|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jun 16, 2004 18:11:10 GMT -5
Just a little off-the-cuff idea I had to explain the assininity of the mental disease known as liberalism. I like to use analogies to illustrate my points. So here goes. Let's look at the leftist ideology (and hypocricy) through the paradigm of sports. First of all, there's no NAAWRB, the National Association for the Advancement of White Running Backs. There is no affirmative action for white point guards. If there were, it would be as wrong as the current AA laws. A while back, I heard an NBA basketball player (don't remember who it was) say something to the effect that he was insulted when he saw a white guy was guarding him. Frankly, I thought his remark was pretty funny, and I took no offense to it. But what if Wayne Gretzky had said the same thing about a black hockey player? He'd be duck-taped to the hood of Jesse Jackson's car. Michael Jordan won 6 NBA champioships. Under "liberal rule", he'd be forced to give away five of his championship rings to Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Gary Payton, Patrick Ewing, and John Stockton. After all, Jordan didn't earn it himself, his opponents were just "less fortunate." Who needs six championship rings!!!! Nolan Ryan threw 100 miles an hour. If liberals were in control, he'd only be allowed to throw 85. The velocity on his fastball would be taxed and pieces of it would be redistributed to rag-armed poo-slingers. It just wouldn't be fair to those less talented. You see folks, the liberal philosophy is one that discourages achievement and excellence and awards mediocrity and irresponsibilty. I know the sports world is totally different from the real world, but those driven to success in sports are not that different from those driven for success in the business world. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but I'd like to be. And rather than stick my hand out and demand my "fair share", I'd rather LEARN from successful people and make my own fortune, or MY definition of "fortune". I am not the Michael Jordan of the business world, but the Michael Jordan's and the governement for that matter owe me nothing except to protect an environment where I can make of myself what I want to.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 17, 2004 17:30:35 GMT -5
If the left controlled sports, I could play major league football! They would have to make room for 5'3 women! Great rant, TNRighty!  |
|
|
|
Post by pukaman on Jun 18, 2004 16:09:01 GMT -5
Interesting Rant...... Sports huh ? Like the owner of a loosing texas team becoming (P)Resident of US  ?? Like trading off Sammy Sosa ?? Sounds like the rant of a fan whose team was in a slump for 8 years, won a Series by cheating, and wants to rig the next series cause they're afraid of loosing in a fair match, without home team umpires. What fears drive the neocon mindset ? |
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jun 18, 2004 16:41:30 GMT -5
Bush's failures as an owner pale in comparison to Kerry's failures as a senator. By the way, Bush traded Sosa before Slammy started pumping the muscle juice.
|
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Jun 18, 2004 16:52:53 GMT -5
How true, TNRighty,
I can't believe these left-overs, still angry and bitter about the election. How many times do you have to count? Until you win?
Also, it sounds like Pukaman is in line with hate Bush ticket.
And it's true, Sammy Sosa wasn't worth a crap we he played for Texas.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jun 18, 2004 17:29:48 GMT -5
I'm with you, Scummy. And speaking of "home-team" umpires, Gore's election-night headquarters was set up in a hotel ballroom in Nashville, yet that did him little good in the state of Tennessee. For goodness sakes, he lost his own home COUNTY! Remember, it was Gore, not Bush who called for the recount. All this mess could've been avoided had the national media not called Florida in favor of Gore with the margin that small and less than 50% of precints reporting. They made such a big deal of the "confusing" ballots (the same ones Republicans had no problem with), but made little mention of the Dem's attemps to discount absentee ballots of troops overseas. They knew who the vast majority of troops would vote for. I won't dismiss the fact that Gore won the popular vote, but the electoral college was formed for a reason...thank goodness. Just a little tidbit, did you notice that after the election, the media talked about how unfair theh electoral system is. Had the roles been reversed, we'dve seen Dan Blabber and Tom Brokejaw praising the electoral college saying it did exactly what it was designed to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Jun 18, 2004 17:44:04 GMT -5
Had the roles been reversed, we'dve seen Dan Blabber and Tom Brokejaw praising the electoral college saying it did exactly what it was designed to do. That's exactly right. Did you hear about Rather saying that president Reagan's funeral was being given "too much time" with regard to news coverage?? Yet, he won't shut up about Clinton's narcissistic book.  |
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jun 18, 2004 18:07:19 GMT -5
Yes, I heard that and I'm not surprised. They hammer the Abu Ghraib story for weeks, yet complain that Reagan's death has gotten too much pub. I was watching ABC's coverage of the funeral procession in Washington. Peter Jennings and Barbara Walters were anchoring. They made more back-handed compliments than I could count. Jennings said something to the effect that Communism was destined to fail and that Reagan just happened to be president when it happened. He said Reagan was more about presentation than policy, and basically said that his congeniality was the reason his policies were accepted. They basically made him out to be the political equivalent of a used car salesman. Walters talked about how expensively Nancy dressed and said her "Just Say No" campaign was a miserable failure. They also tried to attach Reagan to Clinton and distance Reagan from Bush saying that Reagan and Clinton were the only two recent Presidents to bring glamour to the White House. Then Walters talked about Nancy's support of stem cell research, a policy Bush "is dead against", but one that Clinton supported. Bottom line is they were scared that all the Reagan attention would boost Bush and did everything possible to detatch Reagan from Bush. They talked about how during the Reagan years there was not nearly the partisan divide there is now under Bush...on, and on, and on. It was nauseating.
|
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Jun 19, 2004 10:16:56 GMT -5
Yeah, but it's not working! Bush's numbers went up anyway despite all of their attempts to minimize him. On issues such as the economy, and national security, the president is gaining on his own merits. Of course it doesn't hurt that the American people are reminded by Reagan's passing that the framework he set forth to re-build our nation is being followed today.
|
|
??