Friday, December 17, 2010

Tow the feminist line

For years, the feminist have given a pass to any lecherous, male, predator as long as they toe the correct political (aka liberal) line.

For instance, kill a girl you get a pass (Kennedy)

Rape a 13 year old...... pass (see Polanski)

Pass child pornography.... pass (see Scott Ritter)

Rape an adult woman (see Assange)

I have an idea for a Planned Parenthood fundraiser. For every $1000.00 donation, they'll give you a free "get out of jail card" which you can use to rape and/or kill a woman, lie about national security or reveal national secrets (assuming they're only western secrets we wouldn't want those Russians or Iranians pissed off).


Anonymous said...

I was taught in high school American government/history classes that secrecy was essential for a democracy to work, such as the US. However, secrecy should be limited to military and domestic matters. Wikileaks has shown us just how deeply the US meddles in the affairs of other nations and threatens their sovereignty. Why are there secret documents listing a beach in New Zealand as being in the US best interest? For some reason, it's acceptable for us to try to control the rest of the world and build military bases in other countries, but heaven forbid China builds an army base here.

Anonymous said...

The wikipedia guy says his mission is to stop governments from having secrets. But he really is about anti-Americanism. There are also anti-russian and anti-Chinese wikileaks type guys. But you never hear about them. Mainly because they are DEAD. Wikileaks guy is smart enough to release documents about nasty government operations, but only regarding those governments not nasty enough to kill him. Any government that will kill over this stuff is off limits. A little ironic, isn't it?

I will believe the generic secret releasing claim of wikileaks when we start seeing Obama's college thesis or other damaging documents about the left being published. Stuff that the NYT probably has but won't print.

gordon gekko said...

Anon #1

Your knowledge of history appears limited. Are you aware that in the Spanish American War, we won the Philippines and Cuba amongst other countries and/or territories.

Yet we allowed those territories to self rule.

If we were the imperialist empire that you believe we are, why would we allow such things to happen outside of our self interest.

I'd bet serious amounts of money that we have secret war plans to invade Canada (complete with high importance targets). It's part of having a well run and prepared military.

Should Julian and Co. release these things to our northern neighbors?

So the fact that there is some beach in New Zealand that may have importance to us for any reason is no reason to release it to the general public.

Again, I agree with Anon #2. I'll have more respect with the Wikileaks crowd when they start releasing Russian secrets. I'm sure those radioactive cucumbers they'll be eating in their salads so afterwards will be just a coincidence.

Oh, by the way, it's nice to see you give a pass to JA for his rape issues.

Anonymous said...

There is no pass for rape, but they are still just accusations. Anyone who's had a one night stand could be accused of rape and the fact he's accused of rape after all the wikileaks bruhaha has to make you skeptical of authenticity of the charges. He's not guilty of rape (although just by being accused means there is some degree of guilt there), but the whole thing smells fishy, doesn't it?

I don't believe we are imperalists in the sense of empire building, but we do put our nose in other country's business way to much. Look at all the money we sent overseas with stimulus and bailout dollars. Saying that securing a beach in New Zealand is in the best interests of the US is the same excuse liberals use for thrusting their social programs on the masses--what's good for the goose is rarely good for the gander.

I'd love to see wikileaks from China/Russia/Iran/North Korea, but it would likely mean WW3. Part of the reason countries are so secretive is they know countries like the US are prying and meddling.

Anonymous said...

Everyone has an opinion on where the line is between engagement or meddling. That's one issue. There's a completely different issue with wikileaks. That is people need to be able to conduct business over private communication channels without the fear of those communications becoming public.

This fiasco is really war; war over information. The wikileaks guy has recently reaffirmed the old adage that alls fair in love and war. He just stepped out on the battlefield and tossed a grenade at his enemy, the US. Now, when the enemy is lobbing grenades back he's filing protest that the US is not playing fair.

He has stepped into a rough and tumble arena and shouldn't be surprised that it's getting rough. But this is not a fight about what we are doing in foreign policy, it's a fight about who owns sensitive information. That Saudi Arabia would secretly support a military stoppage of Iran's nukes is important knowledge to keep secret. How is letting that out good for anyone? That's not a case of us sticking our nose into something, it's a case of obtaining knowledge and wanting to protect it. Should someone outside the system be allowed to unilaterally decide to release it? Doesn't matter. Legal or not, it's done. And the consequences, legal or not, will play out.

Anonymous said...

Apparently there are two types of rape. One, committed by a conservative, is where the women's groups will say the charge of rape is so serious that it must be disproved by the accused. The other, committed by a political leftist, is probably not rape because the woman was asking for it and is now trying to smear the name of a good liberal to cover her reputation.