This Ruthless World

Adventures in absurdity

A Liberal Responds to a Conservative’s “Divorce Agreement for America”

There is a pretty awful, but amusing piece of writing being sent around in chain e-mails and praised to high heaven on various conservative boards and blogs. Appearing with minor variations, it purports to be a “Divorce Agreement” for dividing the United States between conservatives and liberals. It is supposedly written by one “John J. Wall”, who may or may not be a real person and may or may not be studying law in what may or may not be an accredited U.S. law school. I’ve heard of it before, but having received it in an e-mail this weekend past, I thought I’d write a response.

Dear John J. Wall a/k/a “Conservative John”:

This liberal lawyer is in receipt of your proposed Divorce Agreement. First of all, for reasons too many to catalog, your feeble grasp of legal principles is surprising in someone who goes to law school. For your own sake, John, go harder. Second, as far as substance, I think you are getting ahead of yourself, as demonstrated below.

We have stuck together since the late 1950′s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

A marriage is a relationship founded on compromise and fair co-existence. Sometimes, you and your spouse disagree; sometimes you get your way, and sometimes you don’t. That’s just the nature of the beast. You can’t expect to dominate your spouse all the time. There have been long periods of time when your side held political power and passed legislation that I despise. But, although this on occasion made me feel very frustrated, I never gave up on my country. And what do you do? You lose an election, and your reaction is to huff and pout, and renounce this country and its democracy, demand that your land be hacked to pieces. Shame on you. Marriage — and, incidentally, divorce — are serious adult matters. They aren’t there for petulant children to dabble in. Grow up.

Also: was I wrong in assuming this marriage was a democracy? You may have learned in school once upon a time, that democracy means different views get political representation, and views you don’t like sometimes prevail over yours. If you don’t like something, you rely on the democratic process to change it, and if you can’t change it, that’s your clue about being out of touch with the majority of your fellow Americans. You don’t always get to win. And, in a democratic society, you certainly don’t react to losing by threatening people, calling for mass slaughter and proposing to destroy the country. What do you think a democracy is? A one-party rule, where the majority of adult population is disenfranchised, and only those who adhere to a certain narrow set of ideas get exclusive political representation? That’s not democracy, John, that’s Stalinesque authoritarianism. Perhaps you need a refresher course in political science and American civics.

But, if you insist on a divorce, I will be happy to go through your proposal point by point.

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

Your list of assets has a glaring omission: education. Since you don’t believe in public education, and you hate universities and educated people, we are going to keep all of those. Already, this country’s best research organizations and institutions of higher learning are overwhelmingly located in liberal areas of the country. There are a handful of those in liberal enclaves within “red” states, but I guess they’ll just move to us. We’ll gladly take them. You are welcome to retain trailer-park diploma mills, home schooling by semi-illiterate housewives and fundamentalist parochial schools, whose curricula will consist of Selective Scripture, Creationism and Flag-Waiving.

We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.

Thank you, we will. It’s a well-known fact that conservative areas of the country pay less in taxes than liberal ones, but consume a greater share of public funds. (Update: you can find more recent information about red states’ dependency on federal dollars here and here.) That means that once our divorce is complete, we’ll keep more of our money, while you will have to cough up more to support yourselves. Good luck with that.

Incidentally, how are you going to do it? What kind of taxes are you going to have? A regressive system, I suppose, where the more money a taxpayer earns, the less tax he is required to pay? One where you enrich the rich, while reducing the middle class to penury? Or perhaps a system of sales taxes, because nothing will revive a failing economy like imposing penalties on spending money? Whatever, it’s your business — but understand, if your citizens flock to us across the border to buy their necessities without the burden of a 20% sales tax, we sure as hell ain’t gonna enforce your stupid tax laws. And no other country will, either. In other words, I’m sure you have a fine tax plan in the works, except it’s going to send your economy spiraling down the crapper, and it’s going to deplete your tax base. Within a few short years,, your Bible-thumping joke of a government won’t be able to pay its electric bill, never mind finance the War of Civilizations. More on that later.

You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

Thank you, I like liberal judges; they remain true to the Framers’ spirit of social progress. As for the ACLU, need I remind you of all the times that conservatives have turned to that organization for help when their rights were threatened? In any event, watchdog organizations are indispensable in a democracy. They prevent abuses of power. I will gladly keep the ACLU.

Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.

You can have the NRA and war. As for firearms, take good care of the ones you have now, because with your shitty economy, and your lack of industries and research capabilities, you won’t get any new ones for a long, long time.

As for the cops and the military, we’ll keep them, since we pay more than you do towards their upkeep. You are welcome to raise your own forces. Incidentally, how are you going to do it without taxes? Law enforcement and national defense — not to mention overseas military adventures — represent the two most expensive areas of public expenditure. No amount of chicken hawks flapping their chicken wings is going to will the police and the military into existence. The most conservative and jingoistic of soldiers still believe in a social compact — they expect society to pay them decent wages, provide retirement and disability benefits, and healthcare for them and their families. In addition, you will need weapons, vehicles, ships, planes and other technology to compete in modern warfare. How are you planning to raise the money to pay for all that? Charity? Pressing able-bodied men into service, like in the days of good old Queen Bess? Billing individual citizens and selling those who don’t pay into slavery? Good luck with all that.

You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell.

Ah-huh. Now, that’s just anger talking. I think it goes without saying, American conservatives should be the last people on the planet to make fat jokes.

We’ll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.

First of all, nice try, but no, you can’t have New York. Second, pharmaceutical research institutions, including universities, are overwhelmingly located in liberal areas of the country, and you can’t have those either. (If, however, the term “pharmaceutical company” includes meth labs in the Ozarks, I would prefer that you keep those.) Go ahead and try to convince Wall Street to move to Bumfuck, Tennessee. I suppose you will have a system that is best described as socialism for the rich, and feudalism for the rest. We are going to have equitable, well-regulated capitalism, where private gains accompany private losses, and nationalized losses lead to nationalized gains.

You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens.

Lifelong welfare dwellers: If I take them, that will severely depopulate your half of the land. How about, I take mine, and you take yours. Except now, your welfare recipients will be your problem, not ours.

Homeless: I take it, homelessness will be illegal in your country? That’s funny, because you also plan to enact economic policies that will increase homelessness manifold. How will you punish those who cannot afford a dwelling? Jail them? Enslave them? Kill them? Just curious.

Homeboys: I guess hoodies will be illegal too? Man, I know how you feel. Whenever I see a mullet, I think “Jesus Tapdancing Christ, my eyes! This should be against the law.” But then, I respect the First Amendment.

Hippies: Yes, thank you.

Druggies: Ah, no. YOU are keeping Rush Limbaugh, and that’s all there is to it. Him, and all the redneck meth-heads.

Illegal Aliens: First of all, people you call “illegal aliens” are overwhelmingly Amerindian, so the label you slap on them is ironic, to say the least. Also, they are hard-working in a way that defies belief. We’ll take them. Your loss, our gain.

We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms,

Oh? Later on in your essay, you say something about “Judeo-Christian Values”. If memory serves, the Bible prohibits coveting another man’s wife. And the hot Alaskan hockey mom you are referring to is a married woman. Notice, adultery stands alone among the Bible’s “high crimes” in that you may not even think about it. I realize, pointing this out may make me sound a bit like a prude — except, this isn’t about me. I’m a godless liberal. You are the one claiming to abide by Judeo-Christian values — and here you are, not merely transgressing against some obscure Levitical prohibition, but violating one of the Ten Friggin’ Commandments. Ogling women and commenting on their physique does not make you sound “cool” — it just exposes you as a huge hypocrite. All that said, you can take her with you.

greedy CEO’s

That’s fine, except I don’t think they’ll want to go with you. These guys seem to prefer New York, southern Florida and coastal California.

and rednecks

Much obliged.

We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

Fine. We’ll have literature, art, theater, opera, music and movies. Your entertainment will consist of talk radio, prayer meetings and public executions. All-in-all, I think it’s a fair trade.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.

Is peaceful protest going to be against the law in your country, too? I guess we are the ones keeping the content of the Constitution, while you can have the fancy covers — since you obviously don’t care what’s between them. You can do whatever you want. I don’t think Israel would be too happy about you invading Palestine, and if you attack Iran, you’ll ultimately have to fight Russia. And, as a former Russian, let me tell you — words cannot begin to describe what a tough motherfucker Russia is. That’s not ethnic pride talking; I’m merely relating a simple fact of life. But, I’m sure, you’ll want to find that out for yourself.

When our allies or way of life are under assault, we’ll provide them job security.

You don’t have any allies. All those countries I suppose you are referring to are our allies. Even Israel, where the majority of the population leans liberal and likes the liberal part of America more. Our allies are your allies only as long as we come as a package. Once our divorce is finalized, however, they’ll want nothing to do with you. No one likes you; the whole world finds you dull, ignorant and vulgar. Maybe you should take that as a sign.

We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.

And what might those be? Is greed a Judeo-Christian value? As I vaguely recall, Jesus said something about Mammon and how a man can’t serve two masters. How do you interpret that to agree with your economic principles and moral beliefs?

As your own essay demonstrates, you despise the meek, the merciful and the peacemakers — the very kinds of people who, according to Jesus, will be rewarded and blessed. You are diametrically opposed to them, so how is your morality consistent with Judeo-Christian values? (Not to mention, as your comment about Alaskan hockey moms exemplifies, you are not pure of heart, either.)

Is it consistent with Judeo-Christian values to rape the environment? God told you you could use the Earth he created to meet your basic needs, but where in the Scripture does it say that your pleasure, and the desire to prop up your sagging ego, justify poisoning water and air, and driving whole species to extinction? It would seem to me, the story of the Flood at least implicitly confers upon Man the responsibility to safeguard all animals and plants. Certain things are, granted, outside of your control, but don’t you think you are defying God when you deliberately destroy his creation?

Is it a Judeo-Christian value to hunt for sport? Consider the stories of Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau. God twice withheld His blessing and the Covenant from a hunter in favor of a farmer. And Leviticus imposes kashrut rules that all but explicitly prohibit hunting. Sure, Jesus supposedly repealed Jewish dietary laws, but do you really think it was so you could satisfy some perverse machismo by killing a weaker creature?

Later on, you claim that health care is a luxury. Is that a Judeo-Christian value too, withholding an easy cure or prevention from children, the elderly and the impoverished, unless they can afford to pay market rate? Can you point me to a passage in the Bible that establishes it as a moral imperative that people should die from preventable or treatable diseases, because not dying is like owning a pleasure boat?

Is it a Judeo-Christian value to pull out a gun and kill someone for hitting you? As I recall, the Bible says “an eye for an eye” — which is an explicit limitation on payback to the magnitude of the harm suffered. And that, only after there has been a trial, with due process afforded to the defendant. How in the world do conservative “stand your ground” and trespass laws comply with Judeo-Christian values? If anything, they are antithetical to those values.

In fact, is there anything to your so-called Judeo-Christian values besides reducing women to the status of chattel and beating gays to death? What a bunch of hypocrites you are. You use religion as a thin justification for your self-indulgence and your hatreds. And you may certainly keep those if and when we part ways.

You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N, but we will no longer be paying the bill.

You don’t pay much of the bill as it is. And inasmuch as you suggest that you are going to establish a theocracy, where all systems of thought except your own doctrinal version of Christianity will be outlawed, you once again confirm that you are rejecting the Constitution. As I’ve said previously, I’ll follow the tradition of religious Jews who, when they move from a dwelling, leave the pretty mezuzah case on the door frame, but remove the actual mezuzah — that is, the sacred scroll — from inside the case. So too with the Constitution, we’ll each take what we most value — you, the pretty cover, we, the contents.

We’ll keep the SUV’s, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

Lest we forget, those cars are mostly designed and manufactured in liberal areas of the country, or abroad. That said, you can buy whatever you can afford — which won’t be much.

And incidentally, the fact that you consider it a virtue to burn non-renewable resources and pollute the environment just to satisfy your obvious need for compensation is yet another example of your moral and intellectual inadequacy.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.

I don’t know what makes you think you are getting all the doctors. You are going to have no schools or universities, so you won’t be able to educate your own. As for drawing doctors from other countries, that’s a problem as well. You’ve been pushing legislation designed to restrict doctors from practicing good, evidence-based, ethical medicine, so no decent doctor would want to work in your country, anyway. Sure, you can promise them riches, but with most of your population poor as dirt, how will you deliver?

We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.

You can continue to believe whatever you want to believe, including that the Moon is made of green cheese and that Baby Jesus had a pet dinosaur. Your beliefs expose you as inhumane. Putting saving someone’s life with a week-long course of antibiotics in the same category as drinking Crystal champagne or bedding a high-class hooker does not shame us — it shames you. If your morality demands that an underage rape victim die on the street giving birth in the name of fetal life, and then the child must also die on the street because health care is a luxury — what can be said of such a morality? Nothing that would be printable, I think.

We’ll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute Imagine, I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

Actually, we’ll keep most of art and music. You’ll keep a number of tunes that can be counted on one hand.

We’ll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

Practice whatever you wish, but experience has exposed trickle-down economics as utter bunk. The theory of so-called “trickle-up poverty” still awaits proof, however.

Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag.

History isn’t an “asset” — it’s a fact. History is what happened. You can lie about it, and be a liar. But you don’t get to change the past.

As for the name and the flag and so on, here is something for you to ponder: this country won its war of independence against the most powerful European power without a name, without a flag, and without a national anthem. The Colonists did not need any of those things, because they had something much stronger that inspired them. Desperate adherence to symbols, which transform into sacred totems separate and apart from context and meaning, is a sure sign of a decaying, morally adrift society.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete.

Ahh, time for some passive-aggressive cowardice. You write a bunch of inflammatory drivel, then pray — in the spirit of friendliness, no less — that those liberals who disagree “just hit delete”. Sorry, that’s not how it works, John. You don’t get a delete, you get a response. Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences. With your professed belief in taking responsibility, I’m sure you’ll understand that.

In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you Answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Oh? And how much are you willing to bet? One thing, though: I won’t accept Confederate currency.

P. S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.

Fine. In fact, we’ll take virtually all artists, actors and intellectuals. You’ll be limited to Kirk Cameron, Chuck Norris, Kurt Russell and Ted Nugent. I think we’ll survive the loss.

P. S. S. And you won’t have to press 1 for English when you call OUR country.

I doubt we’ll be calling, but in any event, that will probably be the sum total your country will have to offer. How many calories does one expend pressing a button on a phone, by the way? Whatever the number, thanks for the savings.

Incidentally, when you conservatives travel to other countries, do you speak the local language? Based on my experience living and traveling abroad, you expect everyone to speak yours. Wherever you go, you believe you are owed English-speaking doctors, nurses, government officials, postal workers, police officers, waiters and hotel bell-hops. You expect foreign governments to have English-language websites, and for their phone systems to maintain English-language menus. And you get very, very angry when you are not provided with a fluent English-language environment in which to function. You treat anyone who does not speak fluent English as either an idiot, or worse, an enemy, whose use of a different language is an act of personal affront and disrespect to you. And yet, simultaneously, you are offended by the fact that certain immigrant and tourist groups in the United States have access to services in their own language. You claim that if they come to an English-speaking country for whatever reason, they should speak English! Fine — but then, when you go to any country in Latin America or to Spain, practice what you preach and bloody speak Spanish! Then and only then, will I take your complaint about pressing “1” for English seriously.

Also, if you persist in your absurd belief that English is being displaced by Spanish in this country, I suggest you apply some of that social Darwinism you love so much and — instead of relying on protectionist legislation — learn Spanish already. Being able to speak another language won’t cause your brain to explode, and it won’t otherwise harm your health. I promise.

I hope this gave you some food for thought, John. That is, if thought is something you are capable of.

Love and kisses,

Amused.

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

66 thoughts on “A Liberal Responds to a Conservative’s “Divorce Agreement for America”

  1. I’m concerned you took the time to respond to this chain mail.
    But anyway… no, we are not a democracy. You know this.
    I’m intrigued regarding “the framer’s intent of social progress”… would you be willing to tap out another post outlining this intent. I promise to read it.
    Please don’t stoop to replying to spam anymore. You and I agree on few things, but I enjoy reading your stuff and such a retort it isn’t worth your skill. And, it kind of makes you sound bitter and aggravated… by a ridiculous chain letter!
    I will wait to be enlighted on the framer’s intent of social progress. I might have to alter my definition…

    • Now that’s an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one…”rationale behind liberal and progressive thought.”

      I think a more accurate description of “liberal”/progressive thought is mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance.

    • Ah, ridicule & personal attack. The last defense of a liberal. And it took so many words to do it too. There’s so much BS in this reply I’m going to get my shovel.

  2. Excellent response to the Divorce Agreement. I think it would be fascinating to see the consequences of a truly conservative split from America. What sort of country would it be? A Handmaid’s Tale is one possibility. I’m not sure that tossing in all the religious baggage would get the conservative country very far. You are probably quite right in your assessment that such a society would quickly collapse upon itself.

    As always, an excellent post and a clear exposition of the rationale behind liberal and progressive thought.

    • Now that’s an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one…”rationale behind liberal and progressive thought.”

      I think a more accurate description of “liberal”/progressive thought is mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance.

      • I think a more accurate description of “liberal”/progressive thought is mental gymnastics

        Oh. How is liberal/progressive thought like gymnastics? Strong? Agile? Flexible? Able to withstand stress? Welcoming to challenges? Muscular? Well-toned and pleasing to the eye? *Chuckle” What, do you have a preference for thinking that’s winded, lazy, passive, phlegmatic, self-destructive and inflexible? Of course — leave it to a conservative to compare thought to athletic activity and characterize that as a bad thing. I, for one, am entirely in favor of people exercising their minds. But, since yours seems to be firmly planted on the couch, binging on Fox News and pork rinds, I can understand why you’d be against that.

        As for “cognitive dissonance”, it doesn’t mean what you think it means — if you even care. Let me guess — you kind of vaguely sense that’s an accusation of some sort, but the actual meaning is of no interest to you. You don’t seem to be too certain on what “oxymoron” means, either. I suspect you used it primarily because it’s kind of a funny-sounding word. Here is the thing, John: words have meanings. You should learn them, before you use them. It makes the discussion much more interesting — even if it does make that ossified mind of yours get out of the Lay-Z-Boy and engage in some mildly effortful activity for a few minutes.

  3. uglicoyote on said:

    Reblogged this on The Road.

  4. I love these chain E mails. Most are perfect examples of simplistic thinking.
    Great response!

  5. George Weaver on said:

    Well. Finally. Somebody has answered those ridiculous hate emails. I have a few folks to whom I’d enjoy sending this. I hope they drop by, but I seriously doubt it.

  6. Pingback: Modifying John J. Wall’s “divorce” suggestion: a thought experiment. « ruinedchapel

  7. Funny and spot-on. Enjoyed this, thanks!

  8. On behalf of the Christian Left, I have carefully read the separation proposal, and except for a few details which will need to be worked out, I believe that we can part on amicable terms. Below is a copy of this letter including the response accepting their offer to begin negotiating the said divorce. _______________________________________________________

    >>>We’ve stuck together since the late 1950’s, but the latest election process and your bailout stimulus plan has made me realize that I want a divorce.

    1950’s? I thought America was founded in 1776, almost two hundred years earlier, but go ahead….

    >>>Although we’ve tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, the sad truth is that the relationship between conservatives and liberals has run its course.

    That’s because your mindset is stuck in the 1950’s (except in the rural south, where your people are stuck in the 1850’s).

    >>>Our two ideological sides of America can not and will not ever agree on what is right. Therefore let’s just end it on friendly terms. You go your way, and I’ll go mine. We can smile…

    Oh believe me, I am!

    >>>…chalk it up to irreconcilable differences, shake hands, and go our own way. But to do that, we’ll need a “Separation Agreement.” I have drawn one up. I hope you agree with it.

    >>>SEPARATION AGREEMENT PROPOSAL

    >>>I propose that our two groups – Conservatives and Liberals – equitably divide up the country by land-mass, each of us taking approximately 50% of the total square miles. I’ll concede that this is the most difficult part of the separation agreement, but I’m sure our two sides can come to terms.

    >>>After that’s done, the rest should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

    >>>For example, us conservatives don’t like redistributive taxes, so you can keep them! They’re all yours!

    Really? Then why is it that over 80% of “red states” receive more federal aid each year than they pay in federal taxes (www.taxfoundation.org). So glad you won’t be freeloading off of us any longer.

    >>>You are also welcome to take the liberal judges, the ACLU, the affirmative action crowd, the NAACP, and the National Organization of Women. We don’t want any of them.

    Thank you. Oh, what will we do with moderate judges like Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor? After all, judges like them have stabbed BOTH of us in the back.

    >>>We also don’t want Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. You can have them.

    Okay, you can take Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, and the Weeper of the House.

    >>>Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take the firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military, that you hate so much.

    Wow….Santa Claus got my letter! Take your Semi-automatic assault rifles and kill each other with them. We can equitably split up the military and the police, but you most certainly can have rogue cops like Mark Fuhrman, Joyce Gilchrist, and the thugs who beat a defenseless black man while he lay helplessly on the side of the road.

    >>>We’ll take the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, and Wall Street. We’ll also take the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s, and rednecks.

    Am I Dreaming…?

    >>>We’ll take the Bibles. You can have all the copies of “Mein Kampf.”

    Those of us on the Christian Left will keep our Bibles and you can take yours. Hopefully you’ll take some time to actually read them and learn that Jesus’ values couldn’t be farther from yours.

    >>>We’ll take Fox News. You can have NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and Hollywood. You can also have National Public Television.

    And you can continue to lag behind us in education.

    >>>We’ll retain the right to invade and hammer the crap out of any country that threatens us, but not YOU.

    And we will no longer foot the bill for your ill-guided, “pre-emptive” wars.

    >>>We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.

    Like you ever had any.

    >>>We get the Hummers, SUVs, pickup trucks, motorhomes, oversized luxury cars, power boats, Harley Davidsons, and private airplanes. You can have all of the 4-cylinder and hybrid vehicles. You get the mopeds. You can also have all the kayaks and canoes.

    Your new homeland better be in Iraq because you’ll need all the oil you can get! And since all your lakes and rivers will be polluted you’ll have no need for kayaks or canoes, anyway.

    >>>We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.

    You guys can head back to the 19th century while the rest of us move forward into the 21st.

    >>>We’ll practice trickle down economics, and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot.

    Good luck. 75% of you will be living in Hoovervilles.

    >>>And by the way . . . since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name, and our flag.

    Your history is slavery, segregation, the degradation of women, and misrepresenting Christianity. Glad our history will no longer be tarnished with your past doings.

    >>>In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

    Your country will be engulfed in civil upheavel or destroyed by internal revolution long before then, but we’ll accept your bet. ANWR against your guns. Sound good?

    Sincerely,
    A Proud, Patriotic, & Progressive American (who’s fed up with right-wingers’ bull shit).

    • Christian Left: There’s the oxymoron of the century.

    • You ever talk to a boxer that has had his bell rung one too many times? You ,as a “punch drunk ” liberal sound remarkably similar to said boxer! Conservatives started a country before…. this one! It took liberals under 50 years to undue what this country has accomplished over the last 200 years. You libs love socialism/Marxism so much ; why don’t you all move yhe hell back to England? You can take Obama , Valerie Jared and the rest of Obama’s lick spittle sycophants with you! Also, what makes you think that the military and police forces would stay with you? What with the war on police and the watering down of the military; liberals have effectively insured that the police and the REAL soldiers will go with the side that has the most appreciation for them —– CONSERVATIVES! Please wake up!! You think political leaders like Obama , Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are any different than the leaders of your universities? Once all of the conservative minded civil , mechanical and electrical engineers leave all you’ll have left are ambulance chasing lawyers and community activists undermining your Marxist attempts to regulate EVERYTHING! Talk about a government collapsing on itself. That pretty much leaves you with drama, medical and philosophy majors ; some of which will defect to the conservative side when they wake up . Once ISIS is done infiltrating and converting your country into a 6th century , women hating hovel , similar to what Germany and Sweden are trending towards. Wake the hell up! Just watch what your “country” becomes without Judeo-Christian principles. Keep misinterpreting the Bible, and ; good luck on your journey to ruin Mr. Punch Drunk Liberal!

  9. frasersherman on said:

    Having had to go into phone-tree hell several times the past couple of months, I find it interesting that “Press one for English” is the thing that drives these people nuts. I guess it’s perfectly fine for us to spend several minutes pressing button after button but unendurable burden to have to choose English.

  10. Pingback: Urgh | Fraser Sherman's Blog

  11. Brilliant retort!
    I am new to this blog but PLEASE know that there are educated, liberal, white, southerners in this country that are “pleased as punch” to see the President re-elected! I voted early and where I ended up voting was probably 80%+ African-American. I smiled as I drove up thinking, “ahhh I’m with my blue people”! ❤
    I'm so outdone with the Republicans in CONgress that I abstained from some parts of the ballot because so many R's were running unopposed and I just couldn't stomach the notion of voting for a R. Pre-Rush Limbaugh and Faux News, I honestly looked at each candidate and where they stood before forming an opinion. Now? I can't imagine voting for a Rapepublican. As the baby boomers continue to die off, the R party is up serious creek if they think that they can continue as is and maintain any kind of control. The crap they spewed at women this campaign…in 2012….was repugnant.

  12. Dumb rebuttal for such an educated liberal. Wow, could you take it a little bit more literal (hacking up the land, etc) and dramatic? How about we just draw a line where no trees are present (not to cut down any) or any land in which animals reside or areas where we would leave a our carbon footprint.
    I’m an educated conservative- OMG, they exist. In fact, many successful people did not graduate college. As educated as any American liberal claims they are, you are still dumber than 30 other countries (America ranks 31 in education) and has fallen a few places in innovation since Mr. Obama’s held office. There is a trend…it’s called lack of growth. How do “progressives” feel about regressing?

    • @Laura Izett: I have a suggestion for you. You see, like you, I sometimes come across things on the Internet that make me really angry, things that make me want to fire off a biting response tout de suite. Resist the impulse. Close the browser. Step away from the computer. Take a deep breath. Have a cup of tea with milk. Spend a couple of hours doing something else. Better yet, sleep on it. THEN respond. Whatever you say will be much were effective, I promise you. That mish-mash you posted above, that combines everything from your knee-jerk rage about trees and animals to your “concern” for our educational system (exactly WHICH countries are ahead of us in education, mmm? would that by any chance be — gasp of horror! — communist-socialist-redistributist hellholes like Sweden and Norway?) tells me you posted that before you had a chance to think (with your head, I mean, not your stomach). Come back to me with something of substance, and I will engage. Until then, please go hyperventilate somewhere else.

      And as food for thought, here is one of my favorite Russian proverbs: “There is a joke in every joke.” Being a smart, educated person, I am sure you are capable of grasping its implications.

      • Here’s some well-thought-out facts for you to laugh at, Amused (by your own thoughts, no doubt).
        The US is behind:
        Reading – Iceland, Poland, Estonia, Belgium, Australia, Japan, Netherlands, etc. We’re 14th in the world.
        Math – Slovenia, Portugal, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, etc. We’re 25th.
        Science (who needs science anyway, right?) – We’re 17th in the world.
        Before Teacher’s Unions took over we were number one in all of these categories & more (can you spell American exceptionalism? I’ll bet you can spell Socialism).
        Among many other things, your simplistic shallow attempts at minimizing America’s fall from greatness is why those of us in the deep end of the intellectual pool would like to divorce you.

      • Except, independantthinker, America isn’t behind in all those things, only the red states are. If you only measure the blue states, we move back up.

  13. Well, I just stumbled upon this blog because I recently received the chain e-mail you are responding to. I doubted the author was in law school, especially due to the way he walked right into the fat jokes, not to mention his childishness for even throwing those in. However, snopes had nothing to say about it. Your responses are spot on, so thank you for that. I couldn’t have said it better.

    • This is what fascinates us about liberals: you swim in the shallow end of the intellectual pool, virtually never venturing into the deeper end of reason.
      As a conservative I know how we think, & John was referring to the gazillions of possessions those three own but tell the rest of us we shouldn’t.
      But once again a liberal shows where their thoughts go first: racism, class warfare, hate speech. If you believe we’re that way then we must be, right???

      • If you believe we’re that way then we must be, right???

        Is that what passes for “intellectual” in conservative circles? Listen, buddy, this kind of drivel may be considered deep thinking in whatever neck-o-the-woods you are from, but by normal standards, this is inane. When a person believes something, it’s generally because that person believes that thing to be true. Thanks for elucidating the painfully obvious. Gold star!

        Now, tell us all about how conservatives never ever present their beliefs as fact. The religious fundamentalist wing of your movement would be a good place to start.

      • Here’s some well-thought-out facts for you to laugh at, Amused (by your own thoughts, no doubt).
        The US is behind:
        Reading – Iceland, Poland, Estonia, Belgium, Australia, Japan, Netherlands, etc. We’re 14th in the world.
        Math – Slovenia, Portugal, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, etc. We’re 25th.
        Science (who needs science anyway, right?) – We’re 17th in the world.
        Before Teacher’s Unions took over we were number one in all of these categories & more (can you spell American exceptionalism? I’ll bet you can spell Socialism).

        I do find your comment very funny — thanks for the laugh. Now, for 10 points, can you tell me which of those countries are governed according to American conservative principles? All of these countries are what conservatives would deem socialist communist hell — with progressive income taxation, education subsidized and centrally regulated by the government, and schools funded equally across the board, not based on local property taxes. Tell me — because I’m dying to know — what conservative policies would help us become more like Iceland? You know, a country that has no poverty to speak of, a country with a social safety net that ensures that no one has to live in their car or die of a treatable illness if they fall on hard times, a country with paid maternity leave, subsidized daycare, universal healthcare, coverage for contraception and abortion and equally funded schools that teach actual honest-to-goodness science (not creationism or climate denialism)? I don’t know if those countries have American-style teachers’ unions, but teachers there don’t particularly need anything like that, because they aren’t held hostage to locally based districts staffed with reactionary baffoons, like schools are in America. Educational systems in those countries are less bureaucratic, but that’s because they are centralized and not run through a jumble of overlapping institutions thanks to conservatives’ insistence on local control. I love it how you not only ignore all those facts, but bemoan socialism while naming socialist countries as examples of places with better education in the same breath. Can you name ONE country with a society that’s run according to conservative philosophies where students score high in academic disciplines compared to others? Just one, please?

