Archive for June, 2010

You are now a rich, white, straight, cisgendered, able-bodied man.

June 17, 2010

Let’s talk about an irritating trend that I see happening all over. See, everyone’s always excited over diversity in politics. That politics is and has been the playground of mostly rich white males is so obvious it never even has to be stated.

Who wouldn’t be excited to see more women, non-whites, gay, transgendered, etc. politicians to represent them? Well, apparently liberals, I am honestly surprised to say. As far as diversity goes, the theory seems to be that if you are a woman politican, but you support policies that go against liberal women’s ideas of what’s good for women, then you cease to be a woman.

You are no longer a woman. You are something else, a pawn perhaps, for men, because you couldn’t *possibly* have came up with those ideas yourself. You’re a black man and not a liberal? Sorry, you no longer count as a black politician. You don’t make things more diverse. You don’t make more equal representation. Oh, and you’re gay? But you became a politician because of foreign policy and free trade? And you actually don’t care about fighting for gay marriage rights?

Perish the thought, dear. You are not gay any longer. If you do not subscribe to the ideas of white, middle-class liberals, please line up and have your race, gender identity, and sexuality erased. You are now a rich, white, straight, cisgendered, able-bodied man. Please don’t complain about this-it’s no one’s fault but your own. Were you so naive as to think you could follow your genuine feelings on political issues?

Liberals, pat yourself on the back. Of course it’s your God-granted right to erase people’s race/gender/etc when they cease to agree with you.

Missouri 2010 Elections

June 5, 2010

With the Missouri primaries coming up this August, today I began my research on the candidates and who would be running.

While looking at the U.S Senate runners, I came across the Missouri Progressive Party’s Midge Potts She supports universal healthcare. That doesn’t necessarily mean she supported the piece of trash excuse for a bill that was passed by Obama & cronies. I’m not opposed to healthcare reform-what I am opposed to is all the political armtwisting and backhanded tactics used to pass the current bill, as well as how huge, convoluted, and chopped to fucking shit the healthcare bill that was passed was. Unlike the pathetic feel-good lack-of-addressing any issue that the Democratic candidate shows, Midge is extraordinary clear about exactly what she’ll try to do for this country, and Missouri. She’s also transgendered, has a history of political activism, and is a veteran, complicating her appeal for many voters. (in other words, MO, like many states, has an ample amount of close-minded foo’s filling out the ballot)

Other than Midge, the current options for the 2010 U.S Senate race are an utter, complete, SLIMEBAG of a man for the Republican party (and the idiot supports being on your parents insurance till you’re 27, as well as working to ban gay marriage, cutting all dental coverage for adult Medicaid patients, and fembots, his positions on abortion are of course, the worst) and a Democratic candidate who says she would’ve voted for the healthcare bill, and who actually seems pretty silent on the issues, other than some feel-good support education and farm families on her website.

Other candidates running include Glenn Miller, who I didn’t bother to read much about, seeing as how his site is covered in Confederate flags and he is a apparently a white supremacist (one of his campaign promises deals with “the Jews Running the World”, if that tells you anything), as well as the Libertarian candidates, Jonathan Dine.

In short, I don’t much like the two likely winners of the main parties. Thank God for third parties. Belonging to the Republican or Democratic party washes all the personality out of politicians. Or maybe R&D parties just naturally attract bland, personality-lacking drones who can’t do anything other than mumble mindless placating drivel. Third party runners are almost shockingly honest about their stance on the issues and often clearly show their true personalities, which is probably why they so rarely get elected. Could you picture Bush, Clinton, or McCain telling voters they were going to keep whites in a position of privilege and power? No. Their actions may be discriminatory, their hearts might be racist, but they will never have the fucking stones or honesty to tell people that.

Is Obama for legalizing marijuana right now like the Green Party candidate? No. And there is not a single, logical reason not to. But instead of following reason and doing what’s best for this country, he panders to the hypocritical Americans that smoked pot regularly but oh noes! their kids might smoke pot if it was legal. Like they don’t do it anyway. Alcohol is more destructive than marijuana, maybe Democrats should get on banning tha-Oh Wait. A few people have prophesied the end of one of the two main parties-however, they assumed the Republican party would be the one to go. I personally think it’ll be the Democratic Party, giving way to a less right-wing party.

That Old Immigration Trope Again

June 2, 2010

So there’s a bill rolling around that would change the current law (citizenship to anyone born on U.S soil) so that like many countries, a child born in the U.S would need to have a parent that was a citizen or legal resident.
I find myself incredibly amused. Looking at a list of nations that grant citizenship to babies born on the soil, regardless of parents, I found that there were almost all American countries (U.S&Canada, South America, Caribbean, etc. )

What about those Europeans? You know, those countries with the AWESOME health care systems that are so superior to ours, not to mention a superior education system, among all the other European laws some people *cough*liberals*cough find better than ours.

So liberals, any takers? Do you think the general European trend (demanding a parent of born child be a citizen or resident as well) to be superior to the United States’? I’m sure you want to make the citizenship laws stricter, yes?

Or could it even be… that what is good for Europe, is not necessarily best for us? Or even best at all?