Wes Messamore: 'The Far-Left's Ideal Man Has No Penis'

Source:The Humble Libertarian- Live at the Emmy's?

Source:The New Democrat 

"At a Hollywood awards show Sunday, Jimmy Kimmel– the Democratic Party’s fleshlight– said that the Oscar Award statuette is Hollywood’s perfect man because:

“Keeps his hands where you can see them, never says a rude word, and, most importantly, no penis at all. He is literally a statue of limitations.” 

From Fontcraft

Warning: for all you so-called social justice and political correctness warriors, this piece could come off as very offensive to you all tight asses who’ve escaped society and haven’t heard let alone got a joke in years and have been isolated from the rest of society that can tell the difference between humor and critique, from bigotry.

Source: The Humble Libertarian- The Far-Left, doesn't like real men 

I agree with Wes Messamore that the Far-Left’s ( not the entire Left ) ideal man wouldn’t have a penis. Or at least wouldn’t be straight and masculine. The Far-Left’s radical feminists and Communists, ideal man is basically a queen. A gay man with a very feminine perspective on life who has no interest in manly activities. Who walks around like a female runway model, proud to wear pink. Hates manly sports at least and sees football as promotion of violence in America. Speaks with a voice that makes him sound like a horse kicked him in a balls at least a hundred times, it’s so high.

Source: Font Craft- Maybe she likes women instead? 

The Far-Left’s ideal woman are three different types of women. One is an upscale Northeast or West Coast yuppie, who works and lives in a loft, runs or manages her own whit-collar business. Looks cool with glasses on and never is seen either not staring at her smartphone or holding a cup off coffee from her favorite coffee house.

Another type of woman that the Far-Left loves is an antiestablishment Socialist radical who sees her job as to eliminate all forms of individualism in America. Destroy what she sees as the racist, sexist, selfish, materialistic, American capitalist system. And replace it with a feminist socialist system centralized economic system and government. Where central planners controlled by feminists Socialists, would be in charge for everyone else to decide what everyone needs to live well in life. If you’re familiar with the New-Left of the late 1960s and early 1970s with groups like The Weather Underground, Students For a Democratic Society and ANTIFA today, you know exactly who I’m talking about.

The third deal woman of the Far-:Left is a dyke. Radical feminists don’t hate masculinity completely, just when it comes from Caucasian men especially Anglo-Saxon men. But they like masculinity when it comes from women and non-Caucasian men. They love African-American entertainers and athletes and other African-American men, who are just as masculine as European-American men and in some cases at least more masculine, just as long as they’re also part of the Far-Left not on the right like people like Economics Professor’s Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell. So if radical feminist Socialists ever became in charge in America and perhaps only through violent force or everyone else decided to leave the country or simply forgot to vote that day, maybe that would allow some men to keep their dick’s. Just as long as they’re far-left as them.

It’s not so much men that radical feminists hate, except for man-hating lesbian dykes, who in many cases are more masculine than your average straight man. Who get hired by 275 pound NFL lineman to be their bodyguards, because they feel safer having a dyke as their bodyguard. And claim that their dyke bodyguard has more masculinity than his entire football team combined. It Caucasian male masculinity that radical feminists socialists ( or RFS’s ) hate. Because they hold these guys personally responsible for what they see as our racist, sexist, selfish, militarist, economic system and form of government. And if they were to ever become in charge in America, you would see about hundred-million straight men least headed to Canada for fear of having their dick’s chopped off. Because these RFS’s hate straight men, at least straight Caucasian men.

The Atlantic: David Frum: When Gun Owners Become Hypocritical Hippies'

Source:The Atlantic- David Frum calling 2nd Amendment absolutists, hippies.

Source:The New Democrat 

“Rights come with responsibilities,” argues The Atlantic writer David Frum. “Understanding this principle is what distinguishes an adult from a child. Yet the gun lobby rejects this basic bargain.” In this Atlantic Argument, Frum questions the “self-indulgent permissiveness” that leads conservatives down a trail of hypocrisy."

From The Atlantic

I never thought I word here gun owners and hippies, in the the same sentence. Hard to imagine a peace-loving hippie who perhaps the only goal that they have in life is to escape civilization ( especially their parents ) who just wants to make love and dance, smoke pot, ever owning a gun. And when I think of hardcore gun owners at least, I think of people who believe there under constant threat from law enforcement and moved as far away from civilization that they possibly can believing the cops are not just out to get them, but worst from their point of view that they're trying to confiscate their guns.

There obviously gun owners who are more moderate, reasonable, and even sane than that, but if you're playing on the stereotypes from hippies and gun owners that's what it looks like. And with the crazy rhetoric that comes from the National Rifle Association ( or NRA ) every time there is a new mass shooting in America ( which seems like every week now ) they use that type of rabid anti-gun control rhetoric. "The Socialists and Communists, are coming for your guns. Load up and fend them off!" With their rabid members literally taking that rhetoric as seriously as hearing a weather report in Seattle that it's going to rain tomorrow. But I get David Frum's point here.

I've been reluctant to weigh in the gun control debate for more than a month now other than a few postings on social media, because I get this what's the point feeling every time the latest crisis breaks out and now we're at the point that we're literally losing our future to gun violence, mass shooting, mentally incompetent and irresponsible people taking their frustrations out on our future and we're now losing teenagers in high school who would've been in college next year in some cases. Or a few years from now, but are now buried underground because we as a society have chosen not to protect our most vulnerable from people who probably shouldn't even be allowed to get on airplanes, or drive cars, date out daughters, let alone own guns in America or anywhere else in the world.

I love our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. I've built most if not all of my liberal political philosophy around it, but as David Frum said in his video the what separates adults from children are rights and responsibilities. Kid's tend to just want the rights, adults understand that with those rights come responsibilities and when you abuse your rights like staying out too late to use as an example, there consequences that come from breaking the rules. Like maybe you don't go out at all the next day and are confined inside doing your homework and doing house chores or something.

There are no such thing as absolute rights in America. You can't murder someone in the privacy of your home. You  can't accuse some of murder without absolutely no evidence. You can't force someone to have sex or have an abortion. And you can't freely shoot a firearm in public with people everywhere just for the pure pleasure of shooting your gun and for the hell of it. All of our beautiful individual rights in America come with responsibilities and those rights can be taken away from people when they abuse them and they can also be regulated.

Our individual rights, individualism, liberal democracy, are things along with our diversity across the board and not just racially and ethnically, is what makes America exceptional as well as great. The fact that Americans can come from nothing and end up being some of the richest most successful people in the world. That can not just come from nothing but immigrate from a third world country not even speaking English when you get here and make it in America on your own and become one of our greatest citizens. But with each individual right that we have in America comes responsibility. And each individual right that we have in America is subjected to responsible commonsense regulations. Including the 2nd Amendment. Background checks doesn't take guns away from responsible, sane, competent people. Just the people who aren't responsible, sane, and competent, who would murder people with their guns and other weapons.

The Atlantic: Helen Keller: 'The Modern Woman Puts Her Husband in The Kitchen- 1932

Source: The Atlantic

Source:The New Democrat

It you were born let's say yesterday or at the very least have a personality and even intelligence level that makes you seem so young, naive, inexperienced, and innocent that you come off as someone who was born yesterday and perhaps don't even remember the 1990s, unlike some of us who were actually adults during a lot of that decade, 1932 and the 1930s could seem like a century ago. Like explaining the civil war to a 11th grade high school American history class in 1985 or something.