        Also, when was American “number one” in those categories, exactly? You got a citation to back that up? I don’t normally ask for sources, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Because it seems to me, you are referring to a time either (1) during or just after WWII, when most of the industrialized world lay in ruins, and so there was no competition to speak of (that is — in the event this is just too much for your superintellectual brain to grasp — it’s not that American education got worse, it’s that everyone else’s got better); or (2) when these statistics weren’t actually collected at all, so America was number one because we said so.

      • what passes for “intellectual” in liberal circles?

  14. That you for providing me with some prompts to send to my step-mother. I live in Alabama and know too well what kind of “nation” this “person” would get if all his conservative dreams came true. A third-world economy populated by the ignorant.

    • Wow, the venom and vitriol from the tolerant left.
      Oh, where to begin. I’ll type slowly to give you time to absorb the truth I impart.
      It’s good to see you guys still don’t allow those pesky things called verifiable facts interfere with your almighty opinions.
      You stated, and I quote, “When a person believes something, it’s generally because that person believes that thing to be true. Thanks for elucidating the painfully obvious. Gold star!” You guys think that your belief in something makes it true! Hilarious!
      Conservatives believe what we believe because it’s based on verifiable facts, not whimsical thoughts or opinions.
      For 20 points, how many liberals does it take to ignore a fact before said fact ceases to be true?
      I have a real job so I can’t take the time to refute most of your ignorance, but here’s a quick few that your opinions can override:
      “The College Board reports that the U.S., which was once the world’s leader in college degrees for the segment of people 25-34 years old, is now ranked 12th among 36 developed countries.”
      “In another study, “The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in America’s Schools,” it is noted that in the 1950’s and 1960’s (yes, after WW II, gasp!) America led the world (not just those rebuilding from the war, I hate to tell you) in K-12 education just as we led the world with our economy.”” Put that in your pipe and summarily dismiss it.
      And this was when we were still a conservative, Christian country, (there, I named a conservative country where things like education worked, and then you libs took over and screwed everything up) before you libs forced the bible out of the classroom. Do a study sometime (which you won’t do because it might interfere with your presuppositions) and see for yourself how quickly and how far we fell educationally after the bible and those intolerant, heinous Ten Commandments were taken out of the classroom.
      I’ve gotta go earn some money to pay for several liberal’s abortions, contraception and health care.

      • Aha — way to ignore EVERYTHING that I’ve just said in response to your prior comments. Frankly, reading your comment, I can’t make up my mind if you are for real, or a Poe. Because if it’s the former, I really don’t know what skills you can possibly have that would enable you to hold down a “real job”. (Incidentally, I don’t know what you do at that corporation that you are posting from, but if you are one of its professional staff, I think we would have a sharp difference of opinion as to what constitutes a “real job”, whether yours is a job that actually benefits society and the world, or, to put it in terms that might perhaps get through to your fundie brain, whether it’s a job that Jesus would have approved of.) In any event — once again, which ones of the countries that are ahead of us in education can be fairly characterized as “Christian Conservative” and teach the Bible as fact? Not to mention that you once again complain about having to pay for other people’s health care while extolling countries that have universal healthcare. Are you being deliberately obtuse, or is it something that comes naturally to you?

        Here is my comment policy, buddy: I don’t care how much you hate what I’m saying, as long as you engage in an actual discussion where you address the issues that have been raised. I don’t have to like how you address them; as long as you do, I’ll let your comments through. However, when you simply ignore what has been said and essentially just rephrase your prior comment, you are not welcome here, because if there is one thing I will not tolerate, it’s a pointless flame war.

        So, with that in mind: If your next comment does not substantively address any of the questions I have posed you, and contains nothing but a restatement of what you already said, I will ban you. You have one chance to redeem yourself. Either take that, or take a hike. (If you do decide to answer in good faith, though, I suggest you look up the scientific definition of a study, first.)

      • As if you’ve addressed anything I’ve said. And you don’t know anything about what skill-sets I possess but once again, you resort to the old, worn out liberal playbook of demean, deny, deflect, deceive. And of the countries that outrank us now compared to when we were a conservative Christian nation, few are higher than we were at our peak. So to brag on these socialist countries and how well they’re doing compared to us misses the point that we simply fell as opposed to everyone else rising. So all you see/feel is the ass of the donkey. You don’t want to open your eyes to see the rest of the animal. Perhaps someday you too can be taxed at the 70% level like your Comrades overseas. I can only hope. And I’m new to blogging so if this is your blog page feel free to send me packing because you’re not worthy of my time. I look forward to spending the eternity you don’t believe in without the likes of people like you. So maybe I am a Poe, but you’re a POS & someone should teach you some manners.

      • You, of all people, have no business complaining about people being mean to you. You come here, to my blog, my space, with your insults and sexual insinuations (against the hostess AND other commenters), and yet you expect to be handled with kid gloves? Why the hell would I do that? You don’t deserve respect. You barely deserve civility. And despite your vile attacks, I haven’t stooped to your level by speculating about how your sex life impairs your judgment.

        Incidentally, I do have a pretty good idea of what your skills are. Apart from the fact that you provided me — unwittingly, I’m sure — with a fuckton of personal information about you (including the place where you work)*, you display your so-called “intellectual skills” here quite vividly. A couple of hours ago, you were whining about the US being behind a bunch of countries in education. Now that I’ve pointed out that those are socialist and secular countries, you switched gears and NOW claim that we are behind because we’ve fallen, not because they’ve improved. Except it doesn’t make a lick of sense. Assuming, arguendo, that your claim that socialism and secularism are detrimental to education is actually true, shouldn’t then countries that are more socialist and secular than us — which is everybody on that list you gave us — ALWAYS be behind us, no matter how bad our own educational system gets? You lack the capacity for even the most rudimentary logical thought, and that’s really enough for anyone to know about your alleged “skills”. You practice voodoo BS, live off the taxpayer’s and shareholder’s dime (no, strike “dime” and replace it with “huge pile of money”) and call it a “real job”. Enough said.

        As far as religion is concerned, I think I’ve covered in detail in my original post how so-called “conservative Christians” of your ilk are neither truly Christian nor all that conservative (at least when it comes to their OWN interests), so I am not going to repeat it here. Suffice it to say, I assume the fact that religion is missing from modern school curricula is the reason you apparently aren’t aware of what Jesus said about serving two masters. You know, how you can devote yourself to God or pursue wealth, but not both at the same time? Because it seems to me, given what you (probably) do for a living, you are a prime example of someone who’s in the service of Mammon — and in the worst possible way, too. Think about that at your leisure, if thinking is something that you are even capable of.
        ——————————————————-

        *Don’t worry, I am not going to do anything with that information. Being that I am a tree-hugging, bleeding-heart liberal, harassment is not my thing. However, if you are new to blogging (and the Internet in general, apparently), I suggest you ask a more net-savvy friend to teach you how not to be an idiot online. Because the next person you yell at and lecture on their own blog may not prove as nice as I am.

      • I thought you were dumping me? Quit stalking me. Oh, by the way, I’m from Texas. You wanna borrow one of my guns? Or the horse I ride through the back-woods to the one room school house where the school marm tries to learn us stuff? Heck, 4th grade was the best 3 years of my life. But them 2 Masters Degrees I got me was a little harder to come by.

      • I am not stalking you — YOU keep stalking me. I don’t go to your blog, I don’t e-mail you, YOU keep coming here. If you are using loaded language like “stalking” for purposes of intimidation, and to insinuate that merely replying to your inane comments creates some sort of legal trouble for me, you are barking up the wrong tree — I’ll litigate you under the table. Incidentally, my stats tell me exactly how you ended up here. Yesterday morning, you took a break from that “real job” of yours and googled conservative-liberal divorce agreement. My blog was merely one of the links that came up. I don’t know if you were searching for a liberal response so you could start a flame war, or merely looking for talking points to use against your liberal strawman and clicked on my link out of curiosity — but one way or another, you were spoiling for a fight. Which, of course, makes your claim that my merely blogging and responding to your comments on my blog is tantamount to stalking you so jaw-droppingly ridiculous. Stop constantly painting yourself as a victim. Accept some goddamned responsibility for your own actions, first and foremost coming here and commenting. I didn’t put a gun to your head.

        Incidentally, I KNOW you are from Texas. I know, in fact, what location IN Texas you are from. I know where you work, and I know a good deal more than that. I thought I made that clear in my previous comment, but apparently you have a problem with reading comprehension. I mean, congratulations on figuring out how to use a proxy server (did you buy that IT person a pack of peanuts?), but it’s a little late in your case. I already know.

        Thanks for the offer of the guns, but I decline. I don’t plan on killing anyone, and I don’t suffer from insecurities that require this form of “therapy”. You clearly do though, so it’s best you keep them. I WOULD take you up on the offer of the horseback ride, but the company doesn’t look particularly attractive, so no.

        And, if the best time of your life was back in 4th grade, that merely confirms that you haven’t accomplished much of anything since. What is your adult life, but going to the range, fantasizing about blowing people away, talk radio and church luncheons? Sounds like utter misery to me.

        Good day.

        P.S.: To safeguard you from being “stalked” and victimized, I will delete any future comments from you that manage to get through.

      • I’ve got it! I understand now! The liberal nastiness & self-agrandizing I’m hearing from you comes from the lesbian gene. It all makes sense now why anything Christian is like fingernails on a chalkboard to you.

      • In case your mother and your Sunday school haven’t taught you, making gratuitous insinuations about someone’s sex life is rude. In what way is it Christian by the way? You have some nerve talking about meanness and rudeness, given how you have conducted yourself here.

        And for that, you are permanently banned from commenting on this blog. You’ve had your chance. You blew it. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

      • multiheaded on said:

        Oh. My. Goodness.

        That was just absolutely beautiful, m’lady.

  15. Pingback: I Found the Solution on Another Forum - PeachParts Mercedes ShopForum

  16. Pingback: It’s all about education? | treetrunkdings

  17. Lawyer pricks like you, are why we need lawyer pricks like you.

  18. Hey dumbass……..

    #1 CONSERVATIVES started this country and gained our independence.

    #2 We didn’t build this country by “peacefully protesting” the British and other countries wanting to destroy us. We fucked them up through WAR.

    #3 Charter schools and private schools are the best performing schools in the nation, mostly started and supported by CONSERVATIVES.

    #4 You’re obviously one of the Biblical Pharisees. Don’t know who they are? Look it up. You might learn something in the process.

    #5 You can HAVE new york, la and chicago. They’re dumps.

    #6 Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell and Oprah. That was a slam on they’re mindset. I guess you’re not intelligent enough to know that.

    #7 Healthcare is ONLY a right when you’re not forcing someone else to pay the bill.

    #8 Burning non-renewable fuel? I don’t see your butt buddy liberal politicians driving around in those ugly-ass Chevy Volts or bitch-looking Prius’s. When ALL of you pansies start walking or using bikes, MAYBE you wont look like such hypocrits.

    #9 The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of police officers and military servicemen are CONSERVATIVE. You wouldn’t know that because you’ve never served as either.

    #10 You’re “highly educated” liberal areas also have the highest rates of crime committed mostly by LIBERALS.

    #11 If liberals are so in love with wealth redistribution and socialism, HOW COME THERE ARE SO MANY RICH FUCKING LIBERALS?????? Shouldn’t they be giving all of their money to the “less fortunate”?

    In essence, CONSERVATIVES started this country, we can easily start another. When we’re done, we’ll kick the shit out of your country through WAR, because we know your peaceful protesting, utopia believing, f&gs wont fight back.

    • Hey, numbskull,

      You are a coward. That much is clear. You are, regrettably, also one of the less fortunate, but alas, science has not figured out yet how to give you some brains, or courage. So you’ll just have to remain pathetic. But hey, it’s Friday, so why not have some fun at your expense:

      “#1 CONSERVATIVES started this country and gained our independence.”

      The word “conservative” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Learn some English, you pathetic product of homeschooling. If the Founding Fathers had been “conservative”, independence from England wouldn’t have been their cup of tea. Conservatives are by definition, well, “conservative” — i.e., from the word “conserve”, which means to keep things the same — and authoritarian.

      #2 We didn’t build this country by “peacefully protesting” the British and other countries wanting to destroy us. We fucked them up through WAR.

      I realize how hard you beat off to fantasies of carnage and rape, but you clearly have no knowledge of history. American Revolutionaries, in fact, did everything possible to avoid war (or WAR, as you like to put it, because the thought of killing and raping people gives you a hard-on), and the decision to open hostilities was not easily reached. They didn’t just jump at the opportunity to run into battle grabbing their balls and making tasteless jokes about eviscerating people. Well, maybe some did, but it sure doesn’t describe those that we know by name and normally associate with the American experiment.

      #3 Charter schools and private schools are the best performing schools in the nation, mostly started and supported by CONSERVATIVES.

      Conservative schools? Oh, you mean schools where the curriculum is limited to football, cheerleading and Jesus, and biblical literalism is taught in place of science? Yes, those schools perform best at making our country the laughing stock of the world.

      #5 You can HAVE new york, la and chicago. They’re dumps.

      If you say so. I’d still take New York, LA and Chicago over the trailer park, which is, of course, the symbol of conservative virtues.

      #6 Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell and Oprah. That was a slam on they’re mindset. I guess you’re not intelligent enough to know that.

      Maybe I’m not brilliant enough to appreciate all the profound nuance of conservative “humor”, but at least my grasp of basic English grammar is strong enough to distinguish between “their” and “they are”. I guess they haven’t taught you English grammar in your top-performing conservative “school” yet. Get back to me once you’ve read up on these things called “pronouns” and these other things called “verbs”.

      #7 Healthcare is ONLY a right when you’re not forcing someone else to pay the bill.

      The bill for what? Having a healthy populace that’s economically productive and paying taxes? What, you think that if large numbers of people have no health insurance, you don’t end up paying for the consequences of their poverty and widespread disease? I know it’s very hard for a conservative to comprehend, but we do have a society here. Just sayin’.

      #8 Burning non-renewable fuel? I don’t see your butt buddy liberal politicians driving around in those ugly-ass Chevy Volts or bitch-looking Prius’s. When ALL of you pansies start walking or using bikes, MAYBE you wont look like such hypocrits.

      Sure, slick, we’ll all stop driving big SUV’s just as soon as you, o paragons of virtue, stop raping your underage cousins, cooking meth and collecting the bulk of welfare in this country while screaming about “responsibility”. I think you have quite a bit more work to do.

      Also, just as an aside: you are not doing a good job proving your hetero bona fides by displaying your sad obsession with butts. Clearly, it’s a sore spot for you. Maybe you shouldn’t talk about it so much, or people will start wondering, you know what I’m saying? You are, however, confirming my long-standing observation that conservatives have a twisted, miserable, unhealthy obsession with sex. Which really does explain a lot.

      #9 The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of police officers and military servicemen are CONSERVATIVE. You wouldn’t know that because you’ve never served as either.

