That is not to say that...I believe you shouldn't be able to have an abortion. Or that I believe that all school children should be taught creationism. Or that I believe rich people should not pay taxes. Or that I believe the Playboy club should be cancelled after only two episodes. It DOES mean I am a bastard, but what are you going to do.
That said, I saw this post from a guy on Facebook:
Now, on the quick surface, it seems, to me, like I should be agreeing with this. But, it could be contrariness, but this feels like we are missing the point. Is this the Conservative agenda? `Cause, it seems like they are treating the symptoms.
Let's take it, frame by frame it:
"Obama: Gone"
OK...don't lead with this. you've just abandoned reality and therefore compromised your entire point. Obama is not going anywhere. He's the incumbent. For God's sake, we re-elected George W. Bush (mostly). Incumbents don't lose. Plus, he is one charismatic mofo.
Yes, I'd like to see someone else in the White House. See, it turns out that Obama, after it was all said and done, is a politician. It appears to me, based on the reaction to his administration, that some folks missed that at some point. "Change we can believe in?" From a politician? You BELIEVED that? Then, yeah...I can see your disappointment.
But, if he's out, who's in? Any Republican with two brain cells to rub together and a dream of ACTUALLY BEING President is NOT running in 2012. Not touching that one with a 39 and a half foot pole. So, basically, you're stuck with Bachmann. Good Luck with that.
Obama's not going anywhere. Should he? I dunno...Life ain't NBC...sometimes you need more than 2 episodes to ultimately show the value of your show. Remember the first two episodes of Next Gen? I'm just sayin'...the next guy (or gal) is just going to be another politician. Who says it gets any better? The best years of my life were the Bush presidency. The worst have been the Obama presidency. I'm willing to call that a coincidence and give him another 4, so ...whatev.
"Borders: Closed"
We've accomplished this. Though, I'm not so sure that it's a good thing. I mean, I think Barnes and Noble is all smug now. And how long do they notice that they don't have any decent brick-and-mortar competition anymore? I think we did ourselves a disservice with...huh? what's that? Oh, THOSE borders. Oh, ok...umm...
You don't like peaches? I like peaches. I fucking LOVE peaches. Peach Cobbler is DELICIOUS. Even Golden Corral makes good peach cobbler. And that's saying something. So, what you got against peaches.
If you read that and you still want to build a fuckin wall, then you must hate peaches. Point is...there are down sides to illegal and legal immigrants. But there are upsides too. And some of those upsides are pretty much what made this country great. Again, we're missing the point. We're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We need people to come to America with that proverbial American dream. `Cause look what happens without them.
There's problems with illegal immigrants. Let's pull our heads out of our asses and fix THOSE PROBLEMS. It CAN be done.
Damn, Imma miss peaches.
"Language: English only"
This is just plain bigotry. You can make fun of other cultures if you are respectful of them and their beliefs. Or you can just be full of hate and bigotry and see how that affects the available pool of chicks that will do you. (here's a hint: it rarely improves it.)
I live in America and I speak English. I also support freedom. If I go in the dry cleaners or the 7-11 and the dude working there does NOT speak English and we cannot communicate, I am going to go to a different establishment. If I call the Chinese restaurant and the person who answers the phone doesn't speak English, I am calling a different restaurant. I wish them luck in their business and their endeavors but, personally, I do not care for that interaction.
But they should be free to have it. If they can make the 'not speaking English' thing work for them and they are happy, contributing members of society, God bless them. But I'm not going to work with them. And you don't have to, either.
But bitching about them doesn't really do any good. Look at it this way...for everyone who feels deeply and strongly that only English should be spoken in America, ask yourself this question: If I cast a magic spell so that everyone in America or who sets foot on American soil can, without foreknowledge or effort, speak perfect, flawless English, are you now going to rush to hang out with and/or do business with all the brown people you can find? somehow, I doubt it...
"Culture: Constitution and the Bill of Rights!"
Wait, what? what does the one have to do with the other? From Merriam Webster:
So, the Constitution (and Bill of Rights) is certainly part of this for our American Society. but is just one of many many parts. Is it the most important part? From a governmental standpoint, absolutely. But that is just one of many many standpoints.
I think this is just a poorly phrased way of the feeling that the current government seems to have softened (if not, abandoned) their reverence and deference for this document. And I can certainly get behind that sentiment. Too much government seems to be a problem we're facing and the Constitution seems to be written to be interpreted to provide a baseline framework. Such framework can show us where we are pushing and crossing the line. That's valuable. I do agree that we should pay more attention to it.
But don't call it our 'culture.' Our culture needs to be (and is) so much more than that. Putting that way just hurts your point. Again.
"Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare!"
Woo boy..this is a ridiculous one.
Firstly, "Drug Free" itself is dumb. What it means is "Y'all should not do the unpopular drugs because they are part of the 'fringe' (aka unapproved) part of society. Pot is bad, man! don't you get that! Hand me that handle of Jack, will ya?" Why do we judge people by the drugs they use, categorizing them as good (alcohol, caffeine, ibuprofen), medium (tobacco, morphine, Pseudoephedrine) and bad (marijuana, heroin, etc.) Oh, because we judge and categorize EVERYTHING...yeah, that's right.
Let's judge people on their actions and not their choice of recreation. I'm not saying we make them a protected class or nothin, but jeez...if I say, here is my friend Bob. He's a heroin addict., you see that negative reaction you have...You know NOTHING about Bob, at all. and you already dislike, mistrust and want to distance yourself from him. How is that not bigotry? It can be logical, reasonable, understandable, and even wise, but it's still bigotry. It is still prejudice. I'm just saying...
And, about this so-called "War on Drugs," go here. Don't see nothing? Just wait...it'll be along in a minute.
Now, about the Welfare folks...again, missing the point. The point is that Welfare is clearly broken. And the drug use of the recipients has absolutely nothing to do with that. This is a program that is supposed to help people who have faced bad luck and hard times. What the fuck is wrong with that? Nothing, that's what...if you have any other answer to that question, shut up. Now, it is undeniable that the system is broken and needs fixing. It may be that cost of the repairs exceeds the blue book value of the system and it is just time to scrap it and get something new. If so, let's do that...Drug testing people isn't going to solve that. So, if a person who is legitimately on welfare to feed his or her family for a matter of weeks while desperately searching for a job happens to smoke a little pot on Friday night, he should be denied while another individual who basically sees the welfare program as an easy way to spend 6 months playing Wii and drinking cheap beer while doing nothing until the benefits run out should not because he is drug free. That's idiotic. Obviously, if a guy is abusing the welfare system because he is strung out on heroin, he should be denied the benefits. But we are denying the benefits because he is ABUSING THE SYSTEM not because he is strung out on heroin. It is not for the welfare system to police our (already questionable) policy on drugs. That is for the POLICE to do. Jeez, just think about this stuff before you jump on the bandwagon.
"No Freebies to: Non-citizens"
Again, not sure what is going on here. Where are the citizen freebies? I'm a citizen, I didn't get a freebie. Are we saying we need to check citizenship status on corporations before they get a bail-out? Again, this is vague, but I'll assume to get through it...
I'll assume that this is typical drivel that comes up when it is reported that we sent $50mil in aid to Japan when an earthquake basically WIPED THEM OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH because we have hungry American kids at home. Translation: Americans are more important as people, so our problems take precedence over yours. This is some callous ass shit. I agree that we have social ills in this country and that we, as a society with a government, are not doing enough to address them. (Note that I do not save the government is not doing enough...should the government be the ones doing it?) But, that should not stop us from helping when fellow human beings need help. We have hungry children, they have rubble. Why must we force our aid to them into the context of other problems? If that $50mil were specifically earmarked to feed hungry domestic kids and that program is scrapped to aid a foreign disaster, then I suppose one might raise a point but I have never seen that news article.
Course, I could be wrong...the statement is purposefully vague.
I guess I just get incised (you think?) when I see posts like this. We have problems. We enjoy bitching about them. That's what's great about American...all the bitching you could possibly want, plus all the rest of it. Freedom, it's grand. But personally, I don't think you stir passion with bigotry or illogical parallels. I guess that's just me...
