A Liberal in Conservative Clothing

Be careful, conservatives.  You might actually be a liberal fighting to convince yourself that you are a conservative.  Oh, the horror!

I know this because I actually talked to one this weekend.  I was in a hotel having dinner, and I began a conversation with a conservative about some hot topics.  As I expected, we made absolutely no headway with the abortion (contraceptives) debate.  There is no winning in a debate about that.  The debates I really enjoyed were about "entitlement" programs and gay marriage.

In these discussions, I simply used a sequence of logical questions to get the poor closet liberal to admit that they didn't really align with conservatives in the way they thought.  We began discussing the law being free from religion.  This conservative played the "Constitution was written on Christian beliefs" card.  Well, that was an easy one.  I simply got the person's agreement that the Constitution was written to protect freedom of religion, and freedom from religion.  Once that was established, I asked if they believed that the government should be forcing some Christians' beliefs on others?  Of course, it was hard to admit, but I got the "no" I was looking for.

Then it was time for the self-proclaimed conservative to play the "but marriage is a gift from God" card.  Another simple one (that seems to be a trend with conservative arguments).  The easy argument here is that, while it is fine for a church to refuse to marry people because of their beliefs, marriage as far as the government is concerned, is purely secular.  It is a contract that has specific rights and responsibilities included.  If religion is taken out of the argument, then we're only left with a contract (called marriage) that the government has no reason to deny to a gay couple.

At this point, I got an agreement that, even though the conservative didn't agree with homosexuality, there was no reason that the government should be denying gay marriage.  This person did attempt to say that they would have to vote against approving gay marriage if it came up because they didn't agree with it personally.  Well, the discussion immediately became about forcing the person's beliefs on others versus allowing others to make decisions on their own.  No matter what logic was used, this was the last hiding place for this faux conservative.  There was not going to be an admission that, even though they said the government should not be writing any religion's beliefs into law and there was no reason that the government should be denying gay marriage, this person actually believed as many liberals do and would vote to see progress in freedom and civil rights.  I warned this person to be careful because they might actually be a liberal in conservative clothes.

At some point, we transitioned to a discussion about "entitlement" programs.  We agreed that Social Security, being a system that is paid into by workers, is not what many people refer to as an "entitlement" program.  (We had a discussion about the word "entitlement" before we started in which we decided that we would use the word to basically "charity" as many conservatives use the term.  We agreed that, by the true definition of the term "entitlement," social security was one.  I'm pretty sure the sentence, "I've paid into that my whole career, you're damn right I'm entitled to it" was uttered.)

Then we agreed that there should be some reform to the programs.  We agreed that people on welfare should be subjected to drug testing.  The surprising part was that, while the conservative thought Medicaid should be destroyed, we agreed that everyone in a country as rich as ours deserved to have basic necessities like food, shelter, and healthcare.  This conservative told me that they believed we should move to a single-payer healthcare system.  Stop.  Re-read that last sentence.  Now realize that this conservative works in the healthcare industry...and has for over 25 years.  At this point, there was no denying the obvious.  I had to tell this person who proclaims to be conservative that they are actually a liberal.  Yes.  This anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, self-proclaim Christian conservative is actually a liberal who is refusing to see the truth.  If you believe in the freedom to live one's life, if you believe that the fundamental rights outlined in the Constitution apply to all of us, if you are a true Christian...then you should be very careful with whom you align yourself politically.  You may actually be a liberal in conservatives clothing.  

Republicans Start the Year Off with Typical Stupidity

I guess Republicans didn't get the message in the election.  Losing the Presidential election and losing seats in both houses of Congress didn't drive it home.  So they just keep pushing their tired, ridiculous agenda.  Within the first few days of the new year, I've read about two extremely stupid bills being proposed by Republicans (gives me a good idea of what to expect for the next two years). 

First, while the Violence Against Women Act and the Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill go unapproved in Congress, Republican Michelle Bachman announced that she introduced the first bill of the 113th Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  Despite passing similar bills 33 times in the last useless congressional session that didn't go anywhere, Republicans apparently don't mind wasting millions more passing the repeal (the first 33 times cost an estimated $50 million to taxpayers). 

This morning, I read news of another Republican that has decided to waste taxpayer money by introducing a bill that would allow public schools to require the recitation of the Lord's Prayer.  Indiana state senator Dennis Kruse, who attempted and failed to get creationism taught in schools last year, filed a bill that would allow Indiana schools to force children to recite the Lord's Prayer, although the bill allows for individual students to opt out.  In this case, the Republican in charge of the Indiana state senate was intelligent enough to recognize that this bill is an unconstitutional waste of time.  He assigned it to the rules and legislative procedures committee and said that it was a clear violation of the first amendment. 

That leads to the question of why these legislators are introducing bills that they know will fail.  The answer is that they want to make a statement.  They believe that their agenda should be forced upon the rest of us, regardless of whether we want it or not.  They choose to make a statement that costs us millions of dollars.  Meanwhile, they complain about frivolous government spending. 

This just illustrates the hypocrisy of the Republican agenda.  They say they want to stop spending, but waste millions on bills they know won't pass.  They say they want smaller government, but want to write more laws restricting the freedoms of specific groups.  Ask them why, and they'll tell you that there's a difference between conservative fiscal policy and conservative social policy.  Of course there is, that difference is called hypocrisy. 

I can respect a true libertarian.  They don't want government intrusion at all.  They want very little government in either fiscal or social policy.  While I may not agree with much of their agenda, I can respect them for having a solid belief and applying it to all aspects of government. On the other hand, today's conservatives are simply hypocrites who only push their ideology as far as it benefits their agenda.  They are perfectly willing to compromise their ideology to make a statement about their beliefs (which is ironic because they refuse to compromise with anyone who believes differently in order to get things accomplished).  Maybe this is why their party is imploding...no one, not even their own party members, can really a group that doesn't live up to its ideals and proves itself full of hypocrites over and over.  Hopefully all of this silliness and waste ends after the 2014 election when many of these people are removed from office. 

Better Ingredients, Worse Math...John Schnatter is Costing Himself a Fortune

Math has become the bane of conservative "logic" over the last few months.  It seems that all of their rhetoric and lies are getting exposed by peons like me who simply do the math.  Here's a fun one for you.

Tonight I read an article from Forbes that showed how flawed John Schnatter's, the owner of Papa John's, math was on his per pizza costs for health care.  That was interesting, but what really caught my eye was the number of shares he owns and the stock price. 

According to the Forbes article, John owns 6,094,409 shares of stock.  On Thursday November 8, 2012 the stock price began at $51.70 and has been dropping ever since.  As of today, the stock price is now $48.69.  This means that John Schnatter's stock was valued at $315,080,945.30 last Thursday morning.  Right now that same stock is valued at $296,736,774.21.  This is a loss in value of $18,344,171.09.  While he was busy trying to screw his employees and save $5-8 million per year (according to his own estimates), he has lost over $18 million in stock value due to bad press (and a lawsuit he is facing). 

I love the power of social media.  If he continues to refuse his employees health care and threaten to reduce their hours, I hope the calls for boycotts spread like a virus.  I want to see his stock plummet well under $40 per share.  At $38 per share he would have lost enough money to have paid for his employees' health care for a decade.  Don't lose sight of what the public can do to these millionaires who try to hold us hostage to their greed.  We've already cost him what he would have paid over 2-3 years for health care.  Let's make him lose decades.  Continue the boycotts of Papa John's and every other business who plays games with the livelihood of their workers.  Let's end the American Aristocracy before it begins.

I haven't done it in a while, but this makes John Schnatter today's Douchebag Businessman!  Congratulations John!