      Let’s be brutally honest here, shall we? The overwhelming majority of high school graduates (and some college drop-outs) who become cops and servicemen are what school administrators charitably characterize as “not college material”. Now, I’ve met people from both groups who were quite remarkable, but I consider them exceptions. As a rule, cops and soldiers are nowhere superior to the average. Kids make suitable soldiers and cops because they get their start when they aren’t particularly interested in thinking, and aren’t yet mature enough to appreciate the humanity of other people; and any possiblity that they might develop compassion or a capacity for independent thought in the future is nipped in the bud as soon as they enter service. The enemy or criminals (actual or presumed) are systematically dehumanized in their eyes, and they themselves are stripped of all humanity — this is what passes for “military honor”, and no, it’s not a uniquely American tradition. And let’s be perfectly frank again: with rare exceptions, these kids don’t enter the law enforcement or the military out of some sense of idealism or a desire to render public service. After all, it’s not like people routinely give up Harvard educations and lucrative careers on Wall Street in order to serve in the military. Yes, yes, I do know a couple of people who have sacrificed something to be cops/soldiers, but again, they are exceptional; most people go into those trades because it’s the best way they can pay rent and stay out of trouble. These people go into law enforcement and the military for the government bennies and, in the case of a small, but non-negligeable minority, as a way to channel their desire for violence and authoritarianism. It’s a pragmatic, not an idealistic, decision. Which is okay — that’s how most people choose what they do for a living — but I wouldn’t look to our service members or cops as some exceptional founts of wisdom or insight about life and the “real world”. I know it’s not a pious thing to say in our present-day culture of militaristic triumphalism, but soldiers and cops are just ordinary people. I happily pay their salary and benefits, but I don’t revere them, I don’t idealize them, I don’t worship them, and I don’t consider them any more special than the guy who does my landscaping. Except, I’d note that the guy who does my landscaping possesses enough skills and abilities to have an option to earn a living in a way that doesn’t involve being shot at. Most of these people who become cops and soldiers are of average or below-average intelligence, who deliberately chose the path of mindlessly following orders and having real adults tell them what to do (which doesn’t, however, stop them from pontificating about “leadership”, the poor bastards), because that’s what best suits their temperament and their intellect. That said, they are far from conservative when it comes to their own personal entitlements. They happily retire in their forties and collect compensation for “disabilities” that are only recognized as such thanks to bleeding-heart liberals (you’re welcome), yet scream and whine about “takers”. They do this because most of them are too deficient in intellectual abilities to appreciate the cognitive dissonance here: that they decry what they themselves are doing, but do not explain why they should be entitled to more than anyone else. Which is to say, I’d call them hypocritical, if I thought they have enough brains to even BE hypocritical, which they don’t. Still, if push comes to shove, those people will know on which side their bread is buttered. And in the end, they’ll work for whoever is able to give them paychecks and pensions.

      #10 You’re “highly educated” liberal areas also have the highest rates of crime committed mostly by LIBERALS.

      Really? Actual statistics would beg to differ. Although the law enforcement does not, to my knowledge, collect statistics on the political positions of criminal defendants, the 2012 FBI Crime Report does indicate that the states with the highest crime rates tend to be “red” states. Of course, population density is also a factor — not that I would expect you to understand that.

      #11 If liberals are so in love with wealth redistribution and socialism, HOW COME THERE ARE SO MANY RICH FUCKING LIBERALS?????? Shouldn’t they be giving all of their money to the “less fortunate”?

      Oh well, I guess your top-performing conservative “school” hasn’t taught you any math, either. I guess math is “liberal”? Or maybe according to conservative math, 17=100. I wouldn’t be surprised.

      In essence, CONSERVATIVES started this country, we can easily start another. When we’re done, we’ll kick the shit out of your country through WAR, because we know your peaceful protesting, utopia believing, f&gs wont fight back.

      Who’s “we”? You? You personally? You will personally come over here and kill me, personally? With “WAR”? Go ahead and try it.
      Something tells me that real war is a bit different from this fantasized “WAR” that you keep screaming about and fapping to, but hey, maybe it’s only because I’m a sheltered liberal who’s never tasted the “real world” encapsulated in the uber-manly experience of shooting rabbits or whatever. In any event, I’m not afraid of you. Bring your worst. If your shooting is anything like your English (which is only your native language, for shame), you are just as likely to kill me accidentally as you are to do so deliberately.

      Also, though I’m sure you haven’t studied this in your “top-performing” conservative “school” yet either, but you conservatives already tried to start another country and “kick the shit” out of liberal abolitionists through “WAR”. I heard it didn’t work out so well for you, though that could just be the liberal bias in my blue-state history textbooks, so maybe it was a tie? I don’t know, seems you got an ass-kicking so royal, you poor schlubs still can’t get over it almost 150 years later. Being from the South, I’m sure you’re well familiar with that feeling.

      Also, too, son, do be careful threatening strangers on the Internet. That could get you into trouble.

  19. Pingback: A Liberal Responds to a Conservative’s “Divorce Agreement for America” | life is more than sound bites

  20. I just had to link your Liberal Response in my blog so more people can see how intelligently you refuted every point and how brilliantly you disposed of the RWNJs who tried to reply.

  21. This is just two people listing everything I wants belongs to me and everything I don’t like I am sticking you with. I don’t see how Amused can call John childish when he falls into doing exactly what John just did with his post. In reality splitting assets is rarely as simple as either author makes out. The conservative John writes in a sarcastic tone at least so you know he is joking (I hope) e.g. please take Jane Fonda. Amused seems to be serious (unless I misread the tone) which worries me. The United States is obviously not going to split up as evidenced by history as every single time a region has tried to secede from the nation it was brutally crushed and brought back in. This is not limited to the civil war it is also apparent in Shay’s rebellion and Bacon’s rebellion. Think about it like this we fought for 8 years in Iraq just because Saddam Hussein double crossed us what do you think we would do if an entire section of the country tried to leave? A nuclear explosion would be more likely than a region being allowed to leave the country. Now during all three of the rebellions I mentioned the motivation was economic. Each faction saw the economic future of the country very differently. This is not a problem today where people argue social issues like Abortion and Gay marriage and where economic issues are generally second on people’s minds if they understand them at all.

    The reason the country will not break apart is that as much as any faction hates the other at various times the United States gains too much by being one nation under God. For example let’s look at these groups that hate each other so much that they can’t bear to live together. First of all if you wonder what a nation that was equally divided between Conservative and Liberal States would look like take a look at the 2004 electoral map

    One thing you will notice is how much more land geographically conservative states would get under this arrangement. It is actually much understated because Alaska is way more massive than the not to scale image to the left suggests. Another thing to consider is that the blue states would suffer massive famines if the red states particularly the Midwest refused to export food to them. A very large portion of the Nation’s military recruits and active duty personnel are stationed in red states. A sizable portion of the United States Nuclear Arsenal that isn’t loaded onto nuclear submarines is in silos in red states. The two largest research parks in the country are located in the South Research Triangle Park in North Carolina the world’s largest research park, and Cummings research park in Alabama the world’s 4th largest. Many major Banks including Bank of America, SunTrust, Regions Financial Center, BBVA Compass and BB&T headquarter in the south. Almost all firearm manufacturers following Sandy Hook are located in the South. Automobile manufacture following the decay and collapse of rust belt auto manufacturing cities like Detroit is overwhelming located in the south where the companies Mercedes, Toyota, Hyundai, Nissan, BMW, GM, KIA, Volkswagen, and Honda choose to base their plants. Finally it should be apparent that the West Coast and North East can’t even reach each other without crossing through red states. Theoretically their best option would be join with Canada to create a new nation if Canada was interested. Even Canada wouldn’t be able to feed all the new citizens though.

    Now let’s talk about things red states need. First there is Silicon Valley which leads not just the nation but the world in technological advancement. Creating a new one somewhere else with none of the people or facilities already in place in the current Silicon Valley would take decades and considerable capital investment. All the main computer and technology companies like IBM, Microsoft, Apple and Intel are headquartered in blue states. Only Dell is headquartered in a red state. Second the theoretical conservative’s states of America would lose the ability to have a west coast port for any naval capability it retained in the split. The Fact that the United States gets to operate in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans freely is a big part of its success and dominance as a nation. Even China only gets to play in the Pacific. Next as Amused says many important Universities would go to the blue states. Cornell, Princeton, Brown, Harvard, Yale, Annapolis, West Point, Columbia, University of Pennsylvania, MIT, and Stanford would all go to Blue States of America. The red States would retain Notre Dame, Dartmouth College (the only Ivy League school), Duke University, and the Air force Academy in Colorado Springs. New York particularly Wall Street is extremely vital to the nation as evidenced when it was attacked the entire nation rose as one and agreed that Osama Bin Laden was a dead man walking. Both authors seem to understand this as neither is willing to let the other side have it. Wall Street makes the United States the center of the financial world and it would be a serious loss if red states of America had to function without it. Hollywood is also very important not just for the income it generates which is considerable, but because it exports American culture to the entire world effectively Americanizing every other country. Almost all the popular films and television shows are made in America and when they are exported they ensure American dominance in entertainment and also that the American way of life are portrayed to be desirable. This is along with better economic and education opportunities allows the United States to participate in a brain drain where the world’s best and brightest come to America rather than stay in their home countries particularly in the developing world. These vital propaganda and recruiting machines are located firmly in blue states territory.

    Now for more examples of what is lost if both sides went their separate ways. The American music industry which dominates the world with Elvis Presley (who himself belongs to red states having been born in Tennessee) and Michael Jackson (also red state being born in Indiana), but the recording studios to market their music are all in blue state territory with the rest of the music industry (aside from country which is based in Nashville). This is a clear situation where the reds and blues profit by working together. If the American Military were to split up it would still be larger than that of any foreign nation, but it drastically reduces America’s edge. For the first time since the end of the civil war when America built the largest military industrial complex in the world America could be edged out of the top spot for military dominance. The domestic market that has been vital to American business success and dominance would be halved not a good things when billion plus blocs like India and China threaten to replace the United States as having the best domestic markets in the world. Further hurting American market place dominance is that American Fast Food long a symbol of the strangle hold America has on the rest of the world especially what they shove down their throats would be divided. McDonalds, Starbucks, and Dominos would go the blue states. Coca Cola, Pizza Hut, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pepsi, and Burger King would go to the red states. Politics would also get more extreme rather than more moderate following a split up of the country along red and blue lines. Red states would be governed by the Republican Party, but if the two party system is to be preserved it would need to divide into two parties. One would most likely be the current establishment Republican Party the other would probably be a very religious tea party. Politics would move sharply to the right in the red states and a theocracy could conceivably come to power. The Democratic Party would go even more liberal as an openly socialistic party would arise to challenge the more mainstream Democratic Party. It would basically be U.K. politics except there would only be Labor and a Liberal party no conservative party. This would threaten capitalism itself in the blue states depending on who came to power.

    In conclusion the red states could survive on their own because of you know food, but the red states of America wouldn’t be the greatest nation on earth or even a super power without the things the blue states took with them. The blue states would have a very hard time finding a way to feed themselves. Much of the concentrations of population in places like New York and L.A. were only possible due to imports of food from what would now be red states. They would probably end up trading much of their advanced technology to other countries in exchange for shipments of food and natural resources assuming Canada doesn’t allow them its natural resources. This would be a very dependent relationship unlike the very independent relationship it had with the rest of the world while food was provided relatively cheaply by the farmers in the red states. In short red states may hold the key to survival, but blue states hold the key to America’s existence as more than just an agricultural powerhouse.

    Hopefully if you read everything you are firmly dedicated to keeping the United States one nation if you read everything and still think the U.S. should split up the processes in your brain are completely beyond me.

    • Austin,

      There is a very important thing that you don’t seem to be able to grasp — and that is, that there is a bit of a joke in every joke. Sorry, but if you don’t get that much, I really don’t see what you can possibly understand about anyone’s brain processes. Thing is, no joke is “just” a joke, and that is especially true of politically-themed ones. Therefore, the popular argument that any response to a joke is ipso facto a humorless overreaction is patently absurd. Ostensible joking is a very poor rationalization for bigotry or idiocy. Not to mention, it’s kind of ironic to suggest that anyone who is “just joking” should not be subjected to mockery or criticism. I mean, srsly?

      As for the substance of your comment, I find it flawed in ways too numerous to debunk in detail on this lovely Friday afternoon. Suffice it to say, despite the length I find it simplistic. For instance, land mass does not automatically translate to political or military might. Great Britain is a tiny island nation that basically ruled the world for a substantial period of time. Nor is it simple with places that grow food. There are various regions in the world dedicated to agriculture that cannot, nevertheless, sustain a good economy; in some of these, people are actually starving. Location, diversification and political stability are much more powerful predictors of economic and political success, and those are things that encompass numerous factors — climate, water supply, access to ports, bureaucratic structure, etc. A noticeable trend, however: agrarian nations tend to be poor; and the same is true of societies where populations are under-educated, violent and religiously fundamentalist.

      • I think you meant to say there is a little honest criticism in every joke. I can definitely see that particularly in political criticism. You also say that someone is not free from criticism simply because they are joking. This is a view I share although the majority opinion is that a joke is just a joke. Many writers have masked criticism with humor to protect themselves from retaliation throughout history with mixed results. Benjamin Franklin is probably the best American example. It is not clear what the British would have done to him if the colonies hadn’t been fortunate enough to win the war though. However I wrote a non-humorous criticism of John J. Wall who we are agreed was making a political statement through humor and of your piece which I am still unclear on in regards to whether it was intended to be straight criticism or criticism masked in humor.

        Now I would like to address a few issues. First is the issue of red states paying less in taxes, but getting more in federal funding. This is somewhat true, but for a variety of reasons. First I think you will agree that a state’s tax base takes decades to build. When analyzed by decades very few states would qualify as either red or blue states. Some states vote for democratic presidents, but send overwhelmingly republican senators and congressman to Washington and vice versa. Even California which reliably delivers an enormous amount of electoral votes to the democratic candidate every four years loves itself some republican governors. Second is the constitution gives each state two senators regardless of population. This means in the senate when it comes to jockeying for federal dollars every state is on an even playing field. Hawaii has as much pull as California. This pulls federal funding to the little states somewhat. Experience also has some effect. Harry Reid who has been in the Senate for a very long time and knows plenty of people and holds plenty of favors has more pull on federal money than some new senator who probably won’t get reelected. The link for data on this issue is also from 2005. George W. Bush was president in 2005 which also helps red states as he is the one who signs bills into law. He is less likely to question pork coming from conservative law makers. Presumably president Obama is more inclined to favor pork coming from democratic lawmakers than conservative ones.

        The most important reason though is that the country is on a progressive income tax system. The rich pay more in tax than the poor because they are in higher tax brackets. Wealthy states like New York therefore pay much more in tax than poorer states like New Mexico. New York representatives are aware of this issue and have been complaining about it for years. It is somewhat hypocritical for both sides. The Republican Party which questions progressive taxation seems to be more adept at benefiting from it (at least in 2005) while the Democratic Party which encourages progressive taxation complains about it. It would also be a little cruel for wealthy states like New York or California to demean poor states like New Mexico for their poverty. Both States are on the coast something New Mexico is not. Both states have diversified economies. New York has the stock market while California has both Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Both states have booming tourism industries. New Mexico on the other hand has to rely on federal spending particularly military bases like white sands and government research labs like Los Alamos. It makes sense to locate these sprawling complexes in New Mexico where land is dirt cheap compared to New York or California where the cost of land would increase the cost of the complexes by a considerable amount. Basically the nation is getting more bang for its buck in New Mexico. New Mexico also produces 3.4% of the nation’s crude oil, 8.5% of the countries dry natural gas, and 10.2 % of natural gas liquids. I think you can see why they would not look kindly environmentally conscious liberals who oppose drilling and fracking.

