that leads to authoritarianism and anomie. The freedom
of markets and appropriate weakness of the state depend on citizens preferring
traditional modes of living to the heady vertigo of progressivism.
Suspicion of a Catholic gesture toward modernity—and
thus the world—colors the attitudes of conservative Catholics toward him.
Pope Francis approaches the past with dialogue,
not mere deference, in mind. He knows that the only useful approach to the
past is to recognize it as a work in progress. This has the effect of imbuing
accumulated tradition with no special authority over current conclusions. The
present and the past must speak as equals, as both are works of human effort.
From that alone conservatively disposed Catholics might flinch. This
attitude—this disposition—allows him to utilize a modern lexicon while drawing
on Church tradition. Consider, for instance, his remarks on financial
inequality, in which he called for a “legitimate redistribution of economic
benefits by the state.”
Every blowhard with a stake in unmitigated
capitalism, from Rush Limbaugh to The Economist, has had their turn at accusing
Francis of sundry McCarthyist infractions, Marxist, Leninist, and otherwise.
Francis’s handling of tradition and modernity
privileges neither, but rather produces a workable synthesis of their
contributions. Conservative appeals to the past, in contrast, rely on the sort
of “decline” narrative for which they seem especially partial. Newly elected
Republican Senator Joni Ernst used her response to this year’s State of the
Union Address to reminisce about her childhood in Iowa, recalling that “[my]
parents may not have had much, but they worked hard for what they did have.” Ernst’s
words harken back to a time when people were satisfied with poverty. They also
cast modern-day folk in a less-than-flattering light: We don’t work for what we
have and instead subsist on oft-maligned handouts like welfare. Finally, those
who do work have less to show for it than the imagined bootstrappers of
yesteryear, thanks to the regulatory bogeyman that is the federal government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)