Tuesday, 23 July 2013

What would be so difficult.....?

What would be so difficult with responding thusly?
(1)    Listen, your job as a reporter, as best you can understand, and according to your training, is to protect the oppressed and the victims from that heavy, mean-spirited hand of the privileged few.   The nature of your question, "Just how are the children going to receive adequate nutrition during the summer vacation from school?  The Republican budget cuts are visiting hunger to the most vulnerable"....means that you have been programmed by the progressives to blame people that you and they have irrationally determined to be guilty of purposefully causing hunger and misery.
    Your question presupposes that it is somebody's or better yet anybody's responsibility other than the parents of a child to provide for his alimentation.   That is because you are a fool who can be easily tricked.
     The care of children should and must necessarily be the responsibility of the people who brought forth that child.  If such is impossible, then the child should, or even must, be taken up into a public or private care facility to be adopted or to be cared for until reaching the age of eighteen.
     If a second child is brought forth by the same woman, and that child has no other way to receive care, shelter, and/or nutrition, the woman should be clipped so as not to cause any further misery within the population and especially for an innocent child.
    The male of the equation producing a second un-supported child should be tracked down and snipped, so as not to cause any further misery within the population and especially for an innocent child.
(2)     Listen, your question being couched in the absurd terms of 'reproductive rights' is preposterous and fails in terms of compassion and in logic.  We are to worry about the inconvenience a pregnancy has, when we have all form and  manners of pregnancy prevention?
     There are girls who make errors and yet have the innate humane and religious and/or moral sense to go through the mess, trouble, and other major interruptions to a "normal" life....and place a new beautiful child up for adoption.  Some even strive along when two legs and two arms should be four of each.   But they do not resort to ending innocent life.
      When you ask your stupid question about reproductive rights you are actually referring to a process that precludes reproduction in the strictest and most correct sense.  Through elective abortion, reproduction is precluded...it is ended...the baby is killed dead....and becomes rot.   Not a pianist, not a great baseball player, not a farmer, not a fellow with his own auto repair shop.   The baby becomes dead protoplasm and unfulfilled future.   That is not reproductive...reproductive rights...reproductive wrongs....reproductive anything.   Nothing has been reproduced.
(3)     Your question is charged with assumptions that are only made by fools or by people who are so sophomoric that they think they can sneak a really cool point past a political Neanderthal.   Your question bespeaks of the mind and heart of a fool so perfectly that you are probably incapable of understanding the point I shall make.   The reason that the panoply of public assistance is not a good thing is because it is better to make a man...or any person...uncomfortable in his or her poverty.    Once a person gains the bottom rung of public assistance, he or she learns quickly that there is such an abundance that is seems arranged so as to reward sloth.  Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Free cellular telephones, public housing and/or Section 8 rent subsidy, Women's, Infants', and Children's Nutrition, school breakfast-lunch- snack and summer feeding program.   This is not to mention essentially free "school" , although schools are nothing like what schools were not so many years ago.   Fewer than 5% of to-day's "students" could pass the basic 8th Grade Proficiency Exam of the early 1900s....which served as the benchmark or equivalent of a high school diploma in many States.  The so-called "students" of to-day's public schools know useless things, and believe dysfunctional things, and have lost moral bearing and believe that they are entitled to some form of comfort that they have not earned.   It is because they have teachers who are trained to be "professionals" instead of having educators who have responded to a calling.
     The approach of the "Progressives" to the "problems" of the "exploited and brutalised classes" has those results that are best observed in settings such as Detroit, or almost any inner city of any sizeable urban area in the United States, and for that matter anywhere in the world where the people have been fed demagoguery and welfare crumbs.   There is nothing quite as expensive in the medium and long run as free medical, food, accommodation, and walking around money.
     To round out your silly point, it is axiomatic that if "free"  money is thrown at any situation, the situation does not, will not,  improve.   What happens is, with the extra money, the problem will become worse.   More people and businesses will seek to take advantage of the free money.   It is horridly corrupting, the idea that a central government or any government can give away "free money" and think that such a manoeuvre would not thoroughly corrupt everyone who touched the filthy greenback lucre.
(4)     Your question is drawn from a form of dull hostility that points up your stupidity, and the perfect combination of your stupidity with a well-developed ignorance of almost all things.   When the Senator asked a question in a party to a man celebrating his 100th birthday, "Don't you think that we'd all be better off if we could go back to when you were runnin' for President, Strom?'' do you know anything about Strom Thurmond?
     No, of course not.   This man jumped out of an glider-airplane behind German lines on 6 June 1944,,,when he was a 44 - year old Lt. Colonel, leading a battalion into battle.   And that, 16 years before, in 1928 he was the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina.   He drafted and ran through the South Carolina legislature a bill that would prohibit people covering their faces, especially during night-time hours when found in the company of 2 or more others also covering their faces.   Daytime restrictions were also put into place.  The bill also prohibited riding and/or driving while having the face covered, or riding horseback, or in any form of vehicle be it a wagon, buggy, or dreyage of any sort.
    The bill was aimed against the Ku Klux Klan.   It lived for about 6 years before being overturned by the United States Supreme Court.  Strom Thurmond was an adamant enemy of the Ku Klux Klan.
    Did you, as a reporter, ever risk your life and career to fight the Ku Klux Klan and Adolf Hitler, or have you been more concerned about Miss Sandra Fluke's access to other peoples' money so that she can have free birth control alternatives?
     Did you know that this person calling me down because I was humouring a 100 year old man on his birthday, ran a shakedown being fronted by a girl by the name of Tawana Brawley who levelled false allegations against some cops in New York.   He was sued for defamation and lost the case and was order to pay a sizeable settlement...which he has never done.  But he trundles down to Mississippi to jump on my bones for humouring an old man.   An Old Man who did more for the White and Black race than he (Al Sharpton) has ever done or will ever do.    And we are just getting started with this case of Strom Thurmond.   And how do I explain something to someone as ignorant and stupid as you?   Your only job is to go around being judgemental of people and traditions about which you know nothing and understand less.
    We put this into the arena at this time so that perhaps....perhaps....the GOP can gather up enough gumption to tell the Obsolete Media that they will not be hosing, moderating, or even be involved in the audience during any stupid GOP presidential primary debates.  It the Elephants had as much intelligence as their African, Indian, and Circus brethren, they would have exclusively one on one...with a lengthy interview of each candidate for a couple of hours over the period of about three weeks in February, March, and early April of 2016.
    Look at what that hideous woman did to Romney at  the last debate last time.   And please remember the useless grilling....Stephanopolous asking Romney about the war on women and the issue of birth control pills....and all the minefields and tank-traps they put out during the primary "debates".   There is nothing to be gained, and there is everything to be gained by denying even the premises of almost all the Obsolete Medias' questions and snarky set-ups.
We retire from the field even as the smoke continues to shroud the who holds the advantage.   To-morrow we shall prepare the attack anew and drive the Utopians from the field.
El Gringo Viejo