New Rule for Dealing With Liberal Stories

Recently we had a story claiming that a gay server was denied a tip because the family was a pack of homophobic bigots as well as a story about an alleged poor woman who essentially had to live like an idiot because of the bad, mean, nasty way America treats poor people.  There were two commonalities in these stories:

1.  They supported the liberal narrative about the United States (we’re just bad, bad people) and so were embraced and spread widely by liberals.

2.  They were complete nonsense.

The people who did the actual perpetration of the stories were likely just con artists who knew their target audiences.  For the first story (the gay server denied a tip) it was probably an attempted replay of an earlier story claimed by a black woman of being denied a tip by racists, and she picked up a pack of money from sympathetic people. For the poor woman, it appears a more straight-forward scam: she was asking for people to help her out financially and appears to have succeeded (at least temporarily) in picking up a bucket of money.  The con artists aside, what this tells us about the left is that they will readily believe anything as long as it confirms them in their world view.  There is no bit of nonsense too absurd for them – think about it: they actually believed that someone would (a) find out what sexual orientation their server was and then (b) go out of their way to insult the server.  The left bought it because it confirmed their view that Christians are just hateful bigots who go out of their way to insult people of different views.

The left will never cease to be suckers about this sort of thing.  There seems to be some sort of malfunction in the liberal brain – while some can start to think (and thus wind up as Libertarians or Conservatives), most of them never seem to form a single, independent thought in their lives.  But there is a lesson for us on the right:  whenever you hear a story which tends to confirm the liberal narrative about life in the United States, our first and best course of action is to presume it is a lie.  Don’t go out on a limb and definitely call it a lie, but you’ll be safe if you immediately search for holes in the story and start pointing them out.  As for the gay server thing, I saw that on a liberal website some weeks ago and immediately pointed out that it is highly unlikely that a group of patrons would know the sexual orientation of their server – so even if they were a pack of hideous homophobes, they would not likely have opportunity to give vent to their all-consuming hatred.  The story seemed false from day one for me – but the comments from the liberals were all shocked and hurt about how this hateful thing had happened and applause for the “courage” of the gay server (with no explanation of how it is courageous to be untipped).

It could be, from time to time, that in a nation of 317 million people that a set of circumstances will occur which confirms some part of the liberal narrative.  The law of averages does work that way – but the plain facts are that the United States is not a racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-immigrant nation.  We are not cruel to the poor, nor indifferent to the plight of those who suffer.  We are tolerant and mostly very polite about things and don’t give vent to our feelings for the most part (and in some cases, it would be better if we did).  We’re pretty nice people, all in all.  And, so, the chances of there being a true story confirming liberalism are very, very small.  When confronted with such stories – demand proof; independent verification and always keep a few links of liberal BS stories handy to slam back liberals who claim that this story is sure to be true.

Advertisements

82 thoughts on “New Rule for Dealing With Liberal Stories

  1. neocon01 December 3, 2013 / 6:16 am

    The left bought it because it confirmed their view that Christians are just hateful bigots who go out of their way to insult people of different views.

    The WAR AGAINST Christianity continues.

    • neocon01 December 3, 2013 / 6:22 am

      Conservative News
      The Air Force Academy may remove “so help me God” from its cadet oath. Are you sick of Obama’s war on Christianity?

      • M. Noonan December 4, 2013 / 2:26 pm

        But that is just liberalism – not believing in God or any eternal truth, they don’t think there is any need for “so help me, God”…but, still, why even have an oath? The only purpose of an oath is to call God to witness your statement…that you are promising God, who knows all and will judge all, that you will do a certain thing. This was held in olden times to be a strong thing – because while we fallen creatures will do lots of wrong thing, we were very wary of taking our immortal soul in our hands and deliberately lying to God. If you are not promising God you will do a thing, then it isn’t much of a promise…so rather than take out “so help me, God” from the oath, better to do away with the oath altogether. But as for me, I swore so help me, God back in 1983 that I will defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic…and that oath didn’t have an expiration date on it.

  2. bozo December 3, 2013 / 8:09 am

    Just keep punching the poor and disenfranchised in the face, and eventually they’ll go away.

    • Amazona December 3, 2013 / 12:10 pm

      “Just keep punching the poor and disenfranchised in the face, and eventually they’ll go away……” snarls one of the target audience.

      Good to hear from one of our lowest-information-voters. Bozo always provides balance to thoughtful, intelligent, discourse.

      • M. Noonan December 3, 2013 / 12:54 pm

        He does, however, prove my point. Though he also just may be mad that we’ve had so many proven frauds these days among stories regarding the liberal narrative about the United States.

      • Amazona December 3, 2013 / 6:55 pm

        It’s almost as if bozo started to wonder if we remember just how painfully stupid he is, so he decided to scurry back and remind us.

    • S. Cavalor Epithet December 3, 2013 / 1:37 pm

      Bozo

      You must admit that it is horrible the way the Left twists minor news stories in ways that support their deluded worldview. .

      They take the latest act of cruelty teenagers came up with – the knockout game – and somehow twist it to describe it as the natural result of failed policies of the Right.

      They take a story of a brave man defending his neighborhood against a gang-banger drug dealing likely rapist and mold it by having that hero later have an unrelenting series of gun-related arrests and detainments.

      Heck, I remember a good Christian woman struggling for life against her evil Leftist husband. He claimed she was brain-dead but the brave Right called Congress into session on Easter to stem the tide of this Communist assault on Christ, but it wasn’t enough. Even after she was put to death, the Leftists continued the lie by substituting a horribly shrunken brain in her head in time for the autopsy.

      Shame on you, Bozo.

      • neocon01 December 3, 2013 / 5:25 pm

        forker epitaph bla bla bla……GIGO SOS, DD from the dead demons who cant differentiate an exit from an entrance sans a lighted sign.

      • Amazona December 3, 2013 / 6:52 pm

        Yet again I feel compelled to remind our forker(s) of the Rule Of Holes. It is far past time for you to quit digging.

        Let’s see—-it is not just angst-ridden “teenagers” engaging in ritualistic and race-based attacks on light skinned people, but mature men as well. It is not just a youth thing, but a toxic element of a whole culture. And I don’t know of anyone stupid enough to try to spin this formalized assault as having anything to do with “failed policies of the Right”. What an idiotic statement.

