I guess we’re all supposed to be upset that some youngsters were crude in a group chat. I guess a lot of people haven’t met young people lately – they are freely profane and deliberately use provocative words because their elders told them they can’t. I know this will cause shock among geezers and calls for the smelling salts, but there it is…young people are, well, young. I mean, not you and me: we were never young and if we were then we were completely what our parents told us to be no questions asked and we never used The Bad Words.
Additionally, its the people who cheered when Kirk was shot who are telling us to mind our manners. So, yeah, I don’t care what some kids said in a group chat. I care what people do in the real world…and I especially care about the “ready, aim, fire” folks on the Left. At least, a heck of a lot more than some 20 year old using the N word in a group chat.
Reminder: the government is shut down! Be sure to panic!
The reality here is that the government being shut down is only a problem if the government makes it one…like Obama did back in his day when he maliciously inflicted maximum pain on the people because he wanted Congress to fund his pathetic little pet projects. Trump is not inflicting pain on us. And unless you are the deputy assistant director of diversity affairs at the Department of Wheel Spinning, the shut downs doesn’t mean a lot. Trump even figured out how to use appropriated money to pay the troops. Sure, this can’t go on forever…eventually, a budget does have to be passed…but nobody on our side has any incentive to cave on Democrat demands.
The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on the Voting Rights Act – specifically the bit where we have to draw minority-majority districts to ensure a certain skin color gets elected to the House (note they don’t insist upon making majority-minority States so we can have a more diverse Senate). This requirement is, of course, evil and anti-American. It is wrong to draw districts with a mind to making sure a black person can’t win…but it is just as wrong to draw them to ensure nobody but a black person can win. Our Constitution has always been colorblind – and this bit of the Voting Right Act has to go. Democrats are in a panic about it, of course – because they garner 19 House seats based upon these racial gerrymanders.
Blogs For Victory 
I don’t know what you are referring to, in your comment about rude youngsters in a group chat. But I have a hard time focusing on “rude youngsters” when I consider that young people tend to mirror the older people in their lives. This “rudeness” (which often goes far deeper that merely being ‘rude’) is common in Congress, in on-air personalities, in supposedly adult comments online and in day-to-day life.
I just saw a social media post where someone said he and his wife were working in their yard when an SUV went barreling down their quiet street and the man yelled at it to slow down. It turned around and came back with its female driver hanging out the window screaming profanity at him and his wife and flipping them off, then turned again and came back with the kids in the back seat hanging out the windows screaming profanity and flipping them off.
Gee, where do young people get the idea that it’s OK to be rude and offensive?
The Left managed to insert some sort of spy into a young Conservative group chat and posted pictures of the guys using inappropriate language…and now the Left wants us to talk about that – instead of them killing us. Naturally, the Oh My Heavens people are wringing their hands and calling on us to Be Better Than That.
The Left has always loved false flag tactics—-as we saw on January 6. “Inappropriate language” covers a lot of territory, but given a Leftist member of Congress referring to the President of the United States as a “mothatf**ker” it’s pretty funny to see the Lefty meat puppets all now obediently clutching their pearls and staggering in panic looking for fainting couches.
Their desperation to find/create something dramatic to, well, get all dramatic about is growing. Recently a troll tried to claim that Spook’s comment on using indelible dye to identify rioters was really just a modern effort to TATTOO people, coyly referring back to the dark old 1930s. NAZI NAZI NAZI. While my reference to wondering if the ugly brutality of Islam is due to nature or nurture made the poor dear immediately think of Dr. Mengele. NAZI NAZI NAZI. Given that the image of Nazis is so deeply grounded in their dedication to a Final Solution and that the current crop of Lefties has been echoing this in increasingly violent mobs of anti-Semitism, it is odd to see the same group using NAZI as a pejorative—-but then that silly concept of defining words accurately and then sticking to the definition has never been part of the Left and its efforts at semantic manipulation.
The moral of this story is that there are a**holes everywhere.
