NPR Watch – 12/4/15 – Lol!


I’ve often said that the stupidity and the contradictions of the left and its “thinking” are right out there for all to see, if one but examines for just a bit.

I was listening to National Public Radio (NPR) on my way into work today, and heard the following howler, which I should leave unremarked upon.

First, though, to set the stage just a bit. NPR has been tripping all over itself to be absolutely sure not to conclude that what the heavily armed, combat gear-clad, muslim San Bernardino monsters did could be labeled “terrorism.”

In fact, even Obama, as of late last night, was still trying his best to make the case that it might be just a case of “workplace violence.” (Again we pose the question: Was it really all that important to elect a black President as opposed to a good one?)

This morning, NPR, always last to the news, always last to any kind of unmurky understanding of things, was still in that “we-don’t-know-the-motives-of-the-shooters” state of mind.

Without further ado, here’s how the hostette, Linda Wertheimer, of NPR’s morning fake news program, Morning Edition, announced an upcoming feature:

Dozens of homemade pipe bombs and thousands of rounds of ammunition in the San Bernardino shooters’ home provide clues as to what they were planning to do.

Whoa.

Let’s sit back and just soak in the sheer, insightful wisdom of that assertion.

Let’s repeat is so that we can just marinate in its eye-opening, sparkling beauty:

Dozens of homemade pipe bombs and thousands of rounds of ammunition in the San Bernardino shooters’ home provide clues as to what they were planning to do.

(moment of respectful silence for those of you wishing to bask a bit.)

(another moment of respectful silence for those of you wishing to bask a bit.)

And once more, just because you can’t have enough of this kind of life-changing, incisive analysis:

Dozens of homemade pipe bombs and thousands of rounds of ammunition in the San Bernardino shooters’ home provide clues as to what they were planning to do.

Uhhhhhhhh… Ya think!?!?!? Ya freakin’ think?!?!?!

Maybe they were planning to launch a new variation of that classic old board game: Checkers.

Heck, Scrabble hasn’t seen any real changes in some time. Maybe they were going to introduce some new, exciting changes to that venerable old word game.

Or, maybe they were planning the new “Munitions of Terrorism” museum, a non-profit meant to help young muslim children orphaned by those nasty manufacturers of the materials used to make suicide vests.

Or… or… or…

Maybe, just maybe, they were planning to blow some things up and shoot some people.

Let’s see, let’s see… if you’re ISIS, you’re thinking:

[ISIS goon #1] “Let’s see: Shoot some people? Check! Oops. Stupid Farook and Tashfeen! They forgot the ‘blow up some things’ part! We have to stop hiring these morons!

[ISIS goon #2] “Hey, Abdul, son of Dufooss, we’re telling these people they get to strap a vest full of explosives on and go blow up themselves along with some other people. We’re not going to find these people in any postgrad departments of MIT, buddy. We get our guys off the short bus.”

What a coincidence! That’s where NPR finds their people too!

— xPraetorius

P.S.: My apologies for the inappropriate timing of this, but NPR’s vast nitwittery didn’t take a break just because an atrocity happened two days earlier. No, they were aggressively stupid the very same day.

Advertisements

39 thoughts on “NPR Watch – 12/4/15 – Lol!

  1. Despite the apparent meaning of “terrorism”, an act must be for political means to be terrorism. That’s the distinction being made.

  2. Welcome AECOME!

    I agree and disagree. The Obama Administration, as well as its lapdogs at NPR were absolutely trying to to make that distinction (<– where I agree with you) in order to avoid calling an obvious incident of terrorism a “terrorist attack.” (<– where I disagree with you)

    Note, for example, the continuing effort to avoid labeling the Fort Hood massacre a "terrorist attack," even though it obviously was. That there's even any debate on that at this point is absolutely astonishing.

    These constant attempts to split hairs comes at the expense of actually understanding what we face today. In a world with ISIS rising, that’s incredibly irresponsible behavior.

    However, both of those incidents, Fort Hood and San Bernardino — as well as other onesie, twosie atrocities — stand as open rebukes to the Obama Admin’s alleged strategy pertaining to islamic terrorism. Hence, they can never be called “terrorist attacks,” either by the Administration, or, of course, by NPR.

    Best,

    — x

    1. Well done, Andrew! I did indeed appreciate, if not enjoy, your poem. The lack of enjoyment is due to the on-the-nose accuracy of the observations in the poem. You poem is a particularly bleak and clear-eyed look at the dominant political trend in the United States.

      Best,

      — x

  3. Here you go, [Deleted: juvenile, gratuitous insult]. This should be right up your alley. Enjoy.
    “https://www.facebook.com/OfficialRussellHoward/videos/10153191125233344/”

    1. The little fella with the book, yeah the monkey on the shirt pretending to read………at least he has more sense to keep his mouth shut, the Intellectual that he is……………..

      1. Amazing Colorstorm, it’s almost as if you were stalking me.
        It is becoming g glaringly apparent [Deleted: juvenile profanity, juvenile gratuitous insult].

        A [Deleted: juvenile profanity, juvenile gratuitous insult].
        You must be so proud.
        That you would take [Deleted: mild profanity] this guy suggests you are supporting the riight to bear arms.
        All this means is you are not really a Christian but a fraud. [Editing reason(s): #11 ]

        [Deleted: juvenile profanity]

      2. Unfortunately my comment is in moderation.

        However I’m sure we can find alternates.
        You will have to use you imagination, CS okay?

        That you would criticize this guy and tacitly support the gun-shop owner ( [Deleted: juvenile gratuitous insult]) and the right for your citizens to own guns strongly suggests [Deleted: juvenile gratuitous insult, inappropriate language].
        That you consider yourself a Christian is merely either a massive delusion or you are simply one humongous fraud. [Editing reason(s): Unknowable, irrelevant speculation ]

        1. hey ark-
          You are quite the careless reader. I said not one word about the owner………

          Of course you would ignore many sensible owners that do not want nor care for press coverage, but that does not fit your template.

          My initial observation is spot on, and you just proved it. Tkx indeed.

          1. I read extremely well thank you, and am perfectly au fait with your delivery style.

            The issue is not about sensible owners.

            And now you are behaving like a sound board for the NRA.
            This is what they thrive on and rub their hands in glee whenever they read such comments as what you make.

            If commonsense and legal action worked against the tobacco companies it can do the same for the gun companies. If people lie you allow it too.

            A revision of campaign funding would also help.

            Besides, the NRA only has 4 mill member, I believe, so in such a large country as yours just who exactly are they representative of?

            For them it is all about money, so please, do not kid yourself they are remotely interested in your personal rights.Surely youy cannot be that naive?
            *Shrugs*
            Then again, maybe you can be?

            They are interested in profits Big. Fat. Profits.

            Plain and simple.

            And to ensure this, and great dividends for the share holders of gun companies they need to sell guns. A lot of guns.

            War and its siblings are not self- sustaining and have to be encouraged, no matter what, and all you are doing is buying into the diatribe of fear.

            So go on, buy a gun, lots of guns, millions of guns. After all, it’s to protect your family, right?

          2. Ark: I’m willing to believe that this was a typo for a well-known appropriate word. If you wish to re-submit, please feel free. Otherwise, if you would make at least some small attempt to edit your content, it might make it through more readily.

            Best,

            — x

          3. You had typoed the word “country” in such a way as to make it get caught by the filtering. With anyone else, I’d have simply fixed the typo and approved the post. However, knowing that you find such things to be “clever.” I didn’t know whether it was intentional or not.

            Best,

            — x

          4. *Hmmm*
            But I can guess.
            All sorted then?
            I see my comments- are still being moderated though, even ones that are perfectly harmless.
            I wonder just how many buzz words you have pegged me for?

          5. About your reading, Ark. You’ve already admitted to “skip/scanning.” That’s something I never do. If someone has taken the time to compose a message to me, I extend to them the courtesy of reading it.

            You, however, have confessed up front that your reading is inadequate.

            Best,

            — x

  4. Kinda funny. The buffoon in this nonsensical, little bit says, “We gotta shoot our way to peace!” Needless to say, he said it with a faux-Southern accent as if to indicate that the only ones who really think this way are those hick, Southern, probably racist rubes who, everyone knows, couldn’t find enough IQ points to get through the third grade.

    Well.

    A few quick observations:
    • “We gotta shoot our way to peace” was, indeed, the way to face, say, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo… Is monkey shirt trying to pretend that we shouldn’t have used our “boom boom sticks” then?
    • If people had had some “boom boom sticks” in Paris, at Charlie Hebdo, at Fort Hood, in San Bernardino, then a whole bunch of innocent people might not have died.
    • Garland, Texas. One cop with a “boom boom stick” killed two terrorists as they attacked a public event. No loss of innocent life. Oops! Simple Obvious Conclusion: where the people are armed, terrorist baboons fail to achieve their goals. Simple, Obvious Corollary from Simple Obvious Conclusion: those who disarm the citizenry are helping terrorists achieve their goals.
    • I wonder whether monkey shirt would be willing to travel to Syria unprotected by a bunch of people armed with “boom boom sticks.”
    • Let’s see what would happen if an ISIS goon — you know they’re here — were to start an attack on a crowd that includes monkey shirt. Think he’d want a “boom boom stick” then?

    Just a few thoughts. None of them should be in any way controversial.

    Best,

    — x

    1. I think the comedian is just that, a comedian, ( no different in this respect to any other comedian, (such as Lewis Black or Jim Jefferies ) and he is simply doing his job. In this sketch he is simply highlighting the absurd reactions that generally follow horrors of mass- shootings in your country. Which, after all, is a fairly regular event these days, it seems.

      However, what is a trifle more worrying from a neutral( non US) outsider’s perspective is the attitude of the gun-shop owner, don’t you?

      Although maybe I am jumping the gun here and you actually think he is perfectly normal?

      So, tell me, do you consider him and his views representative of the general American (Christian) attitude/ approach/view?

      Would you consider buying such a gun?

      If so why?

      If not , why not?

      1. Not sure why this one went into moderation. I wonder whether WordPress sees that you go frequently into moderation because of your inability to control yourself, and simply sends you there automatically now.

        Best,

        — x

      2. I guess that what struck me most was that the “narrator” came off as much more of a clueless rube than the gun-shop owner. After all, the only time where there were good guys with guns at a terrorist attack, there was no innocent loss of life. Every other time, the terrorists took on unarmed targets … with predictable results.

        Yet the sneering narrator concludes only that there should be more restrictions on gun ownership by the people whom the armed psychos — the animals who will get guns no matter what restrictions are in place — have vowed to kill.

        You know what bothers me? The people who put out videos like that are so transparently stupid, and so transparently convinced of the correctness of their transparently stupid views, that we Conservatives fail to take them on with comedy. There’s rich, rich fodder for serious ridicule there.

        Now, that kind of edgy, avant-garde comedy might be out there, but I’m betting that the dominant media sources will never permit it to see any prominence. I have to admit, I’m kind of disappointed that FOX doesn’t try to find it and air it.

        As to the gun shop-owner, I suspect he doesn’t really believe that lightning will come down and strike any muslim who tries to draw the gun with Christian symbols on it. That part of the video smacked of “faked.”

        Best,

        — x

        1. To argue the effects of arming a nation to the teeth to deal with others armed to the teeth seems rather a pointless exercise.
          The results tend to speak for themselves, I’d say.

          As no one in your country seems willing to deal with the cause, other that suggest that everyone really want to partake of this ‘freedom’ you lot always go on about, or even to take measures to at least keep guns out of the hands of if idiots – and that’s a statement that just begs a question, then I guess you must continue to shoot each other to death.

          Best of luck with that approach.
          Isn’t freedom grand?

          1. So, Ark’s solution, when the bad guys are arming themselves to the teeth (his words), is to disarm the good guys. Smaaaaaaaaart! The bad guys’ll never know what to do faced with that dazzling stratagem!

