Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Observations on the 2016 Iowa Caucus

Here are my quick observations of the 2016 Iowa Caucus:

  • Yes, Ted Cruz won with the majority of caucus votes.  However, he only one 8 delegates with Donald Trump getting 7, Marco Rubio getting 7, Ben Carson getting 3, and Rand Paul getting 1.  And at the end of the day, it is the delegate count that matters.
  • Given the delegate count, right now Cruz, Trump, and Rubio are neck and neck in the race.  Any reports saying that Trump should drop out (and there are many) are foolish at best.
  • The 50/50 split between Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton is interesting.  I was pretty sure that Hilary had the nomination in the bag, but now I’m not so sure.  The fact that a guy who looks like your creepy great uncle who smells like pee can tie with the Clinton machine shows you just how much Hilary is disliked in her own party.
  • As of this post, Rand Paul has bowed out of the race.  I wanted to like this guy but he played around with the other side.  On the flip side, maybe he can do more filibusters in the Senate.
  • Yes, Iowa hasn’t picked the nominee for the Republican side since 2000.  But that doesn’t mean that Cruz won’t win.  Still, Trump doesn’t strike as someone who is giving up, especially considering he is nearly tied with Cruz after all.
  • Still not sure how Rubio got so many votes.  I’ve heard speculation of voter fraud perpetrated by Microsoft but there’s no real proof of this.  It should at least be investigated.
  • Martin O’Malley should just drop out now.  He stands no chance to win.
  • Likewise, Jeb Bush and anyone who did worse than Ben Carson should drop out as well.
  • Why are there so many candidates on the Republican side but so few on the Democrat side?

That’s about it.  I still believe that Trump will win the nomination and, like I’ve indicated, it’s still too close to call.

Monday, February 1, 2016

I Lost a (Facebook) Friend

So I received the following private message a couple of days ago on my personal Facebook account:

I put up with a lot in my news feed. I have friends all over the political and theological spectrum (here and on Twitter). Your posts are far and away the most consistently arrogant, absurdly-broad, and seemingly-hateful. I get the sense you don't care what I think, and that's fine. I care deeply about you and your family, but I'm choosing not to follow you on Facebook anymore.

I have had this acquaintance for some time now (I don’t consider most Facebook “friends” to be actual friends, just people I know).  He is a pastor, but that is all I will say about him on my blog.

I was a little shocked by his direct message.  To be honest, usually when I stop following people, I just stop following them, either on Twitter or Facebook.  I don’t make a big fuss about it nor do I send them a message as to why.  There’s no point to it.

But what sent him over the edge?  I wasn’t sure but I did have a slight argument with him a few days before.  It started when I shared this story about the shooting death of LaVoy Finicum.  He commented on my Facebook share (because my Twitter posts go to Facebook as well) the following:

You sure about that?

Now, keep in mind that I had shared the article.  I didn’t say that I believed the eyewitness, just shared the report of what she said (later video evidence seems to support her claim by the way).  What he was doing was accusing me of taking the witness’ account as genuine.

I knew what he was doing as I’ve encountered such nonsense in the past so I responded to him with the following:

Were you there?

This was basically me asking him if he knew more than me.  You see, he was challenging me directly and my knowledge only extended to the article I shared.

He responded with:

Nope. You?

I knew the answer he was going to give.  Of course he wasn’t there, but at the same time, he was trying to discredit another person’s writing by demanding to know if I was there.  So I followed up with the this:

Did I say I was? I am merely repeating what eyewitnesses claim here.

So maybe you asked the wrong question initially. Maybe you should be asking is if the eyewitness is lying, which is what you are implying.

So I’m challenging him here.  I want him to admit that he doesn’t believe the story, not shoot the messenger.  He does not disappoint:

Well this one is lying, or the other eyewitnesses are lying. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable anyway…it's possible none of them are willfully lying--maybe somebody's memory is wrong. But how do we even know who the real eyewitness are?

Remember, this person is a Christian pastor.  He has just stated that eyewitness testimony is “notoriously unreliable”.  Does anyone see the problem here?

Doesn’t his whole religion and profession rest on eyewitness testimony?

So we have a pastor who has doubled down on his assertion that someone is lying by basically rejecting the Good News as unreliable.

Yes, I am aware that this is a leap of logic, and I will credit his assertion as being unintentional, but that is where his line of logic ends: a rejection of Christianity.

I finally followed up with this:

I don't know about that. God said you needed two or three eyewitnesses in order for someone to be put to death. He seemed to believe it was reliable.

The Bible verse I am referring to is Deuteronomy 17:6.  I didn’t get a response after that.

I think the lesson here is that even if someone is not a Social Justice Warrior, and I don’t believe this person is one, you still find their tactics all over the place.  People always lie, they always double down, and they always project.  I admit that I am guilty of such things myself but I am at least self-aware enough to mitigate much of that.

We live is a world where people are different.  We have different opinions and no one really ever thinks alike.  It is something that mature adults must accept in order to function normally in a society, especially in this modern age of social media.

I understand why he rejected me. Understand that I make no apologies for what I post and if it is nasty or mean-spirited, I don’t care.

I made a lot of posts following that one but I think I angered him with the above exchange.  And if he is angry in a way that prevents him from being a pastor, then perhaps he should unfriend me.

But at the same time, he didn’t need to send me a message.  Just stop following me and be done with it.

Friday, January 29, 2016

Fun Friday: The Fall of Nosgoth

Here’s a video from Soul Reaver 2.  Not the best game in the Legacy of Kain series, but it probably has some of the best story elements of all of them.  This video serves as an excellent example:

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Man Up and Fight Back

As a man in the Western civilization, I’ve often heard people telling other men to “man-up”.  Usually, the context of this revolves around men not doing what women want them to do and other men trying to shame them into being what women what men to be.

But when men fight back, I mean really fight back, suddenly we’re not manly or living up to our expectations as men.  I find this whole notion disgusting and demeaning to men everywhere.

Men need to fight back when they are confronted with injustices against them.  When their wives decide to divorce them, they need to get over the emotions they feel, hire a bulldog of a lawyer, and go for the legal throat.  When your wife declares that your marriage is over and she wants to leave, she has effectively declared war on you.

When a man doesn’t pay child support because he can’t afford to do so, he is called a deadbeat by society.  Because in our sick society, the only way you can show love to your children is through money.

Marriage in Western Society is considered a social dating contract, one that can be severed at any time by a woman whenever she doesn’t feel haaapy.  And then the family court system is set up to strip a man of his productivity and give it to his ex-wife.  This makes him the provider without the benefit of sex to his family.  What’s left of it anyway.

It is time for men to rise up and fight back.  Do everything in your power to stop these abuses as best you can.  When you are attacked, go to war with the enemy.  It could be your wife wanting a divorce, your co-worker seeking to impose his or her twisted moral code on the office, or it could be some politician trying to enslave in some minor way (like making you clear a sidewalk owned by the local government).

Fight back as best as you can.  This need not be violent confrontations like the militia in Oregon, although I sympathize with them as they seemed to have very little recourse.

But really, all you have to do is stand up for yourself.

If only one-third of American men stood up and said, “Enough!”, we’d see a huge shift in our culture, public policy, and our collective dignity and self-respect.

I leave you with the following example from the movie Changing Lanes:

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

The Government Doesn’t Stop Hedonism

Watched Ben Swann’s report on CDC corruption today.  Got into a bit of a spat with a moron.  I basically stated that the gay mafia caused the CDC to become politicized in the 1980s due to the AIDS “epidemic”.  This person disagreed saying that conservatives stopped the CDC from doing its job.

I’m guessing this commenter was a gay rights activist of some kind who believed that government could have stopped the spread of AIDS while allowing gay men to continue to have 10+ anonymous sexual partners a day.

In other words, the government was suppose to do its primary domestic job: protecting people from the bad consequences of their actions.

The spread of AIDS in the United States was primarily due to the extremely sexually promiscuous culture that underlined urban gay men.  They made it so that a gay man could go to a specific location and have sex with another man without attachment.

It is pretty much the dream of many young heterosexual men to have such a world for them.  But women, despite their best efforts to imitate men, remain very selective in their sexual partners, even when it is anonymous.

So of course, by committing wanton acts of sodomy, gay men are more likely to contract many serious diseases.  I doubt even AIDS is the most rampant among gay men.

The bottom line is, AIDS was the fault of irresponsible sexual behavior among gay men and that continues to be the case to this day in the Western world.

Of course, this is considered homophobic.  It is homophobic to urge fellow human beings to act with the virtue of moderation and it is not homophobic to promote hedonism among sexual degenerates.

Such is the world we live in.

Share This