But there was a time even well before I was born where even though there was never any law saying that women weren't allowed to work and become professionals in America or simply low-skilled low-income employees or blue-collar middle class employees where you only needed a high school diploma to get a good job in America, women weren't expected to work at all outside of the house in America. They weren't seen as slaves to their men which is what Africans were pre-civil war in America in the South, but perhaps just a step up. And at the very least were seen as servants to their men and children.

Joe Wilson would go out and work during the day earning a good living for himself, his wife, and kids. His wife Mary Wilson would stay home and raise their kids and take care of the house. The cooking, cleaning, getting the kids to and from school, etc. The whole family would meet in the dining room at around 7PM for dinner or perhaps Joe would take his wife and kids out for dinner to celebrate his new raise or promotion or whatever it might be.

That is what life was like in America before 1965 ( I still wasn't born yet ) or so. Joe worked and Mary stayed home at least once they were married and took care of the family and household. And there was never any government law requiring that women stayed home while men would work outside of the home. It was just a cultural norm, or a Phyllis Schlafly marijuana high or fantasy come true.

Not saying that all Christians are fundamentalists, Evangelical, or even Protestant, but there is a wing in that religion that view this period the 1930s through the 1950s as their Utopia. Their Christian Utopia where America was moral and before what they view as moral crisis that has been plaguing America as they would see it since the 1960s. Not sure a crisis can last 50 years or more, at some point the crisis has to stop and a new way of doing things and new norm emerges instead. But fundamentalist Christians or Christian-Nationalists, point to these 30 years from 1930 to 1960 or so as America's golden age where everything was utopian for them.

Source:The Atlantic

The Atlantic: Olga Khazan: 'A Better Way To Argue About Politics'

Source: The Atlantic-

Source:The New Democrat

Before I get into what I believe is a better way to argue politics, I want to explain my issues with Olga Khazan's piece here, because she unintentionally lays out a big problem with American politics which is stereotypes.

According to Olga and she used Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders as her example of a Liberal, which would be like using Representative Ron Paul as an example of a Conservative, even though Senator Sanders is not a fan of either liberal democracy or individual rights, and instead believes in democratic collectivism ( social democracy, if you prefer ) which is very different. And Representative Paul disagrees with so-called Conservatives on a lot of issues especially having to do with national security, foreign policy, but policies that the Christian-Right pushes.

Which gets to my larger point being abut the ignorance about American politics and how the mainstream media including Olga Khazan, reinforces those those false stereotypes about not just what it means to be a Liberal or Conservative, but that Americans are either a Liberal or Conservative . As if you only have two choices in American politics, that there only two choices on the American political menu as far as how you define your own politics and political philosophy. Liberal or Conservative, like being on an airplane and only having a choice between the chicken or salad. As if there is nothing else that someone could possibly eat or order.

But in a political sense there is another other possible way to think when it comes to politics. You're either Liberal or Conservative according to the American mainstream media dictionary when it comes to American politics. Liberal or Conservative, Left or Right, as if nothing else exists. And like most things in life American politics especially in a country as large and diverse including politically diverse as we are, life is just not that simple. And to just put people in two political camps in America is at best lazy journalism and at worst just very ignorant as far as how Americans tend to look at politics.

If you go by the stereotypes about what it means to be a Liberal or Conservative, perhaps 3-5 voters are Conservatives. 1-5 voters are Liberals. If you go buy the classic definition of what it means to be a Liberal, that number jumps up to maybe 3-10 4-10, because Americans don't want big government to try to manage their lives for them and tell them what they can eat, or even say and spend ,most of our money for us. But we tend to believe in the real liberal values like free speech, personal freedom, property rights, right to privacy, equal rights, quality opportunity for all, a safety net for people who truly need it, a strong national defense to protect the country, effective and responsible law enforcement. Things that stereotypical Liberals don't believe in.

And if you polled what it truly means to be a Conservative someone who believes in conserving the U.S. Constitution and our individual rights, fiscal conservatism, strong national defense, personal responsibility, there might me 3 or 4-10 American voters who share those values. But if you polled Americans based on what's called religious conservatism and Christian Nationalism in America and this belief that all Americans should live under the same moral values and there is only one way for Americans to be American and for people who don't share those values are Un-American, that number shrinks to what's known as the Donald Trump base. Which is about 20-25% of the electorate and maybe 30-35% of the Republican Party.

One of the great things about American politics and the American political spectrum and why it's great to debate politics in America is our political diversity. Just like America represents the whole world racially and ethnically, we represent the whole world ideologically as well. From Christian-Theocrats and Nazis on the Far-Right, to Communists on the Far-Left. To Conservatives and Liberals in the middle of those two fringes with Conservatives and Conservative-Libertarians representing the Center-Right and Liberals and Progressives the Center-Left.

Newsflash: not everyone in America is a Conservative or a Liberal. They are our two largest political factions if you go by the true meaning of Conservative as far as what Conservatives believe in a political sense and what the true meaning of Liberal is and what Liberals believe in a political sense. With Socialists both democratic and communist, representing the Far-Left in America and Nationalists representing the Far-Right.

On a more lighter note as far as a better way to argue American politics I would suggest a few things.

One- don't view your favorite partisan publications and media outlets word as gold. Leave open the possibility that those media outlets might have a political agenda and are simply positing negative stories to hurt the other side or post positive stories to help their side. And of course I'm thinking of MSNBC and Fox News. NBC News ( the parent of MSNBC ) is a real news operation and more factually base., but MSNBC is a partisan news operation representing the Far-Left in American politics. And Fox News is just Fox News FNC or network, a partisan political tabloid that basically serves as the communication operation for the Republican National Committee.

Two- stay away from partisan media outlets, or at the very least expand your media diet and look to intelligent commentators from the other side, as well as independent reporters who don't have any political agenda. Once American voters actually start receiving real information and facts when it cones to politics and government, they'll become intelligent voters because now they'll be thinking with these little annoying but very help things called facts. Instead of going off on political spin. Like the insomniac who thinks they can survive without sleep by just pouring coffee and Dr. Pepper down their throats and running a treadmill, two many Americans simply go off what they're favorite partisans tell them which leaves them without real facts and information.

Three- view people especially political junkies as just people who have strong political viewpoints. If you're debating someone on the Right, don't automatically assume that they're some racist xenophobic, sexist, corrupt,  materialistic, selfish, pig, who hates minorities, women, and gays. Especially if they're on the Center-Right and have a brain. And if you're debating someone on the Left, don't automatically view that person as some Che Guevara/Fidel Castro or even Bernie Sanders loving big government statist. Who hates America and views all Caucasians especially Anglo-Saxons and men and views all those people as racists, who want to eliminate all individual freedom and individualism in all forms. Again, especially if they're on the Center-Left and have a brain.

Four- debating an talking is great for the brain and a great verbal exercise, but if you watch sports on TV and even go to games you know that all of those events have timeouts, ( except for maybe soccer ) how about you save some of your breath and use your brain for something other than speaking and debating and use it as a a computer and take in information. You'll learn a few things not just about the person that you're debating, but you might also learn some things about the issues that you're debating. I'm not here to plug any network in particular but if you listen to some of the discussions and debates on CNN from their so-called experts, they actually listen to each other and let the other side speak.

American politics and debate will only get better and American politicians will only become more popular than your average junk dealer or used car salesman ( which is another way of saying junk dealer ) when the people that these politicians represent become better and smarter. When the voters become intelligent and informed and not just operating on 30 or 40% of the story and become informed and engaged voters who don't see their job as to eliminate the other party, even if that means supporting legislation that if there was no partisan angle to doing it they would've never supported before. American politicians only represent the people that voted for them and good politicians can only at best represent the entire community that they officially represent. The entire city, state, district, country, whatever it might be. A big problem in American politics and hyper-partisanship are American voters themselves.
Source:The Atlantic