Politico. of course, picked up the ball and tried to run with it.
“The private rhetoric isn’t happening in a vacuum. It comes amid a widespread coarsening of the broader political discourse and as incendiary and racially offensive tropes from the right become increasingly common in public debate.” Gee, that sounds like, you know, really bad. What did those bad ole Republicans SAY that was so, you know, like “incendiary”?
Oh, they pointed out the Left’s determination to flood the United States with illegal immigrants, mostly from south of the border, by portraying the Left’s main spokesman for this effort wearing a sombrero. Oh, the horror! A HAT used as a symbol! Get a rope! (Then let’s apply the same “logic” to the cultural appropriation of wearing a kufiya. No? Hmmm.)
Politico breathlessly told us “Last month, Trump posted an artificial intelligence-generated video that showed House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries in a sombrero beside Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, whose fabricated remarks were about trading free health care for immigrant votes” and then, of course, jumped right into what passes for journalism on the Left and “explained” to the reader that linking the Democrat shutdown of the government due to a refusal on the Right to allocate dollars to health care for illegal immigrants is really “…a false, long-running GOP trope.” (The “false, long-running GOP trope” seems to be the suggestion that demanding unfettered importing of millions of people and then demanding a “path to citizenship” for them while pandering to them by giving them money and housing and free health care is in any way even remotely linked to a hope this will result in this demographic then voting for them. And this is, of course, “false” because shut up.)
“The sombrero meme has been widely used to mock Democrats as the government shutdown wears on.” Gee, Politico, why would a hat be seen as mockery? Could this be more Leftist projection of its own racism onto the Right? Sure looks like it. And how, exactly, is it “incendiary”?
The always-reliable Cambridge dictionary explains that the word means:
“likely to cause violence or strong feelings of anger” so there you go—-the image of a large colorful hat associated for at least a century with the heritage of Mexico is now “likely to cause violence or strong feelings of anger”. Good to know. Get those Mariachi bands down to Men’s Warehouse and dressed to avoid causing violence or strong feelings of anger, and get those hats out of the souvenir shops in Mexico before they start riots!
But Politico, now that it has linked a hat to an “incendiary and racially offensive trope from the right”, goes on, as it does tend to do. But what they tried to get the most mileage out of was the fact that a comedian tried out his edgy and often-offensive act at a Trump rally, where it landed with a resounding thud and was immediately rejected by everyone on the Trump side, even while the Left did everything it could to elevate it into a full-blown racist tirade BY TRUMP. OK, not really BY Trump, but a Trump rally so shut up.
“In his 2024 campaign, Trump spread false reports of Haitian migrants eating pets and, at one of his rallies, welcomed comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, who called Puerto Rico a “floating island of garbage” and joked about Black people “carving watermelons” on Halloween.” Wow, Politico really nailed the violent terminology and rhetoric of the Right, didn’t it? Never mind that the statements about Haitian “migrants” eating pets came directly from neighbors who saw them eating pets, or that the “floating island of garbage” was a reference to the well-known and often-referenced fact that Puerto Rico is being overwhelmed by garbage. (“According to a 2021 study commissioned by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Puerto Rico’s 29 municipal landfills and dumpsites could run out of landfill space in 2-4 years.
Most of Puerto Rico’s landfills fail to meet federal standards, and residents fear the trash will soon overwhelm the region.
Landfills on the island are growing mountains of trash, polluting the environment, and leaching toxins into the island’s fresh groundwater supplies. The mountains of waste and debris also attract pests and insects, causing an ever-present stench in the air.”
But why let facts intrude on a Politico rant? They never do. They also managed to nearly collapse in weeping over the virulent racism of this: ” I’m just kidding; that’s one of my buddies. He had a Halloween party last night. We had fun; we carved watermelons together. It was awesome!” So bad, so bad, so very very bad. Black people all over the country were divided between forming retaliation mobs and merely sobbing in anguish. HOW DARE HE!
The problem is not that there was a group of guys (and a girl or two) engaging in juvenile trash-talking and trying to one-up each other in gross commentary. That’s such a common phenomenon it barely calls for comment. The problem is that they did this under the identity of the Young Republicans, thereby linking the party with their asinine posturing and stupidity. What is ignored is that they and their vile rhetoric have been thoroughly, immediately, rejected and it has been made clear that they not only do not represent the values and beliefs of Republicans as a whole, young or not, but they are not going to be able to continue pretending to represent the party.
As for Politico, when it starts to reference the coarsening of political rhetoric from the Left—and not just from voices at the edges of the Democrat Party but from its heart, from its members in Congress—they might earn a seat at the table. Till then then are just more rabble-rousers, very aware that their target market are the rabble.
Recently a troll tried to claim that Spook’s comment on using indelible dye to identify rioters was really just a modern effort to TATTOO people, coyly referring back to the dark old 1930s.
See? You lie again. Spook said, and I quote, “I still think the best way to stop them is to cut off their money and use sprays with permanent dye and skunk juice on violent protestors.”
Permanent dye. Note indelible dye. Permanent.
Maybe you can explain to us the difference between “permanent dye” on one’s skin and a tattoo on one’s skin.
Apparently you are moderating comments now, but obviously you are still reading them.
Actually, I meant indelible; had a senior moment and I just couldn’t remember the word. My bad. And Amazona and I think alike, so SHE knew what I meant. Now go back to picking fly shit out of the pepper shaker.
Don’t worry about it, Spook. The two words are pretty much interchangeable when applied to dyes or inks. Rocks is just playing his silly simpering little semantic game. And, as I pointed out, it’s also a stupid silly simpering semantic game.
Whoever told you I am the Boss of Everything on this blog was messing with you. Because I can’t think of a legitimate reason for my name to come up back when the Boys’ Club was still a thing I can’t imagine why that name became associated in your mind with ultimate power and decision-making, but then I don’t spend much time trying to figure out the messy convolutions of your psyche. (Personally, I think it’s a gender thing, maybe spanked too much by Mommy and now hostile to female authority, but that’s your problem, not mine.)
You query: “Maybe you can explain to us the difference between “permanent dye” on one’s skin and a tattoo on one’s skin” and by golly there IS one. I know how definition-averse you people are, but there are definitions that might help you out of your mental muddle.
(1) “Indelible (of ink or a pen) making marks that cannot be removed” (2) “Permanent” = “lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely”. As you see, or maybe someone can explain to you, the definitions of “indelible” and “permanent” are remarkably similar. One might even say they refer to the same characteristics.
Now to the nature of human skin. “Epidermal turnover rates vary significantly with age:
▌In young adults: approximately 28-40 days
▌In more mature adults: 60+ days “ I will explain this to you. “Epidermis” means the top layer of skin, which undergoes change over time as new epidermal cells replace old cells that are sluffed off. The “turnover” of epidermal cells happens approximately at the rates shown. So if you splash ink or dye that is referred to as “indelible” or “permanent” on the surface of your skin, the skin cells so affected will sluff off and be replaced (“epidermal turnover”) within a certain time span, depending on your age. It is “indelible” or “permanent” in that it can’t be washed off, but as it is on the surface of the skin it will disappear as the skin cells are replaced by new cells.
Still with me? Evidently this is very complicated, or the concept would not have you so overheated and strident in your outrage, not to mention so terribly confused.
If one wants the colors of the ink to be TRULY indelible or permanent, he must find a way to push these colors below the epidermis. This is called “tattooing” and it requires a specific effort to accomplish. (3) A tattoo is “a picture or design that is marked permanently on a person’s skin by making small holes in the skin with a needle and filling them with colored ink”.
