The fact is, Obama IS bringing `Change’ – he’s changing the American republic into, essentially, a European social-democratic state; or rather, a very large-size Canada.

This is the Change he promised; this is the Change he’s hell-bent on bringing about.

Why anyone is surprised about this, is quite beyond me.

And Mr. Darwin will then help purge the polls of those who are too weak; too ill-informed; or too illogical.

AVI, I agree. It was a modest proposal. And in the same spirit, I offer this one:

We put a rattlesnake in a terrarium at each polling place, and invite prospective voters to pet him, because he’s a “good rattlesnake” and responds well to “good people.” Kind of a crotalic version of the pons asinorum.

It’s not really an intelligence, in the sense of candlepower, question. It is closer to a personality type that is willing to suspend sensibleness on the basis of hope. These folks, such as a school nurse, could have known the answer if they’d wanted to.

We are all willing to believe some impossible things, and only change when the number grows too great and some other explanation (plate tectonics, genetic predisposition to schizophrenia) requires fewer impossible things. For example, believing that Republicans are going to reduce government has also proved illusory – just not so batshit crazy as believing that Democrats will save us money on health care.

it was like trying to do an average, and everytime you ran across a number that was too far out of the norm, or would point to some off point that was not approved by the party lines, it was to be ignored as if it didnt exist. that is, pc tells you whats real or whats not real in a reality you have lost touch with.

it has taken people a year to start to get around to accepting a few of the factual points that were relegated to this area of verbotten information.

we had cleansed ourselves of the caution we had by labeling it paranoia. we had cleansed ourselves of the next generation to carry on, and replaced them with immigrants by labelling eugenics as abortion, and labeling illegal immigration as something else.

we discuss the labeling game, but yet, refuse to accept how far it has gone, and how far it controls us.

this concept is so complete and so skinerian that the left is amazed when it doesnt work! ergo pelosi.

oh…

and by the way

the more we are reasonable, the farther and more unreasonable the actions will have to be to get back.

that is, if the reasonables didnt do their bs, and the across the aisles people wanting collusion as the norm rather than merit based argument, we would have nipped ALL these things way way way before they were even imagined to be a problem.

want to teach fisting to kindergartners?
the only way that works is if someone like *** comes along and says be reasonable, lets get this passed with it, and remove this later.

only reasonable idiots would think bipartisan collusion agaisnt the people would be a preferred choice between two sides arguing in favor of doing the right thing and not batching sh*t with food in the bills.

reasonable people never fight for principals!!!

doing so is not reasonable!!!

they instead figfht for holding still and seeign what happens.. and when its good they pretend to be wise, and when its bad they pretend that they couldnt have known.

but deep down…

they are the ones that created hitler, created stalin, created mao, and all the others.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

and how do good men do nothing?

be reasonable!

one only has to read the definition to see the word game they play.

reasonable:
agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical:

ah, by being reasonable we assume they are of sound judgment… that is the opposite of the meaning!!! as they equate not acting as the only reasonable logical action until everything is known, but, by then, its too late and so they are on to the next thing they will be reasonable on.

one cant be reasonable unless one accepts logical facts as facts and not use reasonableness and behavior to determine what is logical.

which means they pose to the first, and they are really this meaning.

not exceeding the limit prescribed by reason; not excessive:

this means that they again define it backwards. they look at the execciveness and then say whats excessive is not reasoonable.

but they ignore reasonable men who have said that when men do unreasonable things, excessive acts become reasonable.

and their goal in all of it, is the third meaning.
endowed with reason.

that is, they believe that actions and thoughts never taken to excess makes then reasonable, which then means they are endowed with reason, and can feel superior.

no such thing…