Archive for the ‘Dog-faced Baboon’ Category

So the Roy Moore

09 Dec

inscription is at least partly an admitted forgery. And there is real question about the other part. Was it just copied from a court document and therefore had the clerk’s initials?  It sure seems so! I mean, just why would those initials be there? If it were your signature, would you attach your secretary’s initials? Well, a young and inexperienced forger might! The initials DA were there, but Moore was NOT a District Attorney! Those were the initials of his secretary. But it is very likely something a naive young girl would copy from a court order and then want to brag about to her friends. It sure looks like a forgery!

And anyway, doesn’t this show a real willingness on Nelson’s part to lie about Moore? She lied and then kept quiet about it in an effort to harm Moore. SHE knew about the forgery! Yet she did not volunteer this crucial piece of information. Yeah, NOT reliable.

Are you really going to argue that she lied about one thing but didn’t lie about others, that this whole thing was not just a vindictive ploy meant to damage Moore? Are you really going to argue that Nelson is a liar, sure, but others are pure as the driven snow? Just how do you know? You were bamboozled in this case, so what would make you more accurate in others? Just what makes you so sure of yourself? I mean, it was only yesterday that you thought Nelson was a reliable source! You were dead wrong, and I tried to tell you so.

So honestly, why should I believe YOU over a dog-faced baboon? I mean, the baboon has preferences, too. Just what makes you think yours are any better? Upon what grounds are you standing? And your track record is really bad. Trust your judgment on such things? Yeah, I don’t think so.

Admit it. Come clean on this. You let your petty preferences cloud your better judgment. Time to ‘fess up! Now go, and do better…

And if this strongest charge against Moore was bogus, what about the weaker ones? I mean, your anti-Moore attack is not even the stupidest political move you have made! Own it!

So, haters, what do you have to say for yourselves?

Yeah, let me guess: “Yeah, part was a forgery, but part was not! And besides, there is another 40-year-old allegation that he can’t get hard evidence to refute! Sure, he couldn’t refute this one until today, but…”

“So, Conservatives, vote for a baby-killing Leftist who will try and vindictively impeach (if possible) or at least thwart Trump because of these decades-old and unprovable and (probably) false allegations, some of which have been proven to be dishonest frauds and others are quite dubious!

Yeah, that’s the ticket! Whatever… As one children’s book says, “Thanks for sharing. Now put your head down.”

You knew (or should have known) when the person (though her camera-chasing attorney) refused to make the original available for scrutiny by experts that they were hiding something BIG. Now, what else are they hiding, huh? They just have no credibility.

Welcome to the Senate, Mr. Moore!

And welcome to Hell, haters.


Your MSM

23 Nov

at work.

Why on earth would any rational person even listen to these fools? This is a complete dumpster fire!

The MSM pretends to give you real information about Trump. But why oh why would anyone believe them? I mean, honestly!

And I am quite certain that this will have a significant impact on the 2018 and 2020 races. A lot of people are getting to the point where they just don’t care what the MSM says. They correctly note that there is just no way to know if it really is true, and the MSM are demonstrably unreliable.

So the NY Times reports X? So what? Why on earth should I believe them? Maybe what they say is true, and maybe it is a lie. Or more likely, it is partially true but the “gist” of the story is a lie.

But honestly, tell me why I should believe them. Tradition?

Comments Off on Your MSM

Posted in Corruption, Dog-faced Baboon, Epistemology, Media Untrustworthiness


Yes, Milbank

31 Oct

is a jerk. But there is another, bigger, issue in play. And here it is:

Milbank hasn’t changed. He was always this way, either too stupid or to venal to stand up for what is right. Yet YOU believed and even defended him! He is the prototypical MSM hack, and he always has been. But you didn’t even know!

Next time you feel compelled to defend the MSM as a reliable source, remember this.

Be honest, YOU were snookered. So just how do you know that your current favored talking head (or general source) is telling you the truth? Dana Milbank was shown to be a turd who disregarded the truth. Dan Rather has been categorically shown to be biased. Even Walter Cronkite was quite problematic. The NY Times is regularly wrong, and the both have to make frequent corrections and are exposed by other entities.

So just how do you know you are getting the truth? What is your measure? Just why should I believe them over a dog-faced baboon? Just what ground are they standing on?

Comments Off on Yes, Milbank

Posted in Dog-faced Baboon, Epistemology, Media Untrustworthiness


So what makes

31 Jul

you think that there is no significant voter fraud. Huh? Just how do you know? On what logical grounds are you standing? Why should I believe YOU over a dog-faced baboon?

Why on earth would a rational person think there is no voter fraud? If you care one whit about data and science, you know that OF COURSE there is significant voter fraud. DUH! All the available evidence show very clearly that there is a bunch of fraud, and only intellectual midgets or total rubes are fooled by the likes of the NYT on this. <shakes head>

If Lefties were not scared spitless, they would have no problem with an investigation. But they are dropping brinks in their pants right now because they KNOW that there is indeed massive fraud and this investigation is the “click” they hear right before the trap door on the scaffolds swings free.

Some states are refusing to give data, but that is just the death throes of the stupid ostrich folks. They are frantically having a seizure in hopes that this diverts attention and it is not revealed, totally discrediting them.

Comments Off on So what makes

Posted in Dog-faced Baboon, Voter Fraud


It’s a great question.

19 Jul

If the MSM only has its credibility to sell, what happens when they have no more credibility?

Quote: Honestly, the legacy media — CNN especially — has had a pretty bad six months. I won’t go through the whole list, but some of my favorites were when CNN reported breathlessly that Trump asked for two scoops of ice-cream at luncheons in the White House; when CNN accused Trump of inciting violence by tweeting a pro-wrestling GIF and then, following the general finger-pointing and derisive laughter at their reaction, their open threats of doxing the guy they thought made the meme; and then when the Comey testimony was coming up, reporting that “sources” were saying Comey would refute Trump’s assertion he wasn’t under investigation, only to have to retract when Comey’s written testimony was released.

See, I think that CNN and the rest of the MSM have squandered their only real asset–credibility. THESE are the wages of boosterism and sycophantic boot-licking. They are rightly seen as not trustworthy. No wonder many of us just don’t care what they (or Mueller) say about “collusion.” Maybe it’s true, but maybe it’s a steaming pile of dung. The scales have fallen from our eyes and we rightly assume that there is an agenda behind the accounts. Indeed, that is all there is! There are no “facts.”

And the problem is that according to that Post-Modernism we just can’t know the truth–they have pooped in the proverbial soup. There simply is no way to get truth from there. You can strain the soup, but that doesn’t make it palatable. In their trendy post-modern way, they say that there IS no truth, only accounts. But OK then, just why should I believe YOU over a dog-faced baboon?

Comments Off on It’s a great question.

Posted in Dog-faced Baboon, Epistemology, Media Untrustworthiness


So why do Trump voters

13 Jul

and many other just not care about the Russia kerfuffle? I know I sure don’t. And I was never a Trumpkin.

The first reason is, I think, because the Lefty media is SO dishonest. They have “cried wolf” over and over, and now we just don’t care WHAT they say. They lie all the time, so what makes us think that they are telling the truth THIS time? They have long lied about Trump and have a clear animus toward him. They will always couch things in the worst possible terms for Trump. I think we just assume that this is merely an expression of that animus and NOT an even-handed search for truth. If I thought I was being told the whole truth, I would care. But I really doubt I am. So I don’t. These are the wages of MSM boosterism and slavish Obama suck-up-ism. This is what happens when you reject even the possibility of Truth.

If you sacrifice Truth, MSM, it will come back and bite you in the butt. If, as you have taught with post-modernism, there IS no Truth, just why should I believe YOU over a dog-faced baboon? Huh? On what grounds could you possibly claim Truth-Value? I thought you said that there IS no Truth! So again, on what grounds should I believe YOU? Where do you get your authority?

The reason Donald Trump said he could shoot somebody in public and his people would still support him is largely because the reporting on it would be so suspect. We would think that maybe he DID shoot this guy, but then again it is quite unlikely that we are getting the whole story from the MSM. They lie. Maybe he didn’t really shoot him. Or maybe he did but it was justifiable self-defense. We simply don’t know, and the MSM are just not reliable. So we just shrug.

The other important issue here is that the alternative–Hillary–was SO bad that the point really was moot. I may not like Mint Chocolate Chip ice cream. I may correctly point out that it tastes like frozen Pepto-Bismal. But when the alternative is poop ice cream, one starts begging for the mint chocolate chip!

There were many of us who would rather be poked in the eye with a rusty nail than see Hillary as President. And Trump has done some pretty laudable things. So two things may well be true, here: You might not like Trump AND he might be the best available option. The choice is NOT made in a vacuum. Sometimes you choose the best available option, even if that is not the best imaginable one. This is something that many Republicans need to learn.

It was quite clear that Trump was a far, far better option than Hillary. So given that, what else is there? What else matters? Don’t talk to me about some sort of high-minded idealogical or moral purity–that truly doesn’t mean crap in this situation.

The moral thing is to do the best thing in the situation you are actually in. So quit whining about the lack of perfection in this world and make a freakin’ call.

Comments Off on So why do Trump voters

Posted in Current Events, Dog-faced Baboon, Epistemology



22 May

the science is settled! What are you, some kind of mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging science denier?

THIS is why you don’t totally take what “scientists” say as Cartesian Truth. Science is a great way of knowing things. But it is not the only way, nor is it impervious to bastardization. It is an entry to explanation, it gives you a platform to put forth your opinions, but it very obviously depends upon formal logic for ALL of its persuasive power. There is indeed persuasive power in such arguments, but this power is not in illogical and stupid appeals to authority.

There’s a Haitian proverb that goes, “If you knew what chicken eat, you wouldn’t eat chicken.” Yeah, if you knew what scientists believe, you wouldn’t believe scientists. And I say that as a scientist myself. You have to be able to pose the epistemological question: “How do you know?” I’m not taking things merely on a logically fallacious appeal to authority. I don’t give a rat’s patoot that you are a famous scientist or professor. Tell me why. (To quote Socrates) on what grounds should I believe you over a dog-faced baboon?


Oh, so Donald Trump

13 Apr

was right and the MSM, like usual, was a pack of lying jackals and propagandists. Gee, what a surprise. If you are totally stupid, that is.

No wonder thinking people no longer give a crap about the incessant yapping of the MSM! No wonder Trump was elected. Maybe the MSM should try telling the TRUTH. I know that is not in their nature, but they could at least try… I might as well believe an itinerant hellfire-and-damnation TV evangelist as the NY Times! They are both in it for the money, power, and prestige. Tale as old as time…

Sorry, we live in a Post-Modern world where there is no Truth, only opinion. And that is exactly what the MSM are dishing up (though ultimately this vicious dog turns and mauls its owner). It has long permeated academia and is now becoming part of the culture. OK, I buy it. You’ve convinced me. But now you cannot defend yourself.

Isn’t Post-Modern academia itself vulnerable to the very same critique as the objects of its criticism? Doesn’t this double back on itself? Nice work, Post-Modernists. You have convincingly pointed out the logical flaws in Positivism, but in doing so you yourself have open up the means to your own logical destruction! Yes, the Positivists are wrong, but aren’t YOU just as wrong and for the exact same reasons? Are YOU not vulnerable to the exact same criticisms? Methinks your are hoisted on your own petard…

So the ONLY rational approach is that I need to find a Truth-Teller–a real person with whom I can have a human relationship. Of course, that puts me out of the secular realm entirely, though it seems that there is no way to both hew eclusively to the secular realm AND believe in Truth.

And if there is indeed no Truth as the Post-Modernists say, on what grounds should I believe THEM over a dog-faced baboon or some stranger creature still? If all there is is opinion, on what logical grounds is their opinion better than mine? We all have a face, so why is yours better than mine? See, here is where the dog turns on its master and mauls him…

Sure, there may be socially constructed standards of beauty, but that is merely to argue that truth is socially constructed–including… YOURS! Some cultures value big butts and find them attractive. Others value the slim-hipped look. But is one fundamentally better than the other? If so, how do you know? It’s just your preference. You like curvy women and I like thin “athletic” ones. At best it is a culturally-familially-determined preference rather than Truth, but there are other cultures! There are other families! Don’t be so ethnocentric and chauvinistic, you knuckle-dragging mouth-breather…

See, if I reject categorically the existence of a Truth-Teller, I just drift rudderless on the Godless sea of modernity. Let’s say that religion is not my cup of tea. Well, then I have ruled out the very possibility of Truth. Yeah, THAT approach is “scientific!” It leads me again to ask why I should believe YOU over a dog-faced baboon? On what rational grounds are YOU standing?  (thanks, Socrates).

Comments Off on Oh, so Donald Trump

Posted in Buffoons, Dog-faced Baboon, Epistemology, Media Bias


New frontiers in media bias.

04 Apr

It pretty dang clear. Pelley got pwned, here.

If you blithely accept what the MSM says, you are a blamed fool.

So here we have a guy (Cernovitch) saying that Hillary has Parkinson’s Disease. Pelley says that Mike Cernovitch is wrong. Pelley says that Hillary had pneumonia and they know that because Hillary herself said that. But then Cernovitch asks the key question: Yeah, but how do you know that Hillary was telling the truth? All you have is her word on it. Why is her word somehow more reliable than my own lying eyes? Do I just pretend I didn’t see her lock up?

I mean, on what grounds should I believer her over a dog-faced baboon? That she wouldn’t lie? Uh, THAT is laughable! Puh-leez!

I don’t really believe anything Hillary says, anyway. As Bill Safire noted years ago, she is a congenital liar. Just how do you know she is not lying in this case? She certainly has lied in the past (and is famous for it), so how do you know she is not lying now? On what grounds are you standing? It’s time to put up or shut up.

She looks Parkinsonian. Whether or not that is the actual diagnosis, I don’t know. But something is up. I’m just glad she is not President…


It is true,

01 Apr

Universities seem to be very bad at teaching They don’t teach argument. They don’t teach logic. Many young people have no skills at all at defending themselves in terms of logical argument. It is ALL about calling names rather than stating a reasonable defense of their positions.

And THAT is a dirty shame. If you do that you start to think that the main issue is the feeling rather than the logical and reasonable grounds, you figure that YOU are the measure of all things. See, it is closely bound up with an overweening narcissism.  When you ask the classic question, “Why should I believe you over a dog-faced baboon?” the answer is “My feeling has epistemological primacy over logic.”

And if the feeling is primary, there simply is no truth, since my feelings are the measure of Truth and my feelings are likely different than yours. And one person’s feelings are no more valid or have any more Truth-value than anyone else’s. We all have feelings, and yours are no better than mine.

See, it all comes back to epistemology.

Yes, that post-modern relativistic know-nothingism is a dirty shame. Don’t be fooled, we are in a knowledge crisis. This is the end of knowledge itself. There is ONLY opinion, and one opinion is not intrinsically better than any other.

Comments Off on It is true,

Posted in Dog-faced Baboon, Epistemology, Logic