PostHeaderIcon My Newest Hero

Maybe there are a few politicians worth saving:

 

…wow! I don't know a thing about Louie Gohmert; but any antagonist of Big Sis is a hero of mine. ◄Dave►

 

10 Responses to “My Newest Hero”

  • Greg says:

    Allegations of terrorists infiltrated the government? I’m agnostic on the case of a specific certain individual in the Obama Administration who has been in the news that John McCain has defended.


    That being said, so many things to point out here:

    1) Though I don’t know whether to do disagree/agree with his viewpoint, the way he went after the DHS secretary was actually quite laudable! He refrained from making ad hominem attacks, #1, and #2, when he was accused of implying that the man in question was a terrorists, he made perfectly clear to say that no, he’s impugning his character; rather he is trying to demonstrate a potential link. Well done! 🙂

    2) I find this to be much along the lines of the sheriff questioning the birth certificate. I would technically say I was an agnostic, once again, on that matter. I prefer to accept the status quo until it is demonstrated otherwise. Because if you do it the other way around, you can go off the deep end and believe every potential conspiracy you hear. Which is not a pleasant way to be. But I say it is like the sheriff in that he brings evidence to the table. Person X is a member of an organization which is supported by the Muslim Brotherhood. Fact. Secondly, he accessed materials that he shouldn’t have. Fact. Thirdly, if the DHS itself is saying that he is definitely doing such a thing and the Secretary is saying she knows to the contrary, it looks questionable at best, incompetent at worst. Fact. Fourthly, she is dodging the question. Fact. All of these seem reasonable and follow logically.

    3) To follow from that point above, neither the sheriff nor this guy ever engaged in an ad hominem attack. The sheriff may question his legitimacy as a citizen, but he doesn’t say he is “unAmerican.” THere is a HUGE difference. In this case, the only ad hominem attack being levied is by Napolitano herself, who says that this senator here doesn’t like Muslims.

    Finally, if I may conclude this digressionL Let’s assume, for arguments sake, that neither the attorney general Eric Holder (Fast and Furious reference) nor Janet Napolitano, DHS secretary, actually had NO knowledge of the incidents in question. This demonstrates an utter lack of competence in my opinion, and both should be fired. In fact, no one in the administration, except for maybe Vilsack, has it together. Seems like the only other one who knows what they’re doing (ignoring policy) is Obama. OBama knows that he’s doing, it just may not be working 😐 That’s not a very good thing O.o

  • ◄Dave► says:

    Gee… here he is making sense again today:

    “In the wake of the Colorado tragedy, Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert asked today, “Well it does make me wonder, you know with all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying that could’ve stopped this guy more quickly?”

    That’s exactly how it happened in the same town just three months ago – when a man gunned down a pastor’s mother at the New Destiny Center church in Aurora, Colo.

    The shooter, Kiarron Parker, had been released early from prison after serving time for assaulting two officers.

    An off-duty Denver police officer – who had been carrying a concealed firearm during the church service – shot and killed the gunman.”

    I really should move to Texas… ◄Dave►

    • Greg says:

      Guns have always been a touchy issue for me. I don’t like them, don’t have one. I am a dove, in case my other writings haven’t made it clear, erring on the side of an extreme pacifist. That being said, there are instance,s such as this, where the evilness of guns are revealed, but the counter argument seems to be effective in that they say that guns are necessary evil. It is a very weird topic for me. I say, I wouldn’t shoot someone, don’t need a gun. But then I say, “If I had a gun pulled on me and I had a knife, let’s say, the guy with the gun would win.” Such a weird topic for me.

      Do you agree with me that it is best to accept the status quo unless proven otherwise? In other words, question all you want, but be prepared to be disappointed. I find that some people like the prototypical “birther” who questions Obama’s citizenship, can’t back it up, and then kvetches that the birth certificate isn’t real, and the prototypical “truther,” who believes that 9/11 was an inside job and when you prove otherwise, you’ve rigged the explanation/experiment, to be very obnoxious. It is far better to do what I guess would be the “inverse” of those situations, which is that Arpaio is doing, which is saying something along the lines of:
      “I have questions that I want answered. It could very well be that there is nothing to these questions, but I still want them answered.” I suspect that if Arpaio was given a very reasonable explanation to his questions, and was proved wrong, he would say, “Nothing to this. Carry on,” rather than going, “Nuh-uh! You lie!”

      • ◄Dave► says:

        If you haven’t already, read my very old essay, Urban Varmints, for my take on pacifism, guns, and self-defense.

        “Do you agree with me that it is best to accept the status quo unless proven otherwise? In other words, question all you want, but be prepared to be disappointed.”

        No; and I don’t find those two statements at all analogous. The status quo is more often in error than as it should be. I am a sovereign individual, who does not confuse or equate my country with the government, and recognizes no authority. I will always question anyone presuming to claim authority, and be very skeptical of any self-serving answers they might offer to my inquiries. It has been my general experience that if a politician’s mouth is moving, he is more likely to be lying than telling the truth. ANYTIME one adopts an air of authority and tries to look down his nose at me, I will naturally rebel with every fiber of my being.

        I am a natural born skeptic. The onus of ‘proof’ is on these employees we call politicians, or worse, ‘leaders.’ I accord them no more respect than that which I naturally extend, to any of my other employees. They work for us; not the other way round. One who refers to a constituent as a ‘birther’ or any other derogatory term, for simply asking questions and challenging the Constitutional eligibility of a candidate for office, is a miscreant who deserves no respect at all, much less the benefit of the doubt. The same goes for the arrogant, condescending, and effete media elites.

        That said, if said candidate were to offer satisfactory evidence of eligibility, that would be good enough for me; but a forged, computer generated, PDF file posted on the internet, does not constitute such evidence. Then, with the basic eligibility question settled, we could then proceed to evaluate all of the egregious lies the man has told, and continues to tell. Next, we could evaluate all the questionable associations he has had, and still maintains, with radical anti-American Marxist and/or Muslim colleagues. These things matter. ◄Dave►

        • Greg says:

          Well, there are “birthers” who simply deny his citizenship without asking questions and engage in cognitive dissonance. When I say birthers, I mean the people who present their case poorly, and do not even question their own sources, taking it as gospel from on high because they read something about Donald Trump somewhere–or at least that is how they come off when being interviewed.

          And then there are those like Mr. Arpaio who fall into a class of, “Okay, something’s not right here. Can you prove to me that what I am doing is a waste of my time.” Which again, is the much more reasonable approach. He enumerates his complaints and says “I’d like these things answered,” with a logical thought process and is more than willing to say, “Oops I was wrong.” He is not a “Birther,” he is simply an American asking questions about something that he simply wants answers to. Much the same as Congress is simply asking questions about Fast and Furious. THey build a case and say, “Okay, now prove me wrong.” It is much different than that Senator I showed you calling a report in a paper about something to the contrary about Fast and Furious “The biggest work of fiction he’d ever heard of,” having not read it, is it not? 🙂

    • Troy says:

      Congressman Gohmert is from the Tyler area and I really like the guy. At first he comes off like some good-ole-boy but he is superbly educated and never hesitates to speak the truth — unlike the trembling casteratti who pretend to “lead” the GOP.

      If you are coming to Texas, wait until October — it is hot here now and getting hotter.

      As for allegations of terrorists infiltrating government — the Muslim in the White House would not count as such — would he? How about an Attorney General whose private practice specialized in defending Muslim terrorists?

      However, the Colorado incident had nothing to do with Muslims. It was brought on by domestic terrorists (aka TEA Party members) who encourage this stuff plus a second amendment to our Constitution that should long since have been abolished (I know this because at least 4 homely, hysterical women from academia told me so on the TV last evening).

      This brings up a question I have long pondered… why do progressive women tend to be homely? Does one condition cause the other?

      Troy

      • ◄Dave► says:

        Yeah, Troy, frequently checking out the live temperature map of America, which Drudge was linking to last week, reminded me why I keep returning to the Central Coast of California. Here, less than a mile from the heat-sink of the Pacific Ocean, highs rarely exceed the 70s in summer, and lows rarely drop below the 40s in winter. I suspect I will stay put, or at least near enough to rapidly retreat back here. 🙂

        I too have noticed the profound and undeniable correlation between women’s appearance and their political proclivities. Pondering the possibility of causation, it has occurred to me that Progressivism is essentially an attempt to squelch competition while exalting victimhood. When feminism first reared its ugly head (pun intended) back in the ’60s, I noticed then that those advocating burning bras, seemed to be predominately those jealous that they didn’t need one. These angry, bitter, mating-challenged specimens, many of whom had to settle for unnatural relationships with each other, are now among the leaders of the Progressive movement. ◄Dave►

  • Greg says:

    The only thing I caution about is, if you get your questions answered (hasn’t happened in either situation yet), don’t be sore if you don’t like your answers 😉 . That makes you effectively a rabble-roused and doesn’t look good in my book. 🙂

  • Greg says:

    Troy Wrote:
    “As for allegations of terrorists infiltrating government — the Muslim in the White House would not count as such — would he? How about an Attorney General whose private practice specialized in defending Muslim terrorists?”// AHA! We can easily avoid the specter of what may (or may not 🙂 )be conspiracy by simply saying this, which questions his policies: “Barack Obama is too pro-Muslim in my book. While I understand there may be positive motives behind this motivation (public relations with Arab nations, etc.), it seems to have the great potential to do more harm than good.”

    Problem solved; we can now address how his policies may get us into trouble, which is more definite than saying something along the lines of Bachmann, which is “he is deliberately allowing radical jihadists to infiltrate our government.” <– which is a hefty claim, and is–as of yet–totally unfounded. This is what John McCain objected to in his speech on the Senate floor.

    Such a policy discussion is one we must have before we point fingers, and! Further! Surely through the examination of the policy itself, one may be able to verify or disclaim the theories by digger deeper. This is more of the type of discussion I want to have in that you can't point to any of this being deliberate as of yet, but by spotlighting this, one may find out if the policy goes deeper 🙂

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links
Other Sandboxes
T-Speak

Please also join us here. ◄Dave►