Posts Tagged ‘Euphemism’

National Masturbation Month: An Unofficial Government Holiday — Possible the Government Version of Labor Day

by Stephen Levine on Sunday, May 5th, 2013

Yes, there is an unofficial holiday, highlighted and reported by the progressives …

Did you know that May is National Masturbation Month? It was originally declared in 1995 by Good Vibrations — a San Francisco shop specializing in sex toys, erotic books and adult videos — after Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders was fired by Bill Clinton for responding to a question about masturbation at a UN conference, “I think that is part of human sexuality, and perhaps it should be taught” in the context of sex education classes. Source: Welcome to the Masturbate-a-thon | Alternet

Bottom line …

Considering all of the posturing (polite euphemism for dick wagging and measuring) and mental masturbation (with a similarly non-productive end) in Washington, D.C. and in governments elsewhere, perhaps this holiday-spoof should be memorialized and legitimized. Perhaps, to take precedence over the socialist and communist celebration of labor day.

— steve

Go straight to Post

, conference, context, Day, Elders, Euphemism, General, holiday, labor, Labor Day, National, Precedence, progressives, question, San Francisco, Sex Toys, Spoof, Surgeon General, UN, Washington
Posted in US Holidays | No Comments »


by Stephen Levine on Wednesday, October 17th, 2012

This is article 757 of 1015 in the topic Obama

Decide for yourself if we can afford a stone-faced liar in the White House. A man who will say or do anything to gain or maintain power …

Obama: ‘We Got Back Every Dime’ of Bailout; CBO: Bailout Will Lose $24 Billion

President Barack Obama said on Thursday that “we got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system.” According to the Congressional Budget Office, however, the government will lose about $24 billion on the bailout. “We got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system, but we also passed a historic law to end taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailouts for good,” Obama said in Miami Thursday. The Congressional Budget Office–based on figures from Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget—gives a different assessment. “The cost to the federal government of the TARP’s transactions (also referred to as the subsidy cost), including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, will amount to $24 billion,” said the CBO report, which was released on the same day Obama spoke. <Source: Obama: ‘We Got Back Every Dime’ of Bailout; CBO: Bailout Will Lose $24 Billion |>

Whether it is bald-faced lies about terrorism (workplace violence at Fort Hood, a video in Libya) or our economy, you cannot trust Obama to tell the truth. He has been caught so many times lying to the public, that the mainstream media has created their own euphemism to call him a liar … “Obama is in campaign mode.”

This man cannot be trusted. He lied about his background. He lied about his eligibility. He lied about terrorism. And he is lying about our economy.

Throw Obama and his fellow travelers out of office on November 6, 2012.

— steve

Go straight to Post

, Budget, Budget Office, Campaign Mode, cannot, Cbo Report, Congressional, Congressional Budget, Congressional Budget Office, cost, economy, Euphemism, Federal Government, Fellow Travelers, Fort Hood, gain, government, House, Liar, Libya, mainstream media, Obama, Office Of Management And Budget, Political Purposes, power, rescue, Subsidy, system, TARP, Thursday, To Tell The Truth, truth, Wall Street, White, White House, Workplace Violence
Posted in Auto Industry, bailouts, Obama | No Comments »


by Stephen Levine on Thursday, August 23rd, 2012

This is article 342 of 576 in the topic Media

Those who follow the media are well aware that the same story can be spun in a multiplicity of ways, but basically it is a tonal scale between accurate reporting and deliberately slanting the story to aid one candidate and disadvantage another.

So how can you tell the media is corrupt and bereft of journalist ethics? Check the headlines and guess.

Example one: calling a candidate a liar …

Capture8-22-2012-2.45.37 PM

It doesn’t matter what the fine print says, those that are skimming the publication and glance at the headline come away with the impression that Romney is a liar. Do we see an equivalent headline when President Obama tells a blatant lie in front of the mainstream media? Of course not, they claim he is in “campaign mode” – their euphemism for lying to the American public.

Example two: judging a candidate by “socialist values” …

Capture8-22-2012-2.46.44 PM

The key words that make me cringe are: “Republican operative” and “genuine conservative” because we have no way of knowing who this unsourced “operative” is, who he might be working for, and why we should believe that he is capable of even rational thought.

The statement struck me as disingenuous because it attempts to condemn the candidate for believing in his own ambition; a singular mark of the rugged individuals who built America as opposed to the socialist slackers who are rewarded for mediocrity and showing up. How would this person know if Romney were genuine at all.

Contrast that against a disingenuous Obama who refuses to discuss his communist and domestic terrorist associations; reveal how he managed to skirt the law to travel to Muslim Pakistan when ordinary Americans holding an American passport were restricted from Pakistan travel; reveal why his social security number apparently belongs to a long-dead Connecticut resident … and on and on.

Contrast that against an Obama who stands before the public and openly lies.

Bottom line …

This is a dirty campaign – made infinitely dirtier by the media who have chosen to eschew journalistic ethics and take sides with a communist. Time to turn the dial, cancel the subscription and ignore those who ignore the truth in favor of partisan politics. It is remarkably curious that Fox News comes closer to “fair and balanced” with their hard news than any of the other mainstream competitors and that conservative talk radio actually allows the opposition to debate the issues when liberal talk radio hosts shrilly shout down and excoriate their guests. Follow the money – there are highly successful conservative talk show hosts, so where are the liberal success stories?

And remember ambition drives achievement; socialism drives mediocrity, decline and shared pain.

— steve

Go straight to Post

A Truthful Guide to the New Economics and the reality of life …

by Stephen Levine on Friday, June 8th, 2012

This is article 274 of 393 in the topic economy

How many hands are in your pocket?

Politicians and economists often preface their enlightened pronouncements with such caveats as “On one hand…”  which gives them the wiggle room and the ability to deny the actual assertions and promises they made.

In President Obama’s case, the media has made up a euphemism for his continuing outright bald-face lying: “he is in campaign mode.”  Funny, they don’t note that he is in campaign mode while governing the country and deciding the government should be picking your pockets to support the administration, his political party and the general corruption which is killing our country.

But there are some fundamental realities …

One, happiness comes from living below your means and having enough of a surplus to ride out any adverse circumstances, be they medical, financial or employment-related. Little or no debt equates to little or no stress and the ability to make choices rather than being forced to take choices thrust upon you. The primary reason that famous liberals spew lies and political canards  is that those who are well-born, educated, connected and wealthy are seemingly immune from the actions they recommend for all of us not so similarly situated.

Two, the financial basis of this country contains a paradox.  You are not only expected to be fiscally responsible in your own matters – but the nation demands that you spend, spend, spend (often beyond your means) to maintain and stimulate our economy. The entire credit industry is based on those rich rewards that come from charging usurious interest rates on your debt and paying little or nothing on your investments and deposits.

Three, the government’s Keynesian view that government spending on infrastructure will improve the economy is wrong-headed. Primarily because the projects are not always chosen on the basis of need and obtaining a return on the people’s investment, but for political reasons to secure campaign funds and voter support. Thus permitting the special interests to corrupt the entire process.

And secondarily because they do not calculate the immediate and direct losses associated with administrative overhead and using “union” labor which insures that designs are mediocre, cost projections are understated, productivity is not demanded and the overall cost accounting is suspect.

Four, raising taxes and spending on union-dominated education has not brought about a corresponding increase in educated children, but the reverse – a system which needs to lower testing standards to allow more children to pass through the system.

Five, continuing to threaten citizens with cutbacks in first responders (fire, police, medical) or critical services (garbage collection, health inspections, building inspections, etc.) to pay for unionized cubicle workers who generate their own self-serving rules, regulations and paperwork kingdoms should result in throwing the politicians out of office. First for violating their oath to protect and serve the public; and second, for corruptly holding citizens hostage to their self-serving political needs to pander to the special interests. They should be prioritizing the funding of critical services while cutting non-essentials such as public art programs and the need for public relations specialists.

Six, if you wonder why politicians are so afraid of the Second Amendment, it is not because they fear hunters, sport shooters or gun collectors — they don’t even fear the “managed” crime which justifies bigger government and more lawyers.

Click to continue reading “A Truthful Guide to the New Economics and the reality of life …”
Go straight to Post

WORLD: Shacking Up

by La Shawn Barber on Monday, April 23rd, 2012

This is article 5 of 32 in the topic Marriage
shacking upThe web is buzzing about an opinion article published by The New York Times last Saturday. “The Downside to Cohabitating Before Marriage” has been one of the most emailed and among the most viewed articles on the Times’ website this week, although it contains nothing new or groundbreaking. It merely confirms what most know or suspect: Living together before marriage increases the risk of divorce.

Meg Jay, a clinical psychologist and author, writes about a client she calls “Jennifer.” The client and her live-in boyfriend eventually married, but when Jennifer was in therapy with Jay, divorce was on her mind. During cohabitation—a euphemism for “shacking up”—Jennifer said she felt like she was on a “multiyear, never-ending audition to be his wife.” They’d bought furniture together and had the same friends. In their 20s when they moved in together, they married in their 30s seemingly by default. How romantic.

Jay notes that women and men tend to see shacking up differently. You don’t say?

“Women are more likely to view cohabitation as a step toward marriage, while men are more likely to see it as a way to test a relationship or postpone commitment, and this gender asymmetry is associated with negative interactions and lower levels of commitment even after the relationship progresses to marriage. One thing men and women do agree on … their standards for a live-in partner are lower than they are for a spouse.”

Gender asymmetry—Adam and Eve certainly learned something about that after the Fall, didn’t they? No offense to the men in the audience, but honestly, is anyone surprised that men tend to view living together without the benefit of marriage as a way to postpone marriage? Or that women, with their romantic notions, tend to view living together as a sort of marriage gamble, or a foot in the door, so to speak?

Dr. Laura Schlessinger, radio host and marriage and family therapist, gets irritated when women call in to her program to complain that their shack-up boyfriends are seeing other women or aren’t treating them well. Schlessinger asks: Why shouldn’t he see other women? There is no commitment. The caller is just the “shack-up honey,” an “unpaid whore.” Schlessinger speaks roughly to make a point: Two people living and sleeping together outside marriage should not expect to be treated as a wife or a husband. There are no vows to be faithful, to honor, or to cherish.

What really ticks off people like Schlessinger (and me) is when unmarried couples living together outside marriage give birth or bring previous children into these homes. According to the National Marriage Project, divorce is no longer the greatest threat to family stability and child well-being. Cohabitation is “the largest unrecognized threat to the quality and stability of children’s family lives.” Children in cohabiting homes are much more likely to suffer abuse than children in intact, married families or single-parent families.

Adults can play house, but children need intact homes and a mother and father who love them.

Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin