Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Nincompoopery Poll

(Nincompoopery — and worse — abounds! This edition of "Nincompoopery" offers specific links, and readers have the option of taking a poll as to which story they find the most outrageous. Discussion available in the comments section)

Links to read:

ONE: Obama says that the number of Muslims living in the United States makes it "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." (video and article)

TWO: Man accused of stealing restaurant's plumbing

THREE: U.S. Humanitarian Aid Going to ISIS: Not only are foodstuffs, medical supplies—even clinics—going to ISIS, the distribution networks are paying ISIS ‘taxes’ and putting ISIS people on their payrolls

FOUR: Idaho City To Christian Pastors: Perform Same-Sex Weddings Or Face Jail

FIVE: WH Official LAUGHED At Suggestion Obama Should Visit Dallas ["We don't do grandstanding"]


Please cast your vote in the following poll, which closes on Tuesday (Note: Unrelated comments will be subject to deletion):

polls

77 comments:

  1. Although ONE and FOUR are completely outrageous -- especially FOUR -- THREE is the one that has the greatest potential impact on the largest number.

    The very idea of aiding and abetting our SWORN ENEMIES via OFFICIAL POLICY is UNTENABLE.

    Obama's INSOLENCE as demonstrated in Number ONE is equally UNTENABLE It is long past for this cheeky, traitorous, bastard to be put down, disregarded and NULLIFIED.

    Republicans may leave much to be desired, but Obama and all he represents is far far WORSE.

    I am much in favor of Gay Rights, BUT fascistic tactics strong arming the clergy into supporting an agenda THEY find odious and ungodly is INTOLERABLE.

    If you can't sell your personal aims in the free marketplace of ideas, you must accept and abide by whatever verdict you receive. PERIOD!

    ReplyDelete
  2. ”The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government.”
    There a lesson to be learned here for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.
    But then again, I guess that the way that Liberals see it is that The bill of rights was written by Straight, Old, Rich, White Men, so it must be bad. Thank god we're enlightened enough to know we can "interpret" it to say what it should say, not what it actually says. Anyway, we have freedom of speech, as long as it isn't "hate" speech of course!

    ReplyDelete
  3. #4. Attempting to mandate who a citizen must provide goods and services to, in the free market, is an anathema to the ideals of liberty. A proprietor of a privately owned business should maintain the ability to deny their product or their labor to anyone they choose, whether gay, Christian, Muslim, black, disabled, etc.

    The narrative however, is being misrepresented. This is not a matter of religious freedom, but of economic freedom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. It went south a long time ago. The government is to serve all regardless, but private business has been suborned.

      Delete
    2. Back to the days of segregated lunch counters.

      Say Hi to Rand Paul.

      Delete
    3. You either have liberty or you have a mockery of such. If a citizen cannot decide who and why to provide the fruit of his/her labor...the citizen labors under the mockery.

      Delete
    4. People should be free to CHOOSE whether they wish to sit a segregated or a desegregated lunch counter -- or any other public facility. In the best of all possible worlds we would provide WHITE, NON-WHITE and MIXED facilities of equal size and quality and then let the public CHOOSE what they -- as INDIVIDUALS -- want.

      The result of making such freedom of choice public policy might prove reassuring. I'm willing to bet the vast majority would FREELY CHOOSE "MIXED."

      It is the COERCION we libertarians find deplorable.

      I've often said that if leftists had their way, every third child born to white parents would be FORCED by the State to MARRY a NEGRO. They'd doubtless call it Stanley Ann Dunham's Law. (c:§

      That is the logical extent to which their brand of "thinking inevitably must lead -- a complete INVERSION of past injustice coerced through ever increasingly restrictive legislation into becoming the New Norm.

      Delete
    5. Equal rights is a mockery?

      Liberty under your perverted definition is a mockery of a just society

      Delete
    6. You have no right to my labor. Assigning such would be unjust.

      Delete
    7. "Equal Rights"? Why should my rights end where your wishes intrude.
      What right do you have to demand to do business with me?
      No socks, no shirt, no shoes, no loud offensive behavior, no pro-islamist sympathies, no in my face attitude either voiced or on a t-shirt, no demand that I bake a cake for you to celebrate what I find repugnant?
      Where can I draw the line?

