Michelle Bachmann said Americans voted for Obama because he was black and they felt guilty. Yep! That’s why I supported Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Carol Mosley-Braun and Herman Cain. 
No. Wait. I remember now. I didn’t support any of those people.
Dammit! Why can’t the world be as simple as Michelle Bachmann, where there is black and white and nothing inbetween — where the color of someone’s skin is the determining factor instead of complicated things like their experience, stand on the issues, and education?
But no, that’s just too subtle for her. The fact that the majority of Americans supported a Senator who graduated at the top of his class from both Columbia and Harvard Law, whose positions on the issues most matched theirs, and who belonged to the party that had won more votes in three of the last four Presidential races is completely meaningless to her, because the only thing she sees is the color of Obama’s skin.
Let’s see … there is a word for someone like that, isn’t there?
Every time another court strikes down a state’s anti-gay marriage law, I post that the state has joined the 21st century. I’m not sure I should though, because many of these states are fighting against such progress.
Still, progress it is. There hasn’t been a single case where the judge upheld the state’s discriminatory law.
All of these will eventually get to the US Supreme Court where they can do one of three things: (1) decide that the entire country must allow gay marriage (or as we like to call it: “marriage”); (2) reverse these decisions (which would still allow the states to decide on their own to do it through their legislatures or state courts); or (3) not take any of these cases which will make these decisions stand.
It’s inevitable. And more and more, those who oppose equality are realizing that.
And look, we didn’t even have to commit treason against our government to get our way!
Hey, remember when a majority of Americans voted against George W. Bush yet he became President by, let’s say, “less than ideally democratic” means? Were there any mainstream liberals calling for an overthrow of the government? I can’t recall any, and a search finds none.
Yet we are constantly hearing such talk from the right concerning Obama — who won twice by huge margins. These sore losers are not just some crazed radicals (both parties have those) — these are people who get coverage on legitimate talk shows and on legitimate (albeit right-wing) blogs.
The gun lovers are mostly the ones who make these arguments, as if treason were patriotic, but other un-American right-wingers apparently think not getting their way because they are in the minority is the exact same thing as tyranny. It must be hard to live in a world when you are this delusional, but there you go. (Here’s where all the people advocating the overthrow of our democratically elected government get mad that I called them “un-American.” There’s that delusion I spoke of; how else can you classify someone who is so against democracy?)
Of course, none of this is too surprising, as some conservatives are still upset about the Civil War and make excuses for the slave-owning Southerners who committed treason.
“Conservatives hate science! Look at how they deny evolution and climate change!”
Well, while that is true, you can’t smugly say that while consulting your astrology charts and using your crystals for positive energy. You can’t say that we should listen to the scientists when they talk about global warming and we should ignore them when they talk about vaccines. 
Mind you, there is a big difference — liberals who believe in superstition and non-science aren’t trying to force their views on everybody else, like the fundamentalists who want to ban Darwin from the classroom. But still, I don’t see how you can criticize them for ignoring science if you are doing the same, even in smaller amounts.
Science is not good or bad — it just is. Conservatives deny science when it contradicts their religious or economic views, but otherwise have no problem with it. (They’ll scream that evolution is just a “theory” yet never complain about the “theory” of gravity, for instance). Liberals tend to use generalizations too often with science, by claiming that all genetically-modified foods are bad or that nuclear power is evil without acknowledging that there are huge gray areas. (And of course, both sides have their share of believers in psuedo-science like fortune-telling, faith healing, ghosts, and scientology.)
So look at your beliefs and make sure you aren’t being hypocritical for pointing a finger at non-believers in science if you too are picking and choosing which science to believe.
“You’re violating my freedom of speech!”
This statement is often heard from people who have no idea whatsoever what they are talking about.
The 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from taking away your freedom of speech. That’s why they can’t pass a law censoring your views or punishing you for speaking your mind. There is absolutely no way an individual citizen can take away your 1st Amendment rights. Only the government can do that.
So you have freedom of speech. That doesn’t mean you have the right to spout out whatever you want without being criticized.
The people who argue this usually are just upset that someone has disagreed with them. Well, sorry, my freedom of speech means that I can do that, too, you know.
This came up today when some conservatives recited the inane “freedom of speech” mantra after liberals were writing to the Washington Post to complain about Charles Krauthammer’s latest column.
You see, Charlie boy was complaining about climate change — which he denies — and whining that people were trying to silence the dissenters. When people who understand science complained and suggested that having him say such stupid things in a respected newspaper was like having an Flat Earther pen an op-ed column — and that maybe it might be a good idea for the Washington Post to not print lies about climate change — this was seen as proof of what Charlie said. See? They want to violate his freedom of speech!
Freedom of speech does not guarantee you an audience. You don’t have the right to be in the Washington Post. People have the right to complain about your column, and if you think that is wrong, then you clearly don’t understand what freedom of speech is about in the slightest.
Somehow, conservatives who boycott advertisers, yell at politicians to prevent them from speaking, and fight to censor books from school libraries that teach evil things like science never seem to think that they are “violating someone’s freedom of speech” do they?
ventrellaquest.com 