Search This Blog

Sunday, December 20, 2015

Using a CDC investigative study as fact, and siting Hitler

The CDC was given the go-ahead to begin studying gun violence in America by the Obama administration in 2013. It would be the first time since 1997 they would be funded to do so.  Instead of just going willy nilly into the fray, they put together an investigative study where they gathered many studies to use as a base point to conduct studies.

To Dana, however, it is an opportunity to parrot the same tired 1995 study, but claim it is now the CDC's numbers.  Yes, that old Kleck and Gertz study claims 2.5 million occurrences of defensive gun uses annually, but it is too old, and not very good, as I've pointed out before.  Other studies looked at by the CDC are magnitudes lower than the Kleck and Gertz study, but even they may be flawed, since it is very hard to get an accurate count of it, since it is not something that is officially reported.

Dana also points out that there was gun control under Hitler, and look how that turned out. Nothing like invoking Godwin's law to try to win an argument. Here's the problem with that statement.  After World War I, Germany signed a treaty that banned gun ownership in the country.  It wasn't until after Hitler came to power that this ban was lifted.  Sure, Jewish people were not allowed to have guns, but that's not your typical gun control, and otherwise Hitler loosened gun control in Germany, giving German citizens the "God given" right to own guns.

That's not something Dana would like you to know. And most people who listen to Dana will continue to do so in ignorance to the truth.  I'd hate to invoke Godwin's law myself, but you know Dana, Hitler had a pretty good propaganda arm, too.

Saturday, December 5, 2015

A few thoughts on Colorado and San Bernardino

Last week, in the midst of the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting, Dana several times dismissed it as a bank robbery gone wrong, even after Chase bank, and police said there was no shooting there.

She never walked back that claim, even going as far as just saying he was in a shootout with police and took sanctuary in the Planned Parenthood.  Most disturbing about what was said, however, was that it should be okay with people on the left because no clinic workers were hurt due to enhanced security, even though murders were going on there (the abortions, not the shooting.)

The idea that the Robert Dear case was an act of domestic terrorism has been floated, even by Mike Huckabee.  Even if this isn't the case, Dana is basically giving comfort to a criminal who killed 3, including a police officer, mother of two, and combat vet who is a hero that saved lives that day, and injured several more.  Comfort, because the people he attacked are people she's attacked.  Maybe she's covering because she feels a little bit culpable?  Probably not, as you will see in a minute.

Fast forward to the San Bernardino shooting.  Before we knew the identity of the shooter, or when they were still thought to be white assailants, Dana was still giving comfort to criminals, this time because some on the right were calling for tighter gun laws.

I saw on Dana's Facebook page a short blurb the night after the assault that the name of the assailants had been revealed.  She only posted what they were, and didn't speculate on their Arabic origins, but judging by the comments on those posts, many minds had already been made up.  Even before we had a motive, they were Muslim, thus they were terrorists. even though as of this writing it is being investigated as an act of terrorism, we still don't know a motive.

In the following days I noticed another disturbing thing from Dana.  Since neighbors had some suspicions saying he saw several middle eastern men visiting, but didn't want to call police for fear he would be called racist, Dana feels if you see something, say something (although she's not alone in this).  Dana is basically saying that you need to racially profile your neighbors, and said this shooting was all the PC social justice warrior's fault. Sorry, Dana, the shooting is still the fault of the shooters, but please tell us how that phone call to police would have gone?

So Dana is just fine attacking Muslims, or Planned Parenthood, and consequences be damned.  We will have more idiots shouting down Muslims stating they are all terrorists.  We will have more attacks on Planned Parenthoods.  But Dana won't be to blame, and will downplay any incidence, even with evidence that proves false.

Another disturbing thing I realized recently when Dana was going on a rant about solar, and how bad it is, is that she is no longer reading ads for a solar company.  Imagine that for a minute.  If she thought solar was bad all along, why read ads stating it was a great alternative? And did she hold back on saying solar was bad while taking money from the solar industry? Did she attack the solar industry because they stopped giving her money? Ah, who am I fooling, Dana's above this sort of behavior.  And as long as she's feeding red meat stories to those who will eat them up, stuff like this won't even be questioned. Nothing to see here, carry on.

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Analyzing Ted Cruz's technique

Dana's not happy someone called out Ted Cruz on his gun handling technique.  That someone is Wes Siler, and it's obvious he knows nothing about guns.  I mean, Dana calls him, and the people commenting on the story idiots, so they must be wrong, right?

Except this is a guy that knows a thing about guns.  He has written my favorite article about gun safety, something I never see Dana doing.  She talks a good talk, but she does far more to try and help you keep your guns safe from Obama, than gun safety.

Well, Wes didn't take this affront from the likes of Dana lightly.  He found another video, showing Cruz at one point had pointed the barrel at people behind him.  He then posted an article mocking people to the right of gun ownership, and roasting them to a crispy brown.

So, Wes can join Nomiki, Dan Carlin, and David Pakman as people I have said I liked in this blog, but I have to ask, is he right?  Is Cruz wrong for carrying his gun this way?  Well, first I would like Gil Ash from the National Shooting Sports Foundation to explain to you how to carry a shotgun. Then I would like you to picture Obama carrying that gun the same way.  The very people who are saying Cruz is okay in carrying it this way would lose their ever loving minds, Dana included.  I mean, who can forget the flack he got for just shooting a gun:

Yeah, tell me Obama wouldn't get it from all sides on the right.  Then tell me Wes Siler would write the article differently.  He wouldn't.  Because he is a man who truly loves guns, and not the politics around them.  I get the feeling it's only the politics of guns the right cares about. And right now, we can't afford to focus on the politics of it, we need to look long and hard at the issues surrounding gun ownership, gun rights, and gun violence.  Both sides are bad at this.  But I'm pretty sure if they both stopped being petty, we could come together for the better.  Until then, Cruz wasn't being dangerous, he just wasn't following the rules of gun safety. So don't have a cow when someone points this out. Baby steps, man. Baby steps.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

New bumper music suggestion -- Love is in Control - Donna Summer

There is a method to my madness, of course, a connection to something Dana has done..  It's not the Quincy Jones smoothness that makes this the perfect bumper music, either.  See if you can catch the connection between this song and a blog post from Dana.

You see, Dana went ballistic (pun intended) when she saw the the SNL skit on guns.  Haven't seen it?  I'd be shocked, it is everywhere:

Did you catch the connection, yet?  What Dana didn't like about the skit, and the Donna Summers song's subtitle have something in common.  Here, let Dana explain it:
Everyone in the SNL bit had their finger on the trigger, like so:

That's right!  Finger on the trigger, baby!  Except, if my sight isn't failing me, that finger up there isn't anywhere near the trigger.

Not that it matters much.  It's comedy, it is supposed to be mocking people like Dana, and judging by the rant she went on in her article, it hit the spot.  Just to make her feel better, I bet they won't try and give her gun advice, as long as she doesn't try to give them comedy advice.

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Time once again to fact check the fact checker.

WaPo: Yes, We Want Your Guns

Oh, Dana... must you tease me so?  Counter-Fisking is go. Well, let's do this USA!
Wouldn't it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?
I know, because there are no 
mass shootings
anywhere in Europe (or elsewhere)
because they
banned guns .
This is what I call mixing the facts.  The WaPo author (Fred Hiatt) said far fewer deaths, but Dana trots out the fact that deaths do occur. Hiatt says civilized world, and Dana says Europe, because we all know everyone hates Europe, am I right?
Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.
Oregon had background checks and "modest common-sense reforms."
Yeah, and they were just implemented this year. And some gun shops and sheriffs offices are going against the law... call them safe havens for guns. Given time these reforms may be able to bring down gun violence like they already do in other states.

When I read this, I didn't think that Hiatt was coming for your guns, but showing the narrative that it doesn't matter what you do, they are going to think they are coming for your guns, I do understand he does ramp up the rhetoric later, however.
And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.
Actually, just changing the Bill of Rights. Why stop there? The killer cited reckless media coverage for making previous murderers famous; maybe it's time we have a national conversation about common sense solutions to regulate media. 
Actually, Hiatt is looking long term at changing the minds of the people first, not the law.  Because trying to just change the law doesn't work, not with the big voices like the NRA and the little voices like Dana leading the charge against them. It's so smart, Dana seems to have missed it.
But the incremental approach is not succeeding. It sets increasingly modest goals, increasingly polite goals: close a loophole here, restrict a particularly lethal weapon there. Talk about gun safety and public health. Say “reform,” not “control.”
The author says the incremental approach to undoing the Bill of Rights isn't working, they need to go whole hog. Close a non-existent loophole here, restrict whatever weapon is black, has stuff on it, and looks shooty. Tell people that control is "reform." Punish the law-abiding for the deeds of the criminals. 
"The author" is actually saying stop pussy footing around and get shit done.  All the examples he quoted are the incremental approach, yet Dana's response clearly shows she thinks they are the "whole hog" approach.
Every time there is a mass shooting, gun-control advocates argue again for legislation. But almost every time, opponents can argue that this shooter wouldn't have been blocked from buying a gun, or that this gun would not have been on anyone’s banned list — and so why waste time (and political capital) on irrelevant restrictions?
FBI Director James Comey issued a public statement admitting the state and FBI "flawed" in not flagging murderer Dylann Roof. Yes, let's restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans for not only the deeds of criminals, but also because the background check people want expanded is horrifically flawed. Heaven forbid we spend time otherwise making sure that the people administering the law do so and that it's followed to full extent.
I love it when Dana trots out the argument that Dylann Roof was able to buy a gun because of a flawed background check system. A system that trips over itself to placate gun rights advocates like Dana, so killers who should not have had a gun shall purchase one. It is an argument that proves background checks need to be strengthened, not diminished.  Thanks for your work, Dana.
Modest restrictions can help and have helped. The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime.
Based on ... ? Doesn't seem to be working for Chicago, DC, Philly, NYC, etc. Maybe they're anomalies.
Chicago had a problem with guns long before they enacted GOAM last year. It's not like a flick of a switch will turn that light off. And looking at New York... maybe you don't want to talk about New York, Dana  Their murder rates are pretty low.

I am in shock or something, however, because I sort of agree with Dana on this one. It is a law with good intentions, but it doesn't seem to work, and is very likely not legal.
The gun-show loophole should be closed, and closing it would prevent some criminals from obtaining weapons. 
What "loophole?"
Um, Dana, I'll let YOU argue this one for me:
You may purchase a firearm from an occasional seller, not a dealer (differences matter) in your state of residence...
There... that's the loophole.  If you are a criminal this is a way around a background check, the barrier that has stopped many a  prohibited possessor from purchasing from gun stores. Who cares if it is illegal for a  prohibited possessor to buy the gun, let's stop him from getting it in the first place.
Punishing innocent Americans for the decisions of criminals is gun shaming and abhorrent.
Wow, I did not realize putting background checks into place was such a punishment. Although I have heard some gun owners say they would gladly jump through the extra hoops if it brings gun violence down.
As we've seen over the past 15 years with same-sex marriage, such deep cultural change is difficult — and possible. 
It's rich that the side which advocates for the "sanctity" of infanticide is concerned about loss of life elsewhere. 
Well, that escalated quickly. Infanticide, a definition is in order:
in·fan·ti·cide (inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/) noun
1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.
2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.
What Dana is talking about is of course, abortion. Which is not infanticide. Embryoicide? Zygoticide?  Maybe fetiscide? But not infanticide. Maybe we can procure some deep cultural change in this matter, too. But it won't be done by telling lies to make your side look better.
Don't whine about a "cultural change" while you push to mainstream pedophlia [sic] and black market baby organ sales. People aren't so stupid that they'll miss that massive disconnect.
Whine? Hey pot, the kettle is calling. And no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true that anyone is trying to mainstream the sale of "baby" organs and pedophilia.
Given how guns decimate poor black communities every day — not just when there are mass shootings, but every day — this is a civil rights issue. 
Oh, finally, eons down the article the author finally thinks of inner city gang crime. But it's not gang crime causing this, it's guns. If guns didn't exist there wouldn't be any gangs! Ever! Yes, gun rights are a civil rights issue. Anti-Second Amendment advocates constantly find themselves on the wrong side of it. 
Right here Dana picks on one point made in the Hiatt article, but leaves two others alone.  And I bring them up here because in their absence, they are even more significant:
Given how many small children shoot themselves or their siblings accidentally, it is a family issue. Given the suicides that could be prevented, it is a mental health issue. On average 55 Americans shoot themselves to death every day. Every day!
Why not these points, Dana? Did you not find any talking points that wouldn't make you come off as extremely insensitive and hypocritical?
There are strong arguments against setting a gun-free society as the goal, but there are 100,000 arguments in favor — that’s how many of us get shot every year. Every year 11,000 Americans are murdered. Every year some 20,000 kill themselves with guns.
The author would do well to learn how to read statistics and not cite the debunked Kellerman study (he refused to release his findings initially because he knew they were flawed; I also debunked him in my book)
You wrote a book. It was not the definitive book on the subject, and it was a rather flawed book at that. Although it is ballsy. Most people would tiptoe around Martin Luther King and the subject of guns.

