To see a full-size view of the images posted, just click on them.

RULES FOR POSTING COMMENTS: This blog is meant to be interactive. Please utilize the comment feature to respond to posts that prompt a reaction. You do not have to agree with me to post, but I do ask that your comment pertain to the post itself. I also ask that "anonymous" guests attach some sort of name to their comments so readers can tell everyone apart. (If you cannot follow these simple rules, your post may be DELETED or at the very least mocked for the entertainment of those who can respect my guidelines.)

Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Biden is a pedophile

It started as a joke. I was frankly getting a bit annoyed at the very small number of responses to what I thought were some pretty enticing posts lately, and so, when I was going to post a sort of personal update for a bunch of things that happened over the weekend, I decided to lead in a with a misleading 'click-bait' title just to fuck with everyone.  The title I came up with was "Joe Biden is a Pedophile", and as I usually do, I figured, 'let me search some images and see if I can put a photo to go along with the title before I go into the actual post'. I had NO intention of writing anything political in the post itself. Nothing about Biden, nothing about Trump, just personal updates. The joke was going to be that the outrageous title would have zero to do with the post's content.

But with one quick search, the joke was on me! There were SO MANY memes and images of Biden being portrayed AS an actual pedophile, that I was flabbergasted! The first I saw, (which already has become difficult to find) was a shot of him kissing a terrified flutist at some game. I did manage to find a small shot of it, but like I said, the main one, which was everywhere earlier, is now a needle in a haystack:

But as I kept looking I found more and more images of him kissing kids, then men, then you name it:

And as you can see, it's all the same pose......taken from this actual shot:

And which someone quickly altered to this variation:

And so, with this little life lesson I decided to change my post from its original update format to one of socio-political observation, since recently I found myself in an exchange  where I was accused of having a nasty streak. Now, that bothered me. I was born with a nasty streak..........but I've spent decades widening it into a four-lane highway. To still be accused of possessing merely a 'streak' makes me feel like all that work was for nothing. But until this Biden-barrage I was just going to let it go. 

"Nasty" is a lot like shit (maybe that's why 'nasty shit' is such a common coupling?)  because everyone appreciates when shit is going out, but no one likes it when it heads back towards them. Similarly nasty nowadays only seems unappreciated by those on the receiving end of it, but not so much if it's being utilized by that person.

As readers here know, my main source of wry amusement comes not from clever wit in others, (that's #2), but real life hypocrisy. That's humor you can't put a price on. And there's nothing more amusing than hurt feelings remarks coming from a staunch conservative. (keep in mind, I am a 'fiscal' conservative and social liberal, making me that odd thing rarely seen today: a moderate. If you're not familiar with that word, it means "someone who thinks rather than follows".)

But when you see the nastiness of conservative memes and couple that with their assertion that anyone who'd be offended by them are "snowflakes", how can you not LOVE when a cutting remark lands exactly as intended, only to be labeled as "nasty"? Imagine the mindset it must take for someone who loves the style, policies, and words emanating from their hero, Trump, behave as if 'nasty' is even a thing anymore. (But of course, even he has routinely accused others of being nasty, so maybe it's part of the tribal order?) LOL

You can't falsely equate the opposing side with extreme negative stereotypes on an hourly basis and then expect that 'nasty' is only a tool for red or blue toolboxes. Everyone can use it. And it's very much like a hammer, or very good screw gun.....perhaps not good for every situation, but a fairly reliable 'go to' in many.

So, if you hate PC, culture, and have managed to make it through the last few years, no matter whether you consider yourself left, right, or intelligent, LOL....please get used to the idea that there is just no longer an actual meaningful definition for "nasty". At least not by its old connotations. "Nasty" in 2020 is merely another adjective meaning "normal". ;-) 


  1. Are you referring to moi? Our exchange was,

    You: And do you understand "per capita"? It means the relative size of each group is factored out and instead you look at the numbers equally.

    Me: Yes I understand per capita. Do you understand you have a nasty streak when you argue?

    No snowflakery here. I give as good as I get!


    1. It was PARTIALLY about you.....but only partially. Think of it as the two triggers on a Hawken rifle. Pulling one doesn't fire the gun but enables you to pull the second, which does.

      This post is how I have seen publicly, and encountered personally, a level of unprecedented nastiness that has taken on an air of normality......only to have 'nastiness' pointed out to others by the side most guilty of it.

      So you do serve your master well. Trump is nasty to everyone on a consistent, almost mean basis, but when asked an honest yet difficult question, he accuses the reporter of being "nasty". You DID 'give' a LOT at your blog, just like your hero. And just like him, you responded to my question as being nasty when your initial reply to my per capita data indicated to me that perhaps you didn't understand the term. Daddy Donald would be SOOOO proud!

      But unfortunately you were just one small factor in a post about something way more prevalent than what went on in one particular replay in one particular post, in one particular blog. The main touch point here was a trend, not a single comment that, as I wrote in this post, I was quite prepared to forget.

    2. See , there you go again. No human being is my master. I form my own opinions based on data and analysis and I showed my work. In this case I agree with the actions Trump is taking and disagree with the rioting, looting, and calls to abolish police.

    3. It is funny the extent to which Trump supporters see Trump as some kind of tough guy, yet is the whiniest president we've had since Nixon. Yet, it's the "libs" who are supposedly "snowflakes"? Face it, the party of Reagan and McCain has become a bunch of victimization junkies who whine endlessly that everyone is out to get them. I can just hear all my whiny Christian relatives whining about how victimized they feel by their previous judicial hero Gorsuch telling them they can't discriminate against gay people. Well, they couldn't if they actually were employers and were responsible for hiring people, which of course none of them are.

    4. Julie: The master thing was clearly a joke. And even then it was meant more as teacher/mentor (like "Zen Master") than slave owner. Even though Trump is probably way more suited to the latter than the former. Maybe that's why you took it that way? ;-)

      Your conclusion is based on data, but a lot of conclusions are based on data. The important thing is whether the data is correct and, in this case, directly linked to the cause and effect you are associating it with? It is also possible to have the correct data available and still draw the wrong conclusions. Trump does that all of the time, particularly with anything based in science.

      My issue with the so-called 'debate' over there is that I put a lot into my post and you cherry-picked what you wanted to address and ignored the rest. For me that's disingenuous and frustrating. Also, by what I wrote there and often here, you should know I am not just regurgitating liberal platitudes. I agreed with the impact of economics, but tried to point out that it is A factor, but the ONLY factor and that racism does exist here and definitely exists in police depts. even in blue states like NJ. Ignoring that as if it didn't exist is not basing a conclusion on "data" because you are selectively ignoring the aspect you don't want to acknowledge.

      I also disagree about the rioting and looting but in a way that would take a very long time to explain, and as stated earlier, I don't think the effort would make a difference to you.

      And your comment about abolishing police is interesting. There are some extreme examples where some places are attempting eliminate standard police depts. in favor of other watch-group type institutions, but that is just silly. Once you empower a watch-group to handle crime, they are in essence just another police dept. The other alternatives by more moderate advocates is a reallocation of funding so as to have specialized responses to issues that need not always be handled as criminal homelessness, mental health, and addictions. The last group is characterized by keeping things as they are but regulating and instructing police depts. more extensively.

      And then there are people like Trump lumping all of it into the most extreme category as if one option was the same as the other.

    5. Dan: You and I travel this road a lot and is it ever tiring to have to argue with both left and right! Maybe that's why these tribes formed? To save their energy by only fighting one side?

      And don't let hypocrisy ruin your family functions! Call them on it.........and let it ruin THEIR enjoyment of the family function! LOL

    6. Julie: A the section on factors, the second one should read "but not the ONLY factor".

      Oh.....and citing statistics for Black voters from a Rasmussen Poll? LOL I nearly wet my pants on that one! That was the best evidence yet that arguing was futile.

    7. True, though the tribal alignment is getting fucking weird. You now have some of these anti-government militia types showing up with guns, and claiming they are there to shoot the police if the police attack protesters. But, I don't know why I'm surprised; on a much more benign level, I've always said that there is not a whole hell of a lot separating the worldview of many Trump voters and Bernie voters.

    8. The Rasmussen poll was to counter an equally ridiculous poll from the other side. I don't believe either of them is my point. I said we would see come voting day.

      And I think that we agree on more than we disagree. There certainly is racism, and racism amongst police, absolutely. It's the extent of it which is in question, and what to do in response.

      I do take exception to the random Orange Man Bad Trump bashing that is prevalent and whipped up by the media. ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, WAPO, CNN, MSNBC, ... the list is endless. So few bring any rational debate points to that argument that have not been discredited countless time ("he grabs pussies, he colluded with Russia, he quids with Ukraine, he called neo Nazis fine people, and on and on and on). Bring a decent argument based on his policies for heavens sake!

    9. Julie, Trump supporters flame out every time an administration official appears on Fox News on Sunday and gets an actual direct question from Chris Wallace and aren't allowed to dance and weave. So, it's not the "liberal" press you all object to -- it's any press that doesn't fawn on him. As for grabbing pussies, the man said it! It's not like those nasty reporters faked a recording. Similarly, he stood in front of the world in Helsinki and said he believed Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence services. He said he "fell in love" with with Kim Jong Un. The allegations of quid quo pro with Ukraine were not "discredited." He said what he said. The issue was whether what he did rose to the level of an impeachable defense -- there was never any genuine dispute that he did ask a foreign government for dirt on a political opponent and not the slightest bit of evidence that he gave a shit about political corruption in Ukraine outside of that context. He paid off porn start and lied about it. I'm sorry, but this little move you make where you insist that he be judged *only* by his policies and *never* by his character doesn't fly, especially coming from the party that impeached Clinton over a blow job and then lying under oath about that blowjob. I actually do think Clinton's behavior cheapened the presidency as an institution, and that such behavior absolutely should be assessed by voters in choosing who to vote for. And, I predict you all will feel the same the second a Democrat is in the White House again.

    10. People who were "deeply disturbed" by Bill Clinton's marital infidelity now claim that qualities such as class, decency, empathy and having a conscience are 'irrelevant' to a presidency in the U.S.A. today.

      Not that I don't oppose 'Von Trump's' policies too, he's a gay-bashing, misogynistic white supremacist who played politics with the coronavirus pandemic and totally mismanaged it, resulting in an estimated 30,000+ unnecessary American deaths.

      He's totally corrupted the concept of equal justice, with his toady Bill Barr using the U.S. Department of Justice as a modern-day Gestapo to attack his political opponents and cover up the crimes of his cronies.

      'Von Trump's' attitude toward freedom of the press is obvious by his insulting and belittling of reporters asking legitimate questions, and his claim that any negative facts about him are "fake news."

      However, his hard-core supporters worship him as a cult-like deity, they're beyond reason so it's pointless to debate them, all they can manage in his defense is "Fake news, it's all fake news..." --C.K.

  2. I am unfortunately not capable of putting words together as well as either of my two favorite bloggers, but I certainly enjoy reading both of them here.

    1. You do fine, Bill. I like Julie too. We go way back. But hell.....I'll argue with anyone to a degree. I tend to stop when it's pointless and clearly not going anywhere. I have too many projects to do, as well as maintaining my own blog to argue endlessly over something that the other party has an entrenched opinion on. LOL