1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Hillary Clinton's Identity Crisis

tgwWhale Wrote: Feb 25, 2015 2:03 PM
In 1992 Jesse Jackson (of all people) captured Bill Clinton better than anyone else before or since: "There is nothing this man won't do. He is immune to shame. Move past all the nice posturing and get really down in there in him, you find absolutely nothing ... nothing but an appetite." I would suggest the same is true about Hillary, except that the appetites are different. We all know what Bill's appetites are. Hillary's appetite is for power, pure and simple. As for her symbol -- just what does a Hildebeast look like? A gnu riding a broom with a hammer-and-sickle flag flying behind? Of course, a gnu is a lot better looking...
In response to:

Murder on the Merriment Express

tgwWhale Wrote: Feb 23, 2015 9:26 AM
"Power and pelf"? Pistol, YOU read Sir Walter Scott?
The Dims are the party of the left. Lefties today come from three main groups: (1) The libertines -- for whom the main thing is having no moral loading on sex and drugs and stuff like that. So the Dims are the party of baby-killers, dopers, perverts, sex fiends, Clintons, and Kennedys. (Sorry for repeating myself.) (2) The barbarians -- those for whom the main thing is looting other people's stuff and live to transfer wealth from the productive to the unproductive. BHO is mostly a barbarian. Note: After the 2000 presidential election, when they were examining the votes in Florida, they found that 85% of the illegal felon vote went to Algore. Barbarians! (3) The totalitarians -- for whom the main thing is controlling how big your soda cup can be,and everything else. A lot of the Global Warming gang are in this group. To these three groups on the left, there is a fourth group that vote Dim -- the cowards. (Witness BHO's foreign policy.) So the basic principles of the donkey party are: libertinism; barbarism (communism); totalitarianism; and cowardice. There, Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz's job is done for her.
In response to:

The Climate Con Goes On

tgwWhale Wrote: Feb 21, 2015 9:22 AM
Algore published his "Earth in the Lurch" book over 20 years ago. All of his dire warnings and predictions have proven completely, totally bogus. The Climategate scandals were all about the global-warmers fudging the temperature data upward. The lefties and the lamestream media covered it it up as best they could. The global warmers claimed that 2014 was the warmest year on record. Yet where I live the temps averaged 3 degrees below normal. While I am aware that it can be cold in one place and hot in another (e.g., this winter has been very cold in the eastern US and warm in the west), I find it odd that we keep getting told how hot it's getting, but where I live it seems to have been getting colder -- and not just last year. My point? The global warmers are practicing the Big Lie. No matter what the evidence, they just keep screaming what they want, and figure that whoever screams loudest, wins. It's the standard tactic of the left.
Grumpy: "Seriously, though: vote for someone because he's Black? In what way is that any less racist than refusing to vote for someone because he's Black?" Answer: under the cartoonish "morality" espoused by lefties, EVERY issue is seen according to a single template or pattern: some big guy is picking on some little guy (oppressors are oppressing the oppressed), and the little guy is always the good guy. This makes blacks the "good guys" automagically, which means they CANNOT be racist, because racism is bad. White males are ALWAYS the bad guys in everything, so even if they like "people of color," they are racist and have "white privilege" or some such. As I said, cartoonish -- but that is the way lefties see EVERY issue.
In response to:

Baseball and the Spirit of Innovation

tgwWhale Wrote: Feb 19, 2015 5:05 PM
Hard to admit that I agree with Chapman on anything, but he's right here: the proposed rule change is stupid. But I do favor a rule change that would restore offense to the game 10,000 times more than the stupid proposed rule: at the major league level, balls and strikes should be called electronically. I am sure it could be done. This is needed because television replay has shown something that I have known for years: that on close ball-and-strike calls, umpires are wrong a lot more than they are right. This would have two huge benefits: First, it would get rid of the "low strike." Everyone who has played baseball on any level knows that the hardest thing for an umpire to see clearly is if a pitch is low (because of the angle he watches from). This leads to innumerable balls far below the knees being called strikes. Such pitches are generally unhittable, so by properly calling them balls, it would force the pitchers to throw into the actual strike zone, and the balls would be hittable. Then offense would greatly increase. Second, it would help reduce the pernicious effects of the "star system." The "star system" basically says: if a close pitch is thrown by Sandy Koufax, it's a strike, but if it's thrown by Charlie Brown, a pitch in the exact same location is a ball. Similarly, if Babe Ruth is at bat, it's a ball; if Joe Shlablotnik is at bat, it's a strike. Unless bias is written into the computer programs, a computer would not be biased in favor of stars as human umpires and referees too often are. Of course, the umpires would object loudly to this change. Too bad. (Heh-heh-heh.)
In response to:

Why No Swimsuit Issue of Men?

tgwWhale Wrote: Feb 17, 2015 3:00 PM
If SI is published once a week. it has one swimsuit issue for men per year and 51 of the equivalent for women for the rest of the year. Male athletics always has a sex-appeal attraction for many women (not all, of course). It was long ago (1933) that it was written, "You got to be a football hero to get along with a beautiful girl." In sports men demonstrate that they are alpha males and thus desirable to women. So the prettiest cheerleader always "went with" the QB of the football team back at old Central High. So characters like Michael Jordan ended up being sex symbols to women. And they get to fill SI for 51 of the 52 weeks. Most women find the athletic body type in men to be the most attractive body type (leaving out offensive tackles and sumo wrestlers, of course.) Most men, on the other hand, would rather look at Kate Upton than Serena Williams. Some years back Mike Tyson was arrested for assaulting a beauty queen in his hotel room at 2:00 AM or some such. I ask you, when was the last time you had a beauty queen in your hotel room at 2:00 AM? Why would a beauty queen be with a Neanderthal like Tyson at 2:00 AM or any other time? It's because he was da heavyweight champeen of da world -- the very best at knocking other people unconscious, the ultimate alpha male. Let's just say most guys would rather have Kate Upton in their hotel room than the women's heavyweight boxing champion. Just sayin.
In response to:

A Man's View of 50 Shades Of Grey

tgwWhale Wrote: Feb 14, 2015 9:25 AM
Nos Nevets: "The secret of being a man worth submitting to is to love the woman so much that you marry her, stay married, make her secure, very secure, and live sacrificially for her. (Sounds a bit like submission doesn't it?" I agree with you, and the idea has been around for a while: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church. he gave himself up for her to make her holy..." (Eph 5:25). "He gave himself up for her..." Yeah, that seems to be what you are talking about.
In response to:

Osama bin Laden, Meet Mother Teresa

tgwWhale Wrote: Feb 12, 2015 7:02 PM
The article is interesting, but the title is more interesting than the article. The article itself does not mention Mother Teresa or the Salvation Army, for example. The real point is that when someone does Christianity RIGHT, you get Mother Teresa or Rev. Billy Graham or someone like that. When someone does Islam right, you get Osama bin Laden -- or at least a very large share of the Muslims in the world think so. Christian faith inspires great and highly moral behavior -- "saintly" we might call it. Islamic faith inspires suicide bombers. Just sayin'.
In response to:

True Lies

tgwWhale Wrote: Feb 12, 2015 6:51 PM
It's hard to believe it, but Nietzsche had it right. Not right when he proclaimed "God is dead," but right in that once God was "dead" (in the sense that people no longer believe in Him), then we are then "beyond good and evil." That is, without God, there is no absolute ground of ethics and morality. There is just power, and lying is just one way to get what you want. For the serious believer, truth is of the very nature of God, and thus precious. For the unbeliever, truth is a meaningless concept. The left is the side that has pretty much rejected God. It is not as if people on the right do not lie also. But on the left people do not consider the truth important as long as they get what they want. So lefties from Obozo on down lie and lie and lie, and their supporters excuse it. Because once God is out of the picture, all that matters are power and pleasure -- the gods of the left.
1 - 10 Next