Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Belligerent Design

Belligerent Design

From Foxfier:

at a family gathering in central Oregon I noticed this car parked at our hotel and couldn’t believe the walking cliche; while I snapped a couple of pictures, a man walked up and said “hey, at least let me wash it before you take pictures!”

Being as…quick thinking… as I am, I said “Hope you don’t mind, it’s quite impressive.”

“If you say so. My wife’s doing….”

Hope it’s good enough to use.

Bumper Sticker - Oregon - Liberius

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I love the Overpopulation crowd. If they really believed in their cause why don’t they Check Out. Maybe it will be better for them the Second time they are born. LOL!

    aerily in reply to Photoman. | August 9, 2013 at 12:35 pm

    overpopulation and the food supply/natural resources/fresh water are eventually going to be a problem. I think that what most of these folks are saying is think twice before having that 3rd or 4th kid.

      Mike-in-Mass in reply to aerily. | August 9, 2013 at 1:08 pm

      I’ll have as many kids as I want. If my wife and I can provide for the kids we created, why should we limit our family?

      Many of those who can NOT provide for their offspring have many many bastards (with several different fathers) who live off of me! Maybe THEY should do their part to control overpopulation.

      Of course these stickers would appear on a self-righteous Prius. Does the Toyota dealer include a variety of these stickers in the glove box upon purchase?

      hrh40 in reply to aerily. | August 9, 2013 at 1:10 pm

      No, actually, no, they will not.

      If corrupt government officials would stop interfering, if corrupt environmentalists would stop mandating that food be used as energy, e.g., ethanol, if corrupt government officials egged on by corrupt environmentalists would stop saving one-inch fish at the expense of farmers, oh, say in California, we will never have a problem with water and/or food.

      Akatsukami in reply to aerily. | August 9, 2013 at 10:16 pm

      “overpopulation and the food supply/natural resources/fresh water are eventually going to be a problem.”

      Wrong. The expected doubling time for the current world population is…NEVER.

      SmokeVanThorn in reply to aerily. | August 10, 2013 at 7:47 pm

      1977 called. It wants its clichés back.

Up in Washington they call people like that “moderates”.

NC Mountain Girl | August 9, 2013 at 7:32 am

For the second bumper sticker on a car, I take 5 points off my estimate of the driver’s IQ. The thrid, 10 points, the fouth, twenty points. The fifth, forty point

u
i

DINORightMarie | August 9, 2013 at 7:44 am

I don’t get the “walking cliche” – is it because she is consistent in her delusions, as revealed by the bumper stickers?

Perhaps because the Prius matches her ideology? Or that she believes science will save her? …that she (or someone in her family) went to Princeton and has all that claptrap indoctrination ingrained in her? …that she is pro-life and pro-baby but against population growth?

That last one is what I put money on.

Delusional. And all too common today.

Uncle Samuel | August 9, 2013 at 7:55 am

Well, she (bet on it) has certainly drunk a full glass or two of the Kool-Aid.

casualobserver | August 9, 2013 at 8:02 am

I really don’t get the Pro Child Pro Choice sticker. Unless I match it with the Overpopulation idea. Then, I guess, there is some new idea that making the “choice” to not bring the fetus/child into the world is “pro-child”?? How bizarre.

    Ah, but you misunderstand.

    This is one of the most mind numbingly bizarre ideas to come from today’s modern liberals. They aren’t saying that they are “Pro-Child” because they value the life of an unborn child or that they are against abortion. Make no mistake, they are pro-abortion. To them being “Pro-Choice” means they are “Pro-Child”, however ridiculous and absurd that is to a rational, reasoning adult.

    What they are alluding to is their belief that an unwanted child will have a horrible life, and therefore aborting (the sanitized word for “killing”) it, is the good and moral thing to do. To them there is no contridiction in them saying “I am pro child. Let’s abort it!”

      GrumpyOne in reply to Miata Shinsen. | August 9, 2013 at 12:33 pm

      Bah!

      “Pro Choice” is merrily an excuse for convenience as opposed to the practice of personal responsibility.

      Another mobile Prius billboard…

        I disagree – there is another component to the equation and that is “When does life begin?” I don’t think that a zygote is a “living” human being. Therefore I’m pro-choice.

        I also think that it’s reasonable to conclude that life begins before the umbilical cord is cut.

        To me this issue of abortion is not a simple question.

          A human life evolves from conception to death. This is an objective truth. It is not controversial. It is not subject to debate. Without preemptive intervention (e.g. abortion or premeditated murder), this life will continue to develop until nature decides to render it incoherent, which may occur at anytime during the chaotic process we call “life”.

          The pro-choice position is founded on an article of faith (e.g. viability, inhuman matter). It is perpetuated through indifference to the value of human life. Premeditated murder (i.e. forcefully intervention to abruptly curtail the evolution of a human life) without cause or due process is a gross violation of basic human rights.

          Women only have the choice and right to engage in sexual relations, prevent conception, and self-defense. They do not have the right to commit premeditated murder for political, economic, or social gain, or for personal convenience. They do not have the right to cause a general devaluation of human life.

          Liberty is only suitable and possible for women, and men, capable of self-moderating, responsible behavior. Individuals who are incapable of exhibiting this control, including those who commit murder without cause or due process, are classified as criminals, and are forcefully removed from society or this world. They have committed crimes against the individual, society, or humanity, and other women and men have standing to prevent them from committing subsequent violations of basic human rights, including our unalienable right to life.

          This is for n.n (unable to reply directly)

          That was a well stated counter. While it’s true that there is a continuum from conception to death I’m would not call the zygote to be a “living” being. I don’t pretend that I have an objective answer to when live begins. The options, as I see it are:

          1. conception (zygote)
          2. when the heart beat starts
          3. when the brain is formed and brain waves exist
          4. at birth when the umbilical cord is cut.

          I don’t think 1 & 4 hold water (we disagree here I know) and 2 & 3 are not very satisfying.

          Interestingly enough I consider Roe v Wade to be a pathetic legal and philosophical but an excellent political compromise. A woman can abort the fetus in the first trimester but cannot after those 14 weeks.

          The Classical Liberal:

          Let’s discuss what we do know. We know that a human life begins its evolution at conception. We know that it will continue to evolve until there is a natural or artificial intervention resulting in its death.

          Now let’s discuss a legal standard, which demonstrates reasonable correlation to what we consider a distinguishing characteristic of human life: consciousness. The legal standard for death is the cessation of brain activity. The imperfect dual following conception is the emergence of brain activity (around 1 month follow conception or the last menstrual period). Imperfect because development will continue following conception until death, and, as far as we know, will not continue thereafter. A reasonable compromise would be to recognize the unalienable Rights of an individual human life from the emergence of brain activity until their death or cessation of brain activity.

          The point is that we need objective, reproducible standards which correspond to what we know and don’t know, which recognize the unique value of a human life, and are consistent throughout its evolution. We cannot be selective. We cannot choose arbitrary standards, e.g. “viability.” We cannot normalize murder (e.g. abortion) without cause or due process (e.g. elective abortion), and certainly not for reason of wealth, welfare, or convenience.

          A further, related point is that liberty is only suitable and possible for individuals capable of self-moderating, responsible behavior. The choice to have an abortion implies that a woman is incapable of meeting this prerequisite for liberty. This is the reason we limit the liberty of children and other immature individuals. The reason we limit the liberty of criminals and other unprincipled individuals.

          That said, what do you think would be the change in perception of a human life early in its evolution (e.g. zygote) if it were to be named? Human consciousness is correlated and directly proportional with associations. Instead of calling it a zygote, what if we assigned this emerging life form a name, say Bob or Nancy? Would that invite protection of the young, innocent life form? When does a human life acquire value? Is it only when it can be exploited for a political, economic, or social cause?

          I think people need to make better choices. They need to voluntarily accept responsibility for their actions, including, and perhaps especially, sexual behavior. The consequences of rejecting this basic criterion for liberty will not be limited to the individuals who exhibit this unconstrained behavior.

    Mike-in-Mass in reply to casualobserver. | August 9, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    The Left’s ideal population is between 14 – 40 years old. Here they are most fertile, able-bodied, immature, impressionable, and inexperienced. AKA ideal little liberals that will be molded into useful idiots / slaves.

    By utilizing Obamacare to deny medical care to those with health problems 0-13 years of age and those 40+ the “less desirables” will simply die off on their own.

    *POOF* the overpopulation problem is solved.

Is that the Toyota Prius or Hubris? Overpopulation? Yeah, let’s do away with people to save the environment. Then we can smoke our dope without being bothered. Pets are OK. People are not.

BTW: Science and theology are not at odds as the media and this bumper sticker want us to believe. They are two different fields of study with the nexus being historical proofs.
As a Christian I believe in theist evolution -a finely tuned theistic universe that began with the Big Bang, a personal cause of the universe and a theistic objective morality.
Check out this website: http://biologos.org/

Her sticker:
Democrats think the glass is half full
Republicans think the glass is theirs

The correct version:
Democrats think the glass is half full
Republicans look for a way to fill the glass

    DINORightMarie in reply to rinardman. | August 9, 2013 at 9:44 am

    I would say the correct version is:

    Democrats think the glass is theirs, and anything that may deign to give you to fill it is all you get;

    Republicans think the glass is YOURS, and you fill it with whatever you want – but YOU fill it, not the government.

    But that wouldn’t fit on a bumper sticker, would it? 😉

      rinardman in reply to DINORightMarie. | August 9, 2013 at 10:12 am

      I like your version, but I think you might make a small change: Democrats think the glass is the government’s, and anything they may deign to give you to fill it is all you get;

    Radegunda in reply to rinardman. | August 9, 2013 at 11:31 am

    Democrats think a Republican is obligated to buy them a glass a fill it to the top.

I can sympathize with one of the stickers. Whenever I’m asked if I’m born again my reply is, “I don’t need to be. I’m Jewish and I got it right the first time.”

Note that with a few exceptions you find that when you see a vehicle with its rear plastered with political stickers it’s a leftist. One or two stickers may be an attempt to publicize something and I can see that. For that matter, I am pretty sure I had the last “Save Tiger Stadium” bumper sticker, which finally came off fourteen years after the decision to tear the park down had been made.

But no one can,or should, read a half dozen, ten, fifteen stickers in traffic, or is able to do so. The purpose in this sort of display is to exhibit that the driver is a wonder, righteous, sensitive person.

And more and more it strikes me that for most (by no means all) leftists,the primary focus is on oneself,of proving to others and yourself that you are virtuous, righteous, and morally superior.

    george in reply to Alex Bensky. | August 9, 2013 at 12:59 pm

    P-R-I-U-S

    (People Riding In Underpowered Scooters )

    Prius drivers buy the car as a statement of who they wish to project they are (who they want you to think who they are!), as opposed to buying a car for its utility and value.

    (brilliant marketing ploy by Toyota!)

    i don’t think I’ve ever seen a Prius with a bumper sticker that was not for some moonbat issue.

    B_Angel in reply to Alex Bensky. | August 9, 2013 at 4:18 pm

    Nah, typically the purpose of a dozen or more bumper stickers is to help hold together the rusted rattletrap of a vehicle that the liberal who can’t get/hold a good paying job is driving.

DINORightMarie | August 9, 2013 at 9:49 am

Given the last sentence in @AlexBensky’s post, check this out from Bill Whittle (h/t Right Scoop):

http://therightscoop.com/fantastic-bill-whittle-speech-at-the-western-conservative-summit-2013/

“Unearned moral superiority.” Brilliant!

Yes, the walking cliches are out there. Against all reason, common sense and probability. I have three siblings, all Ivy League graduates, and when the subject is politics, nothing but Progressive cliches come out of their mouths.

It’s all redundant; the “OBAMA 2012” sums it all up nicely.

I do sorta like the one about the glass, though Dems really seem to think that the glass is full, and if it runs down a bit, they’ll just print some more water to fill it up again. As for what Repubs think, well, nowadays I really can’t tell.

“SCIENCE is our SALVATION”

Science is based on independent inquiry, objectivity, reason, evidence and empiricism.

There’s nothing scientific about a person who doesn’t bother to investigate the claims of journalists and politicians, scrutinize their headlines and legislation (e.g.,Obamacare), are willfully ignorant of economic data and readily pardons the malfeasance of the liars, extortionists and tyrants in office.

That person has blind faith, superstition and evil stupidity.

Human life is an emergent phenomenon form conception; not from birth or an arbitrary moment of “viability”. Pro-choice is a analogous to the position which did not oppose and did not support slavery, it was indifferent.

Windmills have limited utility and benefits. They cannot be reasonably isolated from the environment and are therefore not suitable for base load energy production. As low density energy producers, they require occupation of large tracts of land, which displace and destroy animal, plant, and human life throughout its life cycle: recovery, manufacturing, deployment, operation, and reclamation.

We don’t all live downstream. We cannot all enjoy a beachfront property in Hawaii or a bench-front property on a mountain side.

The cause of overpopulation is mismanagement of natural resources. For example, the problem with encouraging converged migration or immigration, especially illegal or unmeasured immigration, is that it creates population bubbles which cannot be reconciled with available resources in a reasonable period (i.e. catastrophic “climate” change).

Science is a philosophy necessarily constrained to a limited frame of reference. People would do well to understand the significance of that criterion. As for religion or philosophy, I would suggest judging each by the principles engendered (e.g. respect individual dignity, recognize an intrinsic value of human life).

P-R-I-N-C-E-T-O-N

here (the car) and there (the school) the umbrella for all manner of narscistic delusion of the ‘good.’

The utter moral destruction of the Ivies is a serious problem for society.

They buy a Prius and probably supported the GM bail-out.

What is the little symbol that looks like a copy of the ‘Jesus Fish’?

I am particularly struck by the tension between “Obama 2012” and “Science is our Salvation”. If there is anything we have been learning about leftists it is the extent to which they profess their allegiance to science all the while demonstrating a remarkable aversion thereto.

And studies have been done proving that people who use the fish symbol (and add Darwin, Science, legs, whatever) usually do so to express their hatred and contempt for Christians. I don’t have a problem with their not being Christian, I just don’t understand the need to go around saying “I hate you guys!”

    n.n in reply to rick67. | August 9, 2013 at 4:17 pm

    They think that their gestures are sufficiently nuanced to escape discernment by less coherent minds. It’s a condescending perception of other people, specifically their competing interests, which gives rise to unmitigated arrogance and its associated corruption.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend