Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Crap from the Left

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, DEFCON said:

Nothing about violence is OK Deicer, but it is going to be the inevitable consequence of the Left's never ending crappy behaviour.

Take the Michael moore claptrap above for example.

The man's work product is an embellishment of fact and truth. He is a double-talker like Suzuki that supports himself by preying off people that can't think for themselves; he is a rabid coyote.

The wheels are starting to come off the cart now. You ought to be proud of your continuing contribution to the cause that will bring the dream to a predictable end.

 

That's laughable.

What I see here is the fact that you are upset because you see a problem with a Black Woman telling off colour jokes that cut to the quick about a person who is paid to tell lies on behalf of a man who's life is solidly anchored in nothing but lies, yet you see no problem with the White Man who professed that the only way to deal with your hated liberals and lefties is to shoot them like rabid coyotes.

That, in a nutshell, is racism and hate speech.

Please get the help you need.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Depravity of the LEFT knows no bounds....

Finland’s Supreme Court Rules 23-year-old Migrant Having Sex with 10-year-old

 

Finland’s Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by prosecutors to convict a 23-year-old asylum seeker who had sex with a 10-year-old of aggravated rape, ruling she was not forced.

The unnamed migrant, who was 20-year-old at the time of the attacks, was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor and handed a light three-year sentence by a district court, with an additional charge of aggravated rape being thrown out, reports Yleisradio Oy (Yle), Finland’s public broadcaster.

The decision baffled prosecutors and caused outrage among members of the public, but was upheld by an appeal court, which agreed there was “no evidence to indicate that the sexual encounter involved violence or that the child was overcome by fear or incapacitated in any other way”, according to Yle.      (OMFG )

The ruling resulted in what Yle describes as a “spirited public debate”, with Turku University’s Jussi Tapani and Matti Tolvanen of the University of Eastern Finland, both professors of criminal law, taking the judiciary to task in the national press.

Tuula Tamminen, Professor of Child Psychiatry at the University of Tampere, told the press there was no way the 10-year-old victim could have really understood what was happening to them.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the district court and the appeal court, and the migrant’s short sentence will not be increased.

Kari Tolvanen MP, who chairs the Law Committee in the Finnish parliament, has said the case shows the criminal law dealing with aggravated sexual abuse of a child needs to be amended, and claimed he supports longer sentences for such offences.

“The amendment would introduce harsher sentences for serious sexual offences against children overall. In my view that is fully justified, for example in light of a child’s vulnerability, even if the act does not meet the threshold for rape,” Tolvanen added.

 

 

 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/05/06/finland-court-migrant-sex-10-year-old-not-rape/

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decier

You've been fooled into drinking the koolaid and you've developed an apparent tick as a result.

I'm still waiting for the next obvious collusion connection from your side, but if I had to bet on the form it might take ...

...with the current scheme running out of gas CNN will soon announce that reliable sources have confirmed that Stormy isn't a gutter slut after all. Instead, she's been using the porn business to cover her activities as a Russian secret agent that was assigned to bag Trump on behalf of mother Russia and Putin thirteen years ago.

Good luck with the sinking ship.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We hold our comedians to a higher standard that the POTUS.  If thats not dysfunctional I don't know what is.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I was dismayed too when Bill wasn't successfully impeached for diddling Monica and lying about it.

Let's get real Boestar.

Trump had the IRS conducting invasive and fruitless investigations into his finances for years prior to the election and even though they're the worlds best at the task, they found nothing.

Now it's Mueller and his gang of thugs.

I can't imagine how you could possibly suggest the President isn't being held to a standard that's way higher than anything Rosie Odonnell, or any other non comedian has ever been held to (yet).

 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yet he can "Grab her pussy" with impunity.  But a black woman can't make jokes.  MAJOR double standard going on there.  If you can't see you are part of the problem.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this black woman making jokes thing all about that you and Deicer are clinging to?

Yes, Trump made the remark you speak of and was taken to task for same during the election. The people decided they wanted a President that could get things done and elected the guy in spite of the locker room talk that seems to bother Lefties so much.

During the period post Presidency Bill Clinton was touring and giving speeches. My friends wife attended one in YZ with a couple of her female friends. Later she commented that the large audience was overwhelmingly female. Funny thing that Clinton continued to attract large crowds of adoring women in spite of the fact he was a womanizer and got caught diddling a girl with a cigar in the Oval Office.

And you would try to make political hay with 'pussy grabber fluff?

   

Edited by DEFCON
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DEFCON said:

What is this black woman making jokes thing all about that you and Deicer are clinging to?

 

I believe they are refrring to the black comedian at the Correspondants dinner making utterly crude remarks way beyond what comedy is meant to be of which a Republican could never get away with.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/28/white-house-correspondents-dinner-2018-trump-sarah-huckabee-sanders-559190

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Jaydee said:

I believe they are refrring to the black comedian at the Correspondants dinner making utterly crude remarks way beyond what comedy is meant to be of which a Republican could never get away with.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/28/white-house-correspondents-dinner-2018-trump-sarah-huckabee-sanders-559190

Ethnicity

Wolf is white but has said she's often mistaken for an African American. In a Daily Show segment from 2017, she joked with Trevor Noah about her ethnicity: "You know how I know I’m white? I can cry myself out of a parking ticket. Hell, I can cry myself out of a murder charge."  https://www.biography.com/people/michelle-wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Jersey Cheerleading Team Must Take Everyone Who Tries Out After Parent Complains

When one parent's daughter didn't make the squad, she forced the school to change its "exclusionary" policy.

 

 

After one New Jersey student didn't make the cheerleading team at her high school, her mom complained to the school board, which forced the school to abandon its "exclusionary" tryout program and place every interested student on the cheer squad.

The New York Post reports that a parent whose daughter failed to qualify for the team approached Hanover Park High Schools cheer coaches and the school board, who came up with what they thought was a solution that made sense: either disband the team or eliminate the tryout process and let everyone who wants to be a cheerleader be a cheerleader.

The school’s athletic director said they changed the policy as a direct result of the mom’s complaint," the Post reports. "When asked to do away with the new rule, officials threatened to scrap the 10-member squad altogether — telling parents and students that everyone makes the team, or nobody does."

The school says the new policy makes the cheer team more "inclusive," even if some of the students now on the team might not have the same athletic talent typically required of cheerleaders who make it through tryouts.

Needless to say, the cheerleaders who made the team find the whole thing maddening. A group of them addressed the board directly last Wednesday, trying to drive home the fact that the women who made the team have trained most of their lives as cheerleaders and deserve the recognition.

"All my hard work has been thrown out the window,” one cheerleader told the board during the meeting. “I tried my hardest. Now everything is going away because of one child who did not make the team, and their parent complained.”

“I came up here to state that I did not put in 18 months of work to lead up to this moment, just to be told it didn’t matter anymore,” said another.

 

But the school board says it's not interested in changing its position, either.

“In order to facilitate a more inclusive program, the alignment between the various cheerleading squads would be modified to allow all interested students to be able to participate. This decision was made in the best interest of all students and was made to be as inclusive as possible," the Hanover Park School District said in a statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/30393/new-jersey-cheerleading-team-must-take-everyone-emily-zanotti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re cheer leaders, now that they are inclusive I guess they will have to eliminate any cheers etc. that require athletic ability.   In other words dumb down the performance to the lowest level or risk injury to those are not physically fit.

Quote

The sport of Cheerleading is open to Florham Park and East Hanover residents who are entering 1st-8th grades in the fall. No experience is necessary. Cheerleaders are placed on squads based on grade level, and they cheer for the youth football teams. Throughout late-summer and fall practice sessions, cheerleaders are taught hello cheers, halftime routines, and various spirit cheers, as well as age-appropriate dances and stunts. Volunteer squad parents and high school-aged coaches teach the cheerleaders and accompany them to all practices and games. During the season, cheerleaders learn the value of sportsmanship, teamwork, and community pride. Cheerleaders are also invited to participate in the borough's annual Independence Day parade, regional Cheer Fest tournament, and an end-of-the-season dinner and awards program.

So I guess they will not longer include the Cheer Fest Tournament in their blurb re cheerleading because they would no longer be competitive. http://cheerchamps.com/

Welcome to Cheer Champs Elite, Royal Cheerleading Tournaments

“Where thElite Compete to be Crowned Champions!”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What ever you do, don't let your boys be...ummmm BOYS !

 

Study Warns of 'Toxic Masculinity' in Boys as Young as 14

 

 

A new study published in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Counseling warns that boys as young as 14-years-old suffer psychological problems from “hegemonic masculinity” and its derivative, “toxic masculinity.”

Vincent Marasco, a former professor who now works as a mental health counselor, argued in a recently published article that mental health professionals should be cognizant of hegemonic masculinity since it can “influence the counseling relationship.”

“Counselors working with adolescent boys need to take into consideration these social influences, their impact on the counseling relationship, and the unique ways adolescent boys perform masculinity,” writes Marasco.

Hegemonic masculinity, as Marasco explains in his article, is a term that refers to the “oppressive characteristics of masculinity boys and men must assume and perform to be considered a ‘real man.’” These characteristics include “dominance over women,” “being heterosexual,” “exerting control and toughness,” among others

 

.

Though not all boys may evidence these characteristics, all boys are subject to socialization under these norms, Marasco tells PJ Media in an interview, which is why they are important to address from an early age.

“These traits are important to address in all children, and is especially so as we are beginning to recognize a broader range of acceptable gendered behaviors and identities,” Marasco told PJ Media.

The article uses Marasco’s experiences counseling a 14-year-old boy named Carson to illustrate hegemonic masculinity. Marasco cites Carson’s lack of respect for one of his female teachers in high-school to explain hegemonic masculinity, for example.

“Carson’s views of his teacher are rooted in misogyny. Carson does not respect his teacher because his teacher is not a male peer. She is, therefore, unworthy of respect,” claims Marasco, commentating on what Carson told him during a counseling session.

 

Speaking to PJ Media, Marasco said that socialization into gender roles, and thus, hegemonic and toxic masculine traits, begins at “pre-birth,” such as with gender-reveal parties and certain colors (blue versus pink) indicating the gender of a child.

“You can see it in onesies 'for boys' with messages like 'chicks dig me' or 'lady killer' or 'stud muffin,’  already communicating that this child is heterosexual,” he said.

“Conversely, clothing for girls with messages like 'daddy's princess' [suggest that women] will always be under the protection of a man. These messages are strengthened and perpetuated as boys and girls get older,” said Marasco.

The article concludes by stressing the importance of addressing hegemonic masculinity.

“When hegemonic masculinity becomes toxic and leads to negative mental health outcomes, counselors cannot overlook the importance of addressing the toxicity of various attributes associated with masculinity,” he writes.

 

https://pjmedia.com/trending/study-warns-of-toxic-masculinity-in-boys-as-young-as-14/

 

 

75E9D119-D6D9-40FF-9A2A-7F231EF37E93.jpeg

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case you thought it just couldn't get any worse from the nut cases on the left......you just can't make this stuff up...it's just TOO BIZARRE...

 

Sexuality Expert: Parents Need to Ask Babies Permission to Change Diapers.

The following is a case study on how to tell if someone doesn’t have kids. Or basic reasoning skills beyond “Don’t touch hot things. Burn. Ouchy. Fire!” You say things like “you need to ask the baby’s consent first.” Baby here is not a two syllable word-filler for a pop song. But the human offspring which is expert only in pooping itself.

Sexuality educator, speaker, and author Deanne Carson thinks you should ask a baby for consent prior to changing its diaper. Congratulations, 2018. You’ve outdone yourself yet again.

 

The reporter seems confused and asks “from birth?”

“Yes, just about how to set up a culture of consent in their homes so ‘I’m going to change your nappy now, is that OK,’ Deanne responded.

 

“Of course a baby is not going to respond ‘yes mum that’s awesome, I’d love to have my nappy changed’.

“But if you leave a space, and wait for body language and wait to make eye contact then you’re letting that child know that their response matters.”

Right off the bat, consent is for sex. Just ask Eric SchneidermanOr the people sexing up fish. Sex is the implication when people say we need to teach kids about consent. Especially if you call yourself a “sexuality expert.” If consent is your first thought when it comes to what goes on in the babies private areas, your babies should be taken away from you. You insane, wackadoodle freak.

 

Also, have you tried to ask anyone under two-years-old anything? They change their answer each time. My niece deciding between Caillou and The Wiggles can sometimes be a thirty-minute process. Either they change their mind, or the answer is always “no.” That includes when they have a full load in their diaper. As you chase them around the house while opening all the windows.

Raising kids to be the ones who make the rules of the house are how we got the Millennial generation. The younger side of the generation. Not the older Millennials who hold jobs. The ones who may be eating Tide pods. Or squandering their savings on avocado toast. Now imagine you start teaching kids as a baby that you, the parent, aren’t the boss of them. Suddenly What to Expect When You’re Expecting turns into Lord of the Flies. Hide the conch shells.

What this woman really needs a diaper to the face. After the baby went for ice cream and had a bottle afterward.

 

 

 

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/sexuality-expert-parents-need-to-ask-babies-permission-to-change-diapers/

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wolfhunter said:

I'm afraid it may be too late.... I fear stupid has won!

 

I think you might be right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the Left Refuses to Talk About Venezuela 

Venezuela was held up as a model of socialism a few years ago. Today, people are literally starving and will wait hours in line to buy TP. 
 
 

During the 2016 presidential election, Bernie Sanders refused to answer questions about Venezuela during an interview with Univision. He claimed to not want to talk about it because he's "focused on my campaign." Many suggested a more plausible reason: Venezuela's present economy is an example of what happens when a state implements Bernie Sanders-style social democracy. 

Similarly, Pope Francis — who has taken the time to denounce pro-market ideologies for allegedly driving millions into poverty — seems uninterested in talking about the untrammeled impoverishment of Venezuela in recent years. Samuel Gregg writes in yesterday's Catholic World Report

Pope Francis isn’t known as someone who holds back in the face of what he regards as gross injustices. On issues like refugees, immigration, poverty and the environment, Francis speaks forcibly and uses vivid language in doing so.

Yet despite the daily violence being inflicted on protestors in Venezuela, a steadily increasing death-toll, an explosion of crime, rampant corruption, galloping inflation, the naked politicization of the judiciary, and the disappearance of basic food and medical supplies, the first Latin American pope’s comments about the crisis tearing apart an overwhelming Catholic Latin American country have been curiously restrained.

This virtual silence comes in spite of the fact that the Catholic bishops who actuallylive in Venezuela have denounced the regime as yet another illustration of the "utter failure" of "socialism in every country in which this regime has been installed."

Thus, for many Venezuelans, the question is: "Where is Pope Francis?"

As with Sanders, it may very well be that Francis has nothing to say about Venezuela precisely because the Venezuelan regime has pursued exactly the sorts of policies favored by Bernie Sanders, Pope Francis, and the usual opponents of market economics.

It's an economic program marked by price controls, government expropriation of private property, an enormous welfare state, central planning, and endless rhetoric about equality, poverty relief, and fighting the so-called "neoliberals." 

And, as Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro has helpfully explained, "There are two models, the neoliberal model which destroys everything, and the Chavista model which is centered around people.”

The Chavista model is simply a mixture of social democracy and environmentalism which is easily recognizable as the Venezuelan version of the hard-left ideology espoused by a great many global political elites both in the United States and Europe. Neoliberalism, on the other hand — as I've noted before — is a vague term that most of the time really just means a system of relatively free markets and moderate laissez-faire. 

Indeed, no other regimes in the world, save Cuba and North Korea, have been as explicit in fighting the alleged menace that is neoliberalism. 

For this reason, as Venezuela descends into chaos, we are hearing a deafening silence from most of the left, as even some principled leftists have noticed. 

In an article at Counterpunch, for example, Pedro Lange-Churion points out: 

Venezuela was news while it was good news and while Chávez could be used as a banner for the left and his antics provided comic relief. But as soon as the country began to spiral towards ruination and Chavismo began to resemble another Latin American authoritarian regime, better to turn a blind eye.

Nevertheless, as a dedicated leftist, Lange-Chrion unfortunately still mistakenly thinks that the Venezuelan problem is political and not economic. For him, it's merely an unfortunate coincidence that the implementation of the Chavismo economic agenda just happened to coincide with the destruction of the nation's political and economic institutions. 

But here's the thing: it's not a coincidence. 

In fact, it's a textbook case of a country electing a leftwing populist who undoes years of pro-market reforms, and ends up destroying the economy. 

This has been going on for decades in Latin America where, as explained by Rudiger Dornbusch and Sebastián Edwards, the cycle repeats itself again and again. 

It's happened in Argentina and in Brazil most recently, and it goes something like this: first, a relatively neoliberal regime comes to power, moderately reduces government spending, somewhat restrains government power, and ushers in a period of growth. But, even with growth, middle-income countries like those of Latin America remain poor compared to the rich countries of the world, and large inequalities remain. Then, populist social democrats convince the voters that if only the regime would redistribute more wealth, punish greedy capitalists, and regulate markets to make them more "humane," then everyone would get richer even faster. And even better, the evil capitalists would be punished for exploiting the poor. Eventually, the economy collapses under the weight of the new social democratic regime, and a neoliberal regime is again elected to clean up the mess. 

Venezuela is in the midst of this cycle right now. After decades of relatively restrained government intervention, Venezuela became one of the wealthiest nations in Latin America. During the most recent twenty years, though, the Chavistas were able to take that wealth and redistristribute it, regulate it, and expropriate it for the sake of "equality" and undermining capitalist evil. But, you can only redistribute, tax, regulate, and expropriate so much before the productive classes give up and the wealth runs out. 

To the leftwing mind, the explosion of poverty that results can't possibly be the result of bad economic policy. After all, the Chavismo regime got everything it wanted. It redistributed wealth at will. It "guaranteed" a living wage, health care, and plentiful food to everyone. "Equality" was imposed by fiat over the cries of the "neoliberal" opposition

The only possible answer, the left assumes, must be sabotage by capitalists or — as the Pope reminds us — too much "individualism." 

The problem the global left has in this case, though, is that this narrative simply isn't plausible. Does Colombia have fewer capitalists and individualists than Venezeuala? It almost certainly has more. So why do Venezuelans wait hours in line to cross the Colombian border to buy basic food items not available in the social-democratic paradise of Venezuela? Has Chile renounced neoliberal-style trade and markets? Obviously not. So why has Chile's economy grown by 150 percent over the past 25 years while Venezuela's economy has gotten smaller

The response consists largely of silence. 

This isn't to say that what the left calls call "neoliberal" is without its faults. Some aspects of neoliberalism — such as free trade and relatively free markets — are the reason that global poverty and child mortality are falling, while literacy and sanitation are rising.

Other aspects of neoliberalism are odious, particularly in the areas of central bankingand crony capitalism. But the free-market answer to this was already long-ago voiced by Ludwig von Mises, who, in his own fight against the neoliberals, advocated for consistent laissez-faire, sound money, and far greater freedom in international trade. 

For an illustration of the left's answer to neo-liberalism, however, we need look no further than Venezuela where people are literally starving and will wait hours in line to buy a roll of toilet paper. 

And if this is what the the left's victory against neoliberalism looks like, it's not surprising the left seems to have little to say. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Downright SICK ! Hollywood’s support of Samantha Bee is disgusting!

 

Actress Sally Field chimed in on comedian Samantha Bee’s profane comments about Ivanka Trump Thursday, declaring that the President’s eldest daughter is beneath being called a “c*nt.”

“I like Samantha Bee a lot, but she is flat wrong to call Ivanka a c*nt,” Field said, adding, “cunts are powerful, beautiful, nurturing and honest.”

 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/05/31/sally-field/

 

And it all started with an innocuous picture of a mother loving her son 

C2775687-CE53-41CB-902B-FFDEDBA19000.jpeg

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this