Argument against Obama Debunked

Originally appeared on The American Complaint Department October 15, 2012

     Obama’s the worst President ever!  No, I don’t believe that.  That’s what I hear from everyone who is opposed to him in this election.  When I ask them what makes him the worst President in history, they only have a handful of answers.  Most of the answers center on how much money he has spent.  These people are in a panic about the debt of $16 trillion.  I don’t remember any of these people panicking about the $10 trillion debt that our country had when Bush left office.  Most of the other attacks are nonsense such as he is socialist, communist (because these people don’t know the difference), Muslim, and hasn’t done anything good for our country.  The last argument is the one that really gets me fired up. 
       There are two problems with that argument.  First, these people seem to forget that congressional Republicans have spent the last two years fighting every initiative that President Obama has supported.  This has led to very little progress (which was evidenced by the fact that this congress passed fewer bills into law than any congress in history), but the responsibility lies with congressional Republicans, not with the President.  If he were to issue executive orders to get these measures passed, they would be accusing him of abusing his authority. 
       The other problem I have is that, despite the best efforts of Republicans, President Obama has accomplished quite a bit during his term.  Here’s a short list of some of those accomplishments:
       • His economic policies have pulled us from a recession that was heading towards a depression.  The U.S. GDP has grown from 14.07 trillion when President Obama took office to 15.83 trillion in July of this year.  Unemployment was 8.3 percent when the President took office in 2009.  Shortly after he was inaugurated, this number topped out at 10 percent.  Even though he had initiatives such as the Bringing Jobs Home bill blocked by Republicans, he has brought unemployment down to 7.8 percent.
       • He worked to pass the Affordable Care Act, bringing the health care reform that people have been wanting for years.  Today, millions of Americans are now insured due to this bill.  Studies have indicated that this reform will decrease health care spending in the long run as well.
       • Reformed Wall Street with the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act which
       • After 9 years of war, the United States has finally pulled out of Iraq.
        • Under President Obama’s direction, the United States military found and eliminated Osama Bin Laden.
       •Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed for our military bringing more equality to our armed forces.
       • Benefits were extended to same-sex partners of federal employees.
      • Advocated for and signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
       • Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, furthering equal rights for women.
       • Ended the Bush-era practices of “enhanced interrogation,” which is a nice way to say torture.
       • Signed the Iran Sanctions Act, furthering the sanctions against Iran in an effort to curb Iran’s nuclear program.
       • He began the process of training Afghan troops to replace American troops so that the U.S. could begin withdrawing its troops.
        •Established a “Credit Card Bill of Rights” meant to protect consumers.
       • Increased funding to the Department of Veterans Affairs
       • Increased student financial aid.
       • Reformed the student loan program so that students could refinance their education at a lower rate.
       • Created the Race to the Top program, encouraging school reforms.
       • Furthered the opportunities for higher education by expanding the Federal Pell Grant program.
       • Worked with Michelle Obama to pass the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act to improve nutrition in schools and improve children’s health.
​
       There are hundreds more examples that I can give of the accomplishments that President Obama has made during his term in office.  In fact, there are websites out there like whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com that do just that.
       I don’t mind if someone doesn’t agree with the President’s policies.  The ability to have different perspectives and beliefs is a fundamental right of our nation.  However, ignoring the accomplishments of the President simply because members of the opposing political party have said that he has done nothing of value is pure mindless conformity.  Do not simply allow these people to ignore evidence and misconstrue the facts to gain power.  They are counting on your blind acceptance of their propaganda to put themselves in a position to improve their own lives at the expense of those who President Obama has spent the last four years protecting – the middle class.  We live in the age of information.  Don’t accept the lies and propaganda that Republicans have been using as their platform in this election.  Look at the facts and make an informed decision in November.  I believe that, if you do, you will cast your vote to re-elect President Obama.

The Need for Healthcare Reform Hits Home

I've spent a lot of time arguing with people about the Affordable Care Act.  Many times these people have told me how they shouldn't be forced to carry insurance because they don't get sick and need medical care.  I've often asked them what happens if they have an accident that causes them to need the care and they aren't covered.  They always tell me that they are responsible and will pay off the bill for their care.  Today, my family had to deal with the problem of having unaffordable medical care without insurance. 

My little sister, who is only nine years old (10 in 12 days!  Happy early birthday!), had an accident and broke the growth plate in her wrist.  She needs surgery to repair the break or she may be in danger of having her arm deformed for the rest of her life.  My father, who works as a preacher, does not have employer-provided insurance.  So this leaves my family with the burden of paying full price for the surgery.  Because the injury is not life-threatening, it is not something that the doctors are obligated to perform.  Of course, being a preacher, my father doesn't make a lot of money.  The high cost of the surgery is way too high for my father to afford.  As of the time I'm writing this post, he is still searching for a way to pay for the surgery. 

Many people will say that he should look for assistance, but he makes too much money.  Of course, while he makes too much to qualify for assistance, he doesn't make enough to be able to afford medical care.  This is exactly why we need the ACA.  The only academic study of the effects of the act showed that the results of this kind of universal healthcare will be that medical costs are driven down.  Lower medical costs and competition in insurance exchanges will drive the price of insurance low enough for people like my father to afford.  The evidence of this was given in the article Lessons for coverage expansion: a Virginia primary care program for the uninsured reduced utilization and cut costs that appeared in the journal Health Affairs in February of this year. 

So as people like Mitt Romney continue to condemn healthcare reform, I ask them to put their money where their mouths are.  Write a check to cover my little sister's surgery or shut your mouth about healthcare reform when you've never had to face a situation like this.  The same goes for anyone who supports this moron's bid for the presidency...if you think that this reform isn't needed, then I invite you to drop a line to my 9-year-old little sister and try to explain to her why she could be forced to live with a deformed wrist for the rest of her life.  But at least you weren't forced by the government to be responsible and cover your own healthcare costs...and that's worth causing a little girl to live with the pain, right?

Get better soon little sister...I'm sure Dad will figure it out.  I love you.

Update:

Through the grace of God and the assistance of family and friends, it looks like my sister will be able to have her surgery.  Thank you to everyone who helped make it possible and those who prayed for her.  

Romneyfish Flips Again

In another episode of "Romney's Full of Crap," we have Mitt saying that emergency rooms are a viable option for people who have no health insurance. 

"Well, we do provide care for people who don't have insurance.  If someone has a heart attack, they don't sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care."

This was an attempt to justify his goal of repealing the Affordable Health Care Act if he was to win the election.  There are so many problems with this...let's get started.

First, let's look at the problems with repealing the individual mandate, but keeping other provisions of the law such as the increased age limit on parents' coverage and elimination of denial for pre-existing conditions.  If we expand the number of people insurance companies are forced to cover, and don't require everyone to have insurance, the cost of insurance will skyrocket.  The point of requiring everyone to maintain coverage is that healthcare providers won't have to write off medical bills for uninsured persons and pass the amount owed on to the rest of the people who have insurance.  This is a major factor in the increasing cost of medical care.  If this problem still exists, and we expand coverage, we will only see rising costs of healthcare and insurance rates.  It won't work. 

The other problem is that Mitt is entirely full of crap.  He knows very well that emergency rooms aren't an option for healthcare.  Let's take a look at some previous quotes from Romney on emergency rooms as healthcare for the uninsured:

"Look, it doesn't make a lot of sense for us to have millions and millions of people who have no health insurance and yet who can go to the emergency room and get entirely free care for which they have no responsibility, particularly if they are people who have sufficient means to pay their own way."

 "When they show up at the hospital, they get care. They get free care paid for by you and me. If that's not a form of socialism, I don't know what is.  So my plan did something quite different. It said, you know what? If people can afford to buy insurance ... or if they can pay their own way, then they either buy that insurance or pay their own way, but they no longer look to government to hand out free care. And that, in my opinion, is ultimate conservativism."

So Mitt's plan was that people could choose to either have insurance, pay in cash when services are rendered, or be denied healthcare.  So...according to his plan, if you don't have insurance or you can't pay cash in advance of any services rendered, you just get denied and sent home to either get better or die.  Okay, I don't agree with letting people just die because they can't afford the same care as rich people, but if that's what you want, then I think he needs to stand up and tell the country that this is what he believes.  And he would also have to make a law that allows healthcare providers the option of turning away patients who are dying if they don't have insurance or the money to pay in advance. 

See where the problem lies here?  We either have to let people die, watch healthcare costs continue to skyrocket, or mandate that everyone take personal responsibility and stay insured. 

But the most entertaining piece of this story is the fact that Mitt showed us once again that he is willing to lie and tell people what he thinks they want to hear in order to win the election.  He flip flops like a fish out of water.  He really makes me wonder if the Republican party chose him in an effort to lose this election.  What other explanation is there for putting a candidate out there who does nothing but lie, offend people, and reverse his position on issues every other day?  I don't know...maybe some liberals infiltrated the GOP and worked their way to the top so that they could destroy the Republican party from within.  Or is that just the wishful thinking of a dreamer?

The Pot and the Kettle

It’s kind of funny.  As I’m writing this, I realize that, this blog didn’t start out as a conservative-bashing forum.  I also didn’t previously identify myself as a Democrat or liberal.  While I still won’t declare myself as a Democrat, I do now proudly proclaim myself liberal.  I have backed into this position over the last few years of listening to Republicans and conservatives spout nonsense that they say is in my best interest.  The scary thing is that I live in the “heartland of America.”  This is code for conservative hell.  I am basically behind enemy lines.  Maybe I should change the name of this blog…just a thought.  This post is a discussion of some of the hypocrisies that have driven me to this point.

I’ll start with the thing we are all so very sick of hearing about:  healthcare reform.  I’m not talking about whether it’s good or not, I’m more concerned with the outrage that all of the conservatives have about it.  You may have heard in passing that Republicans were the first group to suggest many of the reforms that the current law has implemented.  This is a fact that conservatives have glossed over every time I have heard it mentioned.  What everyone is talking about is the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 (HEART Act).  This bill looks very similar to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).  In fact, a look at the areas covered in the two bills leave only a handful of differences.  The most notable differences include the fact that the PPACA included the expansion of Medicaid, eliminated lifetime limits on coverage, and extended coverage for children up to the age of 26.  What is did include was an individual mandate.  What I find most interesting is that the HEART Act was sponsored by a Republican, Senator John H. Chafee.  I’ll go one step further – it had 20 co-sponsors.  Of those 20, 18 were Republicans!  Notable names on the list include Arlen Specter (when he was Republican), Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar, and Bob Dole.  So this party, which is screaming that the United States as we know it has ended because of the PPACA, is actually responsible for the first proposal of the majority of the PPACA’s provisions.  Did you know this?  I mean really understand.  Think about it before you cast that vote in November.  The same people telling you that they will “protect your freedoms” are actually the ones to originally propose the very legislation about which you are complaining.

So we move on the economy.  If I never hear the words spending or deficit again I could die a happy man.  I keep hearing conservatives (which I use interchangeably with Republicans for the purpose of this post) talk about how spending is out of control and we can’t keep running these kinds of deficits.  My response is usually related to the fact that our country runs on Keynesian economics.  For those of you who don’t know what this means, here is an overly basic run-down:  run deficits during a recession and surpluses during a boom.  What I don’t usually get into is the hypocrisy that exists when Republicans are in power versus the times that they are not in power.  While I’m sure I can go into multiple examples of this…I’ll stick with words from the elephant’s mouth.  In a meeting with the Secretary of the Treasury in 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney was warned that the extreme budget deficits of that time were threatening the economy.  According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, Cheney told him that “Reagan proved deficits don't matter.”  He continued by saying, “We won the midterms [congressional elections]. This is our due.”  Sooooo, they matter now?  Just not during the Reagan and Bush administrations?  Oh, I forgot, they earned that right by convincing the voters that they would actually work to improve their lives.  It’s their “due.”  

The last issue is the one something I have been hearing constantly since the Ron Paul bandwagon started to roll - The Constitution.  According to most of the conservatives I know, everything Obama has done since he took office has been unconstitutional…including the fact that he took office!  Try getting into a debate with a conservative about the merits of Obama’s term without his ethnic background or religion being questioned.  But, I digress…we will talk about the Constitutionality of Obama’s actions.  The healthcare debate doesn’t take much discussion.  It’s been before the Supreme Court, and the PPACA has been found Constitutional.  Unless anyone has the training and experience to refute the opinions of the five justices who determined that this was Constitutional (Including Justice Roberts – shocking), then all of your arguments are immediately moot. 

So let’s look at some other issues.  We’ll start with the mild uproar over the action in Libya.  People claimed that Obama’s decision to strike Libya without Congressional approval was unconstitutional.   This is a slightly more complicated matter.  First, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military.  Congress is granted sole authority to declare war.  How many conflicts have we been in that weren’t actually declared a war?  So they were pissed because he did it without their permission.  Get over it.  Complicating this further is the fact that we never sent troops into Libya.  The surgical strikes used in the action managed to rid the world of a tyrant without the cost of American soldiers.  Dare I mention – John McCain is even quoted as saying, “I think the administration deserves great credit…Obviously, I had different ideas on the tactical side, but the world is a better place.”

On the other side of the coin, we have the Patriot Act.  This legislation was passed in 2001 and signed into law by President Bush a month and a half after the 9/11 attacks.  Basically, it reduces the requirements necessary for law enforcement to gather intelligence on people in the United States.  Here are some scary provisions:

Ø  A search can be executed without a warrant if an FBI agent provides a National Security Letter – and a gag order is instituted on the ISP’s, banks, credit card companies, and phone companies who must turn over the information!

Ø  Section 215 of the act allows the government to obtain records by simply showing “relevance” to a terrorism of espionage investigation.  Notice that I didn’t say “probable cause” as is defined in the Fourth Amendment.

Ø  “John Doe” roving wiretaps can be issued which do not name a target, place, or facility to be monitored.  (Senator Rand Paul’s Letter of Opposition to the Patriot Act)

So do the people that are so worried about the constitutionality of the PPACA have anything to say?  I see days of uproar over a tax and healthcare issue, but the government can get a blank ticket to spy on anyone they want without a warrant?  However, we’re not hearing about this right now because it was championed by a conservative.  You had better believe that, if Obama had introduced this legislation, we would be hearing about how he was turning the U.S. into a police state where no one would have any freedom. 

This list could go on forever…conservatives want a smaller government, but they want to enforce their religious beliefs on the rest of us, etc.  But I’d like to get this posted so I’ll end with a thought.  One of our greatest founding fathers, George Washington, warned us to “guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism,” in his farewell address.  What would you consider an imposture?  A group pretending to be morally outraged by legislation that they proposed themselves originally?  The same group crying out that we can’t handle the deficits that two of their own administrations ran?  The very same group that claims that the President has been acting unconstitutionally while they have passed a law that defies the people their constitutional rights?  All of this is being done in an effort to convince the people that they are the true patriots of our country.  While we seem to have forgotten most of what Washington warned us about, I implore you to heed his advice. 

Ignorance is Bliss...

Since the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act, I have spent a lot of time debating the issue with some conservatives.  This isn’t another attempt to do that.  This is a discussion of the problems I have with debating these people. 

I have a fairly simple request when I debate people…support your arguments.  It’s not a difficult thing to do if you are using sound, reasoned arguments.  That’s the problem.  While I did have a couple of people actually use sources, the majority of these people just posted the same recycled arguments that they have heard on television, radio, or read on their conservative websites.  After using articles from peer-reviewed journals and trusted sources that included facts and figures, I was met with people who just chose to turn a blind eye.  First, they would try to dispute the validity of the facts and figures.  Unless there is a valid reason to dispute them, such as them coming from an untrustworthy source, they are valid.  For statistics like the population of the United States, the commonly accepted trusted source is the Census Department.  (Yes, I used this and it was questioned.)  Then they would attack the journal articles.  Now, I’m not saying everyone has to agree, but don’t tell me an article from a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal is invalid if you haven’t even read the research and have a real point of opposition.  Because you don’t like the fact that it totally invalidates most of your argument is not justification for the conclusions being valid.  These kinds of articles are the standard for academic discussion.  Finally, in a last, desperate attempt to have an argument, my citations were completely ignored.  I was first told that I didn’t use any, and when I proved it, I was told all of my information was refuted.  Well, that’s pretty impossible since I know that not one person I was debating can refute the Census Department or a journal article for which they only have access to read the abstract. 

Retrieved from http://www.politicalruminations.com/2010/09/cartoon-of-the-week.html

Now, I have some friends who might read this and say, “Wait a minute!  I don’t do that.”  I do have some conservative friends who can give me a very challenging and worthy debate.  I have even lost debates with a couple of them (I’m looking at you, Josh.)  Not because I think my position was wrong, just because I wasn’t prepared enough to provide reasonable responses.  Obviously, this is not directed at those people.  In fact, none of those people even attempted to debate the issue.  (I wonder why?) 

After two days of repeating myself over and over for two days and having people stare at the face of my arguments and ignore reason, I have grown tired.  I usually enjoy these kinds of debates.  I like proving people wrong.  It’s even easy in most cases.  But, when the only response you get is nonsense, it stops being fun.  I have fully embraced the fact that I am truly a full-blooded liberal at heart.  I don’t apologize for it, and I don’t apologize for the fact that I think conservative philosophy is nonsense founded in stupidity.  All I’m asking is, please, for the love of Pete, have at least some standards when you debate me.  While I love stomping on conservative ideas, it’s becoming too easy.  It’s almost not even fun anymore.  Almost.

© Keith Tucker

 

 

 

Buzzwords

Earmarks! Conservative! Liberal! Amnesty! Illegals! Taxes! Spending! Obamacare! Jobs! Debt! Job Creators!

Heard enough? Are you ready to walk into the polls and cast your vote for me? No? Why not? Most likely, you will walk into the polls and vote for a candidate this November with little more than a list of buzzwords you heard from their commercials or from some political analyst. I’ve seen a trend in the recent elections that has been disturbing me. Many political ads and commercials have been using buzzwords to entice voters lately. Now I have no problem with the use of buzzwords. I know a little bit about marketing and I know that buzzwords are a part of marketing that is used every day in advertising. This isn’t about the use of buzzwords along with clever marketing…it’s about people voting simply on buzzwords.

Oh, you don’t do that? Well, let’s test that statement. Have you said, “The government can’t just keep spending” anytime recently? Or maybe you’ve talked about how the country is going so far into debt? I doubt that very many can honestly say that they haven’t uttered something along these lines in the last few years. So the next question is, what do you really know about these topics? What is the country’s debt? What was it before the incumbents took office? How does the government spend money? What is the debt ceiling? What does Keynesian economics mean? Does our government practice this? If you can answer these questions accurately, then this post doesn’t apply to you. If not, you may have fallen into the buzzwords trap along with the majority of the country.

Seriously, what do they really tell you when you listen to an analyst or watch a commercial? Let’s take a look at a typical commercial from the recent primaries. This commercial was for Richard Mourdock, a candidate running against 35 year Senator Dick Lugar. This commercial has absolutely nothing to say. There are some checklists though…they have Dick Lugar with the words “Bailouts,” “Tax Hikes,” and “Obama Justices.” Then they have one with Mourdock with the words “Opposes Bailouts,” “Fights Obamacare,” “Balanced Budget,” and “Less Debt.” There is literally no substantial information or justification for voting for this guy except for the fact that he knows how to use buzzwords. Ask yourself…what is his record? What are his qualifications? Don’t know? Maybe because they don’t want to tell you anything if they know they can get the votes by using a few key terms with no real meaning. Here’s the scary thing…he won the primary. A 35-year incumbent lost his seat to buzz words. Now, I’m not saying that I would want Lugar in office. I had a problem with him that had nothing to do with any of the buzzwords. I think that some people had the same problem concerning his residency, which cost him dearly. Regardless…he still lost to a man who campaigned with buzzwords.

This brings me to the use of social hot topics to scare people into voting. While I’m vehemently against political parties (a topic for a later blog), I do recognize that the chances of them going away any time soon is insanely slim to none. Unfortunately, what I have seen many politicians doing lately is using social issues as selling points to scare people away from voting for the other party. Both sides use gay marriage to scare people – immigration has become an issue – and if I hear one more thing about the President’s nationality or religion, I might just snap. First, unless you are gay, why in the hell does it matter to you if marriage between two homosexuals is legally recognized in the U.S.? If you believe marriage is a legal contract, then the government has no right to refuse marriage based on a religious belief. If you believe that it is a religious institution then THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO REGULATE IT BASED ON A RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Here’s the bottom line…it comes up before elections because one side says that if you vote for the other party gays will be able to marry and we’ll all go to hell, turn gay ourselves, or your marriage will mean nothing and your spouse will leave you. This is to scare you into voting how they want you to vote. The other side presents the issue hoping to look like the defenders of the weak riding in on their stallions to defeat the evil oppressors. While I must say that I do support gay marriage, I would really love to see something actually done about the issue so that the political pandering would all just go away.

Immigration – good grief. Everyone is blaming everyone else for the immigration problem. Here’s the fix…build a big ass wall. It will put a crap load of people to work and reduce the amount of illegal immigration. But, wait! Don’t forget that it has to be paid for…so your taxes will have to go up. You can’t have everything you want. To fix this immigration problem the government will have to spend money. Deal with it and stop letting the politicians scare you into thinking that we will lose our sovereignty and become Mexico, Jr. if you don’t vote for them.

The last one that I will briefly address is the nationality and religion of the President. Here’s the thing…stop questioning it. It’s old and boring. The man will not be removed from office. His credentials have been checked, verified, and re-verified so many times that he is probably the most confirmed citizen in United States history. Every court case that has been lost trying to prove he’s not is just adding to the mountain of evidence that there is no justification for this garbage. Oh, and I do believe that this has everything to do with the man’s race. Don’t like being called a racist? Deal with it. If you are still questioning this after this amount of time and all of the evidence that has been put forth, you are doing it for reasons of race. If you say otherwise, you are a liar, sir.

Now his religion. Oh my gosh…he’s a MUSLIM! Well, he’s not…but that’s a great way to scare the hell out of the ignorant rednecks in the U.S. After 9/11, the words Muslim and Islam have almost become profanity. Who gives a crap if the man is a Muslim? Since when did that have any bearing on his Presidency? Oh, I forgot…it’s because bigotry against Muslims is accepted now that a few extremists who called themselves Muslims (which I take issue with) attacked and killed a bunch of Americans. As I have written before…these kinds of views are the most unpatriotic and offensive views that I can imagine coming from citizens of this great country. A few weeks ago, my cousin was interred in Arlington National Cemetery after he was killed in action serving as a Marine. Do me a favor and don’t spit on his grave, the graves of those like him, and the face of those who have served and still serve to protect our freedoms by spreading your hate and fear. This is a nation of acceptance and tolerance. If you are afraid of a Muslim in office then you belong elsewhere. And if you allow this kind of garbage to sway your vote, then you are as bad as those who spew this filth in the first place.

These people think that you are dumb. They think that they can throw a bunch of words with no substance at you and you will run right out and cast your vote for them. The question is: are you going to prove them right? Are you going to vote for buzzwords, or for a representative?