But I digress, the Kellrerman study.  He found what he believed to be correlation between gun possession and gun assault. While his research was flawed, many have built on it and proven it right.

This isn't even close to what Hiatt is saying, he's just quoting statistics. Moving on:
Automobile accidents kill more people than guns. (See also drowning, bathtubs.) We should have a national conversation about common sense laws to restrict access to automobiles.
Automobiles not only don't kill people (people kill people, right?), they are designed to prevent the killing of people. Air bags, safety glass, seatbelts, etc. You don't see airbags on a gun, do you?

And oh the times are a changing. It won't be long when Dana won't be able to point to cars as bigger killers than guns. Not to mention that there are common sense laws that restrict access to automobiles. Drink and drive? Lose your license. Too many points? Lose your license. Nobody will insure you? You can't license your car. Can't pass a driver's test? Sorry, no license for you.

Well, you get the idea.
Maybe it’s time to start talking about the most logical way to save their lives.
None of what this author proposed would qualify as "logical." We should talk intelligently about enforcing current laws, strengthening the justice system and reducing the bureaucracy, and stopping gun shaming.
So the answer to what we see happening today is... nothing, let's stay the course because it seems to be working just fine. I think a definition for logical is in order, but my guess is Dana knows, or doesn't care. She's tossed out the red meat for the people who keep her paid and employed. Her job is done here.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

My thoughts on "that video"

So, there was this guy from Chicago who created a video that depicted Dana shooting herself. He didn't just make it, he tweeted it out to Dana, and Chris Loesch, just in case Dana missed it. From there, you can guess if you don't already know, things got weird.

Dana used it as a platform to garner donations for the NRA. She became a national story off of this, she got a lot of attention from it. One has to wonder, right?

I would like to be the first to condemn the video, but I won't and here's why. It was a parody. To condemn it is to go against the first amendment. We should all be able to make snuff films of our favorite celebrities, as long as that's as far as we take it. Yeah, I just flipped the whole drawing Mohamed argument on its head.  Is that wrong?

Then, ask Trey Parker and Matt Stone what they think about it. They make this little TV show called South Park, which has been a giant celebrity snuff film for 17 years. And Dana has said she loves it, it's a barometer for culture. Should they be investigated by the FBI because they had Brittney Spears shoot herself? Or had Spielberg and George Lucas rape Harrison Ford? Or out Tom Cruise as gay? Of course not. That is what the first amendment is all about.  As long as someone's paying, they should be allowed to do it.

So the thing Dana condemned as a murder fantasy, is pretty much in line with how she feels about other things. Draw the Mohamed cartoon because they don't want us to is pretty similar in that both are first amendment rights. It happens all the time on TV, too. It's called parody. It's called satire. It's the social barometer Dana really likes, until she doesn't.

That said, I do have one other thing to say about this guy. Dana once said of me, "Creepy. Progressive male stalker that I banned from this page after he spam-hated every thread created a blog dedicated to me." But if you look at my Twitter feed @decondana, and what I have written here, the only thing true is I created a blog about her.

The guy that created that video? Look into his Twitter feed. This could be the guy she's talking about when she said that about me. He seems rather obsessed with Dana. I don't think that is cool for one second. I had a theory that he was paid by someone close to Dana to make that video since when you follow the money, Dana comes out good once again on this stunt.

When I looked at his feed, it just didn't seem to fit. He's constantly replying to things she's said. Wait... how is he doing that? I pretty much got banned immediately from her on Twitter. How can he post relies to her? Wouldn't she have banned him right away, too?

Unless she doesn't ban the creepy stalker types, because the thrives on moments like this. And you never know, when you follow the money, maybe I could be right after all. Again, it's just a theory. If I am wrong, I still believe how he's treated Dana on twitter is uncool. One does have to wonder, however.

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Revisiting my first post

Fox debates and the Christian Bully

The first thing I wrote here was a story about Fox debates.  One in particular really got my attention, because in it, Dana was being a real Christian bully.  Well, today, this happened:

Dana on Facebook: Flashback to one of my favorite debates.

It's not that it's one of her favorite debates, it's the treasure trove of content in the comments that caught my eye.  She's so heavily edited any detractors out of her Facebook feed that everyone just loved it.  A few examples:
What slays me is that ONLY if you fall down and agree 100% with this nonsense are you a valid person; otherwise, you are labeled a bigot, racist, hell, choose your noun of preference - they all get spewed religiously instead of putting together a cogent argument. It's like a schoolyard playground. The bullies CANNOT put forward a legitimate, logic-based, provable argument so they resort to name-calling and make it a personal attack. How terrified they are! Keep at 'em, Dana!
So, let me get this straight,  Jessica says they are cloaking their politics in Christian beliefs, and gets called an anti-Christian bigot by Dana, and it's Jessica that's the bully?  Got it.
You cannot use logic against lefties because they are not logical. One of the ways to identify a sociopath is to see how they adjust or adapt information to support their claim. But the only way to expose them is to have the debate so those around can watch how they mis-apply data to make their point.. and sometimes can be quite funny.. but mostly looks pretty pathetic.. Well done Dana.. and I feel sorry for people so tangled up in their own self deception.. so sad. that is how people waste their life.. defending the indefensible.
And it seems Jessica is also a sociopath.
I liked this debate too, but it's kind crossing the line when Jessica was calling those brothers names a degrading them and when Dana starts calling her names and telling her to keep her mouth shut! Two wrongs don't make a right! But good job Dana!
Awww, you were doing so good until you got to that qualifying "but".  You do know that negates everything said before it, right?
This was one of the first debates I watched.. fell in love with Dana after this. She literally made that woman cry.
Something every Christian can be happy about.  I mean, WWJD, right?
I was gonna say that! The way her voice started trembling, another 30 seconds and she would have been balling! 
Jesus said: Go and cry no more.
These liberals can disparage whomever they want, but as soon as you confront them with a little logic, they crump.
Logic = name-calling.  Got it.

 Thanks, Dana!  You made my night with this post!  But hey, at least the quality of her posters has gotten better.

Sunday, September 6, 2015

A message to Stephen Crowder

So, in my readings I stumbled across this article by Stephen Crowder.  I felt it my duty to respond.  Here's what I said:
In the case of Vance Day and Kim Davis, what you have are two people who are the government.  They by definition in the constitution should not be promoting any religion on the job.  Kim Davis is on record that it is God's authority, not government's that she denied giving out marriage licenses to same sex couples. Where is the right's love of the constitution here?
I am myself a Christian.  I'm not a scholar of the Bible, but I've read it a few times.  In all cases you mention, it is my belief that the people you feel are being persecuted, are not acting very Christian.  Someone comes to you wanting a wedding cake for a same sex marriage?  Bake them two.  Same sex couple comes up to you seeking a marriage license?  Render unto the government what is the governments.  Hiding Christ's love in this manner does nothing more than put Christianity in a bad light.  
But in reality, when it comes to the governmental definition of marriage, it has very little to do with the Christian definition.  It makes marriage a contract. It gives you many benefits like tax deductions, and control of what happens to a loved one when they fall ill.  Don't believe in the new definition of marriage by the government, don't participate in it.  Get married in a church, don't make it final with a license.  Pay more in taxes.  If you really feel the government's definition is not right for you, there's your true remedy.  Don't everyone rush to get your governmental marriages revoked, now.
What I truly see this as, is another issue to further divide this country.  And whether it be left or right, it is pretty clear who these division peddlers are.  Stephen, you have a platform that can be used for good, just as others in this field do.  Are you going to do that? or just keep stoking the flames for every last dollar you can get?  Don't worry, I won't get my hopes up.
Now, whether I get approval through moderation is another thing.  

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Wrote the book on it

I am beginning to like Nomiki Konst.  Near the end of the video, she eats Dana's Lunch. She points out that mental health funding is an issue.  While she bungles the statistic she mentions in saying, "The federal gun registry has prevented 2.1 million criminals from accessing guns, you know that's something you were fighting against", (she meant universal background check, there is no federal registry) she deals a pretty strong punch. Dana's response? "False". And Obamacare (and no, Dana, we didn't "spend" a trillion dollars on it). And a 2004 study (that she doesn't site) also proves Dana right.

But you know Dana's biggest argument? "I wrote the book on it". No, Dana, you wrote "A" book on it. And it is a pretty flawed book at that. Because it isn't a book of statistics, although there are some, and they are pretty lousy, but it is a highly partisan book that blames Democrats at every turn for gun problems. To say it is "THE" book on it is like saying Milli Vanilli sang "THE" album.

Dana also makes another point, that the strictest gun law states have the highest "murder" rates.  Notice the mixing of statistics here. But play along with her game, and you'll find it to be false. States with the strictest gun laws, like California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Rhode Island, Illinois and Pennsylvania, only one is in the top ten (Maryland is second) while the rest are way down the list (Pennsylvania is 13th, California is 17th, Illinois is a seemingly statistically impossible 28th). States with the most lenient gun laws (Utah, Alaska, Arizona, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Montana, Louisiana, Idaho, Kentucky, Wisconsin) have Louisiana at #1, but most also fall outside the top 20. Okay, so what about the southern states Nomiki talked about? Besides Louisiana, we have Missouri at #3, South Carolina at #4, Nevada and New Mexico are 5 and 6, and are technically south, but are not considered South. Michigan is #7, then Tennessee, Mississippi and Arizona round out the top 10.  These are murder rates from The FBI crime rates for 2010, just so you know.

So Nomiki is correct, half of the top 10 highest murder rates are in Southern states. And Dana was wrong, states with the strictest gun laws do not have the highest murder rates. And you better believe it, because I wrote "THE" blog post on it.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

First Dana Show Live Blog

Alright, time for my first live blog of an hour of Dana’s radio show.  The rules are simple.  I will listen to an hour of the Dana Show.  While listening I will type up my thoughts.  These thoughts will do unedited (and you will have to trust me on this one).  Since I am listening from the podcast, I will pause for four minutes when there is a commercial break.  When done, I will do a little fact checking of what I wrote.  Hopefully if this doesn’t take a whole lot of time, I can make this into a regular feature. 

So, here we go:

Trump saying Megyn Kelly was off base while saying blood was coming out of her wherever is totally “Ironic”
And I mean ironic in the Alanis Morissette way, of course.  
Hillary is under criminal investigation?  At least she hasn’t been charged like Rick Perry.
FBI has stated it is not a probe into Clinton, but into the email server itself, and the security of the server. 
Cold spring in February, 2009?
February always has cold springs.
Roger Ale?  Is that a bitter brew?
From the Gengis Khan school of mispronunciation. 
Just because Trump is open and honest doesn’t mean what he said absolutely wasn't about menstruation.

Labor workforce is at a 38 year low for a lot of reasons, one of the biggest is because of retirees.
And projections have it continuing to go lower. 
Saying Salon is the graffiti of the internet is also totally “Ironic”
Again, the Alanis version here.
webOS was too late, and not as refined as iOS and Android.  Deal with it Dana.
I've been down this road before
***No pause for break, nothing more to comment on.

“They act like police did it as a celebration”.  No, they wrote a headline that was factually correct.  
And yeah, the guy did deserve to get shot from what he did, but there's that irony thing popping up again.

*** No pause for break, nothing more to comment on. (yes another quick break)

Roger Stone interview starts with something about a conversation between him and Trump, audio from some interview with Trump with no reference to who it was, or where it came from.
Journalism 101, cite your sources. I didn't hear it.
Trump has been good with messaging.  Say what the people want to hear.

Dana: Trump talked about illegal entry and securing the border.  She totally whitewashed the whole Mexico is sending it’s rapists line, didn’t she?  No Dem would get that kind of treatment from her.

Clinton did not call Trump, Trump called Clinton. I think if Clinton got a call from H.W. for political advice, he would have taken that call, too, and given good advice.
I was wrong, Clinton did call Trump, but it was after Trump had reached out to Clinton for advice:
 “Mr. Trump reached out to President Clinton a few times. President Clinton returned his call in late May,” a Clinton employee said. “While we don’t make it a practice to discuss the president’s private conversations, we can tell you that the presidential race was not discussed.”
 Perot didn't “split the ticket”.  Exit polls show the people who voted for Perot would have split evenly or not voted at all.
The 1992 exit poll asked Perot voters who was their “second choice.” They split evenly between Clinton and Bush, 38 percent for each. (State exit polls indicate that Perot may have tipped the tight races in Georgia, New Hampshire and Ohio to Clinton, not enough to change the Electoral College outcome.)
That said, I think Trump is a little more polarizing, and he could cost Republicans votes.

While Trump can’t be bought (haha yeah right) that doesn’t mean he will do right for the country.

Jeb Bush has 100 million dollars?  Wow, I didn’t know he got that much.
While Dana did say it was his PAC (which is an oxymoron, since you can't even have contact with any PAC) it's misleading.  Jeb has raised 11.5 million, though.
Trump not only has a comfortable margin, it actually increased after the debate.
This may not be true, too tired now to care to find the numbers.
Cruz sounds like Mr. Haney!  And I think Dana missed the reference.

Democrats: If we can’t beat the right, we have to get them to beat themselves up.  Actually, even 
Bernie Sanders is polling better than most of the Republican field right now.  I don’t think they are too worried.
Almost Every Major Poll Shows Bernie Sanders Challenging or Defeating Clinton and Republicans. Here's Why
*** No pause for break, nothing more to comment on.

Fair interviews/endorsements. Well, when you throw softballs to those you like, and hardballs to those you don’t, it’s hard not to see it any other way Dana.

Hour two?  Why not, Hour two.

Would you eat a dirt root food?  Hey, I ate a large helping of beets with onions over the weekend.  The taste don’t bother me… I had dominion over it.  And does SuperBeets have that much of a benefit?
There are no studies showing SuperBeets works.
I have not read further into it, but I wonder if the peaceful protesters remained peaceful while bad actors didn't want to be peaceful?

Did numerous reports state Michael Brown got his finger in the trigger?
In my limited search, I could not find one.  There were eyewitnesses, but no reports with him touching the trigger guard.
Jay Nixon was MIA again?  He is governor, right, and not mayor?
He did release a statement today.
Lots of stuff on on what was spent after Jay Nixon called for an inquiry.
There is stuff out there, but I don't have time to fact check it.
Jay Nixon is the most failed governor in the United States?  In the history of Missouri? I find that hard to believe.

The kid who stole the gun didn't do so to shoot at cops, he was in a shootout with other people when the cops arrived, and were not a part of the “protests”.
The story is everywhere on the map
Was he even armed at all? But the protesters were not looking to shoot cops. A dispute amongst the protesters broke out first.
The pastor that got his laptops and iPads stolen when he let people in sounds too good for Dana to be true.
The pastor did tweet it out.
Dana is focusing on Mike Brown a lot, but not the others who have been shot (except for when she can talk bad about New York).

Dana: Stupid!  Nice language from a Christian.

Iran, a leading Israeli magazine says Obama is a Jew baiter. Use of anti-Jewish incitement in Iran deal.

As much fun as I am having, I am going to stop here.

Saturday, August 8, 2015

Inaccurate bookends

Friday, August 7 - Hour 3

While starting the hour talking about the first Republican debate, Dana made the statement that Conservatives don't hate people they disagree with, Liberals do.  It's very easy to prove this wrong. All you have to do is look at the hate mail liberal talk show hosts receive. Google is your friend on this one. There's a lot of hate mail they have to endure, just like Dana. As someone said on Dana's Facebook page, it happens on both sides, and you can't paint both sides broadly with the lunatics on the fringe.

Then at the end of the hour, producer Cain states that in 2008, Obama wasn't in any debates. Which is correct, if by "not any", you mean 25 of the 26 debates that year (he skipped a debate in Iowa hosted by PBS). Even more interesting, this little slip happened during Today In Stupidity.

Dana did a live blog of the Republican debates, and it has inspired me.  I think sometime next week I will sit down at my computer and listen to an hour of the Dana Show, and react. I will probably pause while I do research. But I will be interested to see how many lies I can get in one random hour.  It certainly wasn't hard to catch her in two while listening in the car.

Friday, July 31, 2015

Houston Planned Parenthood is so profiting from baby parts sales, guys

The Dana Show, July 29, Hour 3

Except they aren't.  At about 16 minutes in the above clip, Dana is saying Houston's Planned Parenthood is making millions a year on the sale of baby parts.  The story comes from a Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services that happened on the 29th, The testimony about that profit comes from Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood employee who last worked there in 2009. She became a pro-life advocate after she said she saw an abortion that never happened.

Not to mention, all three branches of Texas Planned Parenthood either never have, or in case of Houston, no longer donate fetal tissue.  This is a bunk story, one of the many you'll hear from the right on the issue.

I understand, they want to attack abortion, I myself am against abortion, especially as a form of contraceptive.  But currently it is legal, and unless we can get a constitutional amendment, or prove life begins at conception without pointing at our bibles, we aren't going to change much.  I think Dana is with me on this point, we need to teach people to use contraceptives, while not forcing our beliefs on them to practice abstinence, But also, let's get it right on the science.  I am for Plan B, because it stops the pregnancy before conception, not implantation as it was once thought.  It is basically the pill on steroids.

But let's stop the lies.  If Planned Parenthood is profiting from the sale of baby body parts, it will come out.  The videos that have been released prove nothing.  The investigation into Indiana's Planned Parenthood has already concluded and nothing was found.  Before we go into witch hunt mode, maybe, just maybe, we need to look into the facts first.

Thursday, July 30, 2015

The Democrat Dana

Hey, look, it's the Democrat Dana, now will a lot more truth than fiction.

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

What people mean when they say something is deceptively edited

Latest Video Attacking Planned Parenthood Full of More Deceptive Edits

Dana has been vociferous about the Planned Parenthood videos, but she has been as deceptive as the edits shown in the 8 minute videos.  I know she hates Planned Parenthood, but a REAL journalist would have more integrity.

You see, if the 8 minute videos have deceptive edits, it's bad because that may be all the average person sees.  When Dana says, "Well, the whole unedited video was posted, too, so how was it deceptively edited?" it's disingenuous.  She knows nobody in her audience is going to listen to it, because heck, they've got Florida Man coming on in a bit, and they wouldn't want to miss that, would they? Even the average person won't see it, and that includes me.  Good thing we have folks like the people who write for AlterNet to do it for us.  If you don't have 3-4 hours to spend listening to the unedited videos, then this may be a good read for you.

Monday, July 13, 2015

Why would anyone post this?

Blame a flag

I don't get how Dana got drawn into this.  It's stupid, it's offensive, and to top it all off, the people posting below it show just how truly racist some Republicans can be.  Not only on Dana's Facebook page, but on the Gateway Pundit, too.

It doesn't prove your point, Dana.  It makes you look bad.  Which means it wouldn't surprise me if this wasn't staged for the benefit of making anyone trying to make a point with it look stupid.  Even a first year journalism student wouldn't fall for a trick like this, would they?

Oh, and in an answer to you and Kane thinking Democrats have come out on the wrong side of history every time when it comes to racism, who is LBJ, and what did he do that put him on the wrong side of the race issue?  And since there was never a shift of these so called racist Democrats in the '60s, who are the Dixiecrats, and why did so many start voting Republican during the Southern Strategy?

Friday, July 3, 2015

More on the Sweet Cakes issue

Dana has posted this at her blog today.  There is something she keeps failing to mention about the case however, and that is the fact that Aaron Klein posted their home address when he posted the complaint he had received on his Facebook page.  Since then, the couple received death threats, they had to worry about whether their foster children would be taken away because of those threats.  So this isn't a case of just someone refusing them a cake.

Monday, June 8, 2015

Narcissism reaches a new low

In other news, if you want good McKinney coverage, of course you don't want Dana:

If you want good coverage, has a pretty good rundown of the situation here, including the video of the people who live in the "subdivision" (it's a community, Dana) and set up the party.

Thursday, May 28, 2015

Did Governor Walker step in it, or was he misquoted?

Dana has a scathing article on how Politico and others have grossly misquoted something Scott Walker said on her show.  Here is the transcript:
I've passed prolife legislation, we defunded Planned Parentiood signed a law that requires an ultrasound, um, which, think about that, the media tried to make that sound like it's a crazy idea. Most people I talk to, whether they're prolife or not, I find people all the time will get out their iphone and show me a picture of their grandkids's ultrasound and how excited they are. That's a lovely thing. My sons are 19 and 20, we still have theur [sic] ultrasound picture, it's a cool thing out there.
Dana states,  "What's the point of discussing a possible candidate's answer on life issues if you're not going to accurately state what was said?"  What the media is saying, is that Walker stated that forced ultrasounds are "a cool thing out there."

What he said can be interpreted that way, and his wording leads you to believe that.  Implying that making ultrasounds mandatory is not a "crazy idea", then saying ultrasounds are, "a lovely thing" and "a cool thing out there" to prove that point kinda sounds like an equation to me.

Then Dana steps in it even worse.  From her article:
Anyone with the reading comprehension of a dolphin knows that Walker was specifically describing ultrasound images, not the legislation itself -- which yes, it is cool that women seeking an abortion as a form of birth control must think and see the life they are ending before ending it.
Getting my dolphin reading comprehension glasses on, this makes it sound even more like Dana says it (the legislation) is a "cool thing out there".  While I think Dana did that on purpose, it may also show that lately, she's been slipping.  You hear someone you are interviewing, and want to look good, say something that can be misinterpreted, your next question should be about clarification.  Dana did not do that here.  Maybe balancing a home life, kids, a husband, a radio show and a TV show is more than any amount of SuperBeets can help.

I am game, though.  Let Mr. Walker have a pass.  He didn't mean to equate mandatory ultrasounds for abortions as being lovely or cool.  I wonder if there is an example of someone on the right misinterpreting something someone on the left said?  Oh, I don't know, maybe one Dana Loesch?

Back in February, Dana had another article with the flashy headline, "Michael Bloomberg: We Need To Disarm Minorities".  Here is how she interprets what Bloomberg said:
Bloomberg claimed that 95 percent of murders fall into a specific category: male, minority and between the ages of 15 and 25. Cities need to get guns out of this group’s hands and keep them alive, he said.
Did he say this?   Well, here is what he really said:
It’s controversial, but first thing is all of your — 95 percent of your murders, and murderers, and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all of the cops. They are male, minorities, 15 to 25. That’s true in New York, it’s true in virtually every city in America. And that's where the real crime is. You’ve got to get the guns out of the hands of the people getting killed. First thing you can do to help that group is to keep them alive.
 There are a few irregularities here.  He said 95% of murders, murderers and victims, not just murderers.  He states we need to get the guns out of the hands of people getting killed, not the "whole group" (in this case, just the murderers).  He states that the first thing you can do to help that group is to keep them alive, not take guns away and keep them alive.

This leads Dana to make more mistakes in her article further down the line.
Additionally, Bloomberg can't do math. 
To Bloomberg's credit, there is a 93% statistic on murder but it describes the percentage of black Americans killed by other black Americans.
Although Bloomberg didn't say black Americans, he said minorities.
No, 95% of murders are not young black men
Well, she's getting that fact right, but again, Bloomberg isn't talking about black men, or murders, but minorities and murderers and victims between 15 and 25. This seems to be the stat Bloomberg was talking about.
I want to point out the irony of the mayor who championed the loosey law in NYC -- which brought officers to engage Eric Garner -- discussing black male lives.
Isn't is ironic?  Don't 'cha think?  What Dana is missing here is while there was a law in place to not sell loosies, blaming Bloomberg for something that happened the year after he left office, the fact that tax rates on cigarettes were increased after he left office, and enforcement was stepped up after he left office, means there is a lot more to it that Bloomberg's supposed infatuation with loosies.

So Dana did the same thing Politico did, probably to an even greater extent, as Bloomberg never even said the words, "We Need To Disarm Minorities", and Dana to this day hasn't changed her headline.

What I find hilarious though is the title of the webpage for the article she wrote on the Walker misquote, which you can find by looking at the source code, "Politico deliberately used a quote from Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker on ultrasound images." Hey, sometimes Dana can be right after all.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Female talk show host offended by Feminist Columnist Offended By Carly Fiorina Run

Feminist Columnist Offended By Carly Fiorina Run

I am offended.  Let's see how this works, by doing a graph-by-graph rundown of what Dana said:
Normally I'd respond with a shrug and say "Oh heavens, you're offended? Who cares," but this was too delicious to pass. You can read the whole thing here or join me in a graph-by-graph mocking below:
Normally, if a Christian said this, I would yawn and turn the page.  Christians are a lot nicer, but also boring.  I mean, isn't it a sin to mock?
Marcus acts as though she's being a real rebel by demonstrating opposition to a conservative candidate based on her gender. Lock up the liquor and cigs! Unfortunately that shtick was beaten to death in 2008 with Sarah Palin. Palin was perfectly qualified as a governor -- compared to a community organizer who'd never worked in the private sector -- but her dastardly Republican affiliation magically invalidated all of her accomplishments. No conservative woman will ever truly meet the left's qualifications. 
Marcus? Is a girl?  I'm confused. Maybe it's because when you introduce the writer of an article you should actually use a full name. Any journalism school dropout knows th... Oh, wait, never mind.

Why is it people forget Obama was a Senator, and worked at a law firm?   Isn't working at a law firm the public sector?

Please list the Liberal women that will meet the qualifications of conservatives.  Yeah, crickets, just as I thought.
Elected office is the only job category for which everyone actually has a right to apply (in keeping with Constitutional requirements). Elected office wasn't designed to be an industry. Seats aren't to be willed to offspring. Positions of service don't exist to create a political class -- they are service positions held by everyday American folk. It should be a sacrifice, like jury duty, not a recreation of the British monarchy. Voters will weigh candidates against each other during the primary process and decide for themselves if her, or any candidate's, past experience is relevant. 
Everyone?  My son can throw his hat in the ring for president?  Okay, so not everyone.

Marcus stated that Fiorina's background doesn't qualify her for President. The leap of faith is? Hillary is not qualified because her husband was president?  You are right, though.  Candidates will be judged on their merits.  Just like Obama, who got two terms, was judged and found worthy.
No one cares that you're offended, Ruth.
I care.  Care with a Christian love some Christians could learn to emulate.
Yes, the Benghazi disaster, the selling of policy through the State Department for donations to the money laundering scheme they call the Clinton Foundation, it's all so very romantic and résumé-worthy.
Just a short list.  State Children’s Health Insurance Program, Adoption and Safe Families Act, the Foster Care Independence Act,  increased research funding for prostate cancer, spearheaded investigations into Gulf War Syndrome, created the office on Violence Against Women; oversaw free trade agreements with our allies such as Panama, Colombia, and South Korea; and was the most traveled Secretary of State.

All of those are true.  The two you have stated have either been debunked (by Darryll Issa no less) or not been proven true. 
I'm surprised that anyone can make this argument with a straight face considering the thin resume of the current President (archives failed to turn up a Marcus column excoriating the ascension of a community organizer). I disagree: politics is business. You're dealing with the business of the nation. In fact, living outside of the beltway in the real world and operating in the dynamic environment of business is very much like governance. The worst leaders are those who spend their one-percenter existences far removed from the reality of those whose contributions make the country work.
It is not her face writing that story, by the way.  That would just be silly.  

By the way, your Google-fu must be terrible, or you just didn't try too hard.  Try the search term, "Ruth Marcus Obama Inex-" and Google will actually finish that word for you, and the second page holds a link for you:

The Audacity of Nope

Now if you wish to revive your Google-fu cred, tell me how well presidents who had a business background have done in this country.  Nah, do not bother.  It is a fruitless search.
Personally, I loathe HP with the burning passion of a thousand suns. They bought Palm, which made the Palm Pre -- the iPhone before the iPhone -- and its beautiful WebOS, which Apple completely copied in later updates to iOS. I was a Palm acolyte. They were ahead of their time. HP bought them around the same time they unveiled their tablets, and then announced that they would no longer support the products. It was a disaster. I was infuriated. I took my day-old tablet back to the store, dumped my Palm Pre, and was forced into the iOS world (I love Apple products, but it wasn't the same). Fiorina's replacement, Mark Hurd, orchestrated and ruined the acquisition of that product. All of this said, Fiorina presided over HP during the dot-com bust (which naturally saw layoffs) and took the reigns of HP right at the start. I realize Marcus's generation may not be so web-inclined, but the timeline is important if you're going to use it to disqualify a candidate. HP could have folded -- but didn't -- and Fiorina doubled its revenue while tripling innovation.
The Palm Pre was released in 2009.  The iPhone was released in 2007.  I fail to see how the Pre was the iPhone before the iPhone.

While people loved the palm prē, it was plagued by quality issues.  webOS, while a good operating system was not up to snuff. It was built on a browser basically (Webkit, Safari is based on it, Chrome is based on a fork of it). Hardware was not good enough at the time to run it smoothly..  HP developed the HP Palm Pre3 and never released it in the US because webOS failed HP.  

With the purchase of Compaq, HP grew under Fiorina's tenure for sure.  She also lost stock owners a boatload of cash because of stupid mergers, and buying failed products.  She was polarizing and disenfranchising. Tripling innovation?  You get that from an article from 1999?  The year she took over HP?
What would be sexist is to not do your due diligence on Fiorina's time at HP and examining what HP was up against before Fiorina even assumed control. Waxing gender grievance based on party lines is insufficient analysis to justify disqualification.
And what would be racist is to not do your due diligence on Obama's time as President and examining what he was up against before he even assumed control of the White House.  Waxing grievance based on party lines is insufficient analysis to justify disqualification.  Wait, is that plagiarism?  Any journalism school dropout should know th... oh wait, never mind.

One question though.  There are six missing paragraphs from the Marcus article that you didn't give a graph-by-graph on. I'll post them below in fairness. Incomplete work?  Sounds like something... oh, never mind.
Fiorina smartly doesn’t flinch from discussing her ouster; she trumpets her firing “in a boardroom brawl.” On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Fiorina crowed that “we doubled the size of the company” and lectured that, in business, “facts and numbers and results actually count. It’s not just about words as it is in politics.”
Okay, those numbers. Hewlett-Packard did grow under Fiorina’s tenure from 1999 to 2005 — but that was due to an ill-advised merger with Compaq that cost HP shareholders $24 billion and bought them a computer business that diluted the value of HP’s high-margin printer business.
“This was a big bet that didn’t pay off, that didn’t even come close to attaining what Fiorina and HP’s board said was in store,” Carol Loomis concluded in a devastating Fortune magazine piece.
As Yahoo News detailed, HP stock fell by more than half during Fiorina’s tenure, while its technology cohorts performed “not as badly or much better.”
Fiorina stumbled as a campaign surrogate for John McCain in 2008, famously saying that vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and then the GOP presidential nominee himself weren’t fit to run a company. (She was right.) 
She failed in her previous bid for elective office in the 2010 California Senate race, losing to incumbent Barbara Boxer by 10 points in a Republican year.

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

The Garland Experiment II: The Notorious JJP

I know I focus on Dana in this blog, but I would like today to focus on someone else. Her name is Judge Jeanine Pirro (JJP).  And she says some pretty fascinating things:

Well, you get the idea, right?  Opening her latest show, she touched on what I am calling the Garland Experiment. Since the most violent fringe of Muslims hate the drawing of Mohammed so much that they may be incited to kill, let's offend all Muslims to get our point across.  Here it is in all it's glory:

That first line is totally right.  The first amendment is not negotiable.  And not because it was so important that that founding fathers made it the first one.  No, because it is an important one.  It allows me to write the words you are reading on this screen.  It allows JJP to have a TV show on Fox, or Dana to have a radio show and TV show.  Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton and others are also included in that.  And they can say what they want, true or not, because the first amendment says so.

That amendment is not all encompassing, however.  Say "fuck" on broadcast TV or Radio, and the government will fine you.  Falsely yell fire in a crowded theater, and expect the ghost of Oliver Wendel Holmes to come to your house with cuffs in hand.  Say something libelous or slanderous, and expect your wallet to take a hit.  Not all speech is allowed under the first amendment.

This case, the Garland Experiment, is not one that is restricted.  As I have said in my previous post, it is their right to draw Mohammed cartoons, just foolish.  And in this case, no government entity is coming after them to tell them to stop.  Most from the moderate and left are not saying they need to stop either, just be more reasonable.

This is not a first amendment issue.  Anyone on either fringe trying to make it so is wrong, simply because the government is not going to limit this speech.  But I think a majority of the people out there know this.  I would like to focus on JJP for a second, though.  Remember what she said... the First Amendment is non-negotiable.  Then come with me in a time machine to 2011, and let us explore how strongly we should not negotiate with the first amendment:

The money line comes at about 1:35: Should we revisit the First Amendment?  Why are we revisiting it here?  Because a Muslim said something JJP didn't like? Forget the fact that it is not only a case of freedom of speech, but also freedom of religion; but if it is speech that is a crime, the first amendment already covers that. JJP just wishes to silence those who think differently.

Of course, this is the woman who said "bomb them" in that first video.  Why would we expect any less than hypocrisy from her on the subject of people of the Muslim faith.

Edit: I just wanted to give a call out to the David Pakman Show for running this story. 

Thanks, Dave! I couldn't have said it better myself.

Monday, May 11, 2015

The Garland experiment

First, allow me to introduce you to Dana Loesch, circa 2010:
But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at:
But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at:
But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at:
But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at:
But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at:
But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at:

Two things are shocking about this video.  One... man, Dana.  Did your stylist use the crooked bowl?  Two... Mellissa Harris-Perry?  In this case, Harris-Lacewell, but seeing her without the braids is pretty weird.  It's a classic.

I listened to Friday's show, and the second hour was... weird.  I mean, the argument she gives is basically, everyone needs to draw Mohammed cartoons, because creeping Sharia.  Here's the problem with that.  It isn't a very tolerant Christian thing to do. 

The hour started out with a clip of Bill O'Reilly interviewing Franklin Graham, and Graham is spot on when he states that it is legally fine, but probably not the right thing spiritually.  Dana tries to nullify his vast years of experience by quoting 1 Timothy 4-12.  While Dana is correct her age should not be a factor here, she falls a little short on the rest of the scripture.
Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity.
 If Dana is the example, that's a religion I don't wish to follow, for obvious reasons.  In speech, she disparages people because they don't believe as she does.  She conducts herself with segments like Mailbag of Hate (bragging that people that hate her fill her pockets with cash, some off which she brags that she gives to the church, assuring her reward here on earth).  While she shows love for many things, love for much of her fellow man is up for debate.  She obviously has faith, however misguided it may be.  And purity... well, I won't get into that.

If you wish to listen, follow this link.

My opinion?  They have every right to draw Mohammed cartoons. Go for it, have fun. In my opinion, the next thing they need to expose is how violent black people get when you call them the "N" word. It's the same principle, is it not?

But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at:
A wise person once said this:
But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at:
...[T]he bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate.
That wise person?  Dana Loesch, in the video I posted above.  And if you take out the language about the left and right, you get this:
[T]he bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe. [T]he difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people ... like to sit here and portray that the fringe  ... represent the whole ... and that's not accurate.
Now that's a Dana I can get behind.  And Dana, don't get too down on Dana circa 2010.  Just remember 1 Timothy 4:12.  Don't hate because she's young.  Although if you hate on her because of her haircut, I'm behind you.
But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at:
But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at:
ut the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at:
But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at:
But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at:
But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at:
But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at:

Friday, April 17, 2015

You do the math, $50k a person is a bunk figure

MotherJones Tries The Economic Angle To Advance Gun Control
The best-case scenario described by the CBO would result in 'between 24 million and 27 million' fewer Americans being uninsured in 2025, compared to the year before the Affordable Care Act took effect.
Pulling that off will cost Uncle Sam about $1.35 trillion – or $50,000 per head.
Where's the hand-wringing over that cost?
The hand-wringing for that cost is non-existent, because the cost itself is also non-existent. The problem with your analysis is that the report, "address[es] only the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA and do not reflect all of the act’s budgetary effects." In other words, there are other sources of revenue, like the medical device tax, and cost cutting measures that aren't included that bring the cost way down.

There is one other gotcha here. The Mother Jones article bases it's $700 per person, PER YEAR. The $50,000 you claim here is over ten years. And since the benefits are being seen by more than just those that were uninsured, you can't just use them in your calculations.
Our problem isn't guns. Our problem is gangs. Our problem is a breakdown in the home. Our problem is that many are not raised with a respect for life.
My big question is, how do we know this? There are no studies out there proving this. That's because there is no funding for such research. And due to nothing but pure politics, the CDC can't even study the medical effects of gun violence.

I explore all of this -- with a thorough denunking -- in my book, Hands Off My Gun.
Glad you mentioned your book, because I have some questions. Can you tell me again how Southern (conservative) Democrats disarmed a man who already had an arsenal of guns? And tell me also how the concealed carry permit he was denied in one state would have saved him from a sniper that killed him in another? That man was Martin Luther King. And it was the denial of that permit that made him realize his peace movement didn't need guns.

If that is the kind of denunking [sic] you do in your book, I'm not highly impressed.

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Update! Sorry, now you are 15th.

#6 on Politico's list of righties. Thanks for the tip, listener Alina!

Sorry Dana. Now that they include TV Journalists, you are 15th.

Not to mention that you don't even make the top 35 in total, while none other than Mellissa Harris-Perry is #27.  Wahhh, wahhhhhh...

What this does say is that when it comes to Twitter reach, Liberals pretty much dominate.

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Dana loses it over Obama comment, then proves his point for him.

Obama, during an Easter prayer breakfast, veered off subject, and said something that got all the right in a tizzy.  And as usual, Dana doesn't disappoint. This is chopped up audio from Wednesday, April 8th, hour two.  Enjoy!

Monday, April 6, 2015

ABC57 reporter did not ask pizza parlor about catering a wedding

Audio starts at about 21 minutes

I had a good weekend.  I had a lot to do, and while I did it, I burned through all my podcasts.  Since I still had too many chores around the house, I needed something more to listen too.  Enter Dana.  Yeah, I've fallen off the wagon.  I used to love Dana, but I took a break over Football season (Fantasy Focus takes precedence) and never got back into listening to her. 

Good thing I took the time.  The whole narrative was that the reporter went down there and baited Memories Pizza with the question on whether they would cater a wedding.  Problem is, in an interview with Dana the owners blow the whole thing up.  It would have been great to see the look on Dana's face.  Not that it stops Dana from continuing the lie the rest of Thursday and Friday's show.