Simple question – where would you rather be just at this very moment now? Are you brave enough to say?
This is a perfect example of how five separate issues are trivialized and then mocked. Propaganda is a powerful tool in the hands of the obsessed. The issues are:
2. The existence of G-d;
3. The Australian [and other ] bushfires;
4. Sexism and feminism;
5. The state of the media.
Here is how it was done:
Now in its 17th year, the Ernie Awards are bestowed on those whose public utterings are regarded as the most sexist. The winner is determined by how loud the crowd boos and hisses.
About 250 women who attended the gala event at NSW Parliament House decided that comments by Pastor Danny Nalliah, head of the Catch the Fire Ministries, were worthy of the top prize, the Gold Ernie.
Shortly after the deadly February bushfires, the pastor said: “God’s conditional protection has been removed from the nation of Australia, in particular Victoria, for approving the slaughter of innocent children in the womb”.
He’s a prat for coming out with that stuff. I do think there are times when the much vilified “G-d’s pre-emptive vengeance” is a factor but to make this connection and so publicly leads one to think just how Christian this man is.
As part of the bash-a-Christian campaign going on across the world at the behest of Them who need to breakdown both this and nationalism to impose the global governance, there are sock-puppets all over the place, caricatures of what Christianity is in most people’s minds and out to reinforce that with inane statements like the above.
Now, those particular women are also prats for being so far gone into hating men that they have to have a festival, for crying out loud and present awards for sexism? WTF? How sad are those women?
Next – abortion. It is not an issue to be trivialized. Having been the other person in the issue a few times, it is definitely not nice and shouldn’t be diminished by linking it with, say, Obama’s trip to the Bahamas or whatever, especially if a Tsunami comes and gets him.
The media – my betters have blogged on this more extensively than I – the media [and one need look only to the Beeb] are so into trivialization, so under the yoke of ideological dogma, that people have turned away from them for any commentary and have turned to the blogosphere instead.
Quote from the Melbourne Age
Lead lobbyist for the federation, Chet Gerlach, said yesterday it made the change after the meaning of the common text-message lingo was brought to its attention. The organisation has had the same name since it was founded in 1979, a time when it could never have predicted it would one day become crude internet slang.
How names are appropriated eh, as I said to my gay friend the other day [he was telling jokes at the time], as we admired the rainbow [after the storm].
By the way – “lead lobbyist”?
Land of the infringed constitutional rights. It’s quite significant that SCOTUS have come down on the side of the constitution but I suspect they’ve come down on the chance to hit the state legislatures:
The Supreme Court says it will take up a challenge to Chicago’s ban on handguns, opening the way for a ruling that could set off a vigorous new campaign to roll back state and local gun controls across the nation.
Victory for gun-rights proponents in the Chicago case is considered likely, even by supporters of gun control, in the latest battle in the nation’s long and often bitter dispute over the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. A ruling against the city’s outright ban could lead to legal challenges to less-restrictive laws across the country that limit who can own guns, whether firearms must be registered and how they should be stored.
The case is to be argued early next year.
Last year, the justices struck down a prohibition on handguns in the District of Columbia, a city with unique federal status, as a violation of the Second Amendment. Now the court will decide whether that ruling should apply to local and state laws as well.
There’s every indication over there that the common man and woman aren’t buying any of this constitutional contraction c–p. Them appears to have a little problem on its hands, which is why it’s going to need FEMA to help with “insurgents”.
Insurgent – Merriam-Webster:
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one’s own political party
Pause the video at 0:49 and look at the FBI document. Then pause again at 0:57. Thre is a reference there, which you can see for yourself, that on a list of suspected insurgents is anyone who “makes numerous references to the U.S. Constitution”, and “should be monitored as potentially murderous and fanatical terrorists”.
Hmmmmm. Look at this one – a FEMA induction course. As of last evening, this youtube failed to work. Maybe it will now:
The leader jokes with inductees about the Founding Fathers also being terrorists.
Courtesy of Angus – remember the name Ian Shaw, folks, Bournemouth Borough Council’s housing manager.
When council officers stole* a baby buggy and after the couple reported the theft to the council, said council wanted £50 for them to get it back.
Said our Ian:
“The health and safety of our residents is our number one priority. It is our responsibility to ensure fire escape routes are clear and the importance is evident when you read the tragic story of the tower block fire that killed six people in Camberwell in July.”
* stole … One of Merriam-Webster’s definitions is:
to take surreptitiously or without permission
without intent to return it
The council may have warned residents not to block the entrance. We have no way of knowing if the buggy was sticking out or was in the corner or what. What is known is that the buggy was removed, with no notice and not just removed to a sideroom but was impounded, occasioning a large fine.
I think they might have been within their rights to move it to a side room and to leave a notice saying what they’d done and where to get the buggy back. Then the discussion could have taken place and the rule made clear.
But what Ian *&$%^£ing Shaw is trying to put over is more than Jobsworth – it is officious.
A ship is docked in the harbour. Over the side hangs a rope ladder with rungs a foot apart. The tide rises at a rate of 9 inches per hour. At the end of six hours, how much of the rope ladder will still remain above water, assuming that 9 feet were above the water when the tide began to rise?