liberal vermin hypocrisy exposed in a clear and concise manner

[Herman]

[Herman]

[Herman]

[Herman]

It is bad enough Walz is an uber progtard. But, he is also a fraudster, a pathological liar, and a hypocrite.

[Herman]

[Prof Emeritus at Fawk U]

It is bad enough Walz is an uber progtard. But, he is also a fraudster, a pathological liar, and a hypocrite.

Wow, early January and I'm not sure which one of these posts qualifies for post of the year.   

[Herman]

[Herman]

We love our unvetted immigrants."
"We can't have unvetted federal agents coming into Minnesota!  Can't just let anyone in!"
- Progtards 2026

 

[Herman]

[Herman]

When ICE acts under a Trump administration, the outrage is instant, intense, and morally absolute. Orange Man Bad, therefore the act itself must be proof of systemic evil.

Yet when the RCMP, acting under Justin Trudeau's federal authority, used mounted police to charge a crowd in Ottawa — knocking down a grandmother who posed no threat to officers or anyone else — where was that same outrage?

She didn't die, thankfully. But anyone being trampled by a horse carries a very real risk of death or catastrophic injury. And unlike the Good case, this woman wasn't ramming officers with a vehicle or presenting an immediate physical threat. She was standing at a peaceful protest.
So here's the honest question:
Why was one incident framed as unforgivable state violence, while the other was brushed off as "unfortunate," "necessary," or "contextual"?
Is it because one can be pinned to Trump — someone you already despise — while the other happened under Trudeau, someone you broadly support?
Is it because outrage feels safer when it aligns neatly with existing political teams?

If your reaction was "this is horrifying" when Trump's government was involved, but "well, it's complicated" when Trudeau's government was, that's not a coincidence. That's selective moral outrage.

[Herman]

I knew it.

[Herman]

[Herman]

3 Communists walk into a bar, one orders a $15 mixed drink, one a $10 Martini, and the other �a $6 beer. When the bill comes, based on their mantra, they are forced to split the bill equally.

Next week, the three, once again, return to the bar, but this time, they all ask for separate checks, so the bartender asks them, why aren't they splitting the bill equally, since in communism, everyone pays the same fair share. The three communists reluctantly agree, and once again split the check 3 ways.

The following week, the three communists return, but with a mob of devoted followers, and protest the bartender, to change the prices of all their drinks, to the cheapest drink on the menu.

In fear of his business vandalized or burned down, the bartender agrees. So the following week all the communists come in and enjoy their $6 equally priced drinks, and celebrate the successes of communism.

The Communists continue this for several more weeks, until one Friday they return to the bar, to find it closed, with a sign out front, stating that the bar is out of business.
And that comrades, is how communism works.

[Herman]

[Herman]