        The second issue I would like to address is the idea that agrarian nations tend to be poor. This is not true as you can see by this list of the top 5 food producing countries in the world. http://www.top5ofanything.com/index.php?h=6fd77eae

        Of the five countries on that list one is the United States which is the only super power in the world. One is Russia which is a former super power. China is expected to surpass the United States economically in the next twenty to thirty years and become a rival super power. Brazil is by far the most powerful economy in South America, and it will be hosting the 2016 Olympics in Rio (yay). All four nations are classified as emerging powers. Russia and China are both already considered great powers. India and Brazil have the potential to be and are expected to become great powers in the future. They could conceivably use that as a stepping stone to become super powers themselves.

        Now that I have covered farming land is the logical next step. It is true that the United Kingdom is a small island, and that is ruled most of the world. It ruled the world through colonies however. In 1922 the British Empire covered 22.43% of the world’s land and had 20% of the world’s population as subjects. As it lost its colonies like Australia, Canada, India (which included Pakistan at that time), and numerous African countries it shrank in power and importance. Today it is the 6th largest economy in the world and will likely be surpassed by Brazil and possibly Russia. Personally I think the United Kingdom should become part of the United States being broken up into multiple states to increase GDP and the domestic market and thus stand on a much more even playing field with huge economic blocs like India and China, but that is entirely off the subject. Russia as the Soviet Union covered a sixth of the world’s surface. It is also the only country to seriously rival the United States in the last hundred and fifty years. When it collapsed and former states started to go their own way (because they were free at last) Russia drastically shrank in importance. The economic collapse it suffered trying to convert to capitalism also didn’t do it any favors. Vladimir Putin has managed to reverse the countries decline and the nation is actually growing again, but his methods seem to be heavy handed and open to international criticism. Land is a very important element of a nation’s growth and continued greatness. The type of land is also important though with arable land being much more important than relatively worthless sand like the Sahara. Countries with the most arable land like Russia, China, India, Brazil, and the United States are leading or will lead the world for the remainder of this century and possibly into the following one.

        Fourth I wish to talk about location, diversification, and political stability. First location is very important particularly that a country is located on the coast and has access to vast amounts of arable land as I discussed in the last section. Any oil, natural gas, valuable minerals, ores, and jewels are a bonus. Being in a geographically defensible position is also nice as it keeps people from invading your country. The U.S. is fortunate to be buffered by two weaker countries to the North and South while having access to two oceans to the west and east. Afghanistan on the other hand is highly indefensible and gets routinely invaded by stronger powers. It is difficult to hold though as various countries have discovered except for Genghis Khan who did hold it (sort of).

        Diversification is very important as a nation’s economy can ride out poor business cycles or busts in certain commodities. This gives big countries diversified economies like the U.S. an advantage. A country needs to have agriculture first in order to diversify unless food is somehow being reliably imported into the country. Every other aspect of the economy is built off agriculture as a base. People don’t create tech startups when they are starving. Political stability also requires food. A starving citizen is an unhappy citizen and an unhappy citizen is a revolutionary. The French Monarchy found this out the hard way during the French revolution.

        Finally while I agree that a country that was violent, religiously fundamentalist, and uneducated would be a very hard place to live. It is not these conditions that lead to poverty, but poverty that leads to these conditions. Every country was poor five hundred years ago and every country was violent, uneducated, and religiously fundamentalist. I am not insulting them that is how people lived back then. It has only been through capitalism, neo liberal policies, technology, and industrialization that some countries have begun to become atheistic, tranquil, and educated. I do think you criticize the republicans for being uneducated too much. Politically it is useful for the Democratic Party to cast republicans as stupid and it is useful for republicans to pander to the lowest common denominator and pretend to be everyday Joes, but what is useful politically is rarely true. George W. Bush and his father are both Yale graduates. George W. Bush also went to Harvard. Bill Clinton went to Yale. John McCain is an Annapolis graduate. Barrack Obama is a Harvard graduate. Al Gore is a Harvard graduate. John Kerry is a Yale graduate. Mitt Romney attended Stanford and Harvard. It should be apparent no one gets near the oval office without an Ivy League education especially Harvard and Yale that have a death grip on the office. The United States is the fourth most educated country in the world. It is only beat by Canada, Israel and Japan. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-10-most-educated-countries-in-the-world.html

        The idea that conservatives are less intelligent than liberals is unfounded and a little mean. Scientists did do a study that liberals were more intelligent than conservatives, but it used an old definition of liberal. Liberal meaning neo liberal that is someone who believes in progressive social policies like gay marriage, but also free markets and laissez faire markets. Anyway I hope you enjoyed your Friday afternoon.

      • However I wrote a non-humorous criticism of John J. Wall who we are agreed was making a political statement through humor and of your piece which I am still unclear on in regards to whether it was intended to be straight criticism or criticism masked in humor.

        Well, if you aren’t laughing, then I guess it isn’t humor. Alas, it’s a matter of the recipient’s opinion, which I am powerless change. Suffice it to say, I am not so deranged as to suggest that anthropomorphized countries can decide which people to “take”. And Jonathan Swift (to whom I would never compare myself in a million years) wasn’t seriously suggesting the English should eat Irish children.

        First is the issue of red states paying less in taxes, but getting more in federal funding. This is somewhat true, but for a variety of reasons. [etc. …]

        That may be, but the reasons why red states pay less in taxes and get more in funding are irrelevant to what I was saying. Let’s assume they are all very good reasons. That doesn’t change the fact that there is something quite ironic in people who so clearly depend on taxes bemoaning taxation and all the “moochers”, while attempting to bite the hands that feed them.

        Of the five countries on that list one is the United States which is the only super power in the world. One is Russia which is a former super power. China is expected to surpass the United States economically in the next twenty to thirty years and become a rival super power. Brazil is by far the most powerful economy in South America, and it will be hosting the 2016 Olympics in Rio (yay). All four nations are classified as emerging powers. Russia and China are both already considered great powers. India and Brazil have the potential to be and are expected to become great powers in the future. They could conceivably use that as a stepping stone to become super powers themselves.

        Again, the problem here is irrelevance. To the extent that these countries have power and wealth, it’s hardly due to agriculture. Russia emerged as a superpower only after massive industrialization, and the same can be said for China. Both India and Brazil are moving into non-agricultural fields, which is driving their emerging economies. I remember when Thailand was trying to corner the rice market and form some kind of an OPEC-like organization for grain-producing nations. Even in midst of a food crisis, that attempt ended in abject failure. The reasons for this are complex, but agriculture — while vital — has long ceased to be the key to a prosperous and stable economy. It probably hasn’t been that way since Ancient Egypt.

        Finally while I agree that a country that was violent, religiously fundamentalist, and uneducated would be a very hard place to live. It is not these conditions that lead to poverty, but poverty that leads to these conditions. Every country was poor five hundred years ago and every country was violent, uneducated, and religiously fundamentalist. I am not insulting them that is how people lived back then. It has only been through capitalism, neo liberal policies, technology, and industrialization that some countries have begun to become atheistic, tranquil, and educated.

        I think you do have quite a bit of the “chicken-or-the-egg” problem here. Although poverty reinforces ignorance and religious fundamentalism, you have to realize that ignorance and religious fundamentalism are also major obstacles to capitalism and neo-liberalism that you are talking about. (Now, can we stop the pretense that religious fundamentalists truly support the free market?) The closest I can move towards your position is that it is a vicious cycle.

        I do think you criticize the republicans for being uneducated too much. Politically it is useful for the Democratic Party to cast republicans as stupid and it is useful for republicans to pander to the lowest common denominator and pretend to be everyday Joes, but what is useful politically is rarely true.

        While I will concede that there are smart and educated people who cynically pander to the lowest common denominator for political reasons — because their sole goal in life is power at any cost, rather than bettering the world — I don’t think anyone can deny that the current culture of the Republican party is decidedly anti-intellectualist. It’s become increasingly hostile not just to climate science, but to science in general, all secular education that doesn’t revolve around American triumphalism and educated people; instead, it increasingly promotes ignorance, intellectual incuriousity and xenophobic provincialism as heartland virtues that supposedly make people more authentically American or whatever. This attitude makes uneducated vulgarians the natural Republican base — along with a handful of the aforementioned cynical billionaires. I will not dispute that this country has some of the world’s most impressive institutions of research and higher learning — but it’s certainly no thanks to conservatives.

  22. I am pretty close to agreement on most of your points except for two things.

    I am not sure what you mean by giving up the pretense that religious fundamentalists support the free market. Are they hindering or arguing against it in some way?

    As for the Republican Party being anti-intellectual that is more complicated. Fox news is heavily anti-intellectual and anti-elitist, but although it has influence on and does clearly support the Republican Party it isn’t the sum total of the republican party. Mitt Romney got about 60 million votes in 2012. Fox news has about 2 million viewers during prime time. That is a significant number but again not the sum total. As for conservatives not contributing intellectually well that isn’t true.

    In the 1980’s a curious trio of forces came together to elect Ronald Reagan. National security conservatives felt that the United States needed to guard itself and its interests against the dangers brewing in the world and wanted funding to do so, social conservatives felt that the country’s moral values were declining and formed the Christian right, and fiscal conservatives felt high taxes and overregulation was killing American industry. All three were rather different but they found common cause and decided to work together. Social conservatives dealt with the grass roots and gathering the sheer numbers required to win elections, national security conservatives defended and furthered the country’s interests and fiscal conservatives paid the bill in exchange for lax regulations and low taxes. It is an extremely effective triangle and it has gotten Republicans into the white house 5 times in the last 9 elections. Some speculate demographic shifts will hurt, but that remains to be seen.

    Republicans have pushed military spending to freakish levels ensuring the United States has a qualitative edge in military technology for quite possibly the remainder of the century. In economics conservatives continue to be in the stronger position with Keynesian economics being on the same level of credibility as deniers are when it comes to climate science. In national diplomacy conservatives increasingly achieve better material results than liberal policy makers (I’ll grant Nafta as a big exception). In agriculture the United States leads the world in agro science. It is also the largest net exporter of food. The United States is estimated to overtake Saudi Arabia as the number one oil producing nation by 2020 and become energy independent by 2030.

    These are conservative areas of interest and policy and they are paying off well for the country.

  23. Wow, more statist misrepresentation. First, we don’t have a democratic form of government. You cannot find the word democracy in the US Constitution. Therefore, all your claims in regards to democracy are debunked. It’s not a winner take all situation where 51% tells the other 49% how to live. We are built on laws not the whims of people.
    Second, claiming Conservatives hate education because they don’t believe it’s a major function of the central government is laughable. You’re being dishonest or you just don’t understand the reality of Conservative thought and practices.
    The United States became the wealthiest nation because of a free system of law (negative rights) and economics. The poorest Americans have more than the majority of the world’s population can only dream of. Again, this didn’t come from a central government planning the way. I could go on but I don’t think you’d understand. The bottom line is that freedom and liberty will always serve its citizens and environment better than a heavy-handed central authority ever will.

    • You know why this page was made? Because liberals would HATE if this were to happen. They would be stuck with all the dopeheads, homosexuals, illegals, and minorities. They would have no military or police force, seeing as 90% of the military is conservative. They would lose most of the corporations because their taxes would be too high. They would have no oil, you know because “big oil” is evil.

      They know that their “liberal country” would be a total failure. Simple.

      • You know why this page was made? Because liberals would HATE if this were to happen.

        You know why this page was made? To tease shit-flinging rage monkeys. You know why YOU were made? Because the gods they too like a good laugh every now and then.

        They would be stuck with all the dopeheads, homosexuals, illegals, and minorities.

        As far as dopeheads, I already told you, YOU are keeping Rush Limbaugh, the Valium-popping housewives and the Ozark meth crowd. That’s absolutely non-negotiable.

        As for homosexual and minorities: Great, so not only are you a sexual pervert, obsessed with other people’s sex lives, you are an avowed racist, too. I’d like to hear some more of that bullshit about how criticism of white supremacism is the real racism, etc., etc., etc. So let me guess, you’d expel all the minorities from your Conservative paradise? Hear that, Brandon “freedom and liberty” Rienhoehl? You are in good company. It’s freedom and liberty forever, except there is no such thing as freedom and liberty to exist while a “minority” of any kind, or have sex with a consenting adult without getting Crystal Ballard’s permission first (and sending a tape to Rush Limbaugh to masturbate to).

        Clearly, civilization will go completely to hell, unless we have Crystal Ballard monitor whom and how people fuck. For Jesus and the Constitution.

        They would have no military or police force, seeing as 90% of the military is conservative.

        Yawn. Even if that were true, we know Conservatives are giant hypocrites. While their penchant for Conservatism is clearly rooted in general authoritarianism (instinctive or, in the case of soldiers who are indoctrinated while still in their teens, cultivated), they’ll gladly compromise their principles for a paycheck.

        They would lose most of the corporations because their taxes would be too high.

        Corporations need consumers. I realize you were absent from school the day they taught knowledge and stuff there (because knowledge and stuff have liberal bias, donchaknow), but take my word for it when I tell you that business works approximately as follows:

        (1) A offers something for sale;
        (2) B buys that something;
        (3) Profit!!!

        Without B buying the thing that’s being offered for sale, A makes no money. No matter how ostentatiously A prays to Jesus, or how hard A hates gays or how many guns it has stored under its pillow. You absolutely need someone to buy your shit if you want to make any profit.

        Corporations (unlike you) understand this. When consumers have no money to spend, low taxes are a moot point. There are no taxes to speak of in central Africa, but for some unfathomable reason, America’s corporations and its owners aren’t moving there in droves.

        They would have no oil, you know because “big oil” is evil.

        Big oil doesn’t give a fuck who calls it names or who sings it accolades. Its raison d’être is to make money. So it will sell oil to whoever pays for it. Jesus, for supposedly “pro-business” people, you don’t know diddly squat about how the free market works.

        They know that their “liberal country” would be a total failure. Simple.

        Yes, we’d be a typical socialist failure, kind of like Sweden. And you’d be an enviable small-government paradise, like Somalia. Simple.

    • Wow, more statist misrepresentation.

      Well, hello there, O Esteemed Ferpesser O’Learnin from the Wingnut Supreme Academy O’Learnin! Welcome to this here mommy blog and thanks for playing our game.

      First, we don’t have a democratic form of government. You cannot find the word democracy in the US Constitution.

      Curses! This is possibly the best argument I have ever heard in my entire life, and I confess my liberal worldview is completely reduced to dust by this revelation. On the other hand, it reminds me of the old filthy Russian proverb: “Just because someone scribbled ‘dick’ on a door doesn’t mean there’s one behind it.” Only in reverse.

      I realize you are just simplifying the popular conservative talking point to the effect that “we don’t have a democracy, we have a republic.” Of course, it’s kind of like saying, “A monkey isn’t an animal, it’s a primate.” While I would expect a junior high school student way in over his head to “reason” in this manner, by the time of reaching adulthood, one should have learned enough about government to realize that this is nonsense. Different terms aren’t mutually exclusive, and they often overlap. Some republics are democratic, others aren’t. Whether a given system is a democracy or not is determined by how it works, not by any label in its founding document. Our form of government is a representative democracy, which is a democratic republic. Great Britain is a monarchy, but it’s also a representative democracy.

      As for the word “democracy” not appearing in the Constitution, Jesus Tapdancing Christ. Seriously? Let’s see where your “reasoning” gets us. According to you, the Athenian democracy — which many armchair scholars hold up as the only “pure” democracy — wasn’t a democracy, because it didn’t say “democracy” anywhere on it. In fact none of the ancient Greek democracies (despite having spawned the term) were democracies according to you, because they neglected to slap a tag on themselves saying that in writing. At the same time, the Roman Republic wasn’t a republic (again, according to you), because it didn’t have a constitution saying it was a republic. North Korea, by your reasoning, is both a democracy and a republic, because that’s what it’s called, even though it’s neither a democracy nor a republic, but is in fact a dictatorship. According to you, in fact, there has never been a single dictatorship in modern history, because no government, however dictatorial, explicitly called itself a “dictatorship” in writing. Meanwhile, this thing I’m sitting on is (I guess) NOT chair, because it doesn’t say “chair” on it. But if I attach a label to it that says “car”, it will be a car. Nice. Congratulations on your attempt at thinking. Have you ever thought before? Anyway, keep trying — even if you don’t get better, at least you’ll continue to entertain.

      Therefore, all your claims in regards to democracy are debunked.

      See, the thing about argumentation is, Brandon — whatever you say has to tie in to the larger discussion at hand. Kids call it “having a point”. So what’s your point? You say you “debunked” all my claims “in regards to” (sic) democracy. My claims with regard to democracy consisted of saying that different political views get representation. So your counterclaim is … that they don’t? You claim to have proven that the US Constitution calls for a one-party system, where political opposition should be outlawed, the vast majority of the population — basically everyone except for white, native-born, land-owning, male Christian fundamentalists — should be disenfranchised, and any view contrary to the established ultraconservative orthodoxy should be banned? Wow. It’s amazing that you get all that from the mere fact that the Constitution doesn’t say “democracy” somehwere — and that you believe this omission somehow cancels the First Amendment. And the Thirteenth. And the Fourteenth. And the Nineteenth. In fact, by your interpretation, the bulk of the Constitution is invalid because the word “democracy” doesn’t appear anywhere in it. Needless to say, that’s a new frontier in statutory interpretation. Have you tried that in a law court yet? If ever you do, drop me a line; I’ll get a big bucket of popcorn and go watch you “argue”.

      It’s not a winner take all situation where 51% tells the other 49% how to live.

      Really? It’s not like Conservatives have been busy passing mandatory rape laws? Jailing people for having consensual sex in ways not approved by the majority? Forcing non-believers to subsidize religion? Conservatives don’t endeavor to tell people how to live and use the coercive power of the government to punish people for not conforming? Your previous comment didn’t characterize the Bill of Rights as having no legal significance and offering no protection to the vast majority of Americans? Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! Thanks, that was a good joke.

      We are built on laws not the whims of people.

      Really? History does not bear this out. Tell me, when segregation was legally enforced, was that a “law” or a “whim”?

      Second, claiming Conservatives hate education because they don’t believe it’s a major function of the central government is laughable.

      That would indeed be laughable, although under any circumstances, leaving education up to reactionary local districts and church schools invariably results in an overall quality of education that’s below the level of the sewer. But in any event, I believe Conservatives hate education not because they don’t believe it’s a “major function of the central government”. I believe Conservatives hate education because they hate education, and the basis of my belief is that Conservatives never tire of expressing their contempt for science, critical inquiry and educated people, while extolling mediocrity and ignorance as heartland virtues. They don’t want the always-more-moderate central government to have any control over education precisely because they hate education. That is, fact-based, scientific education that isn’t grounded in theology. Cause and effect, Brandon, you’ve got those two reversed.

      The United States became the wealthiest nation because of a free system of law (negative rights) and economics.

      Oh? I beg to differ. History demonstrates that the causes of the American economic ascendancy are quite complex, and include, among other things, sheer luck, annexation of vast land resources (which, of course, came with a large side helping of genocide), the two World Wars and the end of European colonialism (the last two items having effectively knee-capped major European economies for decades). One often overlooked factor is that for a very long time, the United States was able to import educated and highly skilled people through immigration. It was a sweet deal, too — having other countries, often much poorer than this one, invest heavily in education, only to have their best and brightest later use that investment to benefit the United States. Well, guess what? With the advent of globalization, this brain-importing bonanza is at an end. And that means, America’s abysmal (especially in the South) system of public education will increasingly become a problem in the long run. This descentralized, controlled-by-your-local-reactionary-loons school system that you favor has been the norm in this country, and it is patently inadequate. But hey, it’s not like you care about nuance or fact. No matter how badly big banking houses topple the economy through legalized fraud, or how woefully inadequate American professionals become on the globalized market, you’re still gonna blame it on the birth control pill and gay marriage.

      The poorest Americans have more than the majority of the world’s population can only dream of.

      How low do you want to set the bar? I’m sure the United States compares favorably with Sierra Leone, but what about Norway? The poorest Americans have a lot less than poor people in other First World countries — and if it were left up to Conservatives, they’d have much, much less still. Are you seriously trying to credit Conservative policies of all things with supposedly keeping America’s poor in greater comfort than they would have been in some Third-World hell? You are against free public education; you are against universal healthcare; you are against paid maternity leave; you are against minimum wage; you are against any laws that give workers any kind of recourse in cases of abuse, wage theft or exploitation; and you favor a regressive tax system, where the poorer someone is, the higher taxes they pay. The poorest Americans are much poorer in “red” areas of the country than in “blue” ones, and they would have been poorer still if you had free rein. So to the extent that the poor have anything that people in Sudan might be envious of, it’s sure no thanks to Conservatives.

      Again, this didn’t come from a central government planning the way. I could go on but I don’t think you’d understand.

      The moon sure is made of green cheese. I could go on, but I don’t think you’d understand. So you’ll just have to take my word for it.

      The bottom line is that freedom and liberty will always serve its citizens and environment better than a heavy-handed central authority ever will.

      Oh please, kindly get the hell outta here. “Freedom and liberty”? Conservatives only believe in freedom and liberty as long as they are invoked as a justification to bulldoze over other people in the name of profit, white supremacy, family authoritarianism and religious fundamentalism. Conservatives don’t care one fig about freedom and liberty when people use them to do things Conservatives don’t like. And you are more than happy to rely on “heavy-handed central authority” to bring local governments to heel when they pass laws you don’t agree with. I mean, that’s what DOMA was all about, and the “Religious Protection” Act, and the attempts to enact a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Your self-serving pontifications about “freedom and liberty” ring hollow when you vote for candidates who run on a platform of criminalizing non-procreative sex even among heterosexual married couples or when you describe Vladimir Putin — a contemptible ex-KGB thug who has placed the most restrictions on his people’s liberty and engaged in the greatest persecutions of political opponents Russia has seen since Stalin’s death, leaving Stalin’s communist successors in the dust on that account –as your ideal of a leader for this country. Shame on you; not just for your un-American, anti-Constitutional authoritarianism, but for your sheer hypocrisy. You are only too eager to deny freedom and liberty to people who act contrary to your values, even when their actions don’t affect you in the slightest. So knock it off already with this “freedom and liberty” bullshit. This particular Conservative talking point is WAY past its expiration date.

      • That’s quite a filibuster. You’re making a lot of assumptions about what I believe and you’re wrong. You don’t know me so there’s no way you can say what I feel about racism or homosexuals or much of anything else. I only want white male land-owning Christians to vote? That’s quite an assumption to make. I want a one-party system?
        Regardless of all your thin arguments about chairs, cars and monkeys, the word “democracy” was left out of the Constitution intentionally. No amount of filibuster changes that.
        The USA became the wealthiest, most innovative nation in the world’s history because of luck and genocide? If that’s the case then why isn’t the Soviet Union still around? Why do Venezuelans live in squalor? They both have/had vast natural resources. It’s because they don’t have freedom. They have a large central authority directing where the toilet paper goes and there are toilet paper shortages. The free market can do it better. Every. Time.
        It’s funny that you mention Sweden as the great example of socialism that works but you also mention Somalia as a small-government paradise? That’s some pretty serious cherry picking. Why don’t you mention Singapore as a small-government paradise? What natural resources does it have that made it so easy to be a success? That’s right; they’ve done it because of freedom.
        Regarding education, did the United States become the beacon of education with the Department of Education or without? Has the state of education gotten better since the inception of the Department or has it gotten worse? Please avoid filibuster and answer the question directly.
        Your attitude of blame America first is sad. It’s not hard to see why Liberals are considered anti-American. The US has never been a perfect country. There are many flaws and faults to be considered but it’s hard to question its greatness. Consider if the US was just another Sweden. What would the world look like? I can assure you the world is a far better place because of who we are.
        Why was the United States able to import educated and highly skilled people through immigration? It’s because the opportunity the US offered. Plain and simple.
        “But hey, it’s not like you care about nuance or fact. No matter how badly big banking houses topple the economy through legalized fraud, or how woefully inadequate American professionals become on the globalized market, you’re still gonna blame it on the birth control pill and gay marriage”
        How do you make so many assumptions about what I think? I’m going to blame the birth control pill and gay marriage? How do you know what I feel about either of them and how do you know I would blame them for anything? And you’re telling me I don’t care about nuance or fact? Think about that for a moment.
        “…and if it were left up to Conservatives, they’d have much, much less still.”
        Conservatives want people to be poor? This is flat out delusional. This tells me you really don’t know anything about Conservatism. As a side note, I consider myself a Conservatarian. Anyway, a Democrat president once said “a rising tide lifts all boats.” This is a proper characterization of what Conservatives believe. Just because they have differing beliefs does not mean Conservatives want people to be poor. This is completely absurd.
        There’s a lot of talk about racism, white supremacism, etc, in your post. Can you provide any evidence of Conservatives being white supremacists or racists? What can you say about people of color who are Conservatives? And again, you don’t have any idea of my thoughts on gay marriage. It’s so ironic that you tell me I don’t care about facts but make such huge assumptions about my beliefs.
        I don’t want to deny anyone freedom or liberty. Do you? Remember, all government growth is a subtraction of freedom.

      • That’s quite a filibuster. You’re making a lot of assumptions about what I believe and you’re wrong. You don’t know me so there’s no way you can say what I feel about racism or homosexuals or much of anything else. I only want white male land-owning Christians to vote? That’s quite an assumption to make. I want a one-party system?
        Regardless of all your thin arguments about chairs, cars and monkeys, the word “democracy” was left out of the Constitution intentionally. No amount of filibuster changes that.

        Don’t be such a coward, Brandon. It’s dishonest to accuse me of misrepresenting your beliefs while you won’t say what those beliefs are. Which is exactly what you are doing. The above boils down to “You can’t possibly know if I want a one-party system, neener-neener, I’m not saying I do, and I’m not saying I don’t, I’m just saying you don’t know because I’m not telling you. Ha! I win.” Since you don’t explicitly state your beliefs, I have to go by the beliefs that your friends embrace. No, it’s not an exact inference, but a reasonable one.

        As for the word “democracy” not appearing in the Constitution, clearly, you lack comprehension of anything I said. For what it’s worth, the word “theocracy” doesn’t appear in it, either, but your theocratic friends apparently haven’t gotten the memo. And still, “fillibuster” or not, you exhibit the typical anti-intellectual disregard for substance on the basis of labels.

        The USA became the wealthiest, most innovative nation in the world’s history because of luck and genocide? If that’s the case then why isn’t the Soviet Union still around? Why do Venezuelans live in squalor? They both have/had vast natural resources. It’s because they don’t have freedom. They have a large central authority directing where the toilet paper goes and there are toilet paper shortages. The free market can do it better. Every. Time.
        It’s funny that you mention Sweden as the great example of socialism that works but you also mention Somalia as a small-government paradise? That’s some pretty serious cherry picking. Why don’t you mention Singapore as a small-government paradise? What natural resources does it have that made it so easy to be a success? That’s right; they’ve done it because of freedom.

        I cringe every time I hear the word “freedom” come out of the mouths of people who advocate for the most draconian restrictions on people’s consensual sex practices, private lifestyles, religious preferences and political expression. In fact, most people who cry “freedom” while clamoring for all kinds of restrictions on people whose lifestyles and views they don’t like, can’t even define the concept. Can you? I doubt it. Did you know that in the years leading up to the Civil War, freedom was invoked in defense of slavery? As in, people should be free to own slaves, because freedom? Do you not find it ludicrous? You, and people like you, use the word “freedom” as a buzzword, a magic totem without giving any thought to what it means. And this is quite irresponsible, I might add, since people live and die for this concept, which many can’t define and many others deliberately muddy. So, to borrow the late Professor Fears’ (ooooh! elitist professor!) definition of the term, there are three kinds of freedom:

        1. National freedom: a society united, to some degree, by a common culture, existing in the absence of foreign domination and embracing a strong national identity.

        2. Personal freedom: freedom to live as you choose, as long as you don’t physically harm anyone else.

        3. Political freedom: the opportunity to participate in governance.

        So, conservatives — but not you, of course, because though you are conservative, you haven’t actually said what your beliefs are, even though they are strikeconservative “conservatarian” — do not support the idea of personal freedom. Certainly not personal freedom for people whose lifestyles and beliefs they don’t like. Advocating for personal freedom to be granted only to a small, limited minority (say, white Christian males) ISN’T, in fact, a defense of freedom — it’s a defense of privilege. Not the same thing at all.

        Conservatives, in practice, are also opposed to political freedom. Putting aside the recent flurry of efforts to disenfranchise people who tend to vote for Democrats, modern conservatives seek to displace the democratic government with private entities which severely limit participation — i.e., in their ideal society, people live under the rule of corporations and religious organizations, in which only very few have a say. In other words, they are in favor of autocratic government forms.

        That leaves national freedom. Sure, conservatives are all for that, but you know what? There are plenty of places in the world with the most tyrannical political systems that have a very strong national identity. Like Russia, for instance. So I guess Russia is more free.

        Bottom line, the term “freedom”, as you are using it, is meaningless. It has a meaning only in relation to something. But I will say this: not every limitation on one’s conduct is tantamount to a lack of freedom in the political sense; were it otherwise, we could only be free at the cost of allowing everyone to defecate in the middle of Times Square.

        You ask, rhetorically of course, why the Soviet Union isn’t still around. Like I said — something that you chose to completely ignore — the factors that govern the rise and fall of a nation-state are complex, and they include such things as luck, geography, climactic changes, and yes, bad things like genocide. As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, its breakup, too, was a complicated process, with many contributing factors. It’s incredibly facile to state: “It fell because it lacked freedom.” I mean, a ten-year-old would be embarrassed of making such a simplistic argument. If freedom is the sine qua non of wealth and political prowess, how did the Soviet Union get established at all? Why was it in power for 75 years?

        ARE you curious as to why the Soviet Union fell when it did? I mean, I don’t want to make the unfair assumption that you are an intellectually incurious troll, who doesn’t really give a shit about history and just invokes the USSR as a ridiculous talking point.

        Part of it was geography — it was an insanely huge country, and the government’s enforcement resources were spread too thin.

        Part of it was, as cynical as it sounds, not enough genocide. It was a very heterogenious society that oppressed ethnic and religious minorities — groups that had the strength of geographic territory and united to distinct languages and cultural traditions. The thing about resolving ethnic conflict is, it can only be done if you either absorb the subjugated group, or totally exterminate it. There is no middle ground. Keeping it in a subservient position indefinitely is a recipe for disaster.

        Part of it was Chernobyl — I know that because I lived in Russia at the time; it was an incredibly distabilizing event. So yes, something as fortuitous as an industrial accident can undermine a superpower in a major way, if its government is unprepared to effectively curtail the damage. (Think about that when your friends clamor for abolishing FEMA and the EPA, while also doing away with any regulation of environmentally hazardous industries. You can’t deal with radioactive fallout by shooting at it. Or praying, not effective either. Sure, I suppose the Libertarian argument goes, “Well, if enough Chernobyls happen, people will stop buying nuclear-generated power, and that will force the industry to become safer.” Of course, putting aside the shocking disregard for human suffering that this model displays — what people are going to have to die to force the market to change? you? your children? — if enough Chernobyls happen, you may not have a market left to change anything in any direction, so there.)

        Part of it was that the Donbass miners were fed up with being paid meager wages and the strikes got more and more frequent. (Ooohh! Workers rebelling! Socialism!)

        Part of it was an accumulation of environmental disasters (of which Chernobyl was but one) that undermined major industries and sickened populations. The Soviet society was very enthusiastic about destroying the environment — just one of the things it has in common with American conservatives.

        In other words, it’s complicated/. Same with Venezuela. I don’t feel like explaining to you all the real reasons why Venezuelans live in squalor, because like I said, I suspect you don’t really care about facts. Suffice it to say, most Venezuelans lived in squalor long before Chavez came to power; and in fact, a person like Chavez wouldn’t have come to power if free-market Venezuela was the wealthy paradise you suggest it was. Things like coups and revolutions don’t happen just because evil people come along and destroy a peaceful paradise. Dictatorial governments come to power because conditions exists that allow it to happen. I have no love for the Soviet Union, but the fact of the matter is, the Revolution of 1917 occurred the way it did because pre-revolutionary Russia had huge homegrown economic and social problems which its elites — some of the most conservative in history — REFUSED to deal with, or even acknowledge. They simply demanded that things continue as before, forever and ever, amen. If workers rioted, it was because workers were bad. If people demanded changes, it’s because they were immoral malefactors who did not respect their betters, and also offended God. As one of the my favorite bloggers once said, if you refuse to address a problem, someone else will solve it for you. In places like pre-revolutionary France, Russia, Cuba — huge problems existed, and people in power were IMPLORED to do something about them, but refused. So along came Robespierre, Lenin and Castro, and solved those problems for them. No whining now.

        As for Singapore (a country where the government is so small, and freedom is so large, you need a doctor’s prescription to buy a stick of gum, but whatever) — it would interest you to know that it’s a democracy. Further, your statement about natural resources if completely inane, since the presence of natural resources does no more to determine a country’s wealth than does your nebulous concept of “freedom”. Suffice it to say, Singapore’s impressive number of millionaire citizens is highly skewed as a result of its function as a tax haven — and the fact that nearly half of its work force are foreign workers who, of course, live in terrible poverty, but don’t count in the census. And all that said, despite its ideological rejection of welfare, Singapore provides a lot of services to its poorer citizens that conservatives find anathema — such as subsidized housing and free medical care.

        Regarding education, did the United States become the beacon of education with the Department of Education or without? Has the state of education gotten better since the inception of the Department or has it gotten worse? Please avoid filibuster and answer the question directly.

        America’s education is a beacon? Says who? This country’s secondary education is at the level of the sewer. That’s not an exaggeration. American secondary education is terrible — mostly as the result of it being controlled by viciously ignorant ideologues at the local level. For all your sputtering about the Department of Education, much of the problems with American education stem from not enough central control, rather than too much of it. In all countries with a strong tradition of secondary education, there is a well-funded, well-regulated system of public schools — which is, of course, something conservatives oppose.

        As for your ridiculous question about whether education was better or worse before the Department of Education, I’m debating with myself whether to even dignify it with a response. The federal agency that became the precursor to the Department of Education was established right after the Civil War. At that time, 20% of Americans were illiterate; that figure was nearly 80% for non-whites. Illiteracy dropped consistently after that, so I would say yes, the public education system got a whole lot better after the Department of Education was established. There’s your answer — and incidentally, it’s not a “filibuster” just because you don’t like it.

        Your attitude of blame America first is sad. It’s not hard to see why Liberals are considered anti-American. The US has never been a perfect country. There are many flaws and faults to be considered but it’s hard to question its greatness. Consider if the US was just another Sweden. What would the world look like? I can assure you the world is a far better place because of who we are.

        Blame America first? You people have this ridiculous knee-jerk reaction every time someone says anything even remotely critical America’s history. And given the very nature of conservatism (by definition, the preservation of status quo), whenever this country made any improvements in any area of its government or society, conservatives had to be dragged kicking and screaming into it. Is this a great country? Absolutely. Could it be better? Without a doubt. But you don’t get better — as a country, or as a person — unless you acknowledge your flaws,, at least to yourself, without getting defensive. Demanding that people stop talking about things that make you uncomfortable and interfere with your nationalistic triumphalism hardly lends itself to making America, or the world (I’ll permit myself the scandalous observation that the world matters, and that America, being one of its most powerful players, has a greater responsibility to the planet than most) a better place.

        Why was the United States able to import educated and highly skilled people through immigration? It’s because the opportunity the US offered. Plain and simple.

        That doesn’t change the fact that the US benefitted from having other countries invest in education and skills of future American citizens. And now it’s pretty much over. And the fact that it’s over means you have to work on educating your own population well — something that conservatives are against. If conservatives have their way with education, you are looking at a huge intellectual and technological decline in this country in the coming decades. As on the question of history, above, you take an issue, pick out whatever crumbs make you feel good, and ignore whatever is troubling. And if anyone brings up a problem, you accuse them of being un-American. I trust I don’t have to explain why I don’t want my country governed by people who embrace that kind of mindset any more than I would want to be governed by an ostrich.

        How do you make so many assumptions about what I think? I’m going to blame the birth control pill and gay marriage? How do you know what I feel about either of them and how do you know I would blame them for anything? And you’re telling me I don’t care about nuance or fact? Think about that for a moment.

        Have you heard the parable about an Ass and a Wise Man? There once lived an ass, but he didn’t know who he was. So he went to see a Wise Man about his identity (because unlike a typical conservative, the Ass, despite being an ass, still had some tiny capacity for introspection — sorry, couldn’t resist). “O Wise Man!” he pleaded, “I don’t know who I am. Do YOU know who I am?” “I don’t,” replied the Wise Man, “But it’s easy to find out. Tell me: who are your friends?”

        Conservatives want people to be poor? This is flat out delusional. This tells me you really don’t know anything about Conservatism. As a side note, I consider myself a Conservatarian. Anyway, a Democrat president once said “a rising tide lifts all boats.” This is a proper characterization of what Conservatives believe. Just because they have differing beliefs does not mean Conservatives want people to be poor. This is completely absurd.
        There’s a lot of talk about racism, white supremacism, etc, in your post. Can you provide any evidence of Conservatives being white supremacists or racists? What can you say about people of color who are Conservatives? And again, you don’t have any idea of my thoughts on gay marriage. It’s so ironic that you tell me I don’t care about facts but make such huge assumptions about my beliefs.

        Conservatives regard poverty as a moral failure, regardless of personal circumstances. That’s not delusional at all. Not only is this a fact, it’s a belief deeply rooted in classic Calvinist ethos, which strongly posits that economic comfort reflects one’s moral character and, moreover, God’s attitude to a particular person. If you are rich, it means God loves you. If you are poor, it’s because God hates you. If you try to help the poor be less poor, you are going against God’s will. So in a hair-splitting fashion, sure, a Conservative may not want people to be poor the way a traditional Calvinist may not necessarily want people to be damned. But both believe that providing any kind of assistance or anything that levels the playing field (i.e., providing opportunities to people who can’t reply on privilege) is completely unacceptable, immoral and even sinful; after all, poor people are poor because they deserve it, and they have to be punished with more poverty. Rags to riches stories are appreciated, sure, but the poor should be required to overcome almost insurmountable odds in order to be deemed deserving.

        As for your demand for proof — I will not sit here and compile a bibliography for you unless you tell me in concrete terms what it would take to prove you wrong. Unless you are willing to be dissuaded, any demand for proof is just semantic noise.

        As for people of color who are Conservatives, all seventeen of them — do you really want me to speculate about their psychology? Sure, I’ll get to that just as soon as I’m done figuring out why some Jews become virulent anti-Semites.

        I don’t want to deny anyone freedom or liberty. Do you? Remember, all government growth is a subtraction of freedom

        More facile talking points, completely devoid of substance. You know what? I want to deny you the liberty to dictate to me (at gunpoint, through unequal bargaining power, or by shoving the Bible in my face) how I should live my life. Okay? As long as we are unclear on the definition of freedom, we are also unclear on the definition of government. When Zimmerman shot Martin, he acted as the police, judge, jury and executioner. Regardless of whether you think Martin deserved it (I’m sure you know where I stand on this, if you’ve read my blog, and I have a pretty good idea of where you stand) — the fact remains that Zimmerman executed Martin. He acted as the government. When you take the coersive mechanism of the government and outsource it to private citizens on the pretext that traditional government is inefficient and oppressive, each of those citizens — armed and backed by laws that provide them wide lattitude to judge, convict and execute people who piss them off — becomes a government onto itself. The kind of government that isn’t obligated to provide you with due process or respect your civil rights. And you have the same problem with privatization. All it is, is giving private entities the power of governmental agencies (such as by, for example, instituting private prisons) — meaning, of course, that people end up being placed under a much more repressive government, in which, unlike a traditional democratic government, they have no say; and one’s legal recourse against privatized government is severely curtailed. Yes, I do believe “government growth” leads to less freedom — you and I just disagree on what the “government” is or where the greatest danger lies. This is the point at which conservative stupidity reaches its zenith: you shrink the government, you create a power vacuum; you transfer that power to private individuals and companies who are absolutely not accountable — not even de jure — to the people over whom they now exercise that power; you congratulate yourself for having destroyed traditional governmental structures that allowed people some control over their governance; and you interpret that as an increase in freedom, even though it’s something you’ve greately reduced — usually, to profit a very small group. So there it is. I love freedom, just not your kind of freedom.

        P.S.: My “thin” argument about chairs, cars and monkeys is called “reductio ad absurdum”. Look it up. It’s not an argument so much as an illustration of the absurdity of yours. Not that I would expect you to grasp the difference.

      • All that as she still has no clue how conservatives REALLY think. She’s so brainwashed by the maddows and matthews, she has no clue who her opposition really is.

        This is why listening to a liberal argue is nothing more than frustrating amusement to others.

        Oh, by the way, obama’s poll numbers are as bad as Bush’s.

      • Well, Opal-Garnet-whatever, perhaps I’d be more open to the supposedly brilliant and well-reasoned views of my opposition, if said opposition didn’t obscure said views (they are rumored to exist!) in meaningless, ungrammatical word salads, long on stupidity and short on reason — exemplified right here by your comment. Calling people names, claiming they are “brainwashed” and shouting fifty-cent words like “freedom” — none of this makes any kind of argument, not even a flawed one. It’s mere verbal flatulence. I’m not a mind reader. If conservatives want people to know what they “really” think, perhaps they should endeavor to convey those thoughts accurately. Until then, I am left with the rantings of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, various right-wing “intellectuals” in the vein of Jonah Goldberg and people like you, leading me to the conclusion that your conservative “culture”, such as it is, is hateful, vulgar, proudly uninformed and deeply hypocritical. But hey, if your actual words do not reflect what you REALLY think, maybe you should learn to express yourself better. Until you do, I suggest you keep your mouth shut and your hands away from the keyboard.

        Oh, by the way, obama’s poll numbers are as bad as Bush’s.

        Meaning what? Do you offer this as an indictment of Obama or a vindication of Bush? Forget what you supposedly “really” think, Crystal; it’s comments like this that lead me to believe you don’t think at all. Not to put a finer point on it, but to characterize that swill in your head as thought would be an offense to higher mental faculties.

      • The idea that conservatives are (the played out) “raaaacist”, (the played out) “war on women”, we want a theocracy, we only want white men to vote, etc…….is nothing short of ignorance and WRONG.

        All you know about us is what you see on the liberal dominated media. Have you ever sat down with a true conservative and listened? Obviously not.

        You claim that conservative men are the only ones who want to stop abortion. WRONG. You must not know ANY conservative women. I know what your next argument to that is…..”oh conservative women are only submissive to their men”.
        Again. WRONG. You obviously don’t know many conservative women. It’s funny how you “tolerant” people will save an endangered mouse, but don’t give unborn HUMANS the same respect. So you keep fighting for your insignificant animals, and we’ll keep fighting for the helpless unborn that you support murdering.

        You claim conservatives are uneducated and ignorant. WRONG. Disagreeing with you is not a sign of ignorance (or “HAAAAAATE”, yet another played out word), it’s an opinion. Such as, I’ll bet someone in your life thinks you’re attractive, correct? Well guess what? I don’t and i guarantee a lot of others don’t as well. Does that make us ignorant? I don’t think so.

        In your earlier post you arrogantly claim that the men and women of our police force and military are not “college material”. WRONG. You don’t seem to know that MANY people who enlist go to college on a GI bill and the majority of our police force, from the beat cops to the CIA, are college educated. I dare you to walk up to our RESPECTED service men AND women and tell them you’re not “college material”. We both know you wont though. That takes bravery that they possess and you do not.

        Voter rights? Most of us would prefer election by majority vote. NOT electoral college. Does that mean we would’ve won ever single election? No. In the end, that idea, although i support it, would only screw conservatives because of the increase of the populations of urban areas. You would be a fool to think that voter districting is not a game played by BOTH sides, NOT just conservatives. You honestly think that liberal politicians are soooooo honest that they don’t play games to get more votes on their side?

        No REAL conservative wants a theocracy either. We are smart enough to know that if we allowed that, there would be a chance that some stupid group like the pedophile-loving muslims would have a chance at taking over. So when you say we want a theocracy, you are WRONG.

        Hey kiddo’, guess what? Bush is out of office. I can EASILY argue your simple points without using Bush. It’s funny how most liberals can’t argue for their hero obama without mentioning him, though. Why did i mention poll numbers? Conservatives KNEW he’d be a failure and is no more popular than than his predecessor. He had NO governing experience, NO business experience, NO military experience, and liberals thought he would be the perfect choice to run this country? WRONG. THAT was ignorant.

        Point is, your whole post is worthless because you know NOTHING about us. You OBVIOUSLY know only what you hear on your little CNN, MSNBC and huffington post articles. Oh and guess what? I don’t watch FOX news. So try your next thought again before you come with another PLAYED OUT liberal talking point.

        Come up with some original material. You all sound the same and are way too easily debated.

      • The idea that conservatives are (the played out) “raaaacist”, (the played out) “war on women”, we want a theocracy, we only want white men to vote, etc…….is nothing short of ignorance and WRONG.

        Yeah, yeah, yeah, I heard: pointing out racism is the only REAL racism, etc., etc., etc.

        All you know about us is what you see on the liberal dominated media. Have you ever sat down with a true conservative and listened? Obviously not.

        Ooooh, No True Scotsman. It’s been literally HOURS since I’ve heard that one. Listen: I have conservatives in my family. I’ve endured plenty of Sunday dinners listening to conservative “philosophy”, barrages of revelatory right-wing e-mails, subscriptions to right-wing news sites and many excruciating car-rides with Rush Limbaugh blathering on the radio. And that’s just scratching the surface. Maybe you are not that kind of conservative, maybe all these people who explicitly identify as conservatives aren’t “true” conservatives, but in that case, you know what? If the post is not about you, then rest assured the post is not about you.

        You claim that conservative men are the only ones who want to stop abortion. WRONG. You must not know ANY conservative women. I know what your next argument to that is…..”oh conservative women are only submissive to their men”.
        Again. WRONG. You obviously don’t know many conservative women.

        Where did I say conservatives want to stop abortion? I don’t believe they want to stop abortion. I believe they want to make it illegal in order to punish women for having sex — especially poor women, who can’t afford a weekend trip to Canada, for the crime of having sex. And women who CAN afford to travel elsewhere to have abortions — conservatives want to shame them. Coupled with efforts at limiting access to, and ideally banning, birth control, they want to create a world in which to be a sexually active woman (such as, a married woman) means either popping out sixteen children in twenty years, or being a criminal. I grew up in a society that was just like that — so what conservatives are advocating looks eerily familiar. If conservatives truly wanted to reduce the number of abortions, they wouldn’t fight so ferociously against fact-based sex education and providing teens with accurate information about preventing pregnancy.

        Further, there is a big difference between finding abortion morally problematic, even abhorrent, and clamoring for policies to make it illegal. Conservatives display both a stunning indifference to women’s suffering — including the suffering of rape victims, victims of incest and women who are forced to carry to term even though their fetuses are non-viable — and an ignorance of how human reproduction works. Proud ignorance, in fact.

        As for submissiveness — hey, it’s subjective. If you agree with reducing women’s role in life to that of incubators, if you believe in some sort of separate-but-equal bullshit, that’s fine with me. If you are okay with being paid less than a man for the same quality and amount of work, I don’t care. It’s your private life. The policies I support won’t prevent any woman from being a mere uterus-with-legs and an unpaid servant, if she so chooses. But the moment you try to enact policies designed to use state-run mechanisms of coersion to force me into a narrow gender role that you find appropriate to your sensibilities, we have a problem. And that’s what conservatives attempt to do.

        It’s funny how you “tolerant” people will save an endangered mouse, but don’t give unborn HUMANS the same respect. So you keep fighting for your insignificant animals, and we’ll keep fighting for the helpless unborn that you support murdering.

        Animals are insignificant? How did you come to that conclusion? Was it because you cut school the day they taught biology, or were you home-schooled, or did you get your high school diploma in one of those school districts where biology isn’t taught? It’s really funny to me that having said something so stupid and unscientific, you have the gall to talk about who is or isn’t “college material”.

        Anyway, consider this. You may have heard that bees are dying out. If they do die out, not only will you not have honey, but you’ll lose many species of edible nuts and fruits, because there are a bunch of plants that depend on bees for cross-pollination. If bees die out, those plants die out too. In some parts of the world, this is likely to lead to famine. While I’m sure you don’t give a shit about people starving in some third-world country (I suspect they are insignificant animals in your book), YOUR food choices will shrink too. And that’s just one example. Certain predatory animals control populations of destructive species, so when they get depleted, prey populations explode, leading to all kinds of unpleasant consequences — crop failures, building damage, erosion … the list is long. No plant or animal exists in a vacuum. We co-exist in this thing called the “eco-system”. And the thing about eco-systems is, extinction or population depletion often has a domino effect that ends up making YOUR life worse.

        Not to mention the fact that everything you said about “insignificant animals” is a complete nonsequitur. Please don’t lecture me on how conservatives respect life. They do not. Conservatives utterly deny the humanity of pregnant women. Conservatives vote to deprive poor women of pre-natal care, and poor children of adequate nutrition and educational assistance. Conservatives are cavalier about the death penalty (considering untold number of innocents executed for crimes they didn’t commit acceptable collateral damage), as well as police brutality, inhumane prison conditions, and the death of civilians — including children — in opportunistic wars. Conservatives don’t respect life. They don’t respect it to the point of cynically invoking as a pretext to justify oppression and discrimination.

        You claim conservatives are uneducated and ignorant. WRONG. Disagreeing with you is not a sign of ignorance (or “HAAAAAATE”, yet another played out word), it’s an opinion.

        Disagreeing with someone isn’t necessarily a sign of ignorance or hate, but all opinions aren’t created equal. Every opinion has a basis underlying it; and conservative opinions on virtually every subject betray ignorance, hatred and vulgarity. But please, please let’s not make this about anyone being “entitled” to an opinion. I concede here and now that you are entitled to an uninformed, bigotted, anti-intellectual opinion. Okay?

        Such as, I’ll bet someone in your life thinks you’re attractive, correct? Well guess what? I don’t and i guarantee a lot of others don’t as well. Does that make us ignorant? I don’t think so.

        Uh-huh. What are you, twelve? Jesus, Crystal, I know it’s probably very hard for you to act like a grown-up, with a name like that and your background, but come on now. Junior high is over. Stop embarrassing yourself. That said, I totally agree with you — the fact that you and your friends don’t think that I’m attractive doesn’t make you ignorant. It does, however, mean that you have really poor taste.

        More serious answer: given that I am a liberal radical feminazi, I don’t reduce my own worth as a human being to fuckability. And that’s what’s so sad about conservatives’ view of women — you are so strongly invested in the idea that women’s attractiveness is the most important, if not the only measure of their worth, you make this comment in an obvious calculated attempt to make me defensive or insecure about my looks or whatever. Guess what? I couldn’t care less if you don’t think I’m attractive. I couldn’t care less if lots of other people don’t either. In fact, although I haven’t thought about it up till now (because let’s face it, it’s weird), some of my closest and most respected friends and colleagues probably include people who aren’t fantacizing about fucking me. And I’m okay with that — to the point where I really don’t care whether my unattractiveness is someone’s opinion or objective fact. I mean, whatever. Not everything in life is reduced to sex.

        In your earlier post you arrogantly claim that the men and women of our police force and military are not “college material”. WRONG. You don’t seem to know that MANY people who enlist go to college on a GI bill and the majority of our police force, from the beat cops to the CIA, are college educated. I dare you to walk up to our RESPECTED service men AND women and tell them you’re not “college material”. We both know you wont though. That takes bravery that they possess and you do not.

        And why is that? Because they would punch me in my puny liberal face with their big fists, safe in the knowledge that my own little fists won’t do much damage? Shoot me, maybe? I mean that’s Marine Todd territory right there. You got me. A person’s use of brute strenghth to physically retailiate against an offensive statement TOTALLY proves he’s college material.

        As to the rest of your comment, sure, we have a free market system in this country when it comes to higher education, with plenty of diploma mills available to those who lack the minimal intellectual gifts necessary to succeed at a local community college. Last I heard, for-profit colleges with no academic standards whatsoever have been especially active in fleecing veterans. And naturally enough, conservatives support those diploma mills, too. That, coupled with the fact that at least some police departments reject college-educated candidates for being too damned intelligent really puts a damper on your argument.

        Voter rights? Most of us would prefer election by majority vote. NOT electoral college. Does that mean we would’ve won ever single election? No. In the end, that idea, although i support it, would only screw conservatives because of the increase of the populations of urban areas. You would be a fool to think that voter districting is not a game played by BOTH sides, NOT just conservatives. You honestly think that liberal politicians are soooooo honest that they don’t play games to get more votes on their side?

        There’s playing games and there’s violating the Constitution. Even without taking gerrymandering into account, imposing bullshit ID requirements, while simultaneously monkeying with DMV staffing and hours in “liberal” neighborhoods in order to make it harder for Democratic voters to obtain those ID’s (as has been happening in at least one state) isn’t the answer to the problem of waning influence. Straight-up making up stuff about voter impersonation isn’t the answer. Hey, I’ll oppose gerrymandering by Democrats as strongly as when it’s done by Conservatives. But please don’t give me this generalizing “both sides do it” bullshit. YOUR side has been on the offensive on multiple fronts in an effort to disenfranchise people — and a number of your political operatives have actually been stupid enough to spell out their goals explicitly. “Democrats too play games” isn’t a defense to such a flagrant disrespect for people’s Constitutional rights. I suppose you are suggesting that “real” conservatives are in favor of elections by straight majorities, rather than the Electoral College, but that idea is belied by overt conservative efforts at gerrymandering.

        No REAL conservative wants a theocracy either. We are smart enough to know that if we allowed that, there would be a chance that some stupid group like the pedophile-loving muslims would have a chance at taking over. So when you say we want a theocracy, you are WRONG.

        But you are okay with a Christian theocracy? I guess that’s why some of your politicians have been trying to enact laws specifically privileging Christians over other faiths, up to and including one state trying to enact a state religion. That said, I appreciate your realization that allowing people to invoke their religious beliefs as a justification for breaking the law may come back to bite you in your Christian ass in a big way. Now if only your politicians saw their way clear to vote to repeal the statute that places religious people essentially above the law (especially now that the Supreme Court has pretty much interpreted it that way).

        Hey kiddo’, guess what? Bush is out of office. I can EASILY argue your simple points without using Bush.

        LOLwut? Where in my post did I use Obama?

        It’s funny how most liberals can’t argue for their hero obama without mentioning him, though. Why did i mention poll numbers? Conservatives KNEW he’d be a failure and is no more popular than than his predecessor.

        LOLwut? So if Obama’s low poll numbers indicate that he is a failure, and those poll numbers are identical to Bush’s poll numbers, doesn’t that mean Bush was a failure too? I mean, nevermind that you aren’t “using” Bush in your “arguments”, that’s the only reasonable inference to be drawn from your blathering. (Fucking logic, how the fuck does it work?)

        He had NO governing experience,

        The Constitution doesn’t require prior governing experience, and with good reason — because specifically limiting the office to machine politicians would create an oligarchy, even more than what we have now. Besides, your statement is flat-out wrong. He was a Senator before he became President.

        NO business experience,

        So what? You really think running a nation-state is like operating a diner or whatever? How do you figure that? A country isn’t a business entity. It isn’t operated for profit. Citizens aren’t employees; and they can’t be fired. You can’t do a Chapter 11 dance if you run a nation into the ground. I mean, where are the similarities? Although an understanding of the economy is important, operating a business isn’t the only way to gain that understanding, and most aspects of governance have no parallels in business administration. Apples and oranges, Crystal.

        NO military experience,

        Again, so what? The Constitution doesn’t limit the office of the President to veterans, and it clearly provides for electing a civilian to be the Commander-in-Chief. Again, this is with good reason. To require presidential candidates to have had military experience is essentially placing the Executive Branch exclusively in the hands of the military. I don’t want this country to be a military junta. I’d venture a guess you wouldn’t like it either, even if it were to be a Christian military junta.

        and liberals thought he would be the perfect choice to run this country? WRONG. THAT was ignorant.

        I didn’t think he was the “perfect” choice, I just thought him obviously a better choice than any of the freaks you people put forward. Okay, maybe Romney isn’t a freak the way Newt Gingrich or Michele Bachmann are, but he’d still be an inferior choice. Incidentally, what’s Romney’s military experience? Assaulting his classmates back when he was in high school, does that count?

        Point is, your whole post is worthless because you know NOTHING about us. You OBVIOUSLY know only what you hear on your little CNN, MSNBC and huffington post articles. Oh and guess what? I don’t watch FOX news. So try your next thought again before you come with another PLAYED OUT liberal talking point.

        First of all, Crystal, your use of ALL-CAPS is VERY convincing. Like, doubleplusconvincing. Second, since conservatives’ own words can’t be relied upon as reflections of their views, hey, you totally make conservatives sound like some super-secret society, whose TRUE beliefs are carefully hidden from the public behind an opaque screen of vile, stupid bullshit. Congratulations, I guess? Not sure it’s a good way to win over converts, though.

  24. OmLORD!! I absolutely adore you! You’re a smarter, more thorough, more driven… um …. ME! How comforting to know one is not alone in the universe. This IS my new guide to life (in both body and commentary) in America.

    And what a delicious, takedown of the brittle, so-called Constitutionalists who breathe for their outrage.

    Jumping up and down “woot woot” standing ovation, your highness. 😀

    (My apologies for the sycophantic ardor, but … well … you’ve worked hard here. There should be some reward beyond the satisfaction of your ninja-like conquest of trolls.)

    As stated, beddy beddy gud. (Alas, my tablet lacks a needed, jaunty umlandt).
    And courageous.

    Go you!

  25. Poorly written reply! It tends to look intelligent but it lacks of substance.
    The reply above, again is poor written trying to bring facts(?!?) for something that is meant to be a joke. In fact it is very funny! Unfortunately many of the facts are biased provided or inaccurate and I guess it shows the strain on some liberals and that is from a simple joke.

    • Well, I was going to respond, but then it occurred to me that your comment might itself be a joke. Surely your atrocious grammar and claiming that facts are biased point in that direction. So I’ll just limit my response to one of my favorite Russian proverbs: “There is a bit of a joke in every joke.”

  26. Despite the fact that English is not my mother tongue, I believe that I understand a joke when I read one. Your “response” to this “divorce agreement” is what? A reply to a joke, thus another joke? A serious and elaborate reply of what? Did you yet figured out that it is actually a joke?
    In fact it seems that your reply “is pretty awful, but amusing piece of writing”, as you put it.
    BTW, the title “A Liberal Responds bla bla..” should have a better fit as “A Hypocrite Responds…”, don’t you think?

    • For one thing, there is nothing wrong with responding to a joke. Most of it is tongue-in-cheek, but if you haven’t noticed, I guess there is nothing I can do about that. I guess you are more of a pie-in-the-face-type humor person. In any event, I’ve already discussed my view of “jokes” that are actually constructed to convey heartfelt ideas, and I don’t feel like repeating myself. Feel free to scroll up and read. Suffice it to say, I honestly don’t get the argument about how if something is a joke, then we may not comment on it. What’s the “logic” behind that argument? That, because it’s a joke, it doesn’t express what its author(s) or people who forward it actually believe? If it’s “satire”, what exactly is it satirizing? If it’s a non-satirical joke, then what’s the punchline? Above all, as I always say, own your beliefs, especially if you choose to express then. Expressing them, then evasively claiming that “it’s just a joke, do you are forbidden from responding” is a coward’s tactic. If you are too embarrassed to own up to your beliefs, then it’s time for some introspection.

      As for calling me a hypocrite: the word doesn’t mean what you think it means, assuming you even care that it has a meaning. In the manner typical of uneducated wingnuts, you throw it at me as a “sophisticated” place-holder for an expletive, a generalized insult, and you expect what, to impress me? Words have meanings, Ovi S, and I have very little respect for those who use words they clearly don’t understand. That English is not your native language has nothing to do with this; rather, it seems to me you have no grasp of the concept of hypocrisy.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: