I recently shared a photo from a Facebook page called Islam vs Atheism (intelligent discussion).
“Real Men Don’t Rape. Real Women Don’t Wear Revealing Clothes.”
So I posted a quick, tweet sized response to it on my page where I said, “Real women wear whatever they want and should not be slut-shamed and then blamed for being raped.”
I was confused as to why a page that is supposedly about discussion between Muslims and atheists was posting something that didn’t really seem to be promoting discussion and instead having inflammatory, misogynistic, and sex-negative statements.
Then I started looking at their page and realised that they don’t really promote discussion at all. It just seems to be a page about promoting Islam and bashing atheists, secularism, and the West.
I also looked at the very long description that is given to the photo by the page after I posted my response.
Just skimming it for five seconds made me realise that this was just another post that was promoting Islam. More so, this post was bashing Western society and blaming them for the high rates of rape and other sexual abuse that happens in the West.
They start off by asking the question, “Why is Sexual Abuse so Rampant in Western societies?”
When you look at just the numbers, countries like Sweden and Australia have some of the highest rates of rape in the world and almost top the charts for the Western world, while countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa have almost nonexistent rape statistics.
When you look at the various reasons as to why, then it starts to make sense. According to the Times of India, “[The] definition of rape differs from country to country and that, coupled with how well the crime is reported and recorded, determines what the numbers are finally going to look like.”
In certain countries in the Middle East, a woman being raped may not be considered rape and instead as premarital sex, which they will eventually be imprisoned for. And because of this, women in these countries will probably avoid reporting their rapes for fear of being imprisoned, beaten, lashed, or even executed.
There is no universal standard that countries use for classifying and reporting rape. It is all completely subjective based on the country and culture. What may be considered rape in Europe may not be considered rape in the Middle East or even in the United States.
Then there is the issue of under reporting rape in the first place. As touched on just a second ago, women in the Middle East are hardly ever going to report being raped, and if they do, then it probably is not considered rape by the police.
In the United States and Europe, it is taken more seriously and more is done about it. Women are very afraid to report their rapes even there (then there is the issue of men being raped and hardly ever reporting that), but countries that don’t imprison women for being raped are probably going to report rape cases more.
Now that I’ve addressed that. Let’s move onto their actual arguments.
(1) The secular, liberal way of life defines the purpose of life as pursuing the maximum enjoyments of the here and now and living life to the max. Happiness is therefore viewed as fulfilling sensual pleasures and actions are decided based upon the desires of individuals.
No. It does not define the purpose of life that way. Secularism does not define the purpose of life. Even secular humanism does not give a purpose or meaning to life. It gives us goals and morals, but not a purpose.
Consequently, personal whims become the basis of deciding right, and wrong.
No, they aren’t.
Essentially this means that every individual in society is free to dress and pursue any relationship they wish and decide for themselves how to satisfy their sexual instinct in whatever way is pleasurable to them.
While I disagree with the premises you are using to come to this conclusion, I essentially agree with this particular point. Every individual should be free to dress however they want and pursue any relationship they want, as long as everyone is consenting.
Anyone reading this for the first time should be able to easily see where you are going with this. That because “personal whims” are how we decide right and wrong and that we are free to satisfy our sexual instincts, then people should be free to rape by the strawman of secular liberalism that you have erected.
Securing liberal freedoms such as personal and sexual freedom is therefore set as the priority of liberal societies up and above family and community wellbeing. All this nurtures a dangerous environment within society.
You are right. This kind of mentality would nurture a dangerous environment within society, but your argument is simply a strawman and not an accurate representation of “secular, liberal,” which is a strawman term in it of itself.
(2) This harmful view towards the satisfaction of the sexual instinct has ramifications on society. Open relationships, promiscuity, and the sexualisation of men and women in advertisement, films, TV, music, magazines, books, pornography, and the beauty industry has become the norm in the UK and other secular liberal states.
I’m in an open relationship, more so polyamorous. I don’t think that me having two partners has caused any harm for society.
Promiscuity is not causing harm to society. Having unsafe sex, with anyone, can cause problems with the possible spread of STDs. Hence why I emphasised unsafe sex. If we taught people about their bodies and how to protect themselves, then that would not be a problem.
Even children have been sexualised – their clothes, music they listen to, the TV shows they watch, and even the computer games and toys they play with have become increasingly sexually provocative.
I actually agree. That is wrong. The sexualisation of children is wrong.
That would also make the burka wrong. It is sexualising girls by saying that everything they do in public is sexual and shameful, therefore they must be covered head to toe.
(3) Within such a society where the sexual instinct is constantly urged and triggered, and the mindset of satisfying desires dominates over the mindset of doing what is right, it is inevitable that many men and women will seek to fulfil their sexual desires in any manner they see fit and through whatever means that is available to them if they feel that they can get away with it, even if that means abusing children, or vulnerable young girls and women.
That was just one sentence.
No, “…the mindset of satisfying desires…” does not dominate over doing what is right. Where are you getting this? Oh, that’s right. Your strawman premises.
As I predicted, you’re saying that because in Western society we are so open about our sexuality, are okay with people being sexual and expressing their sexuality, and don’t punish people for it, sometimes with death, then that will lead to raping people.
(4) In addition, under the Capitalist system as implemented in the UK, US, and most secular liberal states, the pursuit of profit reigns supreme.
I agree with that. I don’t think this has anything to do with rape or sexual abuse, but in a capitalist system the underlying point is to solely make the most money.
Consequently businesses are permitted to encourage the sexualisation of society in order to increase sales, regardless of the detrimental impact on individuals and society. For example, although David Cameron has talked a lot about the harmful effects of the sexualisation of children, the UK government has not banned the sexualisation of children’s clothes or entertainment, choosing to secure profit over the welfare of children. And despite 1 in 5 women being victims of a sexual offence in the UK, there has been no ban on the exploitation, objectification, and sexualisation of women in advertisement and the media that devalues their status and hence exacerbates sexual crimes against them, for capitalism places financial gain over protecting the dignity of women. Indeed, it is the degrading of women and girls for profit that creates an environment that is ripe for the exploitation of children, girls and women in trafficking, prostitution and grooming rings.
Models, advertisements, actors, etc. have nothing to do with rape. Nothing. Yes, the capitalist system may increase the objectification of women, but it does not lead to rape.
Rape is not about sex in the first place. Rape is about power. It is about controlling and dominating the victim. That is what it’s about, so you’re premises are strawmen, and your conclusions are complete horseshit.
So yes, real men don’t rape, but again, real women wear whatever they want, even if that be nothing at all. and should not be slut-shamed for wearing what they want and controlling their own bodies and then blamed if that control is taken away from them by a rapist.
It’s the fourth of July, the day delegates from the American colonies 236 years ago got together and declared independence from the mother country of Great Britain. Today is a day of hot dogs, American-themed hats and other apparel, fireworks, and, of course, conservatives bashing liberals for not being xenophobic, homophobic, and pro-war enough, among other things.
On Twitter there has been a trendy topic going around #HowLiberalsCelebrateIndependence. It is exactly what you would expect, conservatives saying we are anti-freedom and anti-America, because we don’t agree with their hatred of others. I’m going to share with you some of my personal favourites.
Let’s start off with this piece of conservative religious garbage since most people reading this are probably liberals and/or atheists.
I personally don’t celebrate Christmas, because I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness. I know the true origins of the holiday from Pagan rituals and then corporatism. There are many atheists who do celebrate Christmas, because it is not about Jesus and God and how God (who is also Jesus… but is also a separate… but combined part of him… who is still two people… and then there’s that holy ghost guy… what?) raped a twelve-year-old girl to impregnate her with himself and then how she gave birth to God(‘s son). The holiday is about spending time with your family. As well, spending a ridiculous amount of money on things you don’t need and probably don’t even want.
Are you saying we don’t understand the history behind Independence Day, because that would be most conservatives on the contrary, or the concept of independence itself? I’m going to assume you mean the latter, because some other tweets we will get to later had similar remarks. We don’t understand independence, because why? Because we believe people should have the right to a job and a home and food? Because we believe people shouldn’t be unemployed, homeless, and starving because they “didn’t work hard enough”? Yeah, screw the poor. They don’t deserve our assistance, because they screwed up, even though most people that were laid off over the past few years were because of an economic recession which was not their faults.
Speaking of having a right to a productive life. Yes, we don’t understand independence, because we want people to have a life where they don’t have to worry about where their next meal is coming from or if they can afford to keep a roof over their head that isn’t made of cardboard and old newspapers.
So all liberals are dependent upon the government? They’re just a bunch of welfare queens scamming the system. People should work for their money. Like the trophy wives and their children who never worked a day in their lives and just mooched off of their rich husbands. They sure worked hard for their money. They deserve every penny of it and should have their taxes cut while we’re at it, since they are the job creators.
Yes, independence is a bad word to us, because we want everyone to be dependent upon the government so that they can have a house and a job and an education and a future where they feel fulfilled, even if their wallets may not be. We’ve been found out!
Conservatives use Medicaid, Social Security, police, firefighters, teachers, roads, libraries, and everything else that liberals do, they just complain about it while they’re doing it. Liberals are grateful enough that they live in a country that can provide these things to its people. If anyone is hypocrites, it’s conservatives.
Disenfranchising minorities and the poor from voting, that’s racist. Purging voter rolls, the vast majority of which are Hispanics, that’s racist. Creating laws so that cops can racially profile, that’s racist. Trying to ban abortion, that’s sexist. Trying to ban contraception, that’s sexist. Banning gay marriage, that’s homophobic. Discriminating against gays in the workplace and trying to ban them from adopting, that’s homophobic. Using the very social programmes they say are bad, that’s hypocritical. When liberals call conservatives racist, sexist, homophobic, hypocritical bigots, it’s because they are.
Now we move into the “liberals are un-American” section.
We hate America so much we now wish it hadn’t even been born. Liberals wanted to abort America, even though the Declaration of Independence was created because of liberal thought, but let’s not let facts get in the way. We still want to abort America. A very late-term abortion, since we are psychopaths who love abortions, especially late term abortions so that all the godless atheists can have more food, and want more people to get abortions, mostly white people so that the white race will end, since we also love Hispanics and blacks over white people too, especially if they are illegal immigrants who come to take jobs that the vast majority of Americans won’t take. However, we don’t want to abort any gay babies, but since being gay is entirely a choice and not something that is decided upon via genetics and biology, we will just have some babies and turn them all gay by having already gay men molest young boys to make them gay, and then America will no longer exist, since gays can’t reproduce. That’s what we want for America. That’s what all liberals want. That’s our Final Solution!
Well then… I think I may have gone a little too far there. Just maybe.
I wonder if there are actual conservatives in America who think something like that. I was being hyperbolic, but I truly want to know if someone really believes something close to what I said. I know some people believe certain aspects of it and that’s where I got most of those parts to put them together, but I wonder if someone believes all of that. I’m not sure if I would be more surprised or disappointed if there really was one person who truly did.
And now we support terrorists. Remember folks, the guy who first trained and armed those “freedom fighters” was Reagan.
Let me get this straight though. Because we believe Guantanamo Bay is a violation of human rights and that President Bush’s “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists” is a false dichotomy meant to divide people, we watch Michael Moore films that honour terrorists who killed innocent people. You know how conservatives celebrate independence? Watching a tribute film to the guy who killed that abortion doctor in Kansas.
This one just doesn’t make any sense. I honestly don’t know if he’s implying that all liberals are Mexicans or that all liberals support illegal immigration because we love Mexico so much and hate America or some other nonsense like that.
We want to burn the Constitution, and apparently replace it with the South African one, while roasting marshmallows, while at the same time “attacking conservatives who want to keep America FREE & EXCEPTIONAL,” because we want to destroy the country we hate so much.
American Exceptionalism: believing America is the greatest country in the world while being the country that is 37th in healthcare, 49th in life expectancy, 7th in literacy, 22nd in science, 27th in mathematics, 178th in infant mortality, 3rd in median household income, and the largest military budget which is more than the next 26 countries combined. But we are the most free, having the largest prison population in the world.
God bless America.
As most of my followers around the interwebs know, I live in Texas (unfortunately), and the primaries for US Senate in Texas are right around the corner. Watching the GOP primaries unfold makes me laugh (when it doesn’t make me cry), because it shows the kind of in-fighting and identity crisis that the GOP is experiencing in this political climate.
Currently, the top contenders for the Republican primary seat that is being left vacant by retiring Senator Kay Baily Hutchinson (the key figure who killed the DREAM Act, so good riddance) are Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who is being backed by Governor Rick Perry (you know, the guy who held that giant prayer rally in Houston), and former state solicitor general Ted Cruz, who is being backed by former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, both of whom (Perry and Palin) are Tea Party favourites. Both sides seem to be trying to call the other side moderates and that their candidate will cause the most disruption in Washington DC in order to win Tea Party support.
A spokesman for Ted Cruz’s campaign said, “…conservatives are supporting Ted Cruz over David Dewhurst to take our country back from go-along, get-along moderate politicians.” I watched a political ad today attacking Dewhurst, where they quote-mined a bunch of news articles in order to make it seem like he’s a moderate somehow. The problem with this is that Lt. Gov. Dewhurst is one of the most conservative politicians in Texas (which is a bad thing).
Now it seems that Dewhurst will win the Republican primary over Cruz. Once there, he will be going up against the Democratic candidate, which is expected to be former Texas House Representative Paul Sadler. Knowing Texas, the Democrats will lose unfortunately.
However, what it’s come down to is that conservative Americans have moved so far to the right that calling someone a liberal is overdone. They made liberal such a dirty word in America that they are moving along to the next thing: moderate. It’s bad to be a moderate. It’s bad to reach across the aisle. It’s bad to work with others like grown adults do. It’s bad to compromise, because we would rather see America suffer than have to work with those damn Democrats. We would rather kick and scream and whine to get what we want, and if we can’t get it, then no one can have anything.
The Tea Party is eclipsing, if not taking over, the Republican Party, and conservatives are becoming more and more conservative in response to claims that even the most conservative of them are moderates, which they are not. It’s a race to the right, and the losers are the American people, especially those that stand in their way. While the Tea Party is fighting itself to see who is the most conservative, it is creating an atmosphere that is extremely hostile to liberals, gay, religious and ethnic minorities, women, the poor, and anyone who is not a white, straight, male, Christian conservative.
Michelle Malkin is a conservative blogger and political commentator that often appears on Fox News and other media outlets to spout off conservative lies and propaganda, and she very recently published an op-ed article titled “Bigoted Anti-Bigots” for the National Review Online.
First off, the title. Now, she’s referring to the LGBT movement, calling it the “gay-marriage mob,” claiming that they are “guilty of the very ugly bigotry [they claim] to abhor.” It’s the common saying of, “It’s intolerant to be intolerant of the intolerant,” which is an unintelligible sentence, at best. It is not bigoted to be against the bigots who want to oppress you. If that were true, then blacks and women were being bigoted towards whites and men when they were fighting for their right to be treated equally. I am sure Martin Luther King Jr. and Susan B. Anthony were great big bigots in their times.
When saying that gays and liberals are being hypocritical bigots, Malkin is referring to the recent controversy over boxing champion Manny Pacquiao for “being true to his Catholic faith.” This is because in a recent interview with Examiner’s conservative contributor Granville Ampong, he supposedly mentioned Leviticus 20:13 when asked by Ampong about President Obama’s recent new stance on gay marriage. In his original post, Ampong made it highly suggestive that it was Pacquiao who brought up the Bible verse. It was presumed even more after an actual quote from the boxer where he said, “It should not be of the same sex so as to adulterate the altar of matrimony, like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah of Old.”
After the USA Today, the LA Weekly, and the Village Voice all reported (in that order) about the original interview, saying that Pacquiao quoted Leviticus 20:13 because of Ampong’s suggestive writing, Ampong wrote another article titled “Biased writers grossly twisted Pacquiao’s view on same-sex marriage,” where in it he blamed the writers from the USA Today and the other news sources mentioned for his terrible writing style, all without correcting his initial post.
Manny Pacquiao has since apologised for the confusion, and has said that while he is against same-sex marriage, he does not think that they should be put to death as commanded by God in Leviticus 20:13, even though he also said that God’s law should always come before man’s. So yes, Granville Ampong is a terrible journalist, Examiner needs to have more oversight of what their writers post, and Manny Pacquiao is still (only partially) a bigot for being anti-gay marriage.
Michelle Malkin, being everyone’s favourite conservative, took the side of Ampong in all this nonsense in order to blame the “politically correct bloodhounds” that are, of course, “backed by George Soros,” the right’s least favourite billionaire. I do not know what it is about conservatives, but nearly every time there is something happening in the media that they disagree with, they always try somehow to blame George Soros for it. Just because he’s rich, is not a conservative, and funds progressive causes does not make him the Anti-Christ. Calm the fuck down, people.
It is interesting, or more so mind-boggling, how Malkin is blaming the “left wing media,” even though the USA Today is not liberal or left-leaning at all, the LA Weekly is most certainly not liberal, and the Village Voice…okay, that one is. It seems that anything to the left of Fox News is, of course, part of the giant leftist conspiracy to turn your kids gay and America into a socialist state (not that there is anything wrong with that).
Near the end of her article, she says that the “bigoted anti-bigot brigade” is targeting poor, defenseless people like Rush Limbaugh, Republican Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and Catholic healthcare providers, among others, because they “refuse to conform to ‘progressive’ values.” Yeah, such a terrible thing progressive values are, like thinking that women should not have their healthcare denied to them because of someone else’s religion, that workers should have the right to unionise and not have their salaries slashed while giving tax breaks to millionaires, that gays should be treated equally for a change, and that bigots, actual bigots like Michelle Malkin, should be called for it.
My personal favourite part of the op-ed is when Malkin says that the “left wing media” is “shamelessly [demonizing] religion in the name of compassion.” So something that says gays should be put to death, along with many other people for completely arbitrary reasons, does not deserve to be demonised?
Update 19:56: A fan of my Facebook page commented on the link I posted of the original article by Michelle Malkin. They said something that I believe should be shared.
If one can actually consider intolerance of those opposed to the expansion of human rights to those that should already have them to be bigotry, particularly when those fighting against human rights have a habit of literally bullying, bashing, and beating those they oppose, then by Poseidon’s watery beard, I’ll wear THAT particular bigotry badge proudly.Of course, in my experience it is by far mostly the prejudiced, hateful, anti-human rights crowd that call their opposition bigots for opposing their bigotry, so forgive me it I can’t properly express the amount of fucks I don’t give regarding their opinion of people who do actually stand for things like equality.
Some irony before you read this. I was writing this while drinking a Pepsi.
In recent years, bans in public schools on carbonated drinks have been put into place in several places across the country on school lunches and vending machines containing pop (it’s pop to me, if anyone calls it soda I will murder them) to make sure that kids drink healthier things. California became the first to implement any sort of a ban by banning pop in all grade schools in 2003. The Faulkton School District in South Dakota recently made it so that students had to dispose of all carbonated drinks before even entering the building.
These measures are taken in order to reduce childhood obesity, as it is on the rise in the United States with about one out of every three persons under the age of 18 either overweight or obese. However, these efforts run into many problems. Many school districts are reluctant to have these bans, because drink sales do bring in a lot of money for the schools, which is increasingly more important these days. This is understandable. With conservatives threatening public education more and more everyday, finding revenue wherever it can be found could mean the difference to a teacher’s job.
Most bans on pop have been ineffective anyway. The Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine found that students in schools that have bans on pop are just as likely to drink other sugary drinks, such as fruit juices or sports drinks, as students in schools with no bans. This is similar to how schools that teach abstinence-only sexual education have students who have sex just as much as students who are taught actual sexual education. With pop gone, what else are kids going to drink? Water?! Don’t be ridiculous!
This gives schools less and less incentive to ban pop. However, some things are necessary for the health of children and the betterment of society. I would go one step further and ban all sugary drinks from all public schools (K-12). Not just pop, but things like sports drinks, lemonade, and other fruit juices which have just as much, if not more, sugar than most pops do. This prevents them from going around the ban and just having a Gatorade instead of a Coke (I don’t see why anyone would want a Coke in the first place though), and it actually does what the pop bans were intended for, giving kids a healthier diet so as to reduce childhood obesity in America.
In fact, let’s go another step further and ban junk food. That would severely help cut down on the consumption of processed garbage that contributes to more health problems in children. Another step just for the hell of it, ban all sugary drinks and junk food from even being allowed in public schools, similar to the restrictions put in place by the Faulkton School District.
It may sound like a “nanny-state,” because it is (not that there is anything wrong with that). Children, even teenagers, are not mentally developed enough to make their own decisions and understand the full consequences of them. Someone might say, “So the government should make those decisions for them and not their parents?” Yes, because parents cannot look out for their children when they are at school. Most parents today cannot look out for them even when they are at home, because most people are divorced and/or have jobs.
I have no problem with schools making kids eat their broccoli and drink water instead of Doritos and 67 grams of sugar in one bottle of Minute Maid. I have no problem with the government looking out for our best interests, which helps them, as they will no longer have to cover the costs of hospitals who have uninsured, obese children being treated for heart problems and diabetes that are meant for people in their forties and fifties.
Yes, banning these kinds of drinks and foods could hurt the schools if these things are no longer being sold, but if conservatives would stop sending more funding to the Pentagon and the military that should instead go to social programmes like food stamps and schools, we would not have to worry about school districts having to fire hundreds of teachers because their budgets could not afford it. Banning sugary drinks and junk food in schools will help prevent childhood obesity, which is great in it of itself (for one reason, we will no longer have to look at fat children). This in turn prevents unnecessary and expensive medical treatments, which are either extremely expensive for the middle class who can barely afford them or too expensive for the poor who simply cannot pay and the bill is sent to us taxpayers.
In the Republican primaries for the US Senate in Indiana on Tuesday, long-time Senator Dick Lugar lost 40% to 60% to Richard Mourdock, Indiana’s state treasurer. This in it of itself is shocking; Lugar has been in office since 1976 and had been considered one of the greatest minds on US foreign policy.
What led to his loss is even more upsetting. During the campaign Mourdock railed against Lugar for compromising with the Democrats and reaching across the aisle. He continued to call him “Obama’s favourite Republican,” trying to paint Lugar as a moderate and friend to the Democratic Party, saying that he would oppose bipartisanship if he were in office.
This is the disturbing things about the Republican Party.
Anyone who has taken any political science or American history class will tell you that things only ever got done in Congress when parties compromised with each other and decided to work together for the benefit of the country. Someone just won a Congressional primary on the ticket of ignoring common knowledge and the slogan of “We Will Not Work With You, Only Against You.”
“Bipartisanship,” “compromise,” and “working together” have almost become dirty words to Republicans and the Tea Party. The right has become so radical that it has simply refused to do anything that would possibly get anything done if it meant being an adult and actually working with people to do what is necessary for the country.
This may be a good thing after all though. As the Tea Party ultra-nationalists alienate the moderate and establishment Republicans, they will eventually go so far to the right that they will form a third party that will split the vote for the conservatives, giving Democrats and liberals the chance to elect real progressive politicians who can bring real change to this country.
Bored, no work, nothing to do but masturbate, tired of the books on my bookshelves that I have already read through, so I decided to go to my local Barnes and Noble that resides in one of the most conservative neighbourhoods in Texas and find some new books to read about liberalism, atheism, evolution, vampire romance, or whatever else may have caught my attention. While there, I came across a section of books labelled ‘Current Affairs.’
Most of it was books I had seen over and over again, ranging from The Audacity of Hope by President Obama to something about Sarah Palin being an idiot like usual. On a side-note, I don’t see why people still bother with Palin. She’s old news; she’s not even fun to laugh at any more.
While browsing through the section for something to quench my thirst for knowledge, I came across a specific book that made my eyebrow raise by a specific person that makes nothing of mine raise except my stress level.
On the top shelf, with its shiny, jet-black cover and blood red letters was Ann Coulter’s new book Demonic. At first, I thought it was an autobiography, but apparently the rest of the title was How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America. Like all of her other books that try to ‘debunk’ or ‘refute’ beliefs held by liberals, or at least anyone that she doesn’t like, I decided I would like to be a masochist for a few seconds and read a few pages to see what the far-right has been up to these days other than shooting up Norwegian camps filled with teenagers. Boy, was that a huge mistake. I literally opened the book to the first page that my fingers fell in between and started reading at the first paragraph that came into view.
Just that one paragraph was more than enough to make me want to bash my brains in with a rusty pickaxe. I don’t particularly remember what the chapter was even about; all I remember was the urge to hit my head against the nearest brick wall until the stupid went away. So that no one thinks I am lying about the stupid I am referring to, I decided to take a picture of said pickaxe-to-brains worthy paragraph to show other people the idiocy that is the right-wing and their propaganda.
‘The first exception to Americans’ abhorrence of mob action came in the sixties. The civil rights movement gave mobs a halo. Disgust with Jim Crow laws overcame Americans’ natural aversion to disorder. At the outset, the civil rights movement consisted of peaceful citizens battling mobs that were oppressing blacks – mobs that were, as always, led by Democrats. Orval Faubus, Bull Connor, George Wallace, and the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan – Democrats all.’
She might as well just say, ‘These people called themselves Democrats a long time ago and were against blacks when political parties believed in completely different things than they do today, therefore all modern Democrats are bad people and against blacks,’ even though almost ninety-percent of all blacks vote Democrat.
What Ann Coulter doesn’t seem to know, or refuses to accept, is that before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Democrats were the conservative party and the Republicans were the liberal party. After that act, the parties switched platforms after a series of events and disagreements over policy and ideology. If one were to talk to some senior citizens who were Democrats back in the good ol’ days, they will most likely say how they switched parties when the Republicans became the conservatives, because back in the good ol’ days, the Democrats were the conservatives. Either Ann Coulter is that historically illiterate, which would not be surprising one bit, or she is purposely deceiving her historically illiterate audience to try to demonise the Democratic Party, because she knows that her audience is the type that will believe almost anything without any proper evidence as long as it fits in with their preconceived notions, hence why most conservatives are creationist Christians, including Ann Coulter.
But Ann Cuntler is not the only face-palming fun that I had while at the book store. Right under her/it were the Glenn Beck books about the same stuff; only difference is that they had a slightly less unattractive conservative on the cover.
Along with the usual rhetoric about how liberals are evil and how President Obama is going to ruin the country somehow by implementing this horrible thing called socialism, I noticed his book Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine.
Apparently, what America’s favourite class-clown doesn’t seem to realise is that Thomas Paine was a hardcore liberal that spoke out against the ‘free market’ and wanted government regulations over corporations to make sure that they did not become too powerful. Paine saw government as a necessary evil, but saw that everyone deserved a free education and help from the government and that all social programmes would be paid for by taxes. If one thought that Thomas Paine was in any way, shape, or form like Glenn Beck or was at all similar to a conservative at the beginning of this entry, I suggest actually reading some of Paine’s works, especially Agrarian Justice and The Necessity of Taxation. After reading those, go listen to one of Beck’s radio shows, since he’s no longer on Fox News, and see if you can refrain from laughing when he tries to claim that Thomas Paine was the equivalent of a modern-day conservative.
But wait, that’s not all!
I had even more fun in the ‘Current Affairs’ section when I came across this little gem of right-wing idiocy. This one was right next to Ann Coulter’s book, so I think we all know where this is going.
This one is called Revolt! How to Defeat Obama and Repeal His Socialist Programs, A Patriot’s Guide by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann.
I have always wanted to ask this to a conservative who actually thinks that President Obama is a socialist/communist/Marxist/whatever-other-terms-the-right-uses-to-scare-its-sheeple, but could you please give me an example of President Obama wanting to implement socialism in America?
He lowered taxes and is going to keep them there for another two years; he’s caved to almost every Republican demand when it comes to the economy; he watered down the healthcare bill so much that it might as well have never existed; he constantly is putting conservatives in office over liberals and progressives. I need an example, please. I guess the closest one can come to socialism with President Obama is how he wants to…I honestly don’t know.
Now, I’m not the biggest fan of President Obama, but I would sooner vote for him than any candidate the GOP has been lining up for us to point and laugh at.
So yes, that was my adventure to the book store. In the end, I got a book by Paul Krugman in order to wash away the stupid.
Amendment as of the 28th of July
I headed back to the same Barnes and Noble a few days later to find a book that had to do with religion/atheism, but instead I came across another piece of conservative propaganda and stupidity in the ‘Current Affairs’ section again; I think the stupid just draws me to itself so that I may mock it. Right next to Glenn Beck’s Common (Non)Sense was another one of his self-pwning pieces. This one was called The Original Argument: The Federalists’ Case for the Constitution, Adapted for the 21st Century. In other words, ‘I’m going to slant history to favour my side as much as I can to sway gullible sheep into agreeing with me.’
Glenn Beck does not seem to have any understanding of American history, which is completely understandable seeing as how he has no understanding of what Thomas Paine actually stood for, because although the Federalist Party could be loosely construed to be similar to modern conservative values in some fields, the Federalist Party were in favour of just that, a federal power, hence the freaking name. I thought Glenn Beck wanted less federal power, isn’t that why his latter mentioned book is about how we need to stop the ‘out-of-control’ federal government? As with Ann Coulter, either Glenn Beck knows this, that the Federalist Party were for a stronger federal government and the Anti-Federalists were for more state control (which is something that I thought conservatives like Glenn Beck wanted in America today), and he is purposely deceiving his audience, or he doesn’t know anything about the history of the country he was born in and claims to love. At this point, I’m still unsure as to which one is more likely.