            Oops. They already do. That’s why shootings take place in so-called “gun-free” zones! Darn! But, I’m sure those terrorists will be fooled by your brilliant strategy of disarming the targets the next time, Ark! I’m sure they’ll look around and say to themselves, “Oh, look! A gun-free zone! We’d better get out of here with our guns so that we don’t get into trouble! Let’s go find a place to shoot up where they can shoot us right back!”

            Welllll… Let’s see… quick thought exercise. A muslim terrorist baboon goes up to Ark and threatens him and his family with a gun. In the course of screaming “Allahu Akbar” the none-too-bright goon drops his firearm and it slides over to Ark. What, pray tell, does Ark do with that firearm?

            Well, before the none-too-bright goon dropped his weapon, Ark and his family were officially ready to be classified as: “goners.” However, when the goon drops the weapon, Ark has a second chance. How will he respond to that second chance, one wonders.

            The mind is tempted to move to the comical. There is, in the imagination, a picture of Ark, standing astride his beloved, unshakable principles, and responding, “Here you go, Mr. Gibbering Baboon, Sir… I would not dare touch one of these filthy things! Take it now, and get thee hence!” Grateful and chastened, the gibbering baboon muslim terrorist leaves and sets up a non-profit day care center where he nurtures young children in their journey to adulthood.

            Then, the mind realizes that Ark would just grab the gun and, tremulously to be sure, shoot the gibbering baboon.

            Ark doesn’t disagree that people should have guns when they’re truly needed. He and I disagree only on when they’re truly needed. I think it should be before it’s too late; Ark believes it should be after; hoping, I guess, that the one wielding the gun is a none-too-bright gibbering baboon muslim terrorist who just might drop his gun. Ark thinks I’m stupid, and silly, and nonsensical for my beliefs. I think Ark’s a patsy.

            In the end though, when the gibbering muslim terrorist baboon comes a-knockin’, my family and I are still alive, while Ark …

            I hope it never comes to that, as ISIS has vowed it will. Too many have found out already, though, that ISIS has the means, the troops, the will and the psychosis to make it all happen. And they’re in your country and mine.

            Best,

            — x

          2. No, you dumb funk, the answer is to do away with guns, except where utilized in the military, police etc and the farming community.

            Oh, and ISIS and in fct all of Islam is there because of the Judeo/Christian religion so the answer to this problem should be self evident.

            Blessed are the Cheesemakers.

          3. Sorry. That response is just as dumb as a stump. Do away with guns except for your suggested select groups?

            First: That’s not really “doing away with of guns.
            First(a): Anyone can just print one out now anyway. Do you really think you can just get the guns genie back in the bottle? You are naive!
            Second: The Second Amendment was written specifically to be sure that the citizenry would have recourse to protection against an oppressive government, one of the few groups you’ve allowed to have guns in your scenario!
            Third: You just keep telling yourself all those nutty things about Christianity.
            Fourth: I’m glad we agree about the illegitimacy of Islam.
            Fifth: Apologies about the “mother” jab. I should have said your babysitter. It would have had the benefit of being better snark, and would have avoided the potential pitfall I obviously hit. I plead only that I had to type the response while in a particularly tense moment in the third world hellhole where I’m trying to make the world safe for democracy. Watch the evening news…

            Best,

            — x

          4. Third: You just keep telling yourself all those nutty things about Christianity.

            Now, this intrigues me.
            What nutty things about Christianity are you referring to specifically?

          5. Ark: a simple truth even you might be able to understand: The only way to have a gun only when you truly need one is to … have a gun.

            Another one: The only people who truly need a gun are … the ones who truly need a gun. That particular criterion excludes no one.

            Put together those two statements of the obvious, and one realizes that the idea of disarming the people is truly idiotic.

            Best,

            — x

          6. Sadly, this claim is offset by the stats surrounding firearm deaths…..
            As another example to widdle on your cornflakes.
            The South African farming community are pretty much all armed and most farmers have multiple guns.
            South Africa has the highest murder rate of farmers in the world – who, I shall remind you are, by and large, all armed and generally know their way around a firearm, be it pistol or rifle . This is Africa, they have to.
            Has it helped? No.

            Yet stricter gun control would most certainly be a good beginning.

            It is better than it was, but not good enough yet ..

            Anyway, as you are not even open to any alternative then what really is the point of discussing it?

            As has been said before, if ”you” were not prepared to act in any way whatsoever after Sandy Hook then there is little chances you have any intention of doing so in the future.
            You deserve the outcomes and have no one to blame but yourselves.

            Enjoy your fear-based life.

      3. Oh, and I think I fairly persuasively pointed out that the comedian’s reaction was the absurd one, coming as it did from a lack of information or critical thought.

        Best,

        — x

  5. What, do you suggest, is “the cause?”

    Right now, the primary cause, as cold as this sounds, is that it’s a fad. Pure and simple. It’s a media-driven fad that, when the media reduce their attention, will dry up as all fads do. Despite this temporary uptick, the overall incidence of violence of any kind over the long term is steadily declining in America.

    However, there is a reason for which armed thugs choose “gun-free” zones in which to do their mayhem.

    Best,

    — x

  6. Oh…yes, freedom is grand. Thoroughly, spectacularly, outlandishly, massively grand. So grand that “grand” is woefully inadequate as a word to describe it.

    However, freedom is occasionally messy.

    If you want neat, tidy and orderly, then you want totalitarianism — that paradise where the populace has no guns, but the Great Central Authority has plenty. But, go against the Great Central Authority and — Oops! — you find out, too late, that the guns were in the wrong hands all along.

    Ark, you’re in league with other great heroes of gun control like Hitler, Stalin and Mao, who recognized that an unarmed population is a much more easily-controlled population. I forget what Stalin said, but it was something like, “We don’t let people think, why would we let them own guns?” Something like that.

    Well, I’m sure you’re okay with not thinking for yourself — you do a lot of that — but some of us would like to continue to be contrary … and to think for ourselves.

    Best,

    — x

    1. Lol… Enjoy your [Deleted: juvenile, inappropriate].
      It ls your country, enjoy it. I could [Deleted: mild profanity ] if you want to arm all and sundry and [Deleted: profanity].

      Really, you are such a silly person.

      1. Thing one: Let’s see, let’s see… what is it that caused Ark to throw this juvenile hissy fit? I made the seemingly uncontroversial statement that, indeed, “freedom” is grand. I guess that Ark is foursquare down on the side of slavery, totalitarianism and oppression.

        As I pointed out earlier, in supporting gun control as he does, Ark joins other historical notables such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao… When I give you socialism’s 2oth Century death toll (minimum 120 million), these three ghouls murdered the lion’s share of them. I remarked that Stalin had once said: “We don’t let people think, why would we let them own guns?” I was wrong — faute des circonstances particulièrement difficiles — when I wrote it, Stalin’s quote was actually: “We don’t let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?

        Apparently, it has never caused Ark any intellectual awkwardness that he finds himself in agreement with the murderer of at least 40 million — probably 60 million — people, on whether the people should be allowed to protect themselves.

        Thing two: Ark goes off on a juvenile, profanity-laced tantrum — after having been asked politely numerous times to control himself — and the very last line in his post is… I kid you not: “Really, you are such a silly person.”

        Sometimes, it’s best just to let people with a penchant for half-wittery spill it, and let them expose their intellectual feebleness without additional comment… Sometimes, though, it’s not.

        Best,

        — x

        1. Lol… how you getting on with Veggie Dinosaurs, XP?
          Oh, and did you ever do any research on concerntration camps?
          No … I doubt it.

          Yo do enjoy the sight of your own typing, don’t you?
          Ar you still writing in crayon?
          :>)

          What a very silly person you are …

  7. And with yet another sophomoric post in an as yet unbroken string, Ark the Pointless makes his tiresome, inane, mosquito whine-like presence felt… yet again. What happened, Ark? No dirty words! Was your mommy watching you type this? 🙂

    Best,

    — x

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s