One of the big things about feminism that everyone immediately recognizes are images of women holding up cards saying 'I need feminism because...' and then whatever they put down. Recently, some women who do the same thing except with the word "don't" thrown in there have been catching a relatively small amount of flak from the feminists. I read this article and now I have to put my tiny, ant-sized foot down on this issue. Go read the article. No seriously, read the article. There's no point in my criticism of something you haven't read about.
First off I want to say that the author of this article is definitely correct about the horrors that many women face in the world, often at the hands of men. The stories recounted in the article are horrific, and sadly they happen quite frequently in many parts of the world. This is despicable and, while I don't condone murder, nobody would miss the people who commit any of the heinous acts described in the article. However, the whole thing comes down to this specific line:
"So before you hold up your anti-Feminist placard proudly and smile at your own sense of empowerment, think not what Feminism can do for you, but what it can do for that one girl."
The cold hard reality is that no movement or ideology will save those women or protect women in the future. Feminism can't do shit, Liberalism can't do shit, Conservatism can't do shit, Libertarianism can't do shit. But let's focus on feminism, since that's what's being talked about. Feminism is an ideology, a thought, words. That's it. If words were all it took to keep you from being assaulted then rape, assault and murder statistics would be minuscule because people could just shout "Swiper no raping/murdering/assaulting!" three times and the attacker would be stopped. Sorry, feminists, you're out of luck. Better go back to ranting about patriarchy on Tumblr.
So what CAN we do to stop these acts of pure evil? We can educate. That is it. These acts are acts, and an act can't be stopped by anything other than another act. Those men who were beating that woman on the bus could've been stopped if someone had pulled out a gun and defended her. Someone could have started throwing punches to save her from being beaten, I don't know. Somebody should have been able to recognize what was happening and that it was wrong and tried to stop it. Someone should have acted to save someone who legitimately could not have saved herself. But they didn't. And feminism won't change that. Feminism is not encouraging women to arm themselves, to learn how to fight back, how to properly defend themselves, feminism is teaching them to play victim. Well, guess what women? YOU'RE STRONGER THAN THAT. If you are legitimately afraid of violence being directed at you - for any reason - ARM YOURSELF. GET AWAY FROM FAMILY MEMBERS THAT WILL HURT YOU. Do not listen to feminists who tell you that just because you're not doing anything wrong that you shouldn't remove yourself from a dangerous environment.
Now comes the responses galore of "But not all women CAN remove themselves", "not all women can get access to protection" etc etc. Okay. That's horrible. My many sympathies to the women stuck in those scenarios. But feminism still does not have an answer. Feminism isn't doing anything to stop what's happening. Feminism is doing one thing, it is giving some women in other countries the anger to group together and use that anger to overcome their fear and push back. That, admittedly, is better than nothing. I would rather see a few Indian feminists fighting (sometimes literally) against the actual oppression in India where it exists than nothing at all. But I would humbly propose another solution. Another ideology. Voluntaryism.
Basically, you respect another person and their property. If they harm you or your property, you are free to use appropriate force to get them to stop. I would absolutely love to see Pakistani women given handguns and trained how to use them. Then they could act much more freely without having to worry about men led by irrational religious bullshit trying to hurt them for not submitting to whatever god's will. THAT would be doing something. Feminists, please just shut the fuck up about the poor women in other countries. If you ACTUALLY cared, you would be helping those women to do something to enforce their self-ownership, not just sniping at girls holding anti-feminist signs on the Internet.
Monday, July 28, 2014
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Libertarians Are Like Cats?
Okay so I found this little gem on the Being Liberal Facebook page. Now, I'm a man of humor. I appreciate humor in all its forms. If you insult me and it's extremely clever, I won't even be mad, I'll just be like 'woah, I need to step up my game.' This image was slightly clever, and I appreciate that. I was gonna move past, but then I saw the comments. Then it occurred to me that the admins at Being Liberal think the same way the people in the comments think. The guys at Being Liberal are somewhat economically illiterate and have never, in the year or so I've had them liked on Facebook, demonstrated any accurate understanding of Libertarian philosophy. So this one's for you, M and W.
CLAIM: Libertarians assert independence while maintaining dependence on many people
Bullshit? Absolutely.
