I haven't posted much of late, but that doesn't mean I haven't been writing. The fact is, if I posted most of the pieces I've done in the last few weeks, it would read like a nonstop diatribe against Barack Obama with any comic relief being provided by warming wackos. But there are only so many ways to say what an absolutely terrible person Obama is, even if there are virtually limitless examples.
So instead of posting, I turned my attention to others' blogs. I normally don't do much on the "outside." Some people might think it's because I'm self-centered or that I have little regard for what they are saying, but that's just a small part of it. The real reason is that I can say and do what I want here, but on other people's blogs, I need to respect their approach, and that almost always involves biting my tongue since the Johns they attract in the spirit of "dialogue," the ones they seem happy to accommodate, are people who, mostly, should be garden mulch.
I don't mean to say I'd like to kill them (at least until I get the official word that the shooting has started), but what I'm trying to say is that they generally have such little intelligence, so little reasoning ability, and thus so little to offer in the way of thoughtful argument that they'd serve a far higher purpose if they were fertilizing crops.
But as I said, I did venture out again, and it wasn't long before I encountered the kind of stupidity and bigotry that I don't have to deal with much here. So what's a person to do with irrational people who build on each other's mindlessness? The answer, at least for me is, level or leave. I virtually always choose the latter option because I respect my host, and because there have been occasions when I've crossed the line and very much regretted my lack of discipline.
Worse, when I read the comments from the sort of people other bloggers are willing to entertain, it sometimes and wrongly makes me question their judgment. I say "wrongly" because I realize full well that I was, for a long time, exhilarated at the prospect of taking on liberals, and while that ceased to be fun for me, many of my friends elsewhere still enjoy the "fish-in-a-barrel" carnival aspect of it.
But here's how liberals argue – at least the less insane ones – they start with a point which may even have some validity. They then quickly spiral upward and outward into a swiftly swirling, expanding cacophony that becomes impossible to control, much less address. And not only does the original point get obscured by their own devices, it's the way they want it. It's the "Tornado Technique," and it's fueled by obfuscation. In their minds, liberals win arguments with numbers, no matter that any particular assertion bears no relevance to their original point.
It's really a concrete method of putting symbolism ahead of substance – quantity over quality. Liberals are simply incapable of calm and logical argument, and there's a good reason why, even if there's a sane liberal out there – those who are capable of discerning reality from fantasy seem aware enough to know that their argument won't stand up to cold scrutiny. Indeed, no liberal argument will.
In other words, every one of those "funnel points" can be demolished individually, and that's why many conservatives find it enjoyable – it's like a buffet. It doesn't matter where you start, just dig in and begin shredding. OK, so that makes it more like a medieval buffet, but there used to be real restaurants which catered to that theme. Do they still exist?
Anyway, it's clear that an increase in the number of tornadoes isn't the result of "global warming," it's because of an increase in hysterical frenzy among liberals who know that when the swirling stops, conservative arguments will be the only ones left standing… and liberals always want what they want, reason and principle be damned.
So I want liberals to know that I hear them, and that I really do get their over-arching message. It's simple: "God bless America? No, no, no, God damn America!?"