Thursday, July 07, 2005

Yay! I'm a liberal elitist!

Politics is not hard now-a-days. There is a right way, and there is a wrong way. My way, the liberal way, is the right way. If you have any other value set, it's obvious that you are functionally retarded. How do I know I'm right? It's simple. Very, very, very, smart people have told me that being a Democrat is the way to be. People like Bono. Besides, look at the two main candidates from the last election, the disparity in their intellectual prowess was obvious.

It's a good thing I'm so damn smart, because you would think being pro-choice and against the death penalty would be a hard combination to justify. It totally makes sense to kill unborn children and spare the lives of convicted criminals. See, with the unborn baby there is no chance that the mother mistakenly wanted an abortion. However, with criminals, one might be falsely convicted of a crime they did not convict then murdered. This is just basic logic people. In review: Killing babies: Hot! Killing convicted rapists, murderers, etc.: SO NOT COOL!

Foreign policy? I'm totally for globalization. I have no idea what this means, but Brad Pitt told me it would help Africa on that cool "One" commercial. He is so hot (the dimples!) that he must know a bunch about economics in general and international trade policy specifically. I mean, he did play a foreigner in Troy (I don't think it was about the Troy in Ohio, they had such funny clothes on).

Oh, and you think I don't know gun control? Please!! It's so obvious that a lack of serious gun control is the reason for violence today. I mean, look at Canada and Europe, they have REALLY strict gun control, so no murders. The problem is definitely the NRA and Charlton Heston. I know that anyone who commits a murder secretly whispers to themselves, "I fucking love you C.H." after they shoot someone. It's a little known fact, but 99.9% of murderers are within 6 degrees of separation of an NRA member. You can't make this up, people!

Actually, you can, like Michael Moore. He is a role model for our generation. He goes deep into the issues at hand and portrays them fairly in "documentaries"***. He never barters in sensationalism or Jerry Spring shock value. I mean, the man is so busy saving the world that he refused requests from struggling, college filmmakers to make a Moore-esque documentary about his life. He is such a man of the people!! (Or at least before he made millions on millions of dollars off of political propaganda, he's the best at it since the Nazis!)

I'm so smart, sometimes I scare myself. I'm able to simultaneously criticize President Bush for the budget deficit, yet still want to increase the size of government. If it were up to me, everyone would get paid the same amount for whatever job they did by the government, the government would hold a monopoly in every major market, and no one would ever feel inferior. I heard government plans like these have been very successful in Eastern Europe and some parts of the Caribbean.

Affirmative action is the easiest way to make sure that everyone gets a fair shake in life. The easiest way to end any sort of racial discrimination is to make sure we have a system in place that makes what ethnicity you are a determining factor in getting into college, getting a job, etc. Obviously, people will not feel their race is an issue if it's such an important reason for them getting the job. It's important that there be a "critical mass" of minorities in any scholastic or work environment. If there wasn't, who would you get to give the cool nickname of "Token"???

Finally, NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!****

*** I'm sorry, but my contempt for Michael Moore runs so deep that I can't even call his films documentaries when I'm being sarcastic.

**** Unless this oil is going into my Pathfinder. Hey, whatever, I have a Green Peace and a N.O.W. sticker on the back, I can do what I want.

19 comments:

Lia said...

I am speechless in admiration, but I wanted to let you know that I like your politics.

Shis said...

i can just hear this coming out of your mouth. its like treleven is jumping out of the screen at me.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't take grades to show that Bush is an idiot. Try listening to him talk. One might also wonder about the intellectual ability of someone who seems to think that science comes straight from the Bible and no where else.

Tre! said...

I'm not here to defend Bush, but thanks for proving my point about liberal elitism. Continue to call Bush a moron, the point here was that Kerry was just as big a moron as Bush, just more polished. Therefore, all the liberal elitists drank the Kool-Aide and jumped on the "Bush is a Moron" bandwagon, when in reality their candidate was just as dumb.

I for one, wonder about the intellectual ability of a man able to get elected to the presidency TWICE. This is the problem with liberals, they dismiss their failures as incompetence on the part of the American public. It can't be something we did, because we're perfect! This is the way to endear yourself to the middle vote.

Try stoicism and character instead of finger-pointing, then maybe you'll see a change in American politics.

Tre! said...

One might also wonder about the intellectual prowess of someone that spells "nowhere" as two words.

Anonymous said...

Actually, it just came out a while ago that Bush got better grades at Yale than Kerry did. Additionally, I would never call anyone who got accepted to Yale an idiot.

Anonymous said...

Oh, also, in case anyone who adoringly supported Kerry for his liberal, "forward-thinking" ideals: I sat near him in a restaurant in Boston once and heard him refer to his waiter as a "faggot" and also drop the word "nigger" more than once. Ah, yes, he embraces the minorities and supports their cause.

Anonymous said...

The funniest part is the people in the comments that don't get it.

Anonymous said...

The funniest part is the people in the comments that don't get it.

Tre! said...

What about the people that post the same comment twice?

I agree though, I love people who don't get it.

People, can we add some names here, so we aren't just always responding to anonymous.

Luke Thomas said...

Tre,

Take this for what it's worth.

The problem with this posting is not there aren't elements of truth to it, there are. Many liberals tend to be elitist, contradictory or hypocritical. Michael Moore does a good job of embodying any or all of these characteristics on any given day.

But two considerations:

1. What is the culmination of underscoring this observation? That liberals are, in fact, elite? Well, yes they are, but a) who cares? and b)so are Republicans in equal amounts (as your own posting of invective right here pays tribute to that bit of truth). It does not take a great deal to demonstrate members of the KKK are racist, nor does is it arduous to demonstrate that Massachusetts liberals are haughty. But this feature is not unique to them in any signifcant or important way and in no way advances the debate about whether there is legitimacy to Bush's (or Republicans in general) ideas. Obviously, you feel the point needed to be made, but I'd probably caution against it. You seem to be working yourself into a lather over the sorts of liberals whose ideas are imminently forgettable. There's no heroism in attacking strawman.

2. The problem with Bush (while I tend to believe he is exceptionally stupid) may or may not be that he is stupid. Such a statement is not as easy to prove as is commonly thought. Indeed, Kerry certainly trumped him with oratory skills, but their grades were tantmount. However, what is unmistakable and so troubling about Bush is not his level of intelligence, but his grotesque incompetence. I don't know definitively that Bush has a low IQ, but I can EASILY demonstrate that Bush AND his team of advisors has acted negligently on numerous occassions (regardless of how you feel about the appropriateness of this war, allowing massive infrastructural looting and not forseeing the insurgency are such lapses in judgment to make the mind boggle. They were forewarned about ALL of these events and simply did not take the appropriate measures to stymie their development, arguably out of strict arrogance. I'm sorry, but these are costly and very monumental errors that cannot be overlooked). What conservatives who support Bush or conservative ideology in general need to do is to at least partially confirm Bush's more major fuck-ups and ask that they be properly remedied. For example, they desperately need to stop saying things in Iraq are going well, ignoring the evidence before their very eyes. I've talked with countless people who've been over there and not one had a positive remark. In fact, the ones who've done multiple tours have remarked (without provocation) how things have substantially deteriorated. Many conservatives do nothing but make themselves look utterly foolish by adhering to this "head in the sand" absolutism.

Iraq is a very easy example to cite for Bush's errors, but they extend well beyond them. For instance, his Medicare prescription drug bill was a costly and ineffective piece of legislation (even the Heritage Foundation came out against it) who's initial costs were hidden by the administration for fear of public rejection. And so on and so on.

The point is that liberals do whine and complain a lot, but it is not as if their annoying tone somehow cancels out the truth of their objections. I don't agree with them on a lot, but no intellectually honest person can possibly tell me Bush is not incompetent at best, outright duplicitous at worst.

The liberals have an argument and it's hightime conservatives begin to pay heed. They ignore them at their own peril.

Anonymous said...

Having objections to actions taken by Bush does not constitute an "argument" on the part of liberals. Objections constitute objections, not arguments. Having an argument would mean the liberals not only criticized what Bush has done but ALSO offered any sort of solution to the problem. This is exactly where the liberals fall short, as Tre pointed out. They blame and critique without ever offering another solution. That, Luke Thomas, is called whining, not constructively participating in politics.

Trotskey said...

One does not need to offer a solution when criticizing an action that should have never been taken. For example, it isn't necessary to say: this is how we should have engaged in a pointless war, or this is how we should have fixed a social security system that isn't broken, or this is how we should have given tax cuts with no foresight whatsoever while increasing military spending and plunging the country into a huge deficit, or this is how we should have loosened environmental restrictions so that corporate stockholders could see increased profits at the expense of everyone else, or this is how we should outlaw gay marriage for no legitimate reason, or this is how we should nominate religious zealot judges with no real respect for the law or the Constitution. No, it is not necessary to offer solutions to these actions when criticizing them because a solution is directed at a problem, and any problems that exist in relation to these actions were created by the actions themselves and it is not the liberals' job to clean up the countless and monumental fuck-ups of the current administration.

Anonymous said...

Wow. You cried on election day, didn't you? If liberals are so sad and love our country so much, they should educate themselves as to how our country operates and then use the appropriate channels to achieve their goals. In other words, participate in the governmental process. Go to local government meetings, voice your opinion somewhere it could actually have an impact, vote, etc. The sad truth is that the majority rules this country. The majority elects our leaders. The majority elected Bush (again). Liberals speak as though they have no idea how Bush ended up in the White House (twice) or how certain bills get written and passed. Here is a hint: it is via a popular majority. We don't have to let homosexuals get married just because some people want it. We would have to if a majority approved it. Liberals: you all act like your ideas are the universally accepted norms. Obviously, that is not the case--otherwise your norms would be reflected in for what and for whom the majority votes. Please stop commenting on topics you clearly do not understand. Now go make me some coffee.

Tre! said...

Trotskey,

I appreciate you representing section 1 and I totally agree with your point that criticism does not require the proposal of an alternative viewpoint in general. However, in the political sphere it does. Criticism inherently implies that someone could do a better job. In a two-party system, this would leave only the Democrats. Therefore, most liberal rhetoric directed at conservatives supports the "liberal elitist" view. Once liberals start offering feasible alternatives, instead of just supporting a plan of "not doing what the Republicans are doing", I think you will see a shift in politics. Until then, no one will vote for a platform that is essentially "I'm better than this guy, trust me."

Granny said...

Jesus Christ people, this isn't a political blog, it's just supposed to be FUNNY, which it was. Chill out.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Granny! This blog is hilarious, but the comments pretty much make me want to throw up and then eat my own vomit so that I have something else to throw up. I

Anonymous said...

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushanimations.htm

These are all FUNNY no matter what side of the political debate you fall in. Watch these and lighten up.

Productive Citizen: every-so-often rant said...

I am a rightwing nutjob from texas, and I would just like to say that the only babies we should be killing are arab...

Hail Tre!