Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Monday, April 27, 2015

Absurdity Abounds

So much for PBS's integrity:


PBS's own statement about their funding

46 comments:

  1. Oh, just "bucket"! (In the words of the POTUS at the WH Correspondents Dinner)

    I did really enjoy Affleck in Fargo. Oops! Wrong film. I mean F - Argo.

    Thank God for the internet. It is the great equalizer for all liars.

    The Last English Prince

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The audience appeared to love Obama's "bucket" speech. Why did they react in such a manner to Obama's display of ghetto language?

      Also see this: the Anger Translator portion of BHO’s speech? Subject yourself to that segment. What do you conclude therefrom?

      Delete
    2. I watched the speech on YouTube, and the president has some serious anger issues. You can see it during the bucket segment.

      Compare his biting, sarcastic, gut-slashing remarks to the gracious and self-effacing ones of former presidents.

      Obama is an angry, class-less clown.

      Delete
    3. SF,
      Obama does seem to be in a state of perpetual tantrum. Petulance personified! Unfortunately for America, this petulant narcissist has a phone and a pen.

      Delete
    4. Why did they react in such a manner to Obama's display of ghetto language?

      It was closer to both the obscene-Superego "truth" of the "position" that Mr. Obama occupies, and the "truth" of the man himself.

      Delete
    5. Joe,
      The "truth" of the man himself isn't endearing as far as I'm concerned. In fact, that truth is that of a demagogue.

      Delete
    6. The man himself was more closely approximated by his "Anger Translator"...Luther. You can only understand hear the truth when you "code switch".

      Delete
    7. It just goes to prove how cynical the Obama's really are.

      Delete
  2. Ben Affleck should empty his bank accounts, sell everything he owns in order to pay reparations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SF,
      If Affleck were going to be consistent, he'd do just that.

      Of course, he wants others to make reparations -- never for himself to do so.

      Delete
    2. What's this about reparations?
      That's gone nowhere for decades and it's a dead issue.

      Delete
    3. Uhoh, Ducky...focus on the article; Silverfiddle's comment is clearly laden with meaning I KNOW you caught. Let's not do the red herring thing again and again.

      Delete
    4. Silverfiddle's reply is snark and sarcasm.

      Anyone with southern roots has a meaningful chance to be related to slave owners.
      In the Northeast its well known that Ivy League colleges were founded by families with a hand in the slave trade. A couple well received books were published recently.

      But let's get down to what this is about.
      Affleck is a liberal and as such he has to be discredited although having ancestors who owned slaves hardly reflects on him.

      There is no red herring. This is a tempest in a teapot and draws attention from improtant issues.

      Delete
    5. Duck,
      This blog post is not about discrediting Ben Affleck for being a liberal. Rather, this blog post is about the sheer absurdity of his wanting to hide the fact that his ancestors held slaves -- when it was legal to do so, no less.

      Why did Ben Affleck want the information hidden? Because he's the kind of liberal who wants those of this generation punished for what previous generations did over 150 years ago?

      This is not a tempest in a teapot, Duck. So many liberals and Leftists promote collective guilt for present generations -- based on what happened in the past, often the distant past, even if several generations have tried to make things right. Did not Howard Zinn advocate exactly that -- collective blame? Look at the table of contents of A People's History of the United States.

      Delete
  3. The anger translator was bizarre. Reminded me of that "signer" at Mandela's funeral, except this guy was scarier. A peek behind the facade of too cool for school Obama

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed,
      Does the translator remind you at all of "Reverend" Wright?

      Delete
    2. Not really. I saw the comments at Zs.

      Delete
  4. I'll break one of my own cardinal rules, and share here what I just said to you at my place, because I believe it applies:

    ... This has happened, of course because a preponderance of White, Christian members of the various and sundry Western Societies have been carried away by the specious quasi-noblity of destructive, irrational, victim-oriented sentiments insidiously foisted in us by ENVIOUS, SPITEFUL, MALICIOUS INTELLECTUAL AGGRESSORS.

    In other words we must ABANDON Law, ABANDON Reason, ABANDON our Values, ABANDON Tradition, ABANDON our Mores, Actively SCORN our Achievements, REVILE the Accomplishments, DISCREDIT and DISOWN the Sacrifices and Courageous Acts of our Ancestors –– i.e. toss away EVERYTHING that made us what we once were –– CEDE all our Advantages to The Wretched of the Earth in order to MAKE UP to them for the POVERTY, MISERY and DEGRADATION their markedly INFERIOR cultures produced –– LONG before any of "US" ever knew of their existence.

    The utter wretchedness, degradation and wanton savagery of most pagan, non-white peoples is the fault of US damnable CHRISTIAN WHITES for having a achieved a higher degree of Civilization, a higher standard of living for the average person, greater material comfort, more refined, exquisitely wrought accomplishments in Architecture, Art, Music, Literature, Poetry, Drama, Mathematics, Science, Medicine, Engineering and ultra-sophisticated Technology than all previous cultures combined.

    "WE" had NO RIGHT to BE SUPERIOR, because our manifest superiority makes others more clumsy, lowly, less-advanced, less ambitious and more inept FEEL BAD. Ergo "WE" have a "moral obligation" to GIVE it ALL UP, and embrace the brutish, sadly deprived primitivism we had the colossal effrontery and unmitigated gall to ESCAPE, ABANDON and attempt to RISE ABOVE.

    BOY, do "we" SUCK, eh? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FT,
      Yes, it is all about abandoning tradition.

      Not only abandoning tradition but also stomping it into the ground so that not a single fragment remains.

      Delete
  5. Ben can make this right. Just give away his loot and grand house to the illegals.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why did they react in such a manner to Obama's display of ghetto language?

    Because they're low-life's who are thrilled when someone of a presumably higher status sinks to their level.

    Love FreeThinke's comment. Spot on!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And..............I don't have any idea of what this Ben Affleck thing is all about and don't care. I've always disliked PBS and despise the fact that tax payer money goes to their support.

      Delete
  7. PBS and N(ice) P(olite)Republicans have been neutered for quite some time now.

    Newshour is a forum for the likes of David Brooks for crying out loud.

    Very little tax money goes to it and its just part of the crappy media in this dumbed down nation.
    All this silly impotent rage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gotta watch that Brooks fellow, he's a dangerous rightwinger!

      Delete
    2. ...and all this time, I thought that he was Obama's lap-dog!

      Delete
    3. Brooks isn't often a 'rightwinger'....he has often taken sides on the Left. Which is fine but let's not consider him such a man of conservative character, etc.
      Thersites is RIGHT.

      Delete
    4. I was being sarcastic and voicing Ducky's twisted, lefty point of view

      Delete
    5. SF...you sounded very serious; sorry; I should know you know David Brooks! he started out nicely rightwing, by the way. I think he hung with too many PC folks...and it shows.

      Delete
  8. Tempest in a teapot. We have the left to thank for this. They would all pile on as if he's responsible for the acts of ancients only related to him by blood (or did I miss the part where each succeeding generation in his family was trained up to accept slavery as ethical and promote it?). It's immaterial and shouldn't have been anything to get tied up in knots over. He has nothing to be ashamed of.

    As for reparations, we only look at one side. Here's another. The British paid reparations when they ended slavery. Property owners were compensated in some form for the loss of their 'property.' THAT's reparations.

    Here's another: Your ancestor had the misfortune to be captured by a neighboring tribesman. But in this case NOT sold in Africa (as most slaves were) but into a place that turned out to offer the greatest opportunity to YOU known to man - far greater than had he stayed in Africa as a free man. My ancestor came here by a similar route. It was wrong, and I'm sure it was horrible for him. But my luck in being born into this country is the greatest reparation I could ever hope to have.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Baysider,
      There's a portion of Roots in which Kunta Kinte was relieved that all that was going to happen to him was being enslaved. He was most worried about ending up in the cooking pot.

      --------------

      The British paid reparations when they ended slavery. Property owners were compensated in some form for the loss of their 'property.' THAT's reparations.

      Indeed! You are absolutely correct. One final sale, so to speak.

      Delete
  9. I wouldn't be proud to have had slave owning family, either....but, of course, few did (most suggest less than 10%, which is still too much, of course), and the point is not that Affleck's family happened to be among the number but that he'd try to KEEP IT QUIET. And that Gates would go from INTEGRITY to CAVE in record time. That's a story. A very sad, new leftwing-"cover the truth if it makes us look bad" story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They weren't going to dredge up the history of Affleck's family.

      The program is entertainment not history.
      I can trace my mother's family back to Henry II but I ain't doing penance for killing Thomas Becket.

      Delete
    2. They weren't going to 'dredge up the history of Affleck's family"? What did you think the show was about? It's all about family history of celebs.

      Delete
    3. It seems to me that Ben Affleck wants to be portrayed as without blemish. In other words, he seems to want to be on the moral high road -- even on the basis of his family history, a past over which he had no control, so it should be no big deal.

      Does he believe in the collective guilt of the past along the lines of Zinn-ism? I think so, but that idea of collective guilt of the past just swam up and bit him on the butt.

      Delete
  10. Replies
    1. This is all leading to a nationalized police force; wait for it.

      Delete
    2. The Orioles game has now been canceled.

      Clearly, the situation is not under control.

      CVS is now being torched.

      Reporters have been told to move back.

      Z,
      Probably so.

      Delete
    3. Leading to a militarized police force? That's already here thanks in no smalle measure to the war on terror scam.

      Delete
    4. I didn't say 'militarized'...every police department that was ever in existence has some military aspect to it; guns, etc.
      I said NATIONALIZED. Very different.

      as for the terror scam.......and YOU live in BOSTON? wow

      Delete
    5. I didn't say 'militarized'...every police department that was ever in existence has some military aspect to it; guns, etc.
      I said NATIONALIZED. Very different.

      as for the terror scam.......and YOU live in BOSTON? wow

      Delete
    6. Z,
      Have you seen what happened in Baltimore overnight? Fires everywhere in that section of the city! The thugs cuts the fire hoses, so that fires continued to burn throughout the night.

      Over and over again, all the media kept asking "Where are the police?"

      People were begging for the National Guard to come in to restore order. It seems that people wanted some "militarization" for their own protection and the protection of their property. I can understand that desire at this point.

      In my view, the police were in a lose-lose position. Come in and force -- and cries of "Police brutality!" would have resulted because what the police would have had to do in order to restore order would have been condemned.

      At least 7 Baltimore police officers were seriously wounded -- one remains non-responsive as far as I know.

      Delete
  11. AOW, I watched quite a bit of it.....and I thought the same thing "lose/lose". Obama was calling for the 'due restraint' from the police...what's THAT MEAN? In other words, don't use firing squads?!!
    And the mayor said the guys with beefs maybe ought to be allowed to steal a thing or two (I paraphrase)...
    15 cops were hurt....... so they're all supposed to put themselves back in THAT fray?
    I'm heartened by 2000 neighborhooders who came out this morning with brooms to help clean up..... that's the heart of Baltimore. And how about that Mom who beat up on her son and chased him all the way back home? Cracked me UP! I LOVE HER!And Robert Valentine ROCKS (in the video at my place..) I LOVE THAT GUY!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z,
      And how about that Mom who beat up on her son and chased him all the way back home?

      I hereby nominate that lady for Mother of the Year.

      Delete

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