About Me

Name: Playful Walrus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Phony Pacifists

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, December 21, 2009 7:18:04 PM
Dave Swoish of Orange asks a good question in his letter to the Orange County Register.
Has anybody else noticed the disappearance in the past year of the "anti-war protesters" who flocked to the Circle in "Old Orange" and other street corners in Southern California?

Even though our soldiers are still fighting in Iraq and the current president announced an increase of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, these self-righteous humanitarians have slunk back into their corners until the next time the Democratic Party summons them out to do their political bidding. Next election, just bring out your political candidate signs and spare us the sanctimonious hand-wringing.
Yes, Mr. Swoish has discovered the fine print on the signs that say "Say No to War!" – which is, "Unless a Democrat is President."

It is the height of double-standard partisanship when you speak out in support of something "your guy" does, but criticize others for doing the exact same thing, or when you stay silent when your guy does it but actively protest against it when others do the exact same thing.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fascists Pelting Palin

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, December 17, 2009 2:14:45 PM
It is quite disturbing to see the "inclusive" and "nonviolent" and "feminist" Lefties out there who cheer on those pelting, or attempting to pelt, Ovarian-American Sarah Palin with fruit. These people are nothing more than fascists.

Ask them, "So you condone violence against women?" Pin them down on their "joking".
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Euphemism Synergy

Posted by Playful Walrus on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:30:33 PM
One of the most curious confluences of euphemisms by opponents of "traditional values" is between the phrases "Marriage Equality" and "Reproductive Rights". These euphemisms are so effective that they, and the ideas they really represent, have become fashionable even among many self-described conservatives.

"Marriage equality", when used as a call to make brideless or groomless unions legally indistinguishable to marriage, is a ridiculous term and people who use it should be called on it every single time. Read my latest entry at The Opine Editorials.

I can't wait for conscientious objectors to campaign for Veteran Equality.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How To Get a Leftist to Support Gun Ownership

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, December 03, 2009 7:23:01 PM
1. Come up with an abortion procedure that involves guns.

2. Come up with sex play that involves guns. Phil Spector seemed to be into something like that.

The Left would be clamoring to get guns into the hands of public school students and to teach them about using guns - all the different ways they could be used, and how to use them safely, and where the students could go to get medical treatment should they have an accident, without their parents knowing.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Columbus Day Weekend in the District of Columbia

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 5:56:22 PM
There was a lot of coverage over the last several days of the homosexuality and gender confusion advocacy events in the USA's capitol, and President Obama's action - or lack thereof. The themes seem to focus on marriage law and military service. Even the Los Angeles Times editorial board recognizes the importance of prioritizing, even as they say that Obama "owes gays more support".
As anxious as we are to see gay rights recognized throughout this country, it also is important for the administration to set priorities and make progress in a politically strategic way.
Still, they call on him to offer a timeline.

Then they go on to bemoan confusion of marriage laws from state to state, citing the Texas divorce case. Whose fault is that? Most states affirm bride+groom marriage. If we're going to make everything the same, let's go with the majority.

Then they go on to dismiss the concerns of the "Yes on 1" campaign in Maine, before going on to a general plea for Obama to do the bidding of homosexuality advocates.

Here is the paper's Katherine Skiba previewing Obama’s speech to the (LGBT) Human Rights Campaign at a fundraiser.

And here is her article reporting on the speech afterwards.
He acknowledged in his remarks that some gays have been dissatisfied with the pace of his reforms.
There will always be a contingent that is "dissatisfied", no matter what. It is how they make their living.
In an address that was at times poignant and reflected on the sometimes "painful and heartbreaking" experiences gays face, Obama said he recognized that a gay relationship was "just as admirable as a relationship between a man and a woman."
This is his opinion, but he doesn't back it with anything. It is a mere assertion. However, it is demonstrable that both-sexes relationships contribute to society in ways that no same-sex pairing can.
The uneven track record to date has Cleve Jones, 54, a former aide to late gay rights leader Harvey Milk, fed up with what he termed "incrementalism" and tired of politicians telling activists to prioritize their demands.
Well, yes, how dare legislators focus on war, terrorists getting nuclear weapons, and major investment fraud when they could be focusing on whether or not the laws make someone get all tingly inside?
On Thursday the House passed a bill that would broaden the federal hate-crime law to cover violence against gays.
Really? Just "gays"? Or anyone of any sexual orientation targeted due to their perceived sexual orientation? And if so, will it protect a husband with a polygamist orientation from assault by his lawful wife? if she throws something at him, will that be a hate crime?
Obama noted Saturday that the bill was named after Matthew Shepard, the gay college student whose killing in Wyoming in 1998 galvanized the gay rights movement.
I condemn murder for any reason, but notice this was back in 1998. So has there been no other murder of a homosexual person in our union motivated by their sexual orientation in 11 years (I mean by someone other than another homosexual, committing what has been referred to as "homocide")? Then I'd say things are good, and a much bigger threat to deal with would be substance abuse in the "community". But for comparison, I note there have been Christians killed this very year here in the USA due to their religion.

