You Can’t Have a Conversation With Lunatics

I’m not a fan of coffee. When camping I might have a cup, but the only time I drank it on anything like a regular basis was when I was in the Navy and it was the only caffeine readily available on the mid-watch (midnight for 4 am for you lubbers). So, when Starbucks announced they wanted their servers (I know they go by another name – but I refuse to call a server a fancy name – its like calling garbage men “sanitation engineers”; all work, if done for the Lord, is good…tacking a fancy name on it means you hate the job and have self-esteem issues) initiate a conversation on race with you after you dropped a fiver for a cup of Joe, I just didn’t care. But, my goodness, it turned out the idea was weapons-grade stupid.

Social media rather exploded – and things got so hot that the CEO of Starbucks actually deleted his Twitter account. He found, of course, that liberals were nasty and mean. This was not what he expected. The expectation was probably that Starbucks would get kudos from all and sundry, with everyone in the “conversation” proclaiming love and tolerance. Well, it doesn’t work that way – because modern liberalism is about hatred and intolerance.

I do realize why the CEO got it wrong – the upper class liberals he hangs out with are probably of the opinion that if we could just have a conversation about race then we bitter clingers in flyover country would finally stop being nasty racists and start to love President Obama, just as all good liberals do. We can rely on it that our principled opposition to Obama is not considered anything of the sort – we’re just junior-league Klansmen who hate Obama because he’s black…that is what has been endlessly drilled into the liberal mind; and it was especially drilled in during the 2012 campaign as Obama had no positive achievements to justify a second term. What the CEO was unaware of is that if you are using race-hatred to gin up electoral support for Obama on voting day, then what you actually get is a lot of people deeply infused with race-hatred. And that hatred will be directed at anyone who happens along who is white – even a white liberal who thinks he’s being helpful. We’re well past any point we can have a conversation on race in this country because liberals have arrived at the point where white people must (a) admit they are evil and (b) atone for their evil by grovelling. Somewhere out there in the Twitterverse is the opinion that even if your parents died at Auschwitz, you still have race-privilege you cracker bastard. This is the level of “discussion” on race – and the CEO of Starbucks just found this out.

The truth is, of course, that we can’t converse with liberals on anything – liberals have become so divorced from reality that conversation is impossible. And, indeed, liberals these days don’t really want a conversation. They want a surrender. Unless you are prepared to strike your colors (which, now that I think about it, may be considered by liberals to be a racist statement), there’s just nothing to be said. So, forget about conversation – lets just work on beating them electorally into the ground so we don’t have to deal with them any longer.

11 thoughts on “You Can’t Have a Conversation With Lunatics

  1. shawny2011 March 18, 2015 / 2:13 pm

    Even if they weren’t lunatics, the last thing in the world they want is meaningful dialog about anything. Controlling the message is a goal rendered impotent in the face of actual facts, history, investigation, intelligent debate or even common sense. The only way they can win is to, discredit, silence or eliminate their opposition. So, yeah, go vote them out……but while you’re at it, keep making noise, keep stating facts and statistics, keep making reasonable conservative arguments out loud, keep highlighting just how delusional, wasteful and ineffective their policies are. Refuse to go quietly. That just pisses them off. ; )

  2. tiredoflibbs March 20, 2015 / 11:28 am

    Dick (how applicable) Durbin latest race bating rant is proof positive that proggies are incapable of positive communications. He has shown his lunacy.

    After ranting about a delay on her vote for confirmation:
    ‘And so, Loretta Lynch, the first African-American woman nominated to be attorney general, is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the Senate calendar,’

    Then he whines about her being denied her place in history – the first female African American Attorney General.

    Really DICK?

    You had no reservations about denying Condoleesa Rice her place in history – first African American Woman Secretary of State.


    Do you remember California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown who is the daughter of Alabama sharecroppers? George W. Bush first nominated Brown in September 2003 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Who do you think led the opposition to Judge Brown’s nomination? Democrat Senator Dick Durbin denied her her place in history.

    Here is what he said:

    “Now, let me say a word about today’s nominee. Justice Brown’s life story, which the Chairman has alluded to, and her achievements are amazing, and I congratulate you on your appointment to the court in California. To your supporters, you are an eloquent and passionate voice for conservative values. In both your opinions and your speeches, you speak with great flair and great intellect. Others, however, tell a different story. They say you are a results-oriented judicial activist who fashions her opinions to comport with her politics. You are a frequent dissenter in the right-ward direction, which is quite a feat, given that you serve on a court that is made up of six Republican-appointed judges and only one Democrat.”

    But when Republicans voice opposition to Loretta Lynch because she looks like someone who might be a “frequent dissenter in the left-ward direction,” Dick Durbin pulls the race card. It’s all proggies have.

    Senator Dick only like African Americans who are the right kind of black. We already had an ideologue as Attorney General in the Department of Just Us…. we don’t need another – race has nothing to do with it. Why should a woman who formed a “black only” sorority at Harvard with the wife of the present Attorney General be a candidate for Attorney General – a position where the individual is supposed to have no bias?

    The loon-acy of the left knows no bounds.

  3. tryvasty March 23, 2015 / 2:35 am

    I think it is interesting that you hear the words “conversation about race” and you feel the immediate need to talk about Obama.

    • M. Noonan March 23, 2015 / 9:14 am

      That is what liberals wanted it to be about for the past 7 years. Go talk to them about their endless harping on race and how it relates to Obama.