        The second story seems to be wholly fabricated—but then, coming as it does from one persona of a wholly fabricated group identity living in a wholly fabricated world, working at wholly fabricated jobs with wholly fabricated credentials for a wholly fabricated newspaper, speaking a wholly fabricated language, and coming from a wholly fabricated planet, this is quite consistent.

        There is a certain morbid fascination in getting a peek into the twisted and deviant mind of a deviant person, but the bizarre distortions of a case of a family trying to preserve the life of a loved one while the man who may have caused her catastrophic injury fought to kill her before she might become able to communicate is really quite disturbing. Oh, I know that there were ghouls howling for her death, dismissive of the evidence of both abuse by the man trying to kill her and those who had been caring for her and witnessing her efforts to communicate and passionately screeching that she should die. But it has been a long time since I have seen such a sick and putrid restatement of fact to try to defend this determination to kill. “Communist assault on Christ”??? My goodness, the insane hyperbole we have come to associate with the forkers has certain reared its ugly head from the feverswamp of hatred and ugliness, hasn’t it?

      • Amazona December 3, 2013 / 6:53 pm

        I understand allowing some of the slightly less offensive Lefties back onto the blog, but I strongly suggest that posts containing nothing but rampant hatred and malice should continue to be removed. They serve no purpose other than to showcase the malignancy of the writer and to stink up the blog.

      • S. Cavalor Epithet December 3, 2013 / 7:13 pm

        I wish Amazona learned the Rule of Holes and shut his pie hole. His diatribe always supports the opposite of what he thinks he is writing.

      • neocon01 December 3, 2013 / 7:34 pm

        I wish Amazona learned the Rule of Holes and shut ***his*** pie hole.

        OMG….ROTFLMAO…….see
        neocon01 December 3, 2013 at 5:25 pm

      • Amazona December 3, 2013 / 8:09 pm

        neo, you have to admit, the epitaph is always good for a laugh, though there is the guilt factor of laughing at the mentally impaired.

        You noticed, I am sure, that this particular part of the hive mentality in the imaginary country, etc., couldn’t address anything I said but could just sputter and squeal and show off even more ignorance.

      • S. Cavalor Epithet December 3, 2013 / 8:20 pm

        I am not impaired, Count. That dude, Amazona, and I are conversing. (He’s a real ignorant pain in my behind, if you ask me)

      • Amazona December 3, 2013 / 8:41 pm

        Count, are you still laughing? I know I am.

        But then you have to remember that in the imaginary country on the imaginary planet, the imaginary personas speaking their imaginary language are also quite, shall we say, “flexible” regarding gender identity. Their boys have hoohaws, their girls have peepees, they tend to think that any outie can be plugged into any innie without regard for intended function of said orifice, and evidently this lackadaisical approach to gender awareness (or importance) carries over into posting.

        Or maybe the epitaph to intelligence is just an Aerosmith fan. Though in this case the “dude” IS a lady…………..

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) December 3, 2013 / 8:47 pm

        The natural result of failed policies of the right?

        Well, lets look at the Right Wing Cities where this game is played, shall we?

        Philadelphia, Mayor Michael Nutter, Dimocrat
        Atlantic City, Mayor Lorenzo Langford Dimocrat
        St. Louis, Mayor Francis Slay, Dimocrat
        Birmingham, Mayor Larry Langford, Dimocrat
        Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel Dimocrat
        Charlotte, Mayor Anthony Foxx, Dimocrat
        Milwaukee, Mayor Tom Barrett, Dimocrat
        Denver, Mayor Michael Hancock, Dimocrat
        Minneapolis, Mayor Betsy Hodges, Dimocratic Labor
        New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Independent
        Greensboro, Mayor Patrick Cannon, Dimocrat
        Baltimore, Mayor Stephanie Blake, Dimocrat
        Las Vegas, Mayor Carolyn Goodman, independent
        Kansas City, Sly James, independent
        Miami, Mayor Manny Diaz, Dimocrat
        Cleveland, Mayor Frank Jackson, Dimocrat
        Nashville, Mayor Karl Dean, Dimocrat
        Peoria, Mayor Jim Ardis, Dimocrat
        Seattle, Mayor Michael “Mike” Patrick McGinn, Dimocrat
        Saratoga Springs, Mayor Joanne Yepsen, Dimocrat
        Atlanta –Mayor Muhammad Kasim Reed, Dimocrat

        Yeah, a bunch of Right Winger cities, this bunch!
        This group of cities are the Left’s Wet Dream Euro-merican Cities of the Future.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) December 3, 2013 / 9:11 pm

        Amazona,
        No, this tolerant libiot is the same as every other libiot; he/she/it thinks by intentionally misstating your sex that you are insulted. Much the same as the other intellectual pygmies toss accusations of homosexuality as implicit insult.

        The dismal maturity is only eclipsed by the dull-witted forensics.

      • S. Cavalor Epithet December 3, 2013 / 9:39 pm

        Holy cow, Amazona is a woman?! Wow.

        Her poor husband, having a harpy man-woman to deal with all day. I feel truly sorry for him…

      • S. Cavalor Epithet December 3, 2013 / 9:48 pm

        Ok, because none of you is smart enough to understand sarcasm, my original post cut into Mark’s thesis that the Left falsely inflames news stories towards their point of view.

        I lambasted the Left for framing knockout as from failed Right policy because the opposite is what happened, the Right framed the game as from failed liberal policies. See? Mark says the Left milks news stories for their agenda and I sarcastically agreed pointing to a story the Right s using.

        You guys all took that seriously.

        As you did on the Zimmerman story, which Amazona called a fabrication.

        And one of you still defended your behavior in the Terri Schiavo matter.

        You’re all dumber than a box of bricks.

      • neocon01 December 4, 2013 / 5:13 am

        calvert/bmitch

        And one of you still defended your behavior in the Terri Schiavo matter.
        You’re all dumber than a box of bricks.

        just hope some day ghoul, WHEN you are in the same condition some conservative Christian steps up for your deadbeat azz and attempts to stop the state from starving you slowly to death.

        and the dumber than a box of rocks comment?……….ROTFLMAO. like words from Einsteins 6yo nephew talking about his uncle and his theory of relatively……LOLX1000!!

      • Amazona December 4, 2013 / 5:52 pm

        Now, now, ep—–I understand how upsetting it must be for you to be so soundly outargued by a woman, but I am sure it is not a new experience. BTW, my husband loved me and we had a wonderful marriage. Of course, unlike you he was not intimidated by a smart and strong woman. Real men don’t freak out when they learn that a woman is smart and competent, but I can see how this would threaten you. Hint: A default snapping to misogynistic insults is the biggest clue to the fact that a man is not very manly, if you get my drift.

        What is really funny about your little temper tantrum is your insistence that anyone who can best you in an argument has to have at least some masculine traits. Hard to accept that someone who is totally feminine is also so much smarter than you, and so much more articulate and well-read, etc, isn’t it?

        And I guarantee that it has not gone unnoticed that all you CAN do is snarl and hide behind insults, instead of addressing what was said. Poor little bunny, you did get your feelings hurt, didn’t you?

        (And another BTW——it is the most feeble defense there is to claim that an utterly stupid comment was, in fact, “sarcasm”. You strutted your best stuff, it was pointed out as pathetic and ignorant and stupid and reflective of nothing but mindless acceptance of hate-driven bilge, and it is way too late to pretend you meant to be sarcastic. No, you were just hateful and dumb. And you just set yourself up for even more ridicule by claiming that the real problem is that no one here was “smart enough” to recognize it for witty sarcastic banter. You really do need to quit digging.)

    • neocon01 December 3, 2013 / 5:23 pm

      Ummm as usual blowzo you have it bass ackward…it is the “Poor” and “disenfranchised” (you know the same ones that sat next to me, my sons, and now grandsons) in school that cant speak, read, write, that are doing the punching……all while sucking huge sums of OPM.

    • dbschmidt December 3, 2013 / 10:41 pm

      Tell me Bozo–why are they (whoever they are) “poor and disenfranchised“? Tell me why because it sounds like my beginnings but I never let it stop me. Hard work and perseverance solved quite a few of those issues for me. So once again–why are they poor and disenfranchised?
      Bonus points for disenfranchised from what?

      • neocon01 December 4, 2013 / 5:06 am

        ell me Bozo–why are they (whoever they are) “poor and disenfranchised“? Tell me why because it sounds like my beginnings but I never let it stop me. Hard work and perseverance solved quite a few of those issues for me

        ME TOO db, must have been all that “white privilege” and such.

  3. 02casper December 3, 2013 / 8:23 pm

    Mark,
    Verifying a story is always a good idea, regardless of which side of the political spectrum it comes from. It’s a skill I try to teach my students.
    That said, what do you think of Pope Francis? Personally, I’m excited by what he has said and done up to this point. He doesn’t just talk the talk, he walks the walk.

    • Amazona December 3, 2013 / 8:34 pm

      I’m sure the Pope is a nice enough man. He does talk the talk, Marxist talk that is, but until he starts dumping some of the Church’s billions into taking care of the poor I can’t say he is walking the walk.

      So far I have heard the same old same old lecturing about what OTHER PEOPLE are supposed to do. Well, he sits at the head of one of the most massively rich entities in the world, with vast economic and political power. The Church could fund educational systems to make people employable, start businesses, etc. Do that, Pope Francis, and then get back to us.

      • M. Noonan December 4, 2013 / 2:45 am

        The Church doesn’t have billions. In fact, it is rather broke – all the time; very little cash on hand. Other religious denominations are rich, but not the Church. Yes, I know about the art – but that is just art, not ready cash. True, it can be sold – but to what purpose? So that private collectors can keep what is now available for all?

        Still, of course, the Church and the Catholics do pour out many tens of billions in charity every year – its why the Church is broke. But there aren’t billions more to give because its not there, unless we lay Catholics start ponying up some more (which we are – its kinda hard not to with the Pope’s example in front of us all the time). What the Pope is doing is showing us that if we want to be Catholics, we have to get out there and get our hands dirty – embracing that horribly disfigured man was just one means of doing this…making the rounds at night to visit the poor is another.

        If you want to understand what is happening, you have to take a long view – a Catholic view. We Catholics have been on the defensive for nearly 500 years. This is the start of the counter-attack…a renewed effort at converting the world…to stop people from taking the broken bits of Catholicism and warping it in to things like socialism, capitalism, nationalism, etc and returning all the little bits in to the unified whole that it used to be.

        But, don’t panic, if you like things as they are – it will likely take us 500 years to restore things.

    • M. Noonan December 4, 2013 / 2:15 am

      Thank you for the kind words about the Pope, but don’t get too excited – he’s as Catholic as, well, the Pope. What people are not understanding about Catholicism is that it is, you know?, Catholic. Universal. It contains all that is true and rejects all that is false. This means there is no room in it for anyone who wants to propagate a lie (such as, for instance, that two men can marry, that a woman may be a priest, or that an unborn child may be murdered), while there is room for any kind of true idea you can think of (so you can actually live a communist life and be a Catholic – or course, you’ll have to become a nun or a monk vowed to poverty, chastity and obedience).

      A lot of you liberals got a bit over-excited about a few things the Pope did, or that others said he did (some early claims have been retracted as the Pope has clarified). Right now, a lot on the right are upset over what the MSM is reporting as a Papal condemnation of capitalism – which is just another example of the truth of my post here about always assuming that whatever a liberal reports is a lie. The fact of the matter is that a Catholic cannot be either Capitalist or Communist (socialist). Neither economic model fits in with the universal truths taught by the Church. I’m not Distributist for the fun of it – I’m Distributist because it is the only morally acceptable economic view for a Catholic to have. The keys to Catholic economic policy (if we want to even call it that) are Subsidiarity and Solidarity. Subsidiarity is the moral requirement that all decisions must be made at the lowest political and economic level possible. Solidarity is that we are all God’s children and thus must look after each other as good brothers and sisters should.

