That's it, I've finally had it. After more than a decade of looking for a rational liberal and not finding one, after begging, joking and ridiculing in an attempt to finesse one into the open, I'm not convinced that a rational Liberal doesn't exist, I'm convinced that none has ever lived.
Nor will one.
I've said it many times before, but you simply cannot be rational and liberal at the same time.
And lately, I've been approached both publicly and privately by people who claim they aren't liberal but…
And the "but' is, they are.
They're far out, wacko, loony! Blind, full of hate, and stupid to boot. Any one of those would be enough for me, but as we just saw in the case of our last visitor, one can be calm and relatively intelligent and still be a complete idiot…
Which is why I'm never calm!
Granted the far right is every bit as nuts, but if they aren't named Kenny, they tend not to say much. Liberals, on the other hand, are stupid with a need to express it – often and publicly. Of course, they themselves think they are the very picture of logic and objectivity… because they've never seen an example of either after hanging with others of their species, and they wouldn't know it if they had an example slap them upside the head, as Mensa Man demonstrated when he was here.
You can't reach 'em, and you can't kill 'em which makes you a bigger idiot than they are if you entertain their nonsense (read; Timothy), and a bigger idiot still if you know you're doing it (read: me).
But now it's over. I'm sure Snowy and all the lesser Snowies are lovely people it's just that… well.. why can't they be as disinterested about politics as they are about thinking? So let's leave it at this: if I haven't already heard from you, it's very likely that I won't want to. But should you be unable to resist the urge to reply to something I write, I'm no longer going to allow you to post simply because you don't come in with guns blazing. You have nothing to add that anyone here wants to read, especially since the only one actually here is me.
Before I go I'll give you a perfect example of what I mean. I posted a reference to Rich Lowry whose column was a cogent assessment of Bush's failing. Simply put, it was objectively negative. That wasn't good enough for our very little visitor. He just had to comment on the one innocuously positive thing I said about the outgoing administration: that it was scandal free. Every reasonable person knows that's a given…
Everybody, that is, except our quietly seething foreigner for whom no mention of Bush negatives is enough, and no list can't account for them all, which is why it's important to make them up. The Clinton Administration was a train wreck, and Obama's had more scandals as President-elect than Bush had in eight years with war raging, but it just like the upcoming inauguration: not a peep from these idiots about it being the most expensive in history, and during the worst financial period in more than half a century no less, but they were outraged around the clock at the cost of Bush's inauguration.
No, that isn't fair, they know not what they do – because to a man.. or woman… or trans-gender something, they're insane.