If you vote Democrat, you're a moron or a loser

Which is it?  Voting for anyone with a "D" behind their name is detrimental to everyone who is not a moron or a loser, and in most cases, even detrimental to them as well, although they are too stupid to realize it.

Democrats are the ones who believe that all resources, both public and private, should best be doled out by the government, using 'fairness' as the criteria for determining who gets what.  And of course, the Democrats themselves should determine what is fair and what isn't fair, because they deem themselves smarter, more moral and superior than the rest of us Great Unwashed.

Accordingly, since rich guys have the most money, it only goes to reason that Democrats should tax the bejeezus out of them and give it to the poor guys.  It's only fair, right?  But since there are only a relative handful of rich guys in the country, and hordes of poor guys, the booty that is swiped from the rich guys can only stretch so far: each of the millions of poor guys will vote for the Democrat who promises to soak those rich bastards and give a sliver of that money to each and every poor guy who votes for them.

If you buy into that, you have to be either a moron, or a loser.  Either way, losers are happy living a life of scarcity, hopelessness and poverty.  And morons just don't know any better, and they will also live the same lives as losers.

Democratic politicians will call 'trickle down economics' a way that Republicans reward their rich, fat cat buddies by giving them tax loopholes, and allowing them to keep all of the public money for themselves, allowing only a small trickle to flow to the morons and losers.  Accordingly, they will forever demonize what is in reality 'capitalism', and not 'trickle down economics' and only morons and losers buy into this foolishness.

Everybody with half a brain knows that poor people do not hire anyone, do not buy capital equipment, do not risk their assets in search of providing a product or service people want or need.  This is really common knowledge, but not to Democratic politicians. 

And they will preach their class warfare message to those out their too stupid to understand how the country really works, or to their base, the losers who are OK living on the edge, with the government giving them a pathetic little slice of the money stolen from those who make the country work in the first place.

Thanks to all of you morons and losers out there, we are now living through the worst economic situation that we have seen in our lifetimes, unless you are old enough to remember the Great Depression.

So, if you are either a moron or a loser, it really doesn't matter.  You will keep voting for your Democrats, and keep our country in a perpetual depression.

Thanks a lot, morons and losers.

The Meaning of Life

The answer to the age old philosophical question, 'what is the meaning of life' is actually pretty simple, and you need not scale a Himalayan peak and ask a hermit guru to find this answer.

The answer?  Don't be an asshole.

We were put here on this earth along with every other living creature for reasons known only to God.  But while we're here, it was clearly not God's intention for us to use our lives in ways that are detrimental in the fullness of time to our environs, including our fellow creatures (human creatures included).  God also put us at the top of the food chain, and the pursuit of nourishment is not detrimental to God's wishes, so you vegans can just save your breath on this last part, OK?

Assholes are a detriment to society, and in general come in varying degrees of assholiness.  The low level asshole is the guy who flips a burning cigarette butt out of a moving car window.  The high level assholes are sociopaths who care only of their hedonistic pursuits oblivious to the care or concerns of anyone else.  These of course include (but are not limited to) murderers, rapists, arsonists, robbers, thieves and all other manner of felons. 

And low level assholes can become high level assholes at random moments: the low level asshole who carelessly tossed the burning cigarette butt out of the car window becomes a high level asshole when that burning cigarette butt catches a dry countryside on fire, and subsequently burns out a community and perhaps in the end kills people. 

The meaning of life comes into play when we all do our best to try and avoid being assholes.  This entails doing the right thing when nobody is watching.  Like the low level asshole drinking directly from the carton of milk after a few glances around to make sure the ol' ball and chain isn't watching.  Can you imagine Pope John Paul II reaching into the refrigerator, taking a few looks left and right, and then chugging right from the carton?  Nope, never happened. Not that the Pope ever had an  'ol' ball 'n' chain,' but I digress.

That's because Pope John Paul II knew that the meaning of life is to not be an asshole.  Additionally, as a trained and professional theologian, the Pope also knew that this unwritten law is enforced in the end.  When we all leave this earth, and stand before St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, there is nothing we have ever done that escapes St. Peter's clipboard, the one with our name and photo ID at the top.

Everything we do, every act we commit whether it be low level asshole actions or worse, they all end up on St. Peters clipboard.  In essence, nobody can do anything without someone watching. 

Accordingly, the meaning of life should be abundantly clear: do the right thing, because someone is ALWAYS watching.

That was an easy question.

'Uglo-Americans': it's OK to discriminate against these folks

As a numbnuts uninformed cretin would say, 'can we be real here?'  This, in response to dreamy ol' Fredd pining away that in Utopia, people would be judged not by the 'arrangement of their skin, but by the content of their character.' (apologies to Martin Luther King for butchering his phrase in his 'I have a Dream' speech).

I just thought I would wander off the conservative reservation for a bit, and point out that the pretty people in this world get a leg up in almost every endeavor, while the less than pretty folk get the shaft when trying to compete for a share of life's goodies against these hunks and babes. 

Kim Kardashian is rich and famous for one thing only: her looks.  She is as dumb as a bag of hammers (my apologies to all of those bags of hammers out there, you are WAY smarter than Kim), she dropped out of third grade, and treats everyone around her like a bag of dirt.  But none of that matters.  She's a looker, and as such is entitled to her fame and riches.  Life is like that, you know, according to this aforementioned idiot.  'Get over it,' he would advise us all. 

There has actually been legislation passed prohibiting discrimination in hiring by race, sex, age, color, creed, religion and sexual orientation. You will note, however, that general appearance does not make the list.  But, as the moron mentioned above, being the wet blanket that he can sometimes be, will jerk us back into reality by pointing out that this is the way things are: that the ugly amoung us should not even bother to apply, and maybe even do us all a favor and just drop dead.

After all, let's get real, shall we?

And the idiot above indeed has an irrefutable point.  We all prefer watching pretty people read the news, rather than a wart covered. wrinkly obese slob, right?   It's not even arguable.  We all discriminate against fat, zit faced, ugly old people.  We do it every day. Virtually all of us.

But is it right?  Is this the way things SHOULD be? 

In Fredd's Dreamland Utopia (where most liberals always hang out), we would ideally be judged by our credentials, attitude, love of life, respect for others, tolerance, people skills, gumption and verve, period.  Looks?  Not applicable. 

But then, the imbecile above will remind us all with his cold bucket of water that we don't dwell in Dreamland Utopia.  Let's get real.  The Uglo-American segment of society can just forget about getting ahead in life based on their credentials, etc. 

And they can certainly forget about sitting behind the newsdesk, for the ugly need not apply.  Indeed, they should do us all a favor and drop dead.  Or, if they choose to keep on living for reasons unknown to us all, at least they should wear paper bags over their heads.

But life is like this, and we all know it.  But it still ain't right....

We need uglier Fox News reporters

Look at the line up every morning at Fox News: this morning, I wake up to see a beauty queen looking Ainsley Earhardt in a clingy, green, low cut, sleeveless number spouting deficit numbers.  She was sitting in for Allision Camerota, who also wears that slinky stuff, and is not hard on the eye, either.  Are their audiences that pathetic and shallow, that they will abandon Fox News should they actually air some tubby, old, bald fat guys?  Or maybe some frumpy, dowdy middle age babes with 'big bone' issues?

Yes, apparently. Fox and Friends during the week features former Miss America Gretchen Carlson, who is now getting on in years, and I suspect that Roger Ailes will sooner rather than later sack her in favor of some twenty-someting hotty who can read a teleprompter without stuttering too badly.

If Fox News is really honest about reporting the news, 'fair and balanced,' then they should practice what they preach and deliver this fair and balanced stuff with folks who actually represent America: tubby, old, bald, fat guys with several chins, liver spots, eye ticks and other blights that represent most of us who dwell within the Fruited Plains.

But will we ever see an old, bald, liver spotted fat guy reading the teleprompter?

No.

But why?  Because the audience will not tolerate anyone who is less than movie star, soap opera perfect, and that is really a shame.  Is it only possible that good looking folks can read a teleprompter, or forecast the weather? 

According to Roger Ailes (a really ugly guy, truth be told), the ugly need not apply. 

The ugly should be sheltered away, never to be seen or heard.  Not on his airwaves, anyway.

Oh well.  Good thing I have a day job. 

Suze Orman: if you take her advice, you're an idiot

There are so many financial gurus out there these days, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting one of them.  Suze Orman has been making the rounds of late on the various liberal talk shows telling everyone who will listen to never own a house, just rent one. 

And of course, this is a complete one hundred and eighty degree about face from what she was telling those dopes who listened to her in the past: she touted home ownership, and said that renting a home was throwing away your money: buy the biggest house that you can qualify for, she said. 

Which Suze are you to believe?  The Suze Orman of two or three years ago?  Or the Suze Orman of today who is telling you the exact opposite advice she spewed earlier?  The truth is that Suze is just another popular financial 'expert' who will gladly tell you how to manage your money, as long as she makes a buck or two doing it.  Never mind that you may have taken her advice a few years ago, and invested heavily into real estate and now have lost the shirt off of your back.

Oops (which she never said).  Oh well.  Now believe her when she tells you the best way to achieving financial independence is to (fill in the blank, it's all garbage anyway).  At one point in her career, I recall her telling people that it makes sense to run up a big credit card balance, and that way you can improve your FICO score.  With advice like that, anyone who listens to this cretin Suze Orman now are themselves dumber than a bag of hammers.

Suze Orman, of course, is a classically trained financial genius, with a bachelors degree from the U. of Illinois in..... wait for it.....SOCIAL WORK!.  She's studied vigorously as to how to help people fill out food stamp applications, where to go to find welfare sign up sheets, etc., but has never once sat in a  college lecture about economics,  money or finance.  Yeah, listen to Suze talk about money.  To your peril...

My advice?  Save your money for a rainy day, don't live beyond your means and manage your financial affairs yourself.  Why pay these parasitic financial advisers a nickel when they have no better clue as to what the future holds than you do.

Especially Suze Orman.  She's got to be the dumbest financial 'expert' that ever came down the pike.

Mideast peace: a fairy tale that will never come true

Or how about that dreamy insipid wish of every imbecilic beauty queen, when asked what would she wish for to come to pass, dim wittingly claiming to want 'world peace?'  Obama's proposal of a solution to the ills that have been festering between the Palestinians and the Israeli's ever since their inception in 1948 is just too ludicrous to ponder.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is right in dismissing this stupid proposal without further consideration.  The Palestinians want only one thing: for Israel to go away.  To vacate their country.  Every last one of them.  Nothing less will do.  Every Palestinian leader has openly said so, from Arafat to those dogs that lead Hamas and Hezbollah today.  To suggest as Obama did in his pathetic speech that borders be imposed between these two enemies will solve anything is ridiculous. 

There can be no peace when the only acceptable solution to the Palestinians is the demise of Israel.  There can only be peace between these irreconcilable positions if one side completely and utterly defeats and destroys the other.  Then and only then can there be peace. 

And Obama is just too stupid, arrogant, foolish and removed from reality to accept this as the ultimate truth, when he proposes child-like fairy tales as serious solutions to a situation that requires armed conflict to resolve.

Pakistan: the root of all evil in the world today

Does any sane person in the Western World today still believe that Pakistan is an ally of the United States?  Does anyone truly, from within their heart of hearts, believe that Pakistan is a force for good in the world? These rhetorical questions have an answer that is clearly obvious to any reasonable person: a rock solid 'NO' to both, and the proof is absolutely crystal clear to anyone who has eyes.

Pakistan was harboring Osama bin Laden for six years, despite lying to the entire civilized world in categorically denying he was anywhere within their borders.  The U.S. had to surreptitiously cross into this festering pus hole of a country and kill the slimy vermin without the help of Pakistan.  Had we requested their help in this mission, there is nobody who believes that bin Laden would not have been given a heads up by these lying sacks of garbage (also known as Pakistanis) and split the scene. 

And the Pakistani government is peeved that we unilaterally killed bin Laden ourselves?  And violated their sovereignty?  If you recall the Bush Doctrine (which is still in effect, to the best of my knowledge), we are within our national interests go after terrorists wherever they are, and consider them an enemy of the U.S. and to make no distinction between a terrorist and 'THOSE WHO HARBOR THEM.'  Pakistani sovereignty is meaningless now.  At least to the U.S. 

They are an enemy state, a state that harbors, trains, supports and defends our enemies.  Accordingly, they are a defacto enemy of the United States, when trained terrorists emerge from their soil and stage attacks on innocents here and abroad, then retreat back to the welcoming and nurturing Pakistani arms.  They truly deserve a counter offensive strike. 

And now they openly fire on their supposed allies. 

And continue to harbor Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader.  India (one of our true allies) has known the truth about Pakistan for decades and decades.  It is time we woke up to that same reality.  It's time we replaced Iraq with Pakistan as the third leg of the Axis of Evil: Iran, South Korea and PAKISTAN.