      Subsidiarity admits of a free market – it can’t be otherwise: when decisions are made at the lowest level, it is a free market because that is small groups of people and individuals deciding for themselves what is to be done, including the acts of making, mining and growing things and the buying and selling of same. What Subsidiarity cannot allow is either a central government dictating economic decisions nor large corporations carving up the economy for their own benefit under the guise of an allegedly free (but actually strictly controlled) market. Solidarity means we simply cannot allow anyone to starve, be homeless, unclothed or lacking in basic medical care. But neither Subsidiarity nor Solidarity can be taken to absurd limits – that a road shall be built for the benefit of all might still be done even if the local people don’t want that road through their locality; that we must help the poor doesn’t mean we have to provide endless benefits for a shiftless layabout who is positively laughing at the suckers who work hard to provide the money to subsidize the poor.

      You’ll impale yourself upon Catholic truth if you try to conscript the Church to your particular views – you must conform yourself to the Church’s views or stay completely away from them. You can’t take a small bit of Catholicism and call it good – you either must call the entirety of the Church good, or reject it all.

      • canadianobserver11 December 4, 2013 / 8:22 am

        Having no religious affiliation myself, I am still encouraged, as a member of the human race, to see that this current Pope has the compassion to actually follow the liberal teachings of Jesus Christ. Only hope he has the courage to continue along this path.

      • Amazona December 4, 2013 / 3:13 pm

        And here, once again, the non-observant “observer” illustrates his political ignorance, conflating the traditional dictionary definition of “liberal” with the political distortion of that word. The Left hijacked it, in an effort to sanitize Leftist ideology by confusing people into thinking that the most illiberal political system in the world is, in fact, the very opposite of its reality.

        Jesus instructed us, as individuals, to pursue salvation and redemption through our own personal charity and generosity to the less fortunate. Nowhere does He instruct anyone to confiscate the property of others to redistribute, nor does He ever say there would be any grace or salvation associated with such an act.

      • canadianobserver11 December 4, 2013 / 4:32 pm

        “Jesus instructed us, as individuals, to pursue salvation and redemption through our own personal charity and generosity to the less fortunate. Nowhere does He instruct anyone to confiscate the property of others to redistribute, nor does He ever say there would be any grace or salvation associated with such an act.”…Amazona

        ——————————————————————————————————-
        It would be wonderful to imagine that you would actually show charity and generosity to the less fortunate, Amazona, but for some strange reason I’m having a problem visualizing it.

        I can only speak for Canada when I say that whenever a Liberal government was in power there was no policy in place to confiscate property to redistribute to others. Perhaps you are thinking of another ideology.

        One would think that, of all the seasons on the Christian calendar, this would be the time for showing brotherly love toward your fellow beings; but, sadly, it seems that so-called Christians posting on this site are the ones displaying the most mean-spirited and malicious behaviour. Why is that?

      • Amazona December 4, 2013 / 6:02 pm

        Awww, CO, you are so cute, trying to defend an ideology you don’t even understand.

        Who pays for the Liberal schemes you find so irresistible? Hint: It’s OPM. Another hint: Not one penny of it was voluntarily handed to those Liberal governments you love so much.

        As for your inability to imagine me doing anything for the less fortunate, that is no surprise, as you seem to be incapable of seeing, observing, imagining or understanding anything that is not tucked snugly into that tiny little bubble of bias and hostility that defines you. But that’s OK. What you do or do not find it possible to know, understand, imagine or otherwise process is of no interest to anyone but you.

        But gee, thanks so much for the smug and smarmy lecture on how best to acknowledge this season. For those of us who don’t think generosity should be confined to a few weeks a year, it’s just more pious posturing from someone who thinks generosity is spreading around someone else’s money.

        And thanks for the reminder that to a certain mentality, choosing personal charity, personal generosity, and personal giving over the fake generosity of taking from someone so you can posture as generous by handing out something that was never yours in the first place is considered a mark of malice.

        Not all of us sit back in smug satisfaction because we voted for the government that takes money from some to hand out to others so we can pretend that this makes US generous. No, most of us deal with the confiscation of our money to buy votes from a growing Dependent Class (clumsily disguised as charity) and then use some of what remains to genuinely help the genuinely needy.

      • meursault1942 December 6, 2013 / 12:57 pm

        CO: Isn’t it amazing just how incapable Amazona is of handling simple declarations of fact? Poor old bird just isn’t cut out for the real world, it seems. If she hadn’t been born into–and then married into–money, she’d be hopelessly lost.

  4. 02casper December 3, 2013 / 8:50 pm

    The Marxist talk comes directly from Limbaugh. Good to see who you really follow. As for lecturing about what OTHER PEOPLE are supposed to do, isn’t that what you and the others on this site do every day?
    BTW, apparently Frances has a long history of ministering to the poor and is even going out at night and doing it now. He hasn’t been pope for long, but I wouldn’t be surprised if does start using the resources of the church to do what you suggest.

    • Amazona December 3, 2013 / 9:14 pm

      “The Marxist talk comes directly from Limbaugh”

      Huh? You mean that Rush Limbaugh is/was the author of Marxist redistributionist anti-capitalism theory? Wow. Your “history” classes must be fascinating.

      “As for lecturing about what OTHER PEOPLE are supposed to do, isn’t that what you and the others on this site do every day?”

      Huh? You mean that believing that people ought to be able to be free of government intervention in their lives is really the same thing as “lecturing about other people are supposed to do”? Oh, I am sure that what registers in that little pea brain of yours is pretty much what you said, but as usual it is unrelated to fact. What I, and others here, talk about sometimes (though not “every day”) is how people should be independent and educate themselves regarding how the nation is governed and the impact of their voting decisions. I guess to someone like you, that could translate into “… lecturing about what OTHER PEOPLE are supposed to do..” but that’s just you.

      I would not expect someone with your limited thought processes to see a difference between that and telling other people what to do with their money. We say “learn and make decisions based on fact and rational thought” and your kind says “you aren’t capable of making your own decisions so we are going to tell you what to do, how to live, and what we think you should do with your money” and you see no difference between the two.

      I’m sure you “..wouldn’t be surprised…” to find Francis leading the Church to do something he has yet to lead the Church to do. Yet you seemed quite surprised to learn that the Constitution never condoned slavery, never mentioned whether or not women could vote, and includes all amendments ever passed except the one that was repealed. Your surprise filter is pretty funky.

      • S. Cavalor Epithet December 3, 2013 / 9:55 pm

        Amazona is obviously also too stupid to understand you were saying Limbaugh said the Pope is Marxist, and not that Limbaugh is Karl Marx.

        Or, she’s stupid to think saying it makes him look smart and/or you look dumb.

        Any way you chop this up, he’s just pain stupid, that Amazona.

      • M. Noonan December 4, 2013 / 2:32 am

        Rush did put in the caveat that the Pope’s words might have been twisted by the left – that was smart of Rush, because that is precisely what the left did. I suggest you read the whole thing, yourself (PDF). In fact, I urge all here to read it. There are things in there which will surprise you – the thing is more than 200 pages long and covers a very large stretch of ground, with the comments about economics being only a very small part of the whole. George Weigel has an excellent take on the purpose of it all:

        …First and foremost, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a radically converted Christian disciple who has known the mercy of God in his own life and who wants to enable others to share that experience—and the healing and joy that come from friendship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

        As he declared in a widely publicized interview in September with an Italian Jesuit magazine, Pope Francis is a “son of the church” who believes and teaches what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, and who wants others to hear and be moved to conversion by the symphony of Catholic truth, which he thinks is too often drowned out by ecclesiastical cacophony.

        Pope Francis is completely dedicated to what John Paul II called the “New Evangelization,” by which he means a dramatic re-centering of the church on its evangelical mission and a life-changing rediscovery by each of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics of the missionary vocation into which he or she was baptized.

        He is a pastor who is deeply concerned for the flock, draws spiritual strength from the flock, challenges the flock to make good decisions, and respects popular piety.

        The pope “from the ends of the Earth,” as he described himself from the central loggia of St. Peter’s on the evening of his election on March 13, is a reformer who, as he made clear in “Evangelii Gaudium,” will measure authentic Catholic reform by the criterion of mission-effectiveness. Thus the Franciscan reform of the Roman Curia will not be undertaken for whatever modest satisfactions may be derived from moving slots around on an organizational flowchart, but to ensure that the Catholic Church’s central administration serves the evangelical mission of all the members of the church…

        …Pope Francis is a revolutionary. The revolution he proposes, however, is not a matter of economic or political prescription, but a revolution in the self-understanding of the Catholic Church: a re-energizing return to the pentecostal fervor and evangelical passion from which the church was born two millennia ago, and a summons to mission that accelerates the great historical transition from institutional-maintenance Catholicism to the Church of the New Evangelization.

      • S. Cavalor Epithet December 3, 2013 / 9:56 pm

        I meant “he’s plain stupid” but it came out as “pain stupid.” Frankly, either term works.

      • 02casper December 3, 2013 / 10:15 pm

        “Yet you seemed quite surprised to learn that the Constitution never condoned slavery,”

        Which it did.
        con·done
        kənˈdōn/
        verb
        verb: condone; 3rd person present: condones; past tense: condoned; past participle: condoned; gerund or present participle: condoning

        1.accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.

        Since the Constitution didn’t ban slavery, it condoned it.

        “never mentioned whether or not women could vote,”

        Which meant that women were not allowed to vote.

        “and includes all amendments ever passed except the one that was repealed.”

        Of course I know that the Constitution includes all amendments, including those not supported by the founding fathers.

      • dbschmidt December 3, 2013 / 10:45 pm

        Casper,
        Spend more time learning before spouting. You, for one item, are very weak on the Constitution and the very founding of this country.

      • Amazona December 4, 2013 / 11:35 am

        “Since the Constitution didn’t ban slavery, it condoned it.”

        Since the Constitution didn’t ban incest, it condoned it.
        Since the Constitution didn’t ban torture, it condoned it.
        Since the Constitution didn’t ban wife-beating, it condoned it.
        Since the Constitution didn’t ban theft, it condoned it.
        Since the Constitution didn’t ban murder, it condoned it.
        Since the Constitution didn’t ban shaving your neighbor’s head while he sleeps, it condoned it.
        Since the Constitution didn’t ban peeing in the community well, it condoned it.
        Since the Constitution didn’t ban walking around naked, it condoned it.
        Since the Constitution didn’t ban wearing a chicken on your head, it condoned it….

        And so on. It is never hard to see the silliness of casper’s inept arguments, or the vapidity of his “thought” processes, but sometimes he goes out of his way to make sure we don’t miss it.

        And then there is:

        ““never mentioned whether or not women could vote,”
        Which meant that women were not allowed to vote.”

        So:

        …..never mentioned whether or not we had been visited by aliens from other planets,
        Which meant that we had been visited by aliens from other planets.

        …..never mentioned whether or not cows can talk
        Which meant that cows can talk

        …..never mentioned whether or not it’s the trees waving their branches that make the wind blow
        Which meant that the trees waving their branches makes the wind blow

        The list of things never mentioned in the Constitution is endless. There is a reason for this—the Constitution was and is not a laundry list of ISSUES but a concise blueprint of how to govern a country.

        The Founders wrote a document that laid out the assigned (delegated) duties of the federal government. There was concern that merely stating what the government HAD to do was not binding enough, that some people would say that if something was not mentioned in the Constitution it meant it could be added later. So the Founders, in a belt-and-suspenders approach, added a list of what the federal government CANNOT do, and then tied it all up with a concise bow—the 10th Amendment.

        As casper’s claim to have studied the HIllsdale College seminar on the Constitution seems to be proven to be a lie (or he just couldn’t understand it—-a reasonable assumption, given what we know about him) we can go over that again. Basically, it says that if something is not delegated specifically to the federal government in the Constitution, it is up to the states, or to the people, unless it is prohibited by the Constitution, in which case it can’t be done at all.

        So there was no effort to cover all possible bases in the Constitution. There was the understanding that all bases could not possibly be covered in the Constitution, so it laid out only the structure of what the federal government had to do, later laid out a list of what the federal government could not do, and then acted in complete accordance with one of the foundational principles of the new government and acknowledged state sovereignty in everything else. The Founders created a basic framework of laws that tied together the various states under the umbrella of a united federal government, and created laws providing basic protections as well as the means to operate and be recognized as a united nation.

        People of what Thomas Sowell called the Unconstrained Vision, people who yearn for a newer version of the monarchy that provided the example of what the Founders were determined to avoid at all costs, want a government that is all-powerful, that lays out every single thing any person can or cannot do, that leaves no room for individualism or even local government. They seem to think that if the government does not say what they can do, they can’t do it, and they lean on the government for everything, even rules on basic human decency and common sense. Without this rigid and all-encompassing regulation, they are intellectually and morally adrift.

        So we get the constant carping from drifting casper about how the Constitution failed to cover all the things he needs to have it cover.

        Another clue to his idiocy (yes, I know they are piling up…) is this: “…. the Constitution includes all amendments, including those not supported by the founding fathers.”

        Well, anyone who actually DID study the Constitution, and the era of its creation, as casper the “teacher” claims to have done, knows that the Founders (a list that includes far more than those whose names we associate with the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) did not agree with each other on many things. So there might very well have been some amendments passed which did not receive unanimous undivided approval of every one of them. That’s what happens when you have thinking people and not mindless lockstep sheeple, as demanded by the Left. I also agree that once the Founders were dead, they did not support amendments that followed.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) December 4, 2013 / 11:42 am

        db,
        I guess it is lucky for “I Was Only Helping that Sheep over the Fence” Casper that the Constitution also did not “ban” bestiality, or any other issue within the States’ purview.

      • M. Noonan December 4, 2013 / 2:21 pm

        Count,

        The real problem is that since the constitution doesn’t ban stupidity, it condones it…so our liberals have the constitutional stamp of approval! We need an amendment…

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) December 4, 2013 / 11:47 am

        Take a breath Amazona, those of us that didn’t gasp at the inherent stupidity of Casper’s statement, merely rolled our eyes.

        I was honestly hoping he’d have the decency to request a moderator take down the post before another sentient being read it. But, as I said above, they revel in their ignorance.

      • Amazona December 4, 2013 / 2:41 pm

        “The real problem is that since the constitution doesn’t ban stupidity, it condones it…so our liberals have the constitutional stamp of approval! We need an amendment…”

        Too true, Mark. Thanks for the brilliant observation.

      • Amazona December 4, 2013 / 2:56 pm

        Count, I thought of putting bestiality in my list, but you did it so much better.

        I’d almost prefer that casper come out and admit his bias against the Constitution rather than pay lip service to it while finding it so despicable, and teaching it so badly.

      • Amazona December 4, 2013 / 3:07 pm

        I am not overwrought by casper’s stupidity, Count. I actually kind of enjoy it, except for the teaching-lies-to-students thing.

        I do find a little guilt in laughing at him, and I probably would not if he were not so proud of being a “teacher” and so smug about what he thinks he knows. But he does offer many opportunities for joviality.

        “….never mentioned whether or not women could vote,”
        Which meant that women were not allowed to vote.”

        ..never mentioned whether or not one-legged men could vote…..
        Which meant that one-legged men were not allowed to vote.

        never mentioned whether or not fops could vote……
        Which meant that fops were not allowed to vote.

        never mentioned whether or not preachers could vote…
        Which meant that preachers were not allowed to vote.

        never mentioned whether or not silversmiths could vote…..
        Which meant that silversmiths were not allowed to vote.

        Gee, just how long IS that list of categories of people never specifically given the vote? According to the bizarre mental gyrations casper substitutes for the thought process, very very few people in the country WERE allowed to vote, as they were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution as having delegated voting power.

    • Amazona December 3, 2013 / 9:16 pm

      Do tell us, new Catholic scholar and fan, just HOW Francis is “ministering to the poor” when he “goes out at night” to do so.

      Is he writing checks on Catholic bank accounts to fund education, housing, or soup kitchens? Or is he, as articles have said, merely visiting and eating with them, to “show that they are loved”?

      That’s nice, but it doesn’t keep the rain off, or teach people how to work to take care of themselves, or pay doctors, or provide clothing. It actually sounds very much like the rest of Leftist theory, in that all that matters is what you want to matter, not what actually happens. I guess I don’t see much long-range benefit in knowing that a poor, homeless man can tell someone that he ate with the Pope one night.

      And felt loved.

      • S. Cavalor Epithet December 3, 2013 / 10:02 pm

        Because Stupid will say she’s not going to do your homework through the exhaustive step of clicking your link, I’ll post the first paragraph of the article. Oh, and for the morons who would say this is just speculation, remember how Jesus said to not be ostentatiously holy.

        “A recent interview with Archbishop Konrad Krajewski, the “Almoner of His Holiness,” raised speculation that the Pope joins him on his nightly trips into Rome to give alms to the poor, and it turns out that the rumors are probably true.”

      • dbschmidt December 3, 2013 / 10:28 pm

        I really cannot remember who claimed the lack of comprehension but just for Casper and the latest version of another troll who posted “A recent interview with Archbishop Konrad Krajewski, the “Almoner of His Holiness,” raised speculation that the Pope joins him on his nightly trips into Rome to give alms to the poor, and it turns out that the rumors are probably true.

        Do the words like speculation and probably raise any inkling that this is opinion and not fact? You now–factual fact and not what is is.

      • neocon01 December 4, 2013 / 4:59 am

        Leave it to the left to twist what the Pope is saying into their typical leftist anti Christian garbage. The pope can THINK and SAY what ever he wants EXCEPT for matters of the church. Then he is duty bound to stay within the confines of Christs and the bibles teachings.
        Funny though catspuke and the new pretend forker wanna be never picked up on the last Popes ANTI COMMUNISM….Hmmmm why is dat??

      • neocon01 December 4, 2013 / 5:02 am

        Do the words like speculation and probably raise any inkling that this is opinion and not fact? You now–factual fact
        leftist ideologues and useful idiots DON NEEDS NO STEENKING FACTS…..they read alinsky.

      • Amazona December 4, 2013 / 11:48 am

        db, I see that you picked up on the fact that my post made reference to comments in the link that sneering cappy then provided, proof that he had not read his own link or he would have recognized the comments. Too funny.

        As for the epitaph for intelligence, well, he is just a bag of – – – – – – noise.

        For the benefit of both, actual quotes from the article, as grasping the meaning of my paraphrase of what it said proved to be too great an intellectual exercise for the demon and the “teacher”: (emphasis mine)

        “A recent interview with Archbishop Konrad Krajewski, the “Almoner of His Holiness,” raised speculation that the Pope joins him on his nightly trips into Rome to give alms to the poor, and it turns out that the rumors are probably true.