Okay, first off, Libertarianism has ZIP ZILCH ZERO to do with independence. Nothing whatsoever. Unless you count the part where we don't rely upon faceless men in suits to change society, we prefer to actually DO something to make the world better so we abide by the NAP and exercise nonviolence in all our dealings (try voting THAT into the White House, bitch!). We accept that we are totally dependent upon others in our society. But we, unlike you, know exactly whom we are dependent upon: businesses. Without businesses, we have nothing. Yes, even large corporations (to a lesser extent). Who built the computer with which you are reading this? Who provides the cell coverage so you can load this page and read on the bus to ignore the passed out homeless guy next to you? Who makes your food and gets gas for your car or bus? BUSINESSES AND CORPORATIONS. The very things that Liberal philosophy actively destroys. Liberalism, whether you like to admit it or not, is socialism mixed with American progressive politics. The socialism part destroys businesses. If you have any questions about this, please see this handy flow chart. Why did I use that picture? Because you're in my domain and I can do as I please. I'm making the most of it before the statists have that from me, too.
Okay for real though, Liberal philosophy grows the government pretty damn quickly, even moreso than Conservative philosophy, mostly because Liberals have this weird notion that a government can exist for the people. This of course is complete bullshit. My evidence? Every single state in history. They all basically served the super rich and political elite. If not at first, then soon after. The super rich like to protect their assets, which includes stakes in super large corporations. So how do you get coporations to continue to succeed? Eliminate the competition. Get the government to regulate X, and X becomes more expensive. Smaller X companies can't afford it and drop out. Get some more regulation in there, and more X companies fall out because it's just too damn expensive. Rinse and repeat until you've a collection of a few (or perhaps a dozen or so) mega large corporations holding that whole market. Of course, it's harder for some markets to get that type of oligarch-style control by a few companies (like fast food and oil industries), but this is always the general trend. So the very entities we depend on are hurt by the Liberals, who claim Libertarians don't accept that we are totally dependent upon others in society. Yeah, okay.
Libertarianism is, at its core, about respect. Basically, I respect you and your property. More thoroughly, I will never encroach upon you or your property, nor will I advocate others do it on my behalf. That's basically it from a practical standpoint. But nothing in there is about dependence. Go on any number of Libertarian webshows or blogs and see how often they preach societal independence (protip: they don't). I'd like to leave off this short post with a heartfelt message for the admins at Being Liberal:
Fuck you and your anti-rational, Jon-Stewart-parroting bullshit.
CLAIM: Libertarians assert independence while maintaining dependence on many people
Bullshit? Absolutely.
Okay, first off, Libertarianism has ZIP ZILCH ZERO to do with independence. Nothing whatsoever. Unless you count the part where we don't rely upon faceless men in suits to change society, we prefer to actually DO something to make the world better so we abide by the NAP and exercise nonviolence in all our dealings (try voting THAT into the White House, bitch!). We accept that we are totally dependent upon others in our society. But we, unlike you, know exactly whom we are dependent upon: businesses. Without businesses, we have nothing. Yes, even large corporations (to a lesser extent). Who built the computer with which you are reading this? Who provides the cell coverage so you can load this page and read on the bus to ignore the passed out homeless guy next to you? Who makes your food and gets gas for your car or bus? BUSINESSES AND CORPORATIONS. The very things that Liberal philosophy actively destroys. Liberalism, whether you like to admit it or not, is socialism mixed with American progressive politics. The socialism part destroys businesses. If you have any questions about this, please see this handy flow chart. Why did I use that picture? Because you're in my domain and I can do as I please. I'm making the most of it before the statists have that from me, too.
Okay for real though, Liberal philosophy grows the government pretty damn quickly, even moreso than Conservative philosophy, mostly because Liberals have this weird notion that a government can exist for the people. This of course is complete bullshit. My evidence? Every single state in history. They all basically served the super rich and political elite. If not at first, then soon after. The super rich like to protect their assets, which includes stakes in super large corporations. So how do you get coporations to continue to succeed? Eliminate the competition. Get the government to regulate X, and X becomes more expensive. Smaller X companies can't afford it and drop out. Get some more regulation in there, and more X companies fall out because it's just too damn expensive. Rinse and repeat until you've a collection of a few (or perhaps a dozen or so) mega large corporations holding that whole market. Of course, it's harder for some markets to get that type of oligarch-style control by a few companies (like fast food and oil industries), but this is always the general trend. So the very entities we depend on are hurt by the Liberals, who claim Libertarians don't accept that we are totally dependent upon others in society. Yeah, okay.
