OHMIGOSH!!!! I just figured out where the Obama re-election committee came up with the new slogan “Forward.”
Its the Simpson’s episode where aliens take over the Presidential race as Bob Dole and Bill Clinton!!
Seriously. Watch it for yourself.
http://youtu.be/uLR3CgeUeyc
LIFEZILLA: Filling the internet with little cleansing bubbles
Comments Off on I JUST FIGURED OUT…..
Posted in Uncategorized
President Obama announced his new campaign slogan is “Forward”. That would be awesome if we weren’t standing on the edge of a cliff.
A friend sent this to me……
Paradigm shifts Shemaradigm shifts
I have a friend who spends most of his time in “Sin City” pinching flesh (mostly other peoples.) He is a professional massage therapist in Las Vegas, who, although he is not a subscriber to my website (he should be – AND SO SHOULD YOU) he replied to my most recent and BRILLIANTLY written article “Stand Like a Rock.” My original thought was to quickly reply to it, but I was a little long winded. I decided instead to post my reply. (Disclaimer: I wrote this really fast so I’m SURE there are going to be typos. Please forgive me.)
These are his comments to my article. Below is my reply:
Uh-hum…What about paradigm shift(s)? Ie: Polygamy is the only way to the Celestial kingdom of Heaven… wait a minute… now we condemn & shun those who continue to practice it. (Talk about compromise: 1847 statehood for Utah became more important than standing firm in one’s own Celestial matrimony beliefs & practices instructed by a Prophet of God.) By the way, It’s interesting that you brought up Thomas Jefferson. Oxymoron anyone? His party affiliation @ the time was known as DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN. He too also stood “FIRM” in his beliefs… own lots & lots of slaves (hundreds) & fathered a few with the house help of Miss Sally Heming.
Paradigm shifts Shemaradigm shifts. Polygamy Shemolygamy. Who cares? Seriously, we are talking about something that happened a hundred and twenty years ago. Let it rest. Why did the Lord have polygamy at the time? I dunno. Could it have been the fact that there were a large number of widows and families with single parents? (Due to persecutions, mob violence, and war, many children lost their fathers or mothers.) Could it be that, more than anything, this practice was to support these families giving food, shelter, and parental love and teaching? I dunno. At the time, lo those many years ago, there were no national laws prohibiting polygamy. That didn’t stop people from driving the Mormons west. When the Supreme Court ruled that later anti-polygamy laws were constitutional the Lord directed President Woodruff to issue the Manifesto (1890), and the practice ended in the Church. In the Book of Mormon Jacob 2:27-30 states, “for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife: and concubines he shall have none… for if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” All throughout the scriptures there are times the Lord commands it and times he takes the practice away. When President Gordon B. Hinckley was interviewed by Larry King he said only a small percentage of Mormons practiced polygamy in the late 1800’s. He put the number between 2-5%. Just for fun let’s say he was WAAAAAAAAAAY off and the number was 20%. According to this website there were only 250,000 Mormons in the 1890’s. So if we take President Hinckley’s high and my “lets just say” high we are talking between 12,500 – 50,000 people practicing polygamy, a HUNDRED AND TWENTY YEARS AGO. Does it matter to me, here, now? No. So, again, who cares? Oh, but “now we condemn & shun those who continue to practice it.” No kidding. The only freaks that are practicing it now, that make the news, are the guys who are raping 13 year old girls. They should be condemned and shunned.
As for Jefferson, he did own slaves. Lots of them. How is it shocking to anyone that in the 1700’s (over two hundred years ago) someone who was raised owning slaves, owed slaves?
I’m not justifying bad behavior with bad behavior. But just to illustrate, I have several quotes from George Bernard Shaw that I love. He said some really cool things. A few years ago I found out the guy was a total freak. He believed in and pushed for eugenics. He defended Hitler and mass killings. He PUSHED for it.
Jefferson was a brilliant, BRILLIANT man, who did a great work. Does the fact he owned slaves put a blemish on him? Yes. Does it distract from the fact he was a brilliant man who did a great work? No. He was a man, prone to make mistakes like the rest of us.
In the 1780s Jefferson supported a bill to prohibit his state (Virginia) from importing slaves. In the 1784 Congress, Jefferson proposed federal legislation banning slavery in the New Territories of the Northwest (it didn’t pass.) In 1807, as President, he signed a bill prohibiting the US from participating in the international slave trade. There is no question he was an abolitionist.
Slavery is a horrible, horrible thing, but it was part of the gig back then. In Virginia, at the time, it was illegal to free your slaves, even after your death.
As for Miss Sally Heming, there are many historians who question if Thomas Jefferson fathered children with her. Yes, there was the story in 1998 about DNA proving Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemmings, the fact that in 2001 a committee reviewed all the same data and concluded that Jefferson’s younger brother Randolph (1755-1815) was more likely the father of the children is an inconvenient footnote. But JUUUUUUUUST for fun, let’s say Thomas Jefferson DID father those children. Which aspect of the story offends you? Is it the fact he had sex outside the bonds of marriage (he was a widower,) or the fact he had inter-racial sex?
Lifezilla.net: We would never use flattery to get you to come to our site. I mean when you have readers as good looking, talented and sexy as you are, why would we NEED to flatter you?
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged George Bernard Shaw, Las Vegas, Mormon, Polygamy, Sally Heming, Thomas Jefferson
Stand Like a Rock
I know, I know. I’m not supposed to judge others. But I do. Sue me. I’m human (please don’t sue me). I’m no lawyer, but I understand in law judgments are supposed to be concrete. The law says you are not supposed to do “X” and if you did “X,” the punishment is “Y.” Pretty easy concept. Judging other peoples opinions is A LOT different –not concrete at all. It’s more like Jell-o. To judge where people stand, it really depends on where you sit. So it’s not even Jell-o, it’s a sliding scale.
An example:
I am a perfect driver. I drive the EXACT speed that is necessary for any situation. (This is, of course, contrary to the state law in which I reside, which would use the stack of speeding tickets I have incurred throughout the sojourn of my life, as an example of this falsehood). Anyone who drives slower than me is stupid, and anyone who drives faster is an idiot. Please permit me to tell a short side story. Years ago I was driving with my son, who was about 3 at the time. We were getting on the freeway when a guy, in a louder car, sped past us. I heard this sweet little voice in the backseat say, “what a jackass.” I asked him why he said that. His reply, “he passed us”. I learned a valuable lesson about “little ears” that day.
So, I hear you ask, what’s my point?
This election year I have heard a lot of labels being tossed around, where I honestly don’t know what they mean, but people accept them. The four I hear most often are Liberal Democrat, Democrat, Moderate Republican/Conservative, and Republican. Obviously I understand the words Democrat and Republican. The one I find most intriguing and really don’t really understand is “Moderate Conservative.” My question is, “Moderate according to whom?” I’m a Right leaning guy. Am I a Moderate? Probably not. I’m kind of critical of Moderates. I’ll tell you why.
In my humble opinion, a Moderate is someone who has bought into the propaganda that you have the fundamental right to never be offended. Well guess what Nancy? You don’t have the right to never be offended. I’ve been offended before and I’m right 91% of the time.
GUESS WHAT!?!?!? My wife just told me I have sexdaily! WOO-HOO!!! After all these years of my begging and pleading we are finally going to…Excuse me, hold on. What honey? I have what? Are you kidding me?!?! Oh crap. Well, apparently I don’t have sexdaily, I have dyslexia. So I’m only right 19% of the time. That sucks TWICE for me. That was a really lose/lose situation. Pfffff…This is me now. (._.)
Winston Churchill once said, “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” Of course you don’t want to be a jerk. But if you believe in something stand up for it.
“But Danny,” I hear you whine, “what about compromise?”
Ayn Rand once said, “In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.” Another time she said, “The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.”
So, can you be a “Statesman” and still be a conservative? Of course you can. Thomas Jefferson said, “In matters of style swim with the current. In matters of principle stand like a rock.”
It doesn’t matter what they are. Find five, or so, true principles you won’t budge on. Then hold on to them. People may disagree with you, but they will always respect you.
Remember: Lifezilla is the only website with a million dollar guarantee. You give me a million dollars, I guarantee to write you anything you want!
Posted in Uncategorized
B4 i lunch in2 this i want u 2 understand i no i make typo’s ever so often. i no. Some X’s i get so exited to post what i have wrottened, I just throw it up (that sounded gross). When I 1st thoughted to rite this I thoughted to say, hey, I don’t make typos. I invent knew words, or new grammer rules. But I desided to tell da troof. Some tymes I hav my fryend Dave help me. hes really smoort. If I posted somethyin with out any mystakes its because Dave poof red it.
Quick story:
Today I went to the local convenience store for my first of several doses of caffeine. (Mmmmmm caffeine.) As I’m getting out of my car I hear a woman screaming obscenities at someone. The “F” word was FLYING. I look over to see who was screaming at whom (or would it be “whom was screaming at who”?). So I see a guy who, not only looks like a tool because he is being yelled at, he also has his pants down past his butt. PAST HIS BUTT. His black underwear glistening in the sun for all to see. As I’m watching them, he waves one arm in the air in a dismissive gesture and starts walking away from the car. His butt clenched tight, causing him to walk with his pelvis propelled forward, bull-legged, to keep his pants up. All I could think was “What. An. Idiot.”.
Because I’m a guy, and I believe women are the main driving force behind every decision a man makes, I asked the women around the office if they thought that was an attractive look. Now I work with a really diverse group of women. Age, ethic group, styles. They are all over the board. Without exception they all thought it was a stupid look. So why the hell do some guys do this? It would be one thing if it was a short lived fad. This has been going on for years!
It was January of 2010 the “Pants on the ground” guy sung on American Idol. TWO YEARS AGO.
I’ve got to think it was about five years ago I saw this:
I get it now………
SERIOUSLY!!!!!
How can anyone take this guy seriously? Would you hire a guy who was dressed like that?
PEOPLE!!!!!
Get Confident, Stupid!!
I gotta tell ya, I have recently come to the realization that the best time to start any project, preparation, plan, personal policy or kidnapping, is exactly five years ago. My brain is constantly being inundated with things I wish I would have written about.
It’s really annoying.
Imagine filtering through the mod podge/ collage of songs, silliness, movies, phrases, family, dumbery, full frontal nudity, political philosophy, the Wangdoodles, Hornswogglers, Snozzwangers, or the rotten, Vermicious Knids that are constantly bombarding my brain. I have to sift myself through a buttload of groan-inducing and mediocre crap to find the one little gold nugget I want to write about. I could easily compare it to mining for diamonds in a gigantic grotto filled with fossilized bat dung. Because that is exactly what it’s like.
Again, it’s really annoying.
So I have been thinking about this off and on the last few years. It is something that really bothers me. I primarily see it in the media, but it extends into everyday life with normal people too. I don’t know if I’m special (my mom says I am) or if my brain is just wired weird. I just don’t have a problem with people having their own points of view. In fact, I welcome it.
Let me explain. About three years ago we had the introduction of “the tea party.” A group of people who were sick of “business as usual” in Washington, who felt like we, as Americans, were Taxed Enough Already and wanted to rein in the out of control spending in Washington. A very noble goal. Of course, you had the few fringe weirdos who wore the colonial clothing complete with the three cornered hats. I have no problem with those guys either. When watching the news every once in a while you would see a sign that said something like, “I am John Galt”, or “Vote for John Galt.” I had just recently finished reading Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand so I knew exactly who John Galt was. I also remember for a short time, the media trying to vilify Ayn Rand. I was watching a reporter interviewing Congressman Paul Ryan. The reporter asked Mr. Ryan if he agreed with Ayn Rand about something. Mr. Ryan said he did. The reporter then said (something along the lines of) “so you don’t believe in God?” (I’m doing this from memory – I tried for just a minute to find it on Youtube, but got bored.) The reporter tried to draw the conclusion that because Ayn Rand was an atheist, and because Congressman Ryan agreed with a facet of her philosophy that suddenly Ms. Rand was elevated to godhood where everything that falls from her lips was and is the gospel truth. If she didn’t believe in something, then clearly he didn’t believe it either.
That, my dear reader, is what bothers me. It happens time and time again.
One more example, again, from a few years ago. Shortly after a new group of Tea Party approved congressmen/women were elected, I was watching an interview with Speaker of the House John Boehner. Between bouts of sobbing he was flippantly asked by the reporter (who looked like he would more likely be a member of the Saturday Night Live cast, than a reporter) something along the lines of why he (Boehner) couldn’t get House Republicans to “march in line.” (Again this is from memory – I’m sure it was worded better than that). I don’t remember exactly what Boehner said, because four words into his pansy reply I started screaming at the TV. (I’m really brave at home, in my room, with the door locked, under my bed, holding my blankie, with the lights on). I know Boehner’s reply was pansy because he is holding out hope the media will one day realize Republicans are great people. He should have said, “Do you even understand how our Government works?” Then go on to explain that the beauty, and pure brilliance, of our system of government is that it was designed by men who knew the biggest danger to our freedom was the power of other men. The founders designed a government of limited, enumerated powers, whose formation was intended to make the accumulation of power by a group (or by individuals) difficult and short lived. Then, they brilliantly added a list of rights which were inviolable no matter who was in power. In other words, you cute little reporting bugger you, the Republicans are not robots. They don’t march. Obviously there are certain principles you would like them to unite against (or for) but on everything else they need to vote their conscience. If Boehner wanted to REALLY hit a home run, he could have continued and explained that our Founders insight into human nature explains why Marx’s “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” crap can never work. Marx’s theory assumes people are able to be honest about their needs and abilities, when, in fact, most people overestimate both.
But Boehner blew it.
In business, if you have two people on a team who agree with each other 100% of the time, one of them isn’t necessary. Wouldn’t the same be true in government?
So if I listen to Glenn Beck every once in a while it doesn’t mean I’m buying gold, stockpiling weapons, and burying food in the back yard, preparing for the post apocalyptic world (I would be buying gold if I had a pot to piss in.) I can enjoy his commentary and filter out what I don’t think has value all by myself. Thank you.
When I was in High School I used to watch Bill Maher on ABC’s Politically Incorrect. I thought he was funny and insightful. Now I think he’s an ass. I disagree with almost everything that spews out of his pie hole. But I believe he has a right to say what he wants. And if you, or someone you know, thinks he is funny and insightful I don’t automatically think you’re an ass (although let’s be honest, you probably are.)
Granted, being part of a group makes it so that SOME of your goals, ideas, values, or principles are the same, be they be political, social, religious or intellectual. The individual is the most important. Groups can be swayed. We are all capable and should practice individual thought, and should recognize, and respect this ability in others.
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, Bill Maher, Bill of Rights, Glenn Beck, John Boehner, Main Stream Media, Paul Ryan, Tea party
Yesterday I made an error. I said the New Black Panthers have a million dollar bounty on George Zimmerman. That is incorrect. They really have a $10,000 bounty on him, dead or alive.
Please accept my apologizes.
Posted in Uncategorized
Hmmmmm…Seriously. I’m not even sure were to start. Apparently ear-biting-beauty-pageant-raping-convicted-felon-tattooed-face-former-heavy-weight-campion Mike Tyson felt the need to sound off on the Trayvon Martin case. And because of his expertise in law (I’m guessing he is an expert, otherwise why would anyone care what he thought?) Yahoo news felt like it was important enough to put up on their website.
I’ll give you the highlights, Mike Tyson said, “I wasn’t there, I don’t know what happened… It’s a disgrace that man hasn’t been dragged out of his house and tied to a car and taken away. That’s the only kind of retribution that people like that understand. It’s a disgrace that man hasn’t been shot yet. Forget about him being arrested–the fact that he hasn’t been shot yet is a disgrace. That’s how I feel personally about it.”
Granted there is a TON of awesome legal analysis I omitted in those three dots. But I think I could try shortening it more, I think I could do better, “I don’t know what happened…it’s a disgrace that man hasn’t been shot yet.” Was that better?
Now I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure when Mike Tyson said, “It’s a majority versus a minority. That’s the way God planned it” isn’t really what the founding fathers had in mind. Mr. Tyson continued, “Even though this is the best country in the world, certain laws in this country are a disgrace to a nation of savages.”
So there is no mistake, I’m not saying George Zimmerman is innocent, in fact today he made his first court appearance on a second-degree murder charge. He could be guilty as sin. He may have been hoping and waiting for the opportunity to kill someone. I don’t know. That is why we have due process. Not the court of public opinion. Too many people have interjected themselves into this mess. The New Black Panthers put a million dollar bounty on Zimmerman. Spike Lee tweeted what he thought was Zimmerman’s address to his followers, and now Mike Tyson saying it’s a disgrace Zimmerman hasn’t been shot yet.
Guilty or innocent Zimmerman’s life will never be the same. Either way he deserves his day in court.
Posted in Uncategorized
I wrote this for UFI last year….
I think it is important to point out that of all the contributors to this website, I’m the dumbest. I say that, not to brag, but to let you know I’m aware of my dumbery. I ain’t no highly educated man. See what I mean? I just used a double negative (seriously, what an idiot). Despite my dumbery, I am just smart enough to recognize inconsistencies in the media.
I have always been aware of them, but when I recently read an article by Tim Groseclose, it really brought them to the forefront of my mind. In addition to the article, Mr. Groseclose is an author of “Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind.” In his article he references an essay appearing in this years August 10th edition of the New York Times magazine titled, “Two-Minus-One Pregnancy”.
Apparently an expectant mother, “after choosing not to endure the extra burden of raising twins” decides to “reduce to a singleton.” Awwww…Isn’t that cute? “Reduce to a singleton”, you can almost imagine skipping through a field of daisies, hugging your favorite “My Pretty Pony”, while listening to the “Care Bears Christmas”, can’t you? The fact that the Doctor injects a long needle filled with potassium chloride into the chest of the baby, quickly killing it, the body of the baby shrivels the remainder of the pregnancy and is removed during the birth of the other twin is just a nifty little side note.
Ew. When I say it like that it isn’t really nifty at all.
Hmmmm?
Mr. Groseclose then goes on to show how the media uses cute and fluffy words to describe things that aren’t so pleasant about abortion (Mr. Groseclose, of course, never used the words “cute” and “fluffy” – those are my contributions – remember I’m trying to dummy things down here). He explains his book, “contains a systematic statistical analysis to document the bias in the abortion language of journalists”. Now, to be fair, I’m really not sure what any of those words mean. But I do know that in my lifetime we have gone from “Deaf” to “The Hearing Impaired”, “Prisoner” to “Correctional Faculties Inmate”, and “Stewardess” to “Flight attendant”. Honestly, it has to stop. Especially from the media. The Elderly aren’t “Chronologically Advanced”, the Dead aren’t “Living Impaired”, an Abortion isn’t a “Near-Life Experience” and I am not “Fecally Plenary” (full of crap).
Mr. Groseclose closes his article by saying, “No matter what one’s view on abortion, one can’t deny that “twin reduction” and partial-birth abortion involve gruesome and ghastly procedures. It’s time that the media—when describing these procedures, as well as abortion policy in general—began using more direct and accurate language.”
Brilliant.
I’ll end my article like this: Mary Poppins was right. A spoon full of sugar really does help the medicine go down. But as a society we have been force fed sugar for too long. I, for one, am sugared out. Can’t the media realize once and for all that we are all grown ups? We can handle big people words. Isn’t it time we call a spade a shovel?
Posted in Uncategorized