        A knowledgable source in Rome told The Huffington Post that “Swiss guards confirmed that the pope has ventured out at night, dressed as a regular priest, to meet with homeless men and women.
        ………………………..
        When Pope Francis was Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, he was known to sneak out at night to break bread with the homeless, sitting with them on the street and eating with them to show that they were loved.

        It’s always fun to prove that the trolls don’t know what they are talking about, but it is a full-time job, though not difficult.

      • Amazona December 4, 2013 / 11:50 am

        “… for the morons who would say this is just speculation, remember how Jesus said to not be ostentatiously holy.”

        Except that the fact that the claimed acts of the Pope are speculation BY OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT HE MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE DOING has absolutely nothing to do with him being “ostentatiously holy”.

        The article is not about what the Pope says he is doing.

        Too funny, though, to have a “demon” lecturing on the words of Christ.

  5. dbschmidt December 3, 2013 / 10:36 pm

    One of my personal favorites of late is the new study done to show that mothers of unborn children that eat better have a higher percentage of children who eat well. The same, in reverse, can be said about those mothers that eat poorly. Well, and poorly here are comparison of choices and not amounts. Fresh fruit versus deep fried crap. Also being in the same neighborhoods–there were no “food deserts” whatever those are.

    The people doing this study are the same group of folks that claim a fetus is just a blob of protoplasm or some such crap. I am now waiting for the legislation or regulation that all potential pregnant women have to eat a well-rounded good diet all the way up to the abortion clinic. That–is the mind of a Progressive.

    • neocon01 December 4, 2013 / 4:54 am

      must be a slow and boring day over at the low life site, seems the trolls are returning here for some red meat to eat. Im with Ama let them stay in the swamp and eat their own ecriment.

      • neocon01 December 4, 2013 / 5:25 am

        One TROLL from the cess pool……
        “casper
        December 3, 2013 at 5:31 pm
        “Over the next few days I will be discussing credibility and bias on the internet. B4V is the perfect example of a site with lots of bias and no credibility.”

        then WHY post here TROLL?
        because bmitch the new S cavalor told you to do so?
        I say catspuke – stay in the swamp with the rest of the “dumb as a box of rocks” loons.

      • Amazona December 4, 2013 / 2:39 pm

        Evidently even they have come to realize that all they do is recycle their own crap, and need to mingle with people with brains to have something to talk about.

        And as all they care about is insulting their betters, it can’t be much fun to just bounce their hatred off each other.

      • 02casper December 4, 2013 / 11:28 pm

        “Amazona December 4, 2013 at 11:35 am

        “Since the Constitution didn’t ban slavery, it condoned it.”

        Since the Constitution didn’t ban incest, it condoned it.
        Since the Constitution didn’t ban torture, it condoned it.
        Since the Constitution didn’t ban wife-beating, it condoned it.
        Since the Constitution didn’t ban theft, it condoned it.
        Since the Constitution didn’t ban murder, it condoned it.
        Since the Constitution didn’t ban shaving your neighbor’s head while he sleeps, it condoned it.
        Since the Constitution didn’t ban peeing in the community well, it condoned it.
        Since the Constitution didn’t ban walking around naked, it condoned it.
        Since the Constitution didn’t ban wearing a chicken on your head, it condoned it….”

        The constitution didn’t have to condone any of those things, most were already against the law. Slavery wasn’t. Perhaps this will help:
        http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-constitution-and-slavery/

      • neocon01 December 5, 2013 / 5:24 am

        catspuke

        maybe some one should have explained THAT to the blacks in Africa who rounded up their neighbors at spear point and sold them on the slave market….OR the Many American blacks who were slavers and slave owners them selves.

        We will leave the Indians who themselves conquered other tribes killed the men and made slaves of the women and chillen out of this coversation…..sad time in history indeed.
        OR
        modern day muslims who THIS VERY DAY are slavers.

      • Amazona December 5, 2013 / 9:43 am

        “The constitution didn’t have to condone any of those things, most were already against the law”

        Once again, you make absolutely no sense.

        Not only is your statement gibberish—“……They didn’t have to say it was OK because it was already illegal…” it also indicates that, according to your already-proven severely limited understanding of the Constitution, it would be subject to state and local laws. “The Constitution couldn’t prohibit something if a state had already said it was OK….”

        You linked to an interesting article, and you can certainly use this opinion of one man to shore up your inherent dislike of our Constitution and as a base for your faulty teaching of it. Clearly, you do. Of course to do so you have to completely ignore the fact that many people were committed by law to periods of labor other than black slaves, and the fact that the Constitution, to pass, had to acknowledge and take into consideration existing contracts and not simply discard them.

        Actually, pretty much every position you take, regarding the Constitution, is based on your ignorance of or dismissal of facts.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) December 5, 2013 / 2:56 pm

        Good G-d! does this Casper ever stop embarrassing himself?

        *sigh*

        Fredrick Douglass wrote that opinion piece in 1849 at a time when he alligned himself with the man who said the Constitution was ” … is a covenant with death and an agreement with hell.” After educating himself (something Casper should consider) he made the very public much more famous and wholly more accurate statement; calling the Constitution “a glorious liberty document” in 1852.

        “Take the Constitution according to its plain reading, I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it.” In fact, Douglass told the crowd gathered to hear his Independence Day address, “Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a glorious liberty document.”

        Please, I beg of you, take the advice of db, Amazona and me and educate yourself. It’s not too late.

      • percybeezer December 5, 2013 / 3:09 pm

        Otto: Apes don’t read Nietzsche
        Wanda: Sure they do Otto, they just don’t understand it

      • neocon01 December 5, 2013 / 3:35 pm

        count
        catspurrr, Please, I beg of you, take the advice of db, Amazona and me and educate yourself. It’s not too late.

        Include me in that very learned group please…… 🙂

        and the burger flippers that caspur and his ilk churn out now want $15.00 PH??? Bwaaaaaha hahahahahahahah.
        Riiiiight Pee Wee!!