Libertarianism is, at its core, about respect. Basically, I respect you and your property. More thoroughly, I will never encroach upon you or your property, nor will I advocate others do it on my behalf. That's basically it from a practical standpoint. But nothing in there is about dependence. Go on any number of Libertarian webshows or blogs and see how often they preach societal independence (protip: they don't). I'd like to leave off this short post with a heartfelt message for the admins at Being Liberal:
Fuck you and your anti-rational, Jon-Stewart-parroting bullshit.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Elizabeth Warren's 11 Commandments - A Brief Analysis
Holy shit the world is fucked up. There are reasons why, and I have tried my very best to figure them out, and so far I'm doing well, but I have a long way to go. So for now I'm going to stick to pointing out obvious crap when and wherever I see/hear it and hope to get a few people to see the nonsense that I see; the man behind the curtain, so to speak.
So for my first topic I wanted to test myself against Elizabeth Warren, champion of the hearts of the Liberals. Oh, sorry, they prefer the term 'Progressives'. I will link the article down below so you can see it for yourself, but it's pretty short and like 80% of it is gonna be quoted anyway so you probably won't need to. But formalities and all that. So let's start with Progressives. That is just marvelous, isn't it? Progressive. Progress. So the progressives are all about progress, moving forward. So if you are not a progressive, you don't want to move forward, you want to stay behind and never advance anything. Same efficiency, which becomes inefficiency, same problems with no solutions, same same same. Which usually runs along the negative connotations associated with being old fashioned or traditional (ie EVIL CONSERVATIVES EWWWWWW!). But progressive, de facto, just means to align, politically, with the Left in American politics. So essentially you are defining the other party into the wrong in a backhanded sophistic move whose only purpose is rhetorical deception. Bravo. You (not anyone in particular) are extremely slimy and gross with your inability to choose a name that doesn't have any basis in the reality of your ideology. I would suggest that, instead of conservative and liberal, you name yourselves 'statist' and 'faster growing statist', because those are the real world consequences of your respective ideologies. So we haven't even started and Senator Warren is already under my skepticism for identifying with progressives (not actually explicitly stated by Sen. Warren herself, though it takes a minute on Google to see with which ideology she affiliates). So, without further delay, let's look at the actual commandments of progressivism, as per the word of Sen. Warren.
1.) "We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it."
You are despicable and slimy. Oh, wait a minute, too soon. Okay, let's try that again. Ahem. Wall Street (whatever that means in the plethora of contexts the Left uses to describe various aspects of the banking and financial sectors of the US economy) is regulated by government. YOUR government. Let us not forget that at one point, President Obama had complete de facto control of the entire government because he was not only president but also had something like 60 seats in the senate at one point and could have passed anything short of a fixed salary for senators. And yet Wall Street continued to do all the things you (totally don't) claim they do which requires them to be regulated. And you're a bankruptcy law specialist, which means that you have understandings of fiscal relationships, in whole or in part, between businesses and the Fed. Which also means that you know damn well that Wall Street is in bed with the government. You are saying that progressives will fight (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA) to have the government work more closely with Wall Street. But what is that going to accomplish for progress or the American people? Imagine if a father found out his daughter was having sex with her boyfriend regularly and then hired her boyfriend to watch her and stay with her 24/7 to prevent sex. That is essentially what you are doing. Except this analogy isn't perfect because sex between a couple is a beautiful thing and government subsidies and regulation is a monstrous thing. But you're not stupid, you understand what I'm getting at. And you're going to fight? What do you mean fight? Fight like my brother did in Afghanistan? Or do you mean getting off your ass once a year to put Democrats behind the whips instead of Republicans? I mean, neither are particularly effective at achieving their stated goals, but one certainly can't be called 'fighting'. Oh, now? Okay. You are despicable and slimy. GOT IT RIGHT THIS TIME!
2.) "We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth."
Okay so what the hell lady. I liked number 1 because it was relatively direct. Wall Street needs to be controlled by the government. Pretty plain and simple. Here we have an umbrella that has no directness to it. So since she's not going to put any intellectual effort into this one, I will do it for her to clear things up. She is referring to the green movement, the preservation movement, basically anything that has to do with environmentalism, and that progressives want to take steps forward to stop people from exhausting the world's resources and destroying natural stuffs. But the key words here are responsibility and protect. Go ahead and ignore 'science' because if anyone in politics actually wanted to listen to science we'd be mostly voluntaryists by now. So we have a responsibility to protect this earth. Protect it from what? The conservatives and the capitalists (I am assuming these two based on common attack patterns by liberals, I'm sure there are others I could write about but this 'brief' analysis is going to be long enough as is), of course. "Those conservatives want to use the government let the capitalists drill for oil and make shitty, inefficient cars to cover out skies in the black smog of their riches and then sell us air to breathe. All for a buck!" Okay, slight exaggeration. But only slight. Well Sen. Warren if you would actually look at the facts, you would see that government is the greatest singular source of pollution in any given arbitrarily defined geographical location (better known as 'countries'). Why is this? Well, it's because the government isn't actually real, that's a concept, a name we give to a specific group of people. People consume resources and pollute. We all do it. I get paid to pollute, I drive to make my living. But people in government are given an exorbitant amount of money and they can get the government to cover their luxurious costs. Like, for example, how much pollution in the air belongs to the President that hasn't gone into anything that has produced benefit for the average American? Think about that. Now think about everyone else in the government who pollutes because of, or is subsidized by, their jobs or places in the government. Now imagine for a moment if all those resources, all that energy, was put into the free market. Remember that it was by the free market that the USB flash drive came about, which has (as that one picture on the internet says and therefore must be true) saved more trees than Greenpeace. Market advancement is all about efficiency, so, presumably, an extreme amount of progress may have been made by now to significantly reduce pollution at the hands of the every day Joe. But, alas, progressives aren't interested in progressing anything except the size and scope of government power. So sad.
3.) "We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality."
The Internet benefits big corporations. True. But it also benefits so much more. And benefiting corporations isn't a bad thing you economically illiterate toerag. "EEEEEEEEK! PROFITS! RUN AWAAAAAAAAAY." And of course by 'net neutrality' you mean 'government control' right? Gotta attempt to level the playing field so we're extracting every last dime out of people and giving nothing back.
4.) "We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage."
[WARNING: Lots of ad hominem here]
SO GET RID OF THE FUCKING FEDERAL RESERVE YOU FUCKING MORON. Holy shit. Nothing makes me lose my composure faster than people who claim to have compassion for poor, struggling people and don't even mention the Federal Reserve. Let me tell you something you fucknugget, in 1965 the minimum wage was $1.25. Five silver quarters. They were 90% silver. Converted into today's worth, that would be around $25 actual purchasing power. But no, fiat currency and devaluation/inflation of the money supply doesn't even come up. But of course not, she's a senator so she, as a part of the US's Legal Mafia (aka 'government') benefits from an unstable, tissue-paper-with-Washington's-face-on-it fiat American dollar. So of course she doesn't dare bring up the actual issue. That would only lead to progress. Oh wait...
5.) "We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them."
See my responses for 2 and 4. You aren't planning on addressing the real issue, nor do you have any idea what it means to fight for anything Sen. I-lied-to-abuse-affirmative-action-laws-to-get-hired-and-didn't-stop-until-I-got-tenure. You disgust me.
6.) "We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt."
So stop letting the government pay universities and loaning money to people who want to go into non-producing fields like philosophy (sorry Stef) or women's studies. What would you do if you owned a grocery store and you heard that everyone in the country was getting one-time $500 cards to shop for groceries? You'd raise your prices and keep them up because people can now afford to do business at those higher prices. Same with college. College tuition has been soaring up well beyond the rate of inflation and it keeps rising as dependency on government money to go to school rises. And entitled. Why? Why am I entitled? I made the ridiculous choice to go to an overly-expensive liberal arts school for 2 years, and I intend to pay it off despite how absurd the amount I am expected to pay is because I made that choice. Weren't we talking about responsibility not too long ago? Oh yeah, about the environment. You know, when you were all about responsibility for voting people into office to regulate other people and FORCE them to abide by regulations. But responsibility for your own choices? Nah, fuck that.