There. This is in text form, so you can go back over it until you understand it. To summarize: While “indelible” or “permanent” dye or ink can be considered permanent or indelible if splashed onto inert material such as clothing, the term does not accurately apply to the same process when the dye or ink is on human skin. In that case, it is actually SEMI-permanent or indelible, as it cannot be washed off, but it is not truly indelible or permanent as it will slowly disappear due to epidermal turnover. (See explanation, above.) And in no way can it be considered a tattoo, or anything similar to a tattoo, which is the result of purposeful insertion of dye or ink well below the surface of the epidermis where it will not be affected by epidermal turnover.
This is so obvious it really should not have to be explained, but then reality can never just automatically overcome hysteria and sometimes has to be carefully explained, in detail—-as I have just done.
(Banks routinely use indelible or permanent dyes in specially prepared packs of currency that are given to bank robbers, so when the dye packs explode or are tampered with they stain the clothing, skin and surrounding materials to make it easier to identify the robbers. I do not believe this practice has ever been linked with Nazis or 1930s Germany or tattooing, but then I don’t peruse radical Leftist screeds to see just how hysterical you people are.)
Then there is the little detail of rocks simply morphing definitions. He quotes me as saying I would “like to do the experiment of swooping in and plucking newborn baby boys from their Muslim mothers and rearing them as normal human beings.” LIKE TO. Naturally, rocks’ internal filters changed this to “Amazona said she wants to kidnap the children of ethnic groups she doesn’t like”. WANTS TO. (And of course he also had to invent a whole different set of characteristics of the alleged target demographic. What we call ‘lying’.) He actually uses my real words and in the next sentence misquotes me.
In the real world, “likes” is not the same as “wants to”—I’d like to be an Olympic downhill skier, but don’t want to try out for the team. I also specifically referred to the brutality of MUSLIM MEN, mentioning one way to determine if this is a factor of nurture or nature, not just “kidnaping the children of ethnic groups I don’t like”.
Rocks is quite generous in constantly providing us with reasons to find him not only annoying in the extreme but inherently dishonest. He can’t ever address what is said, or any principle behind what is said, but has to distort things and play silly games like substituting what the voices in his head tell him for what is really going on.
His real value lies only is acting as an example of what passes for political discourse and honesty on the Left.
I’d don’t worry about folks like Rocks, but it never ceases to amaze me the silly things he criticizes. His arsenal of ideas seems to be lacking any semblance of substance. He could have easily (OK, maybe not easily) said, “instead of indelible dye and skunk water, here’s my idea for how to deal with violent protestors.” But throughout the years he’s been here under a myriad of screen names he’s never showed any propensity for engaging in an exchange of ideas. As I said, he just seems to love picking fly shit out of the pepper shaker.
The poor thing is really coming even more unmoored than usual. His freakout about the words “indelible” and “permanent” is a great example. He has even accused me of deleting my own post explaining the relationship between the two words, though it is exactly where it always has been.
He doesn’t analyze problems and suggest solutions, because that is not his focus. He would never suggest a way to deal with violent “protestors” because he doesn’t care about them. He would only care about who he could blame for the protests, or who he could ridicule for a suggested treatment of them. His focus is exclusively on people, on identifying certain people as targets for his hate and malice and then creating excuses to attack them. His obsession with me is getting downright creepy.
And his whining is degenerating into sniveling. Wahhh wahhh wahhhh, Amazona is being mean at me wahhh wahhhh wahhhh
Great essay in this month’s Imprimis newsletter from Hillsdale College that dovetails with many of our recent discussions here.
Here are more definitions:
for most of those you could ALSO. Say ‘someone who IS a liberal” about as accurately.
Good observation
I understand the superficial reasoning (at the meme level) behind the list, but I’m not any of those things, and I disagree with Liberals on pretty much anything and everything.
Of course you’re not any of these things. That is the point of the list—-the labeling of people to try to make them seem to be what they are not. It’s about the way the Left dismisses legitimate discourse by simply hurling epithets and pejoratives, but when you get down to it one does not have to BE a racist to be called a racist—he just has to disagree with the Left. And so on
What a sad commentary on the state of public discourse.