      • percybeezer December 5, 2013 / 6:52 pm

        Neo,
        I didn’t get a chance to answer you in that other thread.
        If Congressmen want to remove a judge because a previous Congress seated them there is no mechanism to do that. There is a procedure for impeachment and removal, but the constitution doesn’t have a “we changed our minds” clause.

      • Amazona December 5, 2013 / 8:06 pm

        “… the constitution doesn’t have a “we changed our minds” clause.”

        Well, obviously it does. Why else would Barry be changing his mind about so many aspects of the laws regarding Obamacare?

      • percybeezer December 6, 2013 / 1:28 pm

        amazona,

        The constitution didn’t have to condone any of those things … it means what we say it means.

    • neocon01 December 4, 2013 / 5:31 am

      db
      I am now waiting for the legislation or regulation that all potential pregnant women have to eat a well-rounded good diet all the way up to the abortion clinic.

      sad, but soooo true.

  6. neocon01 December 4, 2013 / 5:35 am

    Expert Testifies to Congress that Obama’s ‘Ignoring Laws’ Could Lead to Overthrow of Government
    by Noah Rothman | 12:34 pm, December 3rd, 2013 video 5546

    During a congressional committee hearing about the constitutional limits imposed on the presidency and the implications of President Barack Obama’s disregard for implementing the Affordable Care Act as written, one expert testified that the consequences of the president’s behavior were potentially grave. He said that the precedent set by Obama could eventually lead to an armed revolt against the federal government.
    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/expert-testifies-to-congress-that-obamas-ignoring-laws-could-lead-to-overthrow-of-government/

    QUICK……..ALERT the PITCHFORK………THERE MUST BE AN INVESTIGATION……..LOL LOL LOL

  7. neocon01 December 4, 2013 / 5:49 am

    ahhhhh the po and disenfranchised strike AGAIN…….to a 63 yo man…..
    Another Potential ‘Knockout’ Attack In Philadelphia.

    The eyewitness says it all happened so fast, and she only recalls seeing four black males in their late teens to early 20s.
    The victim’s family told Eyewitness News that the 63-year-old has been hospitalized with head and chest injuries since Sunday. He should be released some time on Tuesday.

    tell us again about the eevil GZ there bmitch!!

  8. neocon01 December 4, 2013 / 5:55 am

    while America sleeps and the left destroys all presence of Christianity

    Grooming Gangs and Sharia
    By Sonia Bailley
    Muslims groups around the world are crying Islamophobia and playing the victim card as horrific Islamic-motivated crimes, such as grooming and rape-gangs, rage on with impunity throughout the Western world, especially in Europe. Rape or grooming gangs, which are almost entirely Muslim, are committing a crime that is religiously mandated in Islamic doctrine.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/grooming_gangs_and_sharia.html#ixzz2mUxxlEQH

  9. Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] December 4, 2013 / 12:19 pm

    First off no one from our newspaper commented on this post. Second, as journalists you can’t just jump on a story without digging deeper. Many in the MSM seem to have forgotten this but we haven’t.

    • Amazona December 4, 2013 / 2:37 pm

      Well, it’s never easy to figure out (not that I am inclined to waste much time on detangling your assorted pathologies) just which persona has the steering wheel for any particular post, or what imaginary job this one has with what imaginary credentials at what imaginary newspaper in what imaginary country.

      There is not even any way to know how many individual corporeal entities exist in this elaborate fantasy world, related to how many invented personalities and identities you share, or don’t share, etc.

      So sweet to see you still pretend to be “journalists” though. I have a feeling your break room is your Mommy’s kitchen, and your snacks come from your Easy-Bake oven, before you head back down to her basement to cobble together another pretend whatever.

      • neocon01 December 4, 2013 / 4:32 pm

        before you head back down to her basement to cobble together another pretend whatever.
        I think that is where the “GUMDROP COMPUTER” also resides……

    • neocon01 December 4, 2013 / 4:35 pm

      First off no one from our newspaper rubber room at the asylum commented on this post. …fixed.

      with that said, we know it was the drunken loser bmitch from the LOON site with a new pretend name ….pretending to be a forker (whew confusing).

      • neocon01 December 4, 2013 / 5:40 pm

        An entry from another site……

        HO HO HO ….. Barack O’Clause is coming to town on December 25th, and he’ll be handing out EBT cards to all the good little lazy Democrats this year.

        As the 2014 elections draw closer, those of you in the “GIMMIE DAT!!” crowd who plan on voting more than once can expect to find a little extra in your stocking!!

        MOAR, MOAR, MOAR Food Stamps
        MOAR, MOAR, MOAR WIC Payments
        MOAR, MOAR, MOAR SSI Payments
        MOAR, MOAR, MOAR HUD Housing Allowances
        MOAR, MOAR, MOAR Obamaphones too!

        Just remember the Democrat’s motto: “Vote Early and Vote Often!”

        Like Barack O’Clause and the Democrats say: “We don’t need no stinkin` budgets! It’s way too much fun playing Santa with other people’s money!”

        And whatever you do, do NOT think of it as “buying votes”!!

        No, No, just think of it as “compassion”…..yea, that’s it, “compassion”. Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho….

        ☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭
        ☭☭…..This message brought to you by your local commies in drag, the DNC…..☭☭
        ☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭

        “Demo☭rats, Unions and Ignorant plantation dwellers …. Doing to America What They Did For Detroit”

    • neocon01 December 4, 2013 / 6:20 pm

      aw gee……AMF basher

      Martin Bashir Resigns From MSNBC
      “I have tendered my resignation.”

      • Amazona December 4, 2013 / 6:37 pm

        It is inexcusable that MSNBC did not fire him, and even worse that the president of MSNBC then raved about what a wonderful guy Bashir is.

        I am not an Alex Baldwin fan (though he is really funny on 30 Rock) but he made a comment that he apologized for, off-air, and says was not meant the way it was taken, and he was fired, while Bashir made his carefully written, rehearsed, TelePrompter-read speech that was so filthy, so vile, so toxic, so inexcusable on any level, ON-AIR, and he was allowed to “resign” with accolades from his boss.

        NBC is disgusting, if it tolerates that kind of foulness from MSNBC. And MSNBC and those who watch it (all 42 of them) are just as bad as Bashir, in their tolerance of him and his filth and virulent hatred and hostility.

Comments are closed.