Recent Comments

1. 2 days ago on Pearls Before Swine

   As a long-term card-carrying Libertarian, the only aspect of what you say that’s even partially true is the overlap between the “Tea Party” and small-L libertarians. (The Tea Party took in a lot of what had been the Constitution Party as well.) And SOME of the Tea Party types did indeed become MAGAs or Trump supporters, and the Republicans cravenly ceded to his populist support and let him claim a Republican nomination (a bad move, in my estimation). But true Libertarians (those in it for adherence to the Constitution and rights, not just stoners who wanted pot legalized as the media popularized them as) are absolutely repulsed by Trump’s egomania and occasional circumvention of the Constitution in favor of satisfying his egomania and populist support; we just know there was far less of it going on under Trump than under megalomaniac Obama and now under Obama’s current puppet in the White House.

   “Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting to condone evil.”

2. 3 days ago on Pearls Before Swine

   Not when they’ve all been “defunded” and are nowhere to be found when stores get plundered, squatters claim houses, etc.

3. 3 days ago on Pearls Before Swine

   Didn’t you know? They started calling themselves “progressives” once “liberal” took on increasingly bad overtones and reputation, spurred in no small part by the behavior and antics of a small but vocal (and often law-breaking) minority of them.

   I’m waiting to see what term replaces “progressive” once the minority of them besmirch and taint that label irreversibly. I’m thinking “Alinskeyite”?

   The funny par is, the original meaning of the term “liberal” would align far more closely with today’s libertarians………..

4. 3 days ago on Pearls Before Swine

   I spent 25 years there.

   Honestly, the only people who still use that term are either matronly old white ladies who still do their hair in beehives and think “Bawlamer” is still part of the old-time South, or people who are imitating them as tribute or satire or mockery. I think part of it was killed off by a diner’s owner naming her place “Cafe Hon,” then throwing an annual “festival in tribute to the Hon Ladies” that was a thinly veiled commercial promotion. Do some online research and you may find out how that festival died off (hint—not just COVID).

5. 3 days ago on Luann

   If that were true, she wouldn’t be a billionaire. Her entire shtick is appealing to her audiences to both watch her shows and productions and go along with her marketing pushes of books, cosmetics, etc.

6. 3 days ago on Luann

   Citation, please?

   Exactly what rights? How are they “trying to strip” them of said “rights”? Rights to speak or publish? Right to bear arms? Right to not house troops? Protection from unreasonable searches or seizures? Protection from self-incrimination?

   What “minorities” are we discussing in this? Women (who, BTW, are the majority in colleges now)? Jews? Racial “minorities”? Christians? Deaf people? Snake owners? Bicyclists? Sci-fi fans?

   And let’s not mistake “leveling the playing field for all” for “stripping them of their rights.”

   It’s long been said that the major difference between political forces is striving for equality of OPPORTUNITY (i.e. no preferential set-asides, quotas, etc.—everyone treated fairly) versus equality of OUTCOME (everyone gets paid the same, no homelessness, universal health care, etc.). In reality, both are equally delusional fantasies not based in the “real world”

7. 4 days ago on Luann

   It would be equally valid (i.e. false) to counter-claim that all women are, instead, consumed with MARRYING wealth.

8. 4 days ago on Luann

   Long hair in women has almost universally been seen in most cultures as a symbol of “sexual availability.”

   The joke, of course, is that it gets cropped short the week the first baby starts grabbing and pulling on it.

9. 4 days ago on Luann

   But if there were a men-only political party now, it would be condemned as sexist, unconstitutional, and a “haven of bigotry.”

   Which is, of course, exactly what a “women-only” political party would be, but we wouldn’t be allowed to point that out.

   And, in many ways, The Democrats’ policy of appeasement and kowtowing to any and every self-proclaimed aggrieved “minority” (which by now is to say, literally everyone but white males in the United States) makes them, by default, the “women’s party” already, to hear “feminists” and knitted-pink-hat-wearing protesters speak……………

10. 4 days ago on Luann

    [citation needed]