A.) Sit down and shut up.
B.) Keep your opinion to yourself.
The idioms above are the most frequently given answers by liberal energumens dispossessed of any competent rhetoric in support of their fascist arguments. Most astonishing is the fact that allegedly adult Obamaphiles and their scullions actually engage in this sort of junior high school upchuckery as the definitive expression of their academic gravitas.
These are the ones from the Presidential Bowling Team that we’ve been waiting for!
While liberal lickspittles are easily intimidated by the mano-a-mano of lively debate sans teleprompter, I prefer giving such statists a free-fire zone of intercourse as it provides them jurisdiction in which to demonstrate the vapid impotence of their convictions du jour. There are myriad examples abound throughout the concourse of socio-political discourse that liberal equerries frequently opine upon yet seem distinctly inept to explicate the alleged superiority of their position based upon its own merits. President Obama frequently employs the supplementary answer, (C.) “it’s all Bush’s fault,” to eschew his personal responsibility in assuming the proper powers of his office that are inconvenient to his preening self-importance. He appears to be afflicted with “electile dysfunction.”
Let’s get a straight look at California’s new constitutional amendment on marriage , shall we? For the record, I voted “no” on Prop 8.
Dick Cheney and I hold the concurrent opinion that one should be able to freely engage in the nuptial insanity called “marriage” regardless of the type of outdoor plumbing with which you were encumbered. Dick and I also firmly feel that marriage is a states’ rights issue as marriage is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution as a constitutional “right” which then therefore reverts back to more provincial domains under the aegis of the 10th Amendment. Is it an inconvenient truth that President Obama is a stodgy Christian bedrock believer in the Carrie Prejean marital doctrine and is not as ethically evolved as Dick Cheney nor I?
Groupies for gay marriage, however, please see answer (A.). Just don’t ask or tell either, OK? We don’t want to distract the president from “what’s really important to the American people.” You don’t count yet.
And as far as the recent decision upholding Prop. 8 and its broad electoral consensus that marriage in California exists only between a man and a woman, the only opinion that truly matters is not Perez Hilton’s childish exhibitionism of politically correct misogyny or Barack Hussein Obama’s cultural cowardice, but the slamdunk 6-1 ruling opinion by the California Supreme Court.
Dear Mr. Hilton et al., please see answer (B.).
Speaking of Dick Cheney, the Democrat punditocracy are vexedly perplexed that the former V.P. is torquing the tighty-whiteys of the Obama administration over its inability to initiate a coherent policy concerning violent jihad. The renewal of Bush-era military tribunals by the Obama administration is seen as a complete betrayal of the campaign promises made to the fatuously naive human rights rabble. Nothing is more comical to me than hearing Candidate Obama rail about the “failed policies of the last eight years” while President Obama brazenly adopts them wholesale in what is obviously becoming a cosmetically enhanced third term of George W. Bush regardless of Obama’s nifty little speech recently teleprompted in Cairo. Amnesty International and their inbred ilk can pick freely from the “ABC” trifecta above. All would reasonably apply.
Free speech, as enshrined in the First Amendment and enforced by the Second, is not a “right,” per se. I consider them both a “practice” as one rarely becomes proficient in any given endeavor unless one is willing to “practice, practice, practice.” Modern liberals who chose to employ the more pubescent ABC methodologies listed above are obviously deficient in the practice of saltpeter supported free speech. Any opinion that does not conform to their own, regardless of relative merit, is somehow unworthy of their haughty and uniformly uninformed inanities that masquerade as cogent design. These indecent idiots of ideology subscribe to the vacuity that their self-inflicted silliness is its own self-serving reward and that one should just then pirouette off the popularity precipice with the rest of the like-minded muridae. The myth of “global warming” immediately vaults into ridicule, as an example.
In the more visceral applications of answers (A.) and (B.), one can find the roots of King George III admonishing his rambunctious colonial subjects with Hessian mercenaries or Bill Clinton lecturing his critics concerning the more carnal techniques for humidifying cigars. For despotism to reign, all critique must be abolished. Liberal-statists are addicted to their bloody “A-B negative” ichor like Nosferatu is addicted to erythrocytes.
It is always the intellectually inconvenienced who prefer to quaff from the empty vessel of hive-minded colloquy rather than from the robust Jereboam of raucous debate as it requires so little sagacious vintage. Of course, dyspeptic liberal amorphism is merely symptomatic of an injudicious over-consumption of large, piping hot bowls of “stupid” fortified with their own proprietary blend of vitamins of (A.) and (B.).
Steve Breen isn’t laughing at liberals but is conservatively chuckling nearby in an undisclosed location and is still “the best looking mailman at the U.S. Post Office.” He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org