Things to say in the debate

The RG want GWB to say the following things, as appropriate, during the debates with JFK (no, the other one, the one whose running now).

"Would someone remind the Senator that he is running for the Presidency, and not Ambassador to France."

"Senator, does that make any more sense in French?"

"Senator, is that your final answer?"

"Sure, you say that now..."

"Senator Kennedy...sorry...Kerry. I keep getting you confused."

"Um...I'll have difficulty responding. That answer was too...ah...'nuanced' for me."

"You know, I think I know what they mean when they say you are 'nuanced'. Back in Texas, we have another word for it..."

"I remember when the media pundits excoriated me that the 'Axis of Evil' countries were not at all alike. They forgot to mention to you that Iraq is NOT Vietnam...and even I know that one."

"The entire media seems to have missed a key point: most of Iraq's WMD program was not _IN_ Iraq - they were in Libya. And we have them. 400 tons of Uranium hexaflouride, hundreds of tons of equipment. We would not have had them if Saddam was still in power."

"Senator Kerry, if you were President, Saddam Houssein would still be in power. The legacy of tolerating tyrrany should be not one that America should be willing to accept. Nor, as we learned on 9/11, can it afford to."

"Is the only source you have been listening to about Iraq the mainstream media? Their ‘if it bleeds, it leads’ philosophy radically affects what the American people see. While I regret every casualty, our troops are doing an amazingly good job in Iraq."

First Message from the Right Gestalt

We come in peace...

Well...okay, that's not true in the least.

We come in order to do battle with the evil Left Ideology - hardly rising to the level of a Great Gestalt, the parasitic Ideas of the Left live at the lowest level, like bugs, inflaming the worst parts of their host (pride, ignorance, selfishness, egoity, envy, cowardice, averice, gluttony, anger, sloth, entitlement) and devouring their best parts (selflessness, humility, dispassion, kindness, constancy, sanity, self-honesty), leaving mindless, addicted zombies, aching to get their 'fix' of more something-for-nothing, more false promises, and more kooky Left ideas, despite what it does to them in the long run.

The difference between the Left Ideology and the Right Gestalt is that We infect no one who does not choose to be infected. We don't prey on the dumb or the young. We don't cheat and indoctrinate others with a formidable wall of pseudo-logic that doesn't hold up to scrutiny: We don't need to make up facts, on the contrary, We thrive on facts.

We come to infect, but not take away. When you thrive, we thrive. The difference between the Left Ideology and the Right Gestalt is the difference between parasitism and symbiosis - they seek to dominate, We seek to help. The LI is opportunistic - they'll take anybody. The RG is selective - we'll take anybody willing to think, discrimate against foolishness.

The LI is shifty, hard to pin down, occasionally makes an end-run around us - it's capable of tremendous mutation (or apparent mutation). The RG is stable, based in solid Universal Truths and current and Historical Facts, which makes it slow to respond on occasion, but when it does it has sufficient checks-and-balances to be pretty sure it's in the best interest.

As you can see - this is a War - carried out on the battlespace in the minds of men, and it's a war that has been going on for a while, and will continue for a while more.

Join Us. Become part of the Gestalt, Fight the LI. We will try our darndest not to let your down.

The RG on Abortion...

The Right Gestalt wonders why, exactly, we are willing to prematurely deliver and spend much time and effort saving the life of a child who cannot continue in the womb, for some reason, but that same child could be killed in the womb without consequence, and wonders if the difference of if it's wanted or not by the mother should be the ultimate determinator of its end. Certainly, most of the children who have been aborted would be wanted by _someone_ out there, so it really comes down to the mother.

The RG wonders what is magical about birth, anyway? Gestation being 9 months, if the child is born at 8 months and you subsequently suck their brains out with a vacuum, it would be right to consider it murder, but not if you do it while part-way in the womb.

The RG wonders when it _is_ okay to kill a child. Certainly, the RG can conceive of pathological cases - if the life of the mother is threatened it would be self defense. If the child was going to be born with a congenital disease which will most assuredly kill them, and/or would make their lives a misery in the meantime, certainly the RG isn't going to say we should deny some kind of humane solution, no more than we would suggest passively torturing someone (say, by denying them food) who actually, for instance, murdered someone, before putting them to their rightful death.

It appears to the RG that the Left Ideation has infected it's hosts with the concept that an inconvenience is an injustice, and thus should be removed by any means, no matter what the side-effect.

The RG further wonders how there can be people who are against, for instance, medical testing on Animals, but who support the killing of children for selfish reasons.

The RG wonders about the 'privacy' assertion in connection to all this. It occurs to the RG that the LI thinks that murdering a person in the privacy of one's own home shouldn't be considered murder. It is reminded of the case of the cannibal in Germany, looking for 'the ultimate kick', who killed a willing victim and then subsequently ate him, was cleared of 'murder' charges and instead convicted of 'manslaughter' charges. Cannibal jailed for eating willing victim .

The RG feels that children should be protected, but that there are too many variables for it to make a hard-and-fast rule of law to preempt the practice in the appropriate cases: there should be a presumption of freedom to act, and of parents 'doing the right thing' in the edge cases - and there should be reckening for not 'doing the right thing'. So, perhaps people who choose abortion should be put, as a matter of form, under penalty for manslaughter, and if any of the DA or one of 13 people on a jury think that they had a good reason to do what they did, they should be let off, otherwise, not. The penalty of even a minimal sentence will serve the deterrent effect of putting the 'inconvenience' matter in perspective.