      Delete
    8. So let's dig further.
      You establish a business that formalizes CIVIL contracts.
      These contracts are completely legal under the law but you are allowed to discriminate among those desiring to form a valid CIVIL contract.
      Your response to them is that YOU decide whether they are harmed by discrimination.

      Pretty flimsy, which is true of many Libertarian positions.

      Ah, Liberty.
      When you allow the word to become the thing, watch out.

      Delete
    9. Supposedly, because the Idaho chapel is a for-profit establishment, that for-profit status makes a legal difference. Same-sex marriage has been framed as a civil right, the right which "trumps all."

      Delete
    10. Duck: They would only be harmed if they had no other recourse, such as a JP.
      Man, I thought that was obvious.

      Delete
    11. "These contracts are completely legal under the law but you are allowed to discriminate among those desiring to form a valid CIVIL contract."

      Ideally, yes. They have no RIGHT to the labor of another.

      Delete
  4. That any gay couple would WANT to be married by someone who feels they are doing the wrong thing in the eyes of GOD, or have their wedding cake baked by someone who disagrees with their choice, or imagine having pictures taken by someone who disagrees with you?....shows this is agenda and not a loving couple just seeking equality. There are many many pastors who will marry gay couples, and so why NOT go to them? We have to ask ourselves WHY that couple wouldn't seek those services.

    WH doesn't 'do grandstanding'? :-) too ludicrous to comment on......that is hilarious. (not that I personally think he needs to go to Dallas, but...)

    And I need to correct Obama ..THIS IS NOT A MUSLIM COUNTRY. I hope I broke it to him gently.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course they had an agenda. Such aims exist on both sides of this issue. This also illustrates the larger problem with allowing ordained ministers [though unaffiliated with a church] to perform civil marriage ceremonies, as The Hitching Post clearly advertised before this issue arose. Intermingling church and State dilutes and corrupts both.

      Delete
    2. That is EXACTLY right, Z. The leftist initiatives are NEVER about alleviating human suffering or righting moral wrongs, as they love to claim. Instead, they are ALWAYS about gaining more and more POWER to be able to FORCE THEIR WILL on everyone.

      Their agenda –– no matter how much they say to the contrary –– is to strong arm themselves into positions of DOMINANCE. They EXPLOIT legitimate grievances for that purpose and for no other.

      Leftists who happen to be SINCERE are nothing ore than Useful Idiots to the cynical leaders of their rotten, ungodly initiatives.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. CI: If marriage is a religious affair, ministers would officiate.
      If the marriage has tax and inheritance implications, the state must certify.

      And Z: He's not listening, he's dictating.

      Delete
    5. Ed: Since all marriages currently have contractual implications linked to the State, all marriages must be certified by the State, but not all marriages are religious. I have my ideas for solutions, but the bottom line is that the paradigm where church and State intersect on marriage is untenable.

      Delete
    6. How is it untenable?

      Right now it seems quite tenable.
      Although when some churches push to recognize gay marriage we'll see some schisms but you gotta grow.

      Delete
    7. Ducky, it's untenable because the State has no mandate to grant preferential treatment to religion. Allowing ordained ministers to officiate civil marriages, grants State privilege to religion.

      Delete
    8. CI: I said "if". Obviously some are not. In which case a JP is just fine, eh?
      As for untenable, as long as we had a clear understanding of marriage, it was tenable. Now we are "enlightened" about what marriage should be, thus the "untenability". (Why is untenability not a recognized spelling?)

      Delete
    9. Ed, agree on the first point. I focused on the second 'if', as it is a constant. To your second, we've had many 'clear understandings' throughout our history....yet not all of them were in line with liberty. This issue is messy, but sheds light on a problem to be solved.

      Delete
    10. CI, but you still haven't answered my most pressing question:
      "Why is untenability not a recognized spelling?"

      Delete
    11. Heh...I meant to, because I completely agree! Mrs. CI distracted me with a beautifully crafted cappuccino. It's my stipulation for watching Saturday morning home improvement shows with her.

      Delete
    12. FreeThnke; this speaks so badly for the dignified gay people I know. They'd NEVER EVER force anybody to do ANYTHING for them just because they're gay. EVER

      Some just don't understand that....

      Delete
    13. Z,
      WH doesn't 'do grandstanding'? :-) too ludicrous to comment on......that is hilarious.

      Especially in light of Obama's photo-op yesterday with Nurse Nina Pham.

      Delete
  5. Not a real good crop this week.

    Have to go with No. 1. Not sure what he was trying to express.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His muslim sympathies. Or empathies.

      Delete
    2. Duck,
      Not a real good crop this week.

      Ahem.

      I have other things to do besides compile Nincompoopery items. The homeschooler with whom I work are in the process of entering two national writing contests -- plus I'm dealing with first drafts of Beowulf literary analysis.

      Not to mention what goes on every day on the home front in this household. You know about that, of course.

      Chill. Don't insult the blog mistress.

      Delete
    3. All Hail the Blog Mistress! :)
      And thanks for the forum.

      Delete
    4. Not an insult, just an observation like, "slow news day".

      Delete
  6. #1. Most foolish and that is nincompoopery.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just in case it's true I picked #3. Why don't we send them some more tanks and planes while we are at it!

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Our Nincompoop in Chief has produced a catalog of outrages, but the Idaho one is clearly unconstitutional. The leftwing dictator wannabes have become particularly brazen lately.

    Trust me, they will not be satisfied with simple accomodations and equality. Having gained a toehold, they will become more zealous in their subjugation of the rest of us than the fieriest Islamofascist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to wonder which is worse, if either; the element that will not be happy with equality and accommodation.....or the opposing element which seeks to legislate the zealous denial of civil liberty. We've seen dictators of both stripes.

      Delete
    2. SF: Idaho is very clearly unconstitutional. As I said above, who'd WANT to be married or have a wedding cake made, by people the fact that the couple is gay and marrying? If that isn't agenda, I don't know what is.
      Not sure why civil liberty suddenly means "doing what WE tell you to do or ELSE". never have understood how that could happen in our country.
      Do what the heck you want to do; live your lives sensibly. If you're gay, maybe pick someone to marry you who celebrates you. MANY do, and God bless them. If you're gay, maybe you want to pick a bakery that's thrilled to put two men on the top of the cake?
      Anything less is unthinking.

      Delete
    3. Z, you make a fair case of admonishing one side of this issue, but do you admonish the other side likewise? It's not just one party exercising the mantra of "doing what WE tell you to or else"......

      Delete
    4. CI: HUA. Too many people in all factions want to hijack the power of the state and use it to bash their opponents over the head and force them to march to their agenda.

      Delete
    5. The best argument for removing State influence in the consensual actions of citizens.

      Delete
    6. Please explain why it is unconstitutional.

      If it is then public accommodation laws and the like are also.
      You really want to tear out a lot of case law.

      Delete
    7. z, what you apparently do not understand is that gay aren't allowing discrimination. You let this establishment practice it and it's like letting the camel's nose in the tent in some areas.

      Some people just aren't going to be pushed around any longer. Get used to it.

      Delete
    8. "pushed around?" Go to someone who WANTS to marry you.
      Ducky, this is like simple math; you can get it; just TRY! Attaboy~! Think harder...you'll get there :-)

      CI, nobody gives a CRAP what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms , or kitchen tables for that matter.......consent; have sex in whatever place it feels good! Nobody CARES. Do you see that?
      And, if you marry, don't expect people with different values to kiss your hand. or anywhere else.
      Why's that so difficult??

      Delete
    9. Let's try again z, and I'll go slow.

      1. Gays are not going to accept discrimination.

      2. The chapel is in the commercial business to perform civil marriages.

      3. Allowing then to deny the service to gays is discrimination.

      4. Repeat, gays aren't going to accept discrimination and being denied service by fundamentalists.

      5. Get used to it. You have lost the gay marriage fight utterly and completely.

      Delete
    10. Well this is interesting

      ... apparently these two mamelukes haven't even performed a gay wedding.

      "Moreover, while the lawsuit claims that the Knapps have already turned away multiple same-sex couples, Gridley said that the city had received no complaints about the Hitching Post and had no idea who these couples might be. "

      It's all a pant load.

      Delete
    11. Z - "Why's that so difficult??"

      Nothing that you wrote is remotely responsive to my point, which was a question regarding your statement. We're not talking about anyones sex life [which is the typical dodge when regarding homosexuals], we're talking about civil liberties....or why people pretend that only one party has an agenda.

      Delete
    12. Duck,
      That information was published after I published this blog post.

      Delete
    13. PS to Duck: Thanks for the link.

      PPS: I cannot change the body of this blog post until the poll closes. One of those maddening glitches with technology.

      Delete
    14. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  10. I see most of us agree on Three. Number One is funny. Anyone who thinks Obama is some kind of Manchurian Muslim Candidate can rest at ease knowing he doesn't know very much about the Muslim world! LOL!

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He doesn't know much about anything...

      Delete
    2. He knows a lot more than the last guy.

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. We haven't seen any proof so far to back up your unfounded assertion.

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't look now, but not one conservative is ramming ebola home any more than any liberal is. Where do you get this 'vile' stuff? it's a danger, most thinking people understand, and nobody thinks this is an election issue; except that Obama's folks bungled it badly, that is :-)
      Only half joking there; when something this new hits, it's not going to go smoothly, but it's going better now.
      hey Kid Rock, did you hear Rachel Maddow annihilating Darryl Issa for DARING at HIS hearings to ask questions of the EBOLA panel , saying "he doesn't know medicine, he's no doctor, how can HE ask questions?" when she was 100% behind Ron Klain for Ebola Czar? :-)
      Oops...he has no medical experience, either.
      Think, man, you might save yourself from being a liberal if you think REALLY hard :-)

      Delete
    2. Ron Klain has organizational experience which is desired here.

      You need a car thief you pick Issa.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Ducky, I nominate your response about Klain and Issa as NINCOMPOOPERY #6. Great job.

      Delete
    5. I have deleted Kid Rock's comment about Ebola. There is nothing about Ebola in the body of the blog post, and off-topic comments are subject to deletion.

      Sorry for the delay in deletion. All administrators of this blog were otherwise occupied last night.

      Discussion of Ebola is ongoing at the blog post below this one.

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  13. UPDATE TO THE ITEM ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE IN IDAHO:

    See this:

    ...he lawsuit came as a surprise to city officials, who described conversations with the Knapps up until last week as “cordial.”

    “We have never threatened them. We have never sent them a letter warning them. There was no ‘we’re going to throw you in jail’ kind of stuff. So we were mildly surprised, well, totally surprised by the lawsuit,” City Attorney Mike Gridley told The Huffington Post.

    Moreover, while the lawsuit claims that the Knapps have already turned away multiple same-sex couples, Gridley said that the city had received no complaints about the Hitching Post and had no idea who these couples might be. ...


    Unfortunately, the poll-embed technology does not allow me to go into the body of the blog post until after the poll closes on Tuesday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. So, what do YOU think happened?
      Imagine a HUFFPOST GAY VOICE page? :-)
      Good thing there's no HUFFPOST STRAIGHT VOICE.

      LAWSUIT~!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    3. Z,
      So, what do YOU think happened?

      I haven't had time to track down the story any further. I'll see what else I can find out.

      Yesterday, a 1980s-something former student, whom his parents affectionately named "The Warthog," stopped by here looking for work. He is a carpenter extraordinaire, and there was work to do here at our house -- serious carpentry work. The Warthog and his helper worked all day long and will come by to finish up today.

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Anti Lib,
      Look here.

      I have had enough of trolls (all types) and thread hijackers.

      I provide many blog posts each week -- plenty of opportunities to comment on a variety of topics. Scroll down a bit.

      I also provide open threads, another of which is coming in on Tuesday.

      Furthermore, the body of this blog post gives fair warning: Note: Unrelated comments will be subject to deletion.

      I do appreciate meaningful comments, but the situation at this blog has gotten beyond my threshold of endurance. It's election season!

      My site, my rules.

      Delete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. Quit yer yappin' ya morons.

      How do you like it when yer standin' around having a nice confab about the World Series with some friends, and alla sudden some jackass butts in and starts blabberin' on about the superbowl?

      Delete
    3. Irishman and Sarah,
      If you do not like the house rules, leave.

      My blog, my property.

      As conservatives, you're supposed to believe in one's rights with regard to one's own property.

      Delete
    4. Stanly,
      How do you like it when yer standin' around having a nice confab about the World Series with some friends, and alla sudden some jackass butts in and starts blabberin' on about the superbowl?

      Excellent analogy!

      Delete
  16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  17. When detected, imposters' comments are removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective