"WHEN IT COMES TO LOWERING THE BAR, HE REALLY RAISED THE BAR"

In his New Rules segment last night, Bill Maher asks why we hold Donald Trump to a lesser standard than politicians in years past. Good question.

VIDEO COURTESY OF HBO

NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

FUCKFACE VON CLOWNSTICK DOUBLES DOWN AT VIOLENCE AT RALLIES

A day after a black man was punched in the face by a white Donald Trump rally attendee and then wrestled to the ground by police officers, Trump shrugged off any responsibility and expressed sympathy for the anger his supports feel.

Asked at Thursday’s Republican debate whether he might have created a tone of violence, Trump responded “I hope not. I truly hope not.” While saying he has not condoned violence against protesters, he defended his supporters as having “tremendous passion.”

“When they see protesters, when they see what’s going in on the country, they have anger. They don’t like seeing bad trade deals, higher taxes, loss of their jobs.”

Violence by Trump supporters has been a recurring issue at his campaign events.

Moderator Jake Tapper noted that Trump has frequently egged on his supporters, “including February 23: ‘I’d like to punch him in the face,’ referring to a protester. February 27: ‘In the good ol’ days, they’d have knocked him out of seat so fast.’ February 1: ‘Knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, okay? Just knock the hell.” He also noted that Trump promised last month to pay for the legal fees of any supporter who roughs up a protester.

“We have some protesters who are bad dudes, they have done bad things,” Trump replied, “They are swinging, they are really dangerous and they get in there and start hitting people. And we had a couple big, strong, powerful guys doing damage to people — not only the loudness, the loudness I don’t mind. But doing serious damage.”

This is a prime example, the by-product if you will of low IQ humans listening to the daily red met bullshit of Fuckface Von Clownstick. For Trump to not condone this stuff, garners him asshole of the day.

Congrats numb-nuts, enjoy, you earned it!

NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

DOUBLING DOWN, CLOWNSTICK SAYS: “I COULD MURDER SOMEONE IN COLD BLOOD AND STILL LEAD THE GOP CANDIDATE FIELD”.

Fuckface Von Clownstick again on Tuesday said he could murder people and his supporters would stay loyal.

Last month, the GOP front runner and real estate mogul said he could shoot someone in cold blood and he would maintain his lead with voters.

“They say I have the most loyal people,” Clownstick said in January, “Where I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible.”

On Tuesday, during a pre-caucus rally in Nevada, Clownstick repeated his claim that he could kill someone without consequence, at least in the polls.

“Sixty-eight percent,” he said, “would not leave under any circumstance. I think that means murder, I think it means anything, okay?”

NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

FUCKFACE VON CLOWNSTICK SUFFERS AS A YOUNG MAN BY BEING "LOANED" ONE COOL MILLION BY DAD AND EXPECTS US TO FEEL SORRY FOR HIM

White billionaires born into massive privilege aren’t usually known for their rags-to-riches tales, but Trump is trying to sell one to the American public. Or, at least, to Matt Lauer.

In a recent interview, the Donald told NBC, “My whole life really has been a ‘no’ and I fought through it. It has not been easy for me, it has not been easy for me. And you know I started off in Brooklyn, my father gave me a small loan of a million dollars.”

This bit of deluded runaway privilege was too good for Stephen Colbert to pass up, so he took time out Wednesday night to mock the GOP ex-frontrunner.

“Clearly, this is an inspiring tale of a young man made good,” Colbert said. “The classic story of riches to richer. Donald was just a humble boy from the boroughs and wanted nothing more than to escape his provincial life and make his way in the big city… Donald dared to venture into a land he didn’t own.”



Donald Trump has long tried to sell a tale of scrappy, self-made man, but it has been exposed over and over again as largely bogus.

Reality is, that 99 percent of this country eke by without a penny from mom or dad, let alone a million dollars.

NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

PLEASE DON'T VOTE

REPUBLICANS WOULD RATHER YOU NOT VOTE THIS MID-TERM CYCLE - THIS WAY THEY CAN WIN

Video Courtesy of TYT




The Republican party is counting on poor voter turnout to win back the Senate on November 4th, 2014. Do your part to help the GOP and stay home

The sad thing is, this is supposed to comedy, but too often the case, when mocking the republican, comedy is reality, and it then no longer becomes funny.

Get the hell out and vote readers!

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives

Harriet Hayes: I don’t even know what the sides are in the culture wars.
Matt Albie: Well, your side hates my side because you think we think you are stupid, and my side hates your side because we think you are stupid.

It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs. Liberals usually support such social welfare programs and higher taxes to finance them, and conservatives usually oppose them.

Defined as such, liberalism is evolutionary novel. Humans (like other species) are evolutionary designed to be altruistic toward their genetic kin, their friends and allies, and members of their deme (a group of intermarrying individuals) or ethnic group. They are not designed to be altruistic toward an indefinite number of complete strangers whom they are not likely ever to meet or interact with. This is largely because our ancestors lived in a small band of 50-150 genetically related individuals, and large cities and nations with thousands and millions of people are themselves evolutionary novel.

The examination of the 10-volume compendium The Encyclopedia of World Cultures, which describes all human cultures known to anthropology (more than 1,500) in great detail, as well as extensive primary ethnographies of traditional societies, reveals that liberalism as defined above is absent in these traditional cultures. While sharing of resources, especially food, is quite common and often mandatory among hunter-gatherer tribes, and while trade with neighboring tribes often takes place, there is no evidence that people in contemporary hunter-gatherer bands freely share resources with members of other tribes.

Because all members of a hunter-gatherer tribe are genetic kin or at the very least friends and allies for life, sharing resources among them does not qualify as an expression of liberalism as defined above. Given its absence in the contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life. Liberalism may therefore be evolutionary novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value.

Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.

Even though past studies show that women are more liberal than men, and blacks are more liberal than whites, the effect of childhood intelligence on adult political ideology is twice as large as the effect of either sex or race. So it appears that, as the Hypothesis predicts, more intelligent individuals are more likely to espouse the value of liberalism than less intelligent individuals, possibly because liberalism is evolutionary novel and conservatism is evolutionary familiar.

The primary means that citizens of capitalist democracies contribute their private resources for the welfare of the genetically unrelated others is paying taxes to the government for its social welfare programs. The fact that conservatives have been shown to give more money to charities than liberals is not inconsistent with the prediction from the Hypothesis; in fact, it supports the prediction. Individuals can normally choose and select the beneficiaries of their charity donations. For example, they can choose to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti, because they want to help them, but not to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Chile, because they don’t want to help them. In contrast, citizens do not have any control over whom the money they pay in taxes benefit. They cannot individually choose to pay taxes to fund Medicare, because they want to help elderly white people, but not AFDC, because they don’t want to help poor black single mothers. This may precisely be why conservatives choose to give more money to individual charities of their choice while opposing higher taxes.

Incidentally, this finding substantiates one of the persistent complaints among conservatives. Conservatives often complain that liberals control the media or the show business or the academia or some other social institutions. The Hypothesis explains why conservatives are correct in their complaints. Liberals do control the media, or the show business, or the academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions. They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of (evolutionarily novel) modern life.

Like yesterday's blog, [which depicted the conservative as mentally ill, in which a government study concluded "that conservatism can be explained as Bill psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity"], we get the true DNA of the 'conservative", which at the end of the day - is not a very pretty picture.

Call me an optimist readers, but I believe our government will come up with a totally unsatisfactory solution to a completely unnecessary crisis. Whys is that you ask? Because both of these studies, when combined, logically explain why we have radical right wing nut jobs willing to sabotage both the US and global economy over ideological psycho babble bullshit.

Say what you will about America readers, I believe it's a place where any child - even when he's dumber than a box of rocks, he can grow up to wreck the world economy, just like Ted "Carnival" Cruz.

 NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

LOW - INFORMATION VOTERS

Low-Information Voters LIV's 

“If you’re one of the 5 percent of American voters who are still undecided on who to vote for, it’s okay to admit you just don’t really give a shit. Seriously, if you still can’t figure out who you like more –Mitt Romney or Barrack Obama– stay home… because you probably couldn’t find your polling place anyway. I mean, what more information does someone need to make this choice? Obama has been President for nearly four years. And Mitt Romney has been running for President since 1971, when his space egg incubated and he burst out of an astronaut’s chest.” ~ Bill Maher


Is there a bigger hoax around than the teapublican party? All charm and promise - though the nuts and bolts may be a bit harsher reality. Will the lies work? They sure hope so, because the tea party enthusiasts could not possibly win without this block of voters - which is a "special" group: The "low-information voters," or LIVs, a term that keeps popping up of late.

The term is mainly used to refer to those who vote conservative against their interests. Given the recent media coverage about "low-information" voters we thought at NFTOS - that we'd educate those Americans who rely on talk radio and less-than-factual hearsay from friends and family members to shape their political decisions.

Mitt Romney is going hard after these unlettered voters in a handful of swing states — voters who are considered critical to winning the election. Bill Maher has a better take on these unlettered voters, watch below:





Now enter the uninformed voter. Twenty-five percent of Americans are functionally illiterate. Ninety percent get their news from corporate TV. Too many think Iraq attacked us on 9/11, that Barack is a Muslim, that Medicare and welfare are bankrupting the country. The uninformed voter doesn't seem to care that their only source of information is Fixed Noise, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann 'the man" Coulter:

FOX LIES

FAUX LIES

FIXED NOISE LIES





The unlettered voter is trained to worship capitalism, even as his own personal wealth declines.

Civics, history and geography have all but disappeared from our schools. The American Taliban loves this type of base- a dumber lot if you will, this way, it makes it easier to blame Obama.

In short , LIV's are a precious commodity and must be cultivated carefully, how better to do so than though a clumsily disguised "news network" - to pipe in the nonsense? LIV's are responsible for their own ignorance, and if they're getting most of their "information" from Faux News then may God help us all.

Information literacy and facts are becoming more and more important in an ever expanding world of chaos. Many tea party enthusiasts watch Faux News with a high level of fervency, ir-regaurdless of truth or facts. And with every Faux News talking head [Hannity, O'Reilly, Malakin, Coulter], they become more hopelessly clueless about what's going on around them. The creed of right wing media is to lie, and deceive frequently, you know, feed the hungry wolves as much red meat as you can so as to ensure a dumber base, one whom can be manipulated easily - even when they know its truly better to tell the truth poorly than to lie well.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West