7.) "We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions."
So let people work. Government regulation makes it harder and harder to save, to afford essential parts of our standard of living. Government inflation, devaluation of currency and absurd deficit spending fucks over old people as WELL as young. Wait, I'm starting to notice a pattern here. Well at least the government doesn't discriminate who it screws over by race, religion, gender (just kidding men always get the shaft [no pun intended]), country of origin or heritage.
8.) "We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work."
I'm pretty sure this is in relation to the wage gap myth thing. Okay, here's a simplified version of the situation. Women are harder to employ because they have x% chance of becoming pregnant and then the company they work for is required by law (cough cough forced by gunpoint cough cough) to pay for their maternity leave while the new mother doesn't actually do anything for the company. Because men don't get pregnant and have to leave work, they are less of a risk to their employer. That is the short and sweet of it, do your own research and learn more about this, then you can say that you are more learned on these issues than a Harvard Professor! I know I am and I am enjoying as much as I can because I'm an arrogant bastard and I know it.
9.) "We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America."
Is that why you're all about abolishing affirmative action, stopping the war on drugs, bringing down the prison industrial complex, reducing police funding and capacity to commit crimes based on race, reducing the minimum wage, reforming divorce law so men don't lose an arm, leg and testicle in the divorce? Because I assure you that there would be quite a bit more equality if those measures were redacted, seeing as how every one of those is state-sponsored and favors one sex/race over another.
10.) "We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform."
Probably the least bullshit on this list, but I don't like her so I'm going to insult her mother. Yo mama so fat when she sits around the house, she sits AROUND the house! Also I'd like to point out that her effective platform is, at the very best, vague to the point where I have no idea what she actually wants. I seem to have that problem a lot with women...
11.) "And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!"
Okay, listen here you ignorant, lazy sonofabitch. You are not entitled to anything except that for which you have worked. Your uterus, ovaries and vagina do not give you the right to bring in a bunch of men with guns to force a business to pay for your birth control. And you know what's funny? Hobby Lobby only said no to 4 out of the 20 mandated types of birth control it's required to subsidize. And only because those 4 can cause abortions. You are getting bent out of shape because you aren't being given enough forms of birth control from someone who is being forced by implied gunpoint. Fuck you.
And lastly, she concludes by slamming an opposing point of view by remarking that the central tenet of conservative philosophy is "I got mine. The rest of you are on your own." So she ends this sophistic cesspool with a strawman argument aimed at conservative philosophy. Wonderful work, Senator Warren. Nice to see that this type of anti-rational rhetoric is what they look for at Ivy League universities.
MAIN ARTICLE
So for my first topic I wanted to test myself against Elizabeth Warren, champion of the hearts of the Liberals. Oh, sorry, they prefer the term 'Progressives'. I will link the article down below so you can see it for yourself, but it's pretty short and like 80% of it is gonna be quoted anyway so you probably won't need to. But formalities and all that. So let's start with Progressives. That is just marvelous, isn't it? Progressive. Progress. So the progressives are all about progress, moving forward. So if you are not a progressive, you don't want to move forward, you want to stay behind and never advance anything. Same efficiency, which becomes inefficiency, same problems with no solutions, same same same. Which usually runs along the negative connotations associated with being old fashioned or traditional (ie EVIL CONSERVATIVES EWWWWWW!). But progressive, de facto, just means to align, politically, with the Left in American politics. So essentially you are defining the other party into the wrong in a backhanded sophistic move whose only purpose is rhetorical deception. Bravo. You (not anyone in particular) are extremely slimy and gross with your inability to choose a name that doesn't have any basis in the reality of your ideology. I would suggest that, instead of conservative and liberal, you name yourselves 'statist' and 'faster growing statist', because those are the real world consequences of your respective ideologies. So we haven't even started and Senator Warren is already under my skepticism for identifying with progressives (not actually explicitly stated by Sen. Warren herself, though it takes a minute on Google to see with which ideology she affiliates). So, without further delay, let's look at the actual commandments of progressivism, as per the word of Sen. Warren.
1.) "We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it."
You are despicable and slimy. Oh, wait a minute, too soon. Okay, let's try that again. Ahem. Wall Street (whatever that means in the plethora of contexts the Left uses to describe various aspects of the banking and financial sectors of the US economy) is regulated by government. YOUR government. Let us not forget that at one point, President Obama had complete de facto control of the entire government because he was not only president but also had something like 60 seats in the senate at one point and could have passed anything short of a fixed salary for senators. And yet Wall Street continued to do all the things you (totally don't) claim they do which requires them to be regulated. And you're a bankruptcy law specialist, which means that you have understandings of fiscal relationships, in whole or in part, between businesses and the Fed. Which also means that you know damn well that Wall Street is in bed with the government. You are saying that progressives will fight (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA) to have the government work more closely with Wall Street. But what is that going to accomplish for progress or the American people? Imagine if a father found out his daughter was having sex with her boyfriend regularly and then hired her boyfriend to watch her and stay with her 24/7 to prevent sex. That is essentially what you are doing. Except this analogy isn't perfect because sex between a couple is a beautiful thing and government subsidies and regulation is a monstrous thing. But you're not stupid, you understand what I'm getting at. And you're going to fight? What do you mean fight? Fight like my brother did in Afghanistan? Or do you mean getting off your ass once a year to put Democrats behind the whips instead of Republicans? I mean, neither are particularly effective at achieving their stated goals, but one certainly can't be called 'fighting'. Oh, now? Okay. You are despicable and slimy. GOT IT RIGHT THIS TIME!
2.) "We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth."
Okay so what the hell lady. I liked number 1 because it was relatively direct. Wall Street needs to be controlled by the government. Pretty plain and simple. Here we have an umbrella that has no directness to it. So since she's not going to put any intellectual effort into this one, I will do it for her to clear things up. She is referring to the green movement, the preservation movement, basically anything that has to do with environmentalism, and that progressives want to take steps forward to stop people from exhausting the world's resources and destroying natural stuffs. But the key words here are responsibility and protect. Go ahead and ignore 'science' because if anyone in politics actually wanted to listen to science we'd be mostly voluntaryists by now. So we have a responsibility to protect this earth. Protect it from what? The conservatives and the capitalists (I am assuming these two based on common attack patterns by liberals, I'm sure there are others I could write about but this 'brief' analysis is going to be long enough as is), of course. "Those conservatives want to use the government let the capitalists drill for oil and make shitty, inefficient cars to cover out skies in the black smog of their riches and then sell us air to breathe. All for a buck!" Okay, slight exaggeration. But only slight. Well Sen. Warren if you would actually look at the facts, you would see that government is the greatest singular source of pollution in any given arbitrarily defined geographical location (better known as 'countries'). Why is this? Well, it's because the government isn't actually real, that's a concept, a name we give to a specific group of people. People consume resources and pollute. We all do it. I get paid to pollute, I drive to make my living. But people in government are given an exorbitant amount of money and they can get the government to cover their luxurious costs. Like, for example, how much pollution in the air belongs to the President that hasn't gone into anything that has produced benefit for the average American? Think about that. Now think about everyone else in the government who pollutes because of, or is subsidized by, their jobs or places in the government. Now imagine for a moment if all those resources, all that energy, was put into the free market. Remember that it was by the free market that the USB flash drive came about, which has (as that one picture on the internet says and therefore must be true) saved more trees than Greenpeace. Market advancement is all about efficiency, so, presumably, an extreme amount of progress may have been made by now to significantly reduce pollution at the hands of the every day Joe. But, alas, progressives aren't interested in progressing anything except the size and scope of government power. So sad.
3.) "We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality."
The Internet benefits big corporations. True. But it also benefits so much more. And benefiting corporations isn't a bad thing you economically illiterate toerag. "EEEEEEEEK! PROFITS! RUN AWAAAAAAAAAY." And of course by 'net neutrality' you mean 'government control' right? Gotta attempt to level the playing field so we're extracting every last dime out of people and giving nothing back.
4.) "We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage."
[WARNING: Lots of ad hominem here]
SO GET RID OF THE FUCKING FEDERAL RESERVE YOU FUCKING MORON. Holy shit. Nothing makes me lose my composure faster than people who claim to have compassion for poor, struggling people and don't even mention the Federal Reserve. Let me tell you something you fucknugget, in 1965 the minimum wage was $1.25. Five silver quarters. They were 90% silver. Converted into today's worth, that would be around $25 actual purchasing power. But no, fiat currency and devaluation/inflation of the money supply doesn't even come up. But of course not, she's a senator so she, as a part of the US's Legal Mafia (aka 'government') benefits from an unstable, tissue-paper-with-Washington's-face-on-it fiat American dollar. So of course she doesn't dare bring up the actual issue. That would only lead to progress. Oh wait...
5.) "We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them."
See my responses for 2 and 4. You aren't planning on addressing the real issue, nor do you have any idea what it means to fight for anything Sen. I-lied-to-abuse-affirmative-action-laws-to-get-hired-and-didn't-stop-until-I-got-tenure. You disgust me.
6.) "We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt."
So stop letting the government pay universities and loaning money to people who want to go into non-producing fields like philosophy (sorry Stef) or women's studies. What would you do if you owned a grocery store and you heard that everyone in the country was getting one-time $500 cards to shop for groceries? You'd raise your prices and keep them up because people can now afford to do business at those higher prices. Same with college. College tuition has been soaring up well beyond the rate of inflation and it keeps rising as dependency on government money to go to school rises. And entitled. Why? Why am I entitled? I made the ridiculous choice to go to an overly-expensive liberal arts school for 2 years, and I intend to pay it off despite how absurd the amount I am expected to pay is because I made that choice. Weren't we talking about responsibility not too long ago? Oh yeah, about the environment. You know, when you were all about responsibility for voting people into office to regulate other people and FORCE them to abide by regulations. But responsibility for your own choices? Nah, fuck that.
7.) "We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions."
So let people work. Government regulation makes it harder and harder to save, to afford essential parts of our standard of living. Government inflation, devaluation of currency and absurd deficit spending fucks over old people as WELL as young. Wait, I'm starting to notice a pattern here. Well at least the government doesn't discriminate who it screws over by race, religion, gender (just kidding men always get the shaft [no pun intended]), country of origin or heritage.
8.) "We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work."
I'm pretty sure this is in relation to the wage gap myth thing. Okay, here's a simplified version of the situation. Women are harder to employ because they have x% chance of becoming pregnant and then the company they work for is required by law (cough cough forced by gunpoint cough cough) to pay for their maternity leave while the new mother doesn't actually do anything for the company. Because men don't get pregnant and have to leave work, they are less of a risk to their employer. That is the short and sweet of it, do your own research and learn more about this, then you can say that you are more learned on these issues than a Harvard Professor! I know I am and I am enjoying as much as I can because I'm an arrogant bastard and I know it.
9.) "We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America."
Is that why you're all about abolishing affirmative action, stopping the war on drugs, bringing down the prison industrial complex, reducing police funding and capacity to commit crimes based on race, reducing the minimum wage, reforming divorce law so men don't lose an arm, leg and testicle in the divorce? Because I assure you that there would be quite a bit more equality if those measures were redacted, seeing as how every one of those is state-sponsored and favors one sex/race over another.
10.) "We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform."
Probably the least bullshit on this list, but I don't like her so I'm going to insult her mother. Yo mama so fat when she sits around the house, she sits AROUND the house! Also I'd like to point out that her effective platform is, at the very best, vague to the point where I have no idea what she actually wants. I seem to have that problem a lot with women...
11.) "And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!"
Okay, listen here you ignorant, lazy sonofabitch. You are not entitled to anything except that for which you have worked. Your uterus, ovaries and vagina do not give you the right to bring in a bunch of men with guns to force a business to pay for your birth control. And you know what's funny? Hobby Lobby only said no to 4 out of the 20 mandated types of birth control it's required to subsidize. And only because those 4 can cause abortions. You are getting bent out of shape because you aren't being given enough forms of birth control from someone who is being forced by implied gunpoint. Fuck you.
And lastly, she concludes by slamming an opposing point of view by remarking that the central tenet of conservative philosophy is "I got mine. The rest of you are on your own." So she ends this sophistic cesspool with a strawman argument aimed at conservative philosophy. Wonderful work, Senator Warren. Nice to see that this type of anti-rational rhetoric is what they look for at Ivy League universities.
MAIN ARTICLE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)