Associated Press writer Brett Zongker reported on the march, pointing out...
The weekend also included political training at several D.C. universities for young activists to learn how to build support and lobby lawmakers at home.
This is why we can't let up. We can't let a tiny minority dictate the terms of our lives. We must continue to demonstrate what is and is not marriage, why marriage is important, and that both mother and fathers are important.

And here is Katherine Skiba again, reporting on the march.
They are seeking "full federal equality" and singling out issues pertaining to marriage, adoption, military service and the workplace.
I really can’t see where any individual is a lacking federal equality, except when it comes to being able to be in the military and engage in homosexual sodomy without keeping it private. Do all of these people really want to serve in the military that badly?
A pair of young women wore T-shirts exhorting: "Legalize gay."
Where in the union is being gay illegal?

A subsequent article by her added more coverage.
Later, at the Capitol rally, Rosendahl told the crowd that 36 states allow housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and 29 states permit firings on those grounds.
I tend to side with property owners and employers being able to run their businesses as they see fit. But I also tend to agree that as long as the government is going to get involved to protect renters and employees from discrimination based on certain behaviors (such as religious practice), then there is an argument to be made to protect them based on certain sexual behaviors. However, the Bill of Rights specifically mentions freedom of religion.
Depriving gays of the right to wed, Rosendahl said, deprives them of 1,100 rights.
Yet again: People have access to legal marriage regardless of their sexual orientation.
The rally drew impassioned speakers, including NAACP Chairman Julian Bond
Yes, because the NAACP has outlived its purpose when it comes to law and government, anyway - so now it is involved in unrelated issues. These groups never go away. When they get what they want, they simply move on to another problem, even if it isn’t really a problem. The best thing the NAACP can do for the "ACP" would be to encourage "C" men and women to marry before having children, then stay married at least until the children are raised. Encouraging them to engage in homosexual behavior and tear down heteronormative structure won't help with the "ACP".
Bond linked gay rights to civil rights.

"Black people of all people should not oppose equality, and that is what marriage is all about," he said.
We should all be treated equally by the government as human beings – regardless of circumstances of our birth or characteristics we are born with. However, the law often treats different behaviors differently. That is what law is all about.
"We have a lot of real and serious problems in this country, and same-sex marriage is not one of them."
And yet there you are rallying for it. So you are giving a speech about something you don't consider to be important?

You can read what I wrote about what has been going on in California over at The Opine Editorials.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Oh, the Irony

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:33:35 PM
It's interesting to see that many of the same people who were so desperately upset that the Patriot Act supposedly violated privacy and due process are just fine with Obamacare.

So it's okay, as long as a Democrat is President?  Do they really think there will never be another Republican President?


 




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My Feminism

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, August 06, 2009 1:15:22 PM
I may be more of a feminist than some who call themselves feminists leaders.

I believe in equal rights for all women, no matter where they live or what their political views.

I don't believe in putting Leftist unity, Democrat election victories, socialism, or "peace" with terrorists over the rights of a woman.

I believe in a girl's right to life; that she should not be butchered in the womb for no other reason than being a girl, or any other reason other than to save her mother's life.

I believe in a girl's right for her parents to protect her, and her mother's right to object to a school taking her daughter for surgery without even informing her, or attempting to brainwash her daughter with Leftist nonsense.

I believe in a woman's right to work without being forced to join a union or pay for political activism with which she disagrees.

I believe in a woman's right to negotiate her compensation with any employer, without any government involvement forcing her to get the same pay as someone else.

I believe in a woman's right to choose mothering over career, or career instead of mothering, or a career that allows her to actively mother her own children, or a husband that will take care of the kids and home while she works.

I believe in a woman's right to manage the fruits of her own professional labor via lower taxes, including her freedom to accumulate and pay off her own debts; budget, save, and invest; pay for her own meals, drinks, entertainment, etc.

I believe in a woman's right to her own property.

I believe in a woman's right to choose whether or not she will have sex, and whether it will be with her loving, devoted, husband who can afford to raise a family or with some guy she just met in a bar who has no money - and I believe that she, being an adult, can handle the consequences without my help.

I believe in a girl's right to a mother and and a father.

I believe in a woman's right to pay support to her ex-husband if she earned more during the marriage, and child support if he has majority custody of their children - just like if the sexes were reversed.

I believe in a woman's right to be treated the same as a man would be treated in cases of domestic violence and other crimes, including statutory rape of underage boys.

I believe in a woman's right to self-defense, including gun ownership and use.

What about most "feminist leaders"?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Give Governor Sanford a Reality Show

Posted by Playful Walrus on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:03:38 PM
It is better to do two things wrong, or one thing?  One thing, right?  Well the Left doesn’t think so.  You see, the Left thinks it is okay for a politician to have an extra-marital affair (one wrong) if the politician failed to publicly encourage morality (another wrong) before that affair.

For the Left, perceived hypocrisy is worse that marital infidelity.  So look for the Left, especially Democrats, to condemn Sanford not for the affair, but for being a Republican who somehow promoted in the past the idea that it is good to behave in a morally upstanding manner.

I do condemn sex with someone other than your spouse as morally wrong, so I don't excuse Sanford.  I also know that we do not know the inner working of his marriage.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

West Hollywood Whining

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:26:50 PM
Symbolism over substance rears its head in the San Francisco of SoCal.  Lefty marriage neutering advocates want a new West Hollywood hotel to "disaffiliate" itself with a corporate cousin, because that cousin is on property owned by someone who actually supported the California Marriage Amendment.  Read about it over at The Opine Editorials.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Left's Newfound SCOTUS Nomination Tone

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:11:36 PM
I like how concerned Leftists suddenly are that the SCOTUS nomination process be "civilized", and that Senators be more respectful, less partisan, and show less hostility.  Did papers like the Los Angeles Times run editorials like this when either Bush was President?
If proceedings for Obama's nominee resemble recent Supreme Court confirmations, the nominee and the nation will be subjected to a spectacle in which self-obsessed senators, cribbing from playbooks prepared by others, will harp on trivialities, suck up time with soliloquies and throw either softballs or screwballs at the nominee.
Then they suggest:
Show considerable deference to the president.
Well, of course.  It is ****O B A M A !****
As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) reminded Democrats during the Alito hearings, "elections matter."
And the Los Angeles Times loves to promote Republican ideals, after all.
This page probably will be happier with Obama's choices for the court than we were with President George W. Bush's, but that's not the only reason we believe the Senate should be respectful of Obama's choice.
No, no of course not.
Rein in the interest groups…The stock in trade of these groups is hyperbole, and senators are willing to turn the Judiciary Committee hearing room into an echo chamber for their sometimes hysterical talking points.
Speak for your side.
No candidate should be judged by a single act.
Hmmmmm.  Can I file that away for future use?
Prospective justices may be more responsive to senators' questions when they know that one unsatisfactory answer won't produce a partisan piling-on.
And hillbillies prefer to be called "sons of the soil."  Ain't gonna happen.

In general, it is entertaining (if sad) to watch Leftists who opposed Bush tooth and nail in every way possible call on people not to use those same tactics used when it comes to Obama.  You can see this happening everywhere.  And when Obama does the very same thing that Bush did that made Bush so intolerable to them, well Obama gets a pass.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Your Mother Didn't Kill You

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:05:10 PM
I get a kick when people defend Planned Parenthood by claiming that abortion makes up "only" 3% of the organization's services.

If spent only 3% of my time killing people, including for the purposes of covering up statutory rape, would that make it okay?

My guess is most people convicted or murder in this country spent way less than 3% of their time involved in murdering or related activities.

And Planned Parenthood using Mother's Day as a fundraising theme is like al-Qaeda using Memorial Day.  What's next?  PETA holding a BBQ?  The ACLU wishing us all a Merry Christmas?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Palling Around

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, April 27, 2009 6:42:58 PM
The Left, including the Obama administration, has put an emphasis on the importance of symbolism and appearances, even over substance.  They, of all people, should know why some of us have expressed outrage over things like shaking hands with oppressive rulers, bowing to monarchs, etc.  In fact, they do know, but they find it politically expedient to accuse of us nitpicking.

We should not allow the Left to be inconsistent – which is one of their hallmarks.  We should call them on it each and every time.  Either ceremony and symbolism matters, or it doesn't.

The President of the United States of America should always behave in a way that expresses the superiority of our nation, and not allow himself to be used to bolster the stock of tyrants.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Paul Begala is as Sharp as Preschool Scissors

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 1:32:23 PM
The socialist, big-government, class-warfare, collectivist crowd remains ever-so-brilliant in their analysis of the porkulous bill.  This is typified in this commentary on CNN.com by Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist who was a political consultant for Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992 and was counselor to Clinton in the White House.

The title of the commentary says it all:  If You Oppose Stimulus, Don't Take the Money

You can find the same sentiments voiced by small-fry Lefty bloggers under titles like "A Modest Proposal".

So clever.  But how about we take this thing full circle and let the people opposed to the bill to opt out of financially supporting it?  I mean really, this is like when someone comes into your home and robs you of $10,000 and offers you $3,000 back, and when you express outrage at robbery, they say, "Well, then don’t take the $3,000."

Hey you geniuses… WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE???
After all, if you think all that federal spending is damaging, there are easy ways to reduce it: Don't take federal money.
Actually, no.  Not taking the money will not reduce spending.  That's not the way big government works.  The money will simply be redirected to the people who love sucking off of the public teat – you know, the people who supported Obama?  Yeah, people like ACORN.  Whoopee.
That is his right, but attacking President Obama's plan is not itself an alternative plan.
This is like the robber saying "You can’t complain because you’re not offering an alternative robbery plan for me."  You’re darn right – we want the government to do less, not "something else".  We don’t need to offer a plan other than "stop taxing/printing paper money and stop spending."

A small-fry blogger (and no, I will not link to him) starts off by nothing that "Republicans" spent $2 trillion on a "pointless”"war.  Hey, read the Constitution.  The military is PART OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S JOB.  It isn't the job of D.C. to make sure class sizes in Fresno are 20 students or less.  And the war certainly wasn't pointless.  You whiners can't complain that "Saddam is still there."  That alone was worth it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How To Get a Leftist To Chop Down a Tree

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, December 09, 2008 11:24:48 AM
Decorate it with symbols of joy, goodwill, and peace in honor on the incarnation and birth of Jesus.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sore Losers*

Posted by Playful Walrus on Saturday, November 08, 2008 2:49:20 AM
It's amazing that people who do not question California's strong vote for Obama, or committing California's electoral votes to Obama refuse to accept that many of the very same voters passed Proposition 8.

They've taken to the streets, throwing fits like spoiled children, and the newsrooms are all to eager to give them as much exposure as possible, even though most of the people they get on microphone say silly things like "this is about love" (since when is law about love?) and "I have fewer rights than a chicken."  Really?  When was the last time you were confined to a small cage?  At one of those special nightclubs?  That doesn't count.

Anyway, it is a bit amusing to watch these sore losers blame and harass Mormons.  Because we all know how many Mormons, especially African-American Mormons, there are in California.  Yes, it couldn't possibly be that Prop 8 passed because people are tired of courts making decisions that belong to the people, or tired of being told they have to go along with everything that an activist group wants.  It couldn't possibly be that most voters still understand that marriage unites the sexes.  No, it must be the people blindly following the Mormons!  Yeah, that's why the people voted down Prop 4 - because Mormons don't want the parents of minor girls to know that their girl is about to have a baby sucked out of her and down a sink.  Yeah.  Sure.

We didn't vote for Prop 8 due to a lack of yelling and screaming by homosexual people.  We voted for it because we understand exactly what has been going on.

It is times like this that I am reminded of another classic Playful Walrus entry.  These protestors think we just haven't heard them.  The thing is, we have heard you, and that's one of the reasons why we did vote Yes on Prop 8.  These protesters are behaving like spoiled children who can't handle that they've finally been told "no!".  You don't get whatever you want simply because you want it - not when other people have to give it to you, and they don't want it.

There is no right to a state-issued marriage license.   Anyone who tells you that it is a fundamental right is either purposely lying (as can easily be revealed when they agree that there are limits on who should get the licenses) or they have a warped understanding of rights.

*UPDATE: D.R. Tucker at The Right Angle says Romney would have beat Obama.  I wonder how the anti-Mormonism of the marriage neutering crowd would have been impacted by that?  In a way, it is good that people who voted for Obama also votes for Prop 8 and other marriage amendments.  The marriage neutering crowd can't blame it all on "racist right-wing bigots who always vote Republican", as much as they try.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »