Sunday, April 28, 2013

Kill All Humans (Except White Conservatives)

Liberals think that Conservatives want to, like the robot Bender on the cartoon Futurama, kill all humans. Except the White Conservatives ones, that is (the females we just want to subjugate). I've been accused of it here on this very blog. I express concern regarding radical Islam and the casualties incurred when they wage jihad on the West; then I suggest some modest measures we might consider to combat it, and, to a Liberal, that translates to me wanting to chuck the Constitution, round up all Muslims and place them in Concentration camps, and then kill every last one of them.

When I express concern about what the Supreme Court might do regarding the definition of marriage, I'm accused of wanting to do the same thing to homosexuals (rounding them up and killing them). I wrote a post expressing my strong disagreement with Liberal politics, and guess what? That means I want to round them up all the Liberals and kill them.

I've never even mentioned the Mexican citizens that have illegally invaded our country, but, never mind that inconvenient fact. I want to round them up and kill them all as well. Perhaps you see a pattern here? Liberals don't like it when you disagree with them. It makes them so hysterical that they immediately jump to hyperbole. They can't engage in rational discussion; they can only accuse you of wanting to murder those who disagree with you.

But I'm sure that only some Liberals react in this manner. Some of them must be capable of rational discourse? Not many, I'm afraid. They all seemed to embrace on the "war on women" meme when Conservatives mentioned their moral objection to killing babies in the womb. If, like me, you weren't surprised when the Boston bombers turned out to be radicalized Muslims, that makes you a bigot. No matter that they turned out to be White. The Left knows you expected them to be dark skinned as well.

Which brings me to our president. If you question any of his policies it must be because he is African-American. It couldn't possibly be because you take issue with those polices, the same way you did when they were espoused by the WHITE Liberal president Bill Clinton!

Additionally, if, like me, you respect our nation's laws and think people of other countries shouldn't be able to cross our borders without prior approval and obtain employment without a social security number or (at the very least) a green card, that makes you a racist.

And, God forbid you're a Christian who adheres to the teachings of the Bible when it comes to the definition of marriage. Clearly God said it wasn't just a contract between two people, no matter their sex. You're a homophobe if you want to keep marriage the way it is and support the laws on the books (DOMA).

So, seeing as I support the second amendment that must mean I dream of shooting dead all humans that aren't like me, right? Absolutely not. Do I want to convince more people that my way of thinking is the way to go? Yes, I do. But that's human nature. Failing that, hopefully we can meet in the middle. It's called compromise, a concept many Liberals clearly do not understand.

No, "stamping out" Liberalism does not sound like compromise, but that (a prior post title of mine) was hyperbole intended to attract readers and spark a discussion. As I pointed out in the post, I do not believe Liberalism can be eliminated entirely. But at least tone it down Liberals! Compromise with us! But I don't know if those on the fringe (the far, far Left) will ever see reason. I do not know if they are capable of compromising. I fear not.

TLB #33


  1. I believe the term "invasion" only applies when it is of a military nature. And what the vast majority of illegal aliens do here productive work that needs to be done.... is as far from an military as you can get.

  2. Correction "as far from military" as you can get.

  3. dmarks approves of illegal immigration because it is a source of cheap labor for the plutocrats. It also drives down the wages of American workers. dmarks only allegiance is to the plutocrats. He supports whatever benefits them. If it hurts American workers that also makes dmarks smile.

  4. Compromise isn't the easiest thing in the world. Unless there is a common stated goal, as in project management, the group dynamics of
    committees (hey, was that thing designed by committee?) consists of
    endless argument and posturing. Gov't is one big committee. So, whatever premise, any successful compromise is going to take a long time, and disappoint those on the fringes. As for 'stomping out liberals', shucks, this liberal is too old to get stomped on, so I
    would compromise in self defense....

  5. Obviously dmarks does not have the guts to admit the truth. He doesn't even have the guts to lie and deny the fact that he's a stooge for the plutocrats.

  6. I try to make a distinction between liberals (such as Dick Durbin and Ron Wyden and BB Idaho), who I could definitely work with, and leftists (such as Bernie Sanders and that full lot of guttersnipes over there on MSNBC), who I probably couldn't.

  7. FINAL warning w-dervish. No personal attacks, please. I'm not interested in your history of disagreements with dmarks or anyone else. I'm sorry, but further comments of this nature will be deleted.

  8. Will: Well said. Bernie Sanders is infamous for his de-facto vote to approve of the 9/11 attackers.