      • tryvasty March 24, 2015 / 2:18 am

        I certainly agree that people have on occasions been overly sensitive the issue of race as it related to Obama (as I hope you are willing to agree that given the current state of race relations in the country, it is likely that a non-trivial number of people in this country were likely never going to vote for Obama regardless of his political leanings because he is black). I am not really clear why that gives you license to make the leap from any discussion of race straight to Obama, though. The cups didn’t say anything about Obama or politics.

        Do you believe that any discussion of the state of race relations in this country has to be in service of some political agenda?

      • M. Noonan March 24, 2015 / 1:25 pm

        There were probably not one in ten thousand people who voted against Obama due to his skin color – race is only an issue to race-baiters.

      • Cluster March 24, 2015 / 6:10 pm

        Given that 93%+ of black Americans voted for Obama, including 96% of black women, it is empirically evident that a higher percentage of people voted for Obama because of his skin color, than those who voted against him. And race has become a club that this administration wields at their discretion to inflame passion and support, i.e.: “Hands up don’t shoot”, which was another lie in a long string of lies. You see the problem with leftists such as yourself is that you lie as easily as you breathe, and you have so much garbage in your head you are incapable of thinking rationally. Another case in point, you imply that the trending demographics favor the leftist agenda when in reality nearly every poll shows that a clear majority of Americans of all ages disapprove of Obama’s executive action on immigration, Obamacare, his handling of the economy, and his foreign policy. In addition, the majority of states, 31 to be exact, have conservative governors and conservative legislatures including the very “blue” states of Maryland, Illinois, and Wisconsin which were recently elected including a new majority in the Senate and House, so you may want to reconsider that “trend” that you think is so much in your favor.

      • tryvasty March 24, 2015 / 10:13 pm

        M. Noonan:

        I am not sure if you are making that statement with regard to politicians, or if you actually believe that race isn’t an issue in this country anymore.

        Although if it’s the former, I’m not sure how your linking a conversation about race immediately to Obama would make you anything other than a race-baiter yourself, at least if I am interpreting the term correctly.


        And 88% of black voters voted for Kerry. Upwards movement by 5% of 10% or so of voters amounts to about half a percent. I fail to see how it is therefore in any way obvious that Obama gained more votes from his race than he lost. I’m not sure empiricism means the same thing to you as it does to me.

        I’m going to ignore the rest of your nonsense because you’ve spent more time essentially calling me a dumb liar than actually trying to discuss anything, and that’s not a conversation I find interesting.

      • Cluster March 24, 2015 / 10:24 pm

        All leftist liberals are liars who simply hide their intolerant totalitarian impulses in politically correct issues. You don’t like being called out on it so it’s not a surprise that you don’t find the conversation interesting. And there are no larger race baiters than Sharpton, Jarrett and Holder.

      • Cluster March 24, 2015 / 10:30 pm

        And incidentally, if race was not a driving factor for many in the election of Obama, why was the possibility of the first black President so relentlessly promoted? After all, his mother is white, so technically he is mulatto.

      • M. Noonan March 25, 2015 / 1:14 am

        Let me put it more clearly, then: race isn’t an issue for people who are possessed of the facts. There is no chance – zero, zip, nada – that any person of any race in the United States can be prevented from the full exercise of his or her rights because of their ethnicity. Anyone who says otherwise is either ill-informed, or running a scam. There is no law or even custom in the United States in 2015 which prevents anyone from advancing as far as their talents will permit.

        Let’s just pick a “racism is alive in America” thing at random – “driving while black”. The “racist America” theory is that black drives are harassed because they are black. The actuality is that, on average (and FBI stats bear this out) African-Americans are more likely to be driving without a seat belt; driving without an up-to-date registration/drivers license; driving with a child not in a proper child seat. There are a variety of reasons why this issues come up in the African-American community more often than any others, but racism isn’t the reason. Now, here’s the kicker – here’s why we have “driving while black”: liberals. It is liberals who wrote the laws which say you have to register your car every year. It is liberals who wrote the law that says you have to wear a seat belt. It is liberals who wrote the law which says you must have your child in an approved seat. And it is liberals who have driving our cities to the verge of bankruptcy and thus made them avid for any source of revenue they can find…including, of course, the revenue generated by tickets for having an expired registration, not wearing a seat belt and not having your kid in a child seat. At the behest of mostly white, upper class liberals we now have a situation where the poor are increasingly ground up to try and raise the revenues mostly white, upper class liberals need to keep their government gravy-trains rolling. This has also led to the absurdity to poor people – who are disproportionately minority – getting arrest warrants issued against them because they don’t pay the fine for not wearing the seat belt because they couldn’t afford the money for the fine…and now if they get pulled over, they are hauled into jail for the warrant. Modern liberalism: the re-creators of debtor’s prison.

        Now, to be sure, liberals will use the disproportionate number of minority people being hauled in as proof of racism – which just adds a cherry on top to the layer cake of modern liberalism. Like a cop will really risk his career just to vent his racist feelings, supposing he even has them! “Let’s see”, say officer Joe, “I’ve got 15 years on the force, I’m five years away from pension eligibility and I make 55k per year, before over time, at my job: know what I’ll do today? I’ll just flush that down the toilet by harassing black people.” Only a liberal can believe things like that happen in the real world.

Comments are closed.