Me just caveman lawyer. Your modern world confuses and frightens me. But me know one thing: Obamacare bad because written by white women and minorities.
At least three of these people will probably disagree with the idea that women don’t understand the Constitution.
This, almost literally, is what the chief lawyer who argued recently before the Supreme Court about Obamacare said.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he said that this law was different because it was written by “white women and minorities.” If you can understand why that makes it different from any other law, please enlighten me, but apparently, to Attorney Michael Carvin, that makes it suspect and clearly unconstitutional. As we all know, we need white men making these decisions about our laws.
Hey, if nothing else, the fact that the people who hired him see nothing wrong with this statement tells you what kind of people are behind this latest attempt to overturn the will of the majority.
I didn’t have a sip of alcohol until I was way into my 20s. Even today, I’m not sure I’ve ever been “drunk” (although with legal alcohol levels so low for drunk drivers, I may have been). I’ve certainly never had a hangover. Mostly, when I drink, I fall asleep.
One of the reasons I didn’t drink when I was younger was because I saw people drunk and I was not impressed. They’d say things they’d later regret, they’d get into arguments, they’d become difficult, and then they’d throw up on the front lawn. I couldn’t see what was appealing about any of that. (Mind you, I was also a nerd who didn’t swear, either, so I guess that makes sense.)* 
From what I can see, alcohol doesn’t turn you into Mr. Hyde, with a completely new personality. Alcohol releases your inhibitions, and the part of your brain that says “Hey, maybe this isn’t a good idea” goes to sleep while you decide that skateboarding down the stairs nude would be a wonderful experience.
I bring this up because I’m tired of people saying terrible things and then blaming the alcohol. The latest involves those frat boys who were caught singing a racist song on the bus. Yeah, they’re sorry now — sorry they got caught doing it. And of course, they’re blaming the alcohol. If it hadn’t have been for the alcohol, they never would have done that!
Yeah, they just would have thought it, instead.
I am absolutely positive that if you got me drunk, you would never in a million years hear me say something racist. Oh, I’m sure I’d say other stupid things, because that’s what alcohol does, but I won’t all-of-a-sudden turn into someone I’m not. You won’t hear me insulting gays and minorities and women, but you will probably hear me insult conservatives, bigots, and religious leaders because hey, I do that now sober. I’ll just be louder and more obnoxious about it.
I mean, I’ve seen my friends get really drunk and curse and scream at racists, because that’s who they are. The alcohol allows them to say things they might have never said otherwise.
So to those kids on the bus: We should all thank the alcohol for allowing us to see you as you really are, you racist fratholes.
*Here’s where people say “What do you mean “was a nerd”?
“More Republicans supported civil rights in the ’60s than Democrats did!”
I hate that argument, and anyone who says it should be ignored. They clearly know nothing about history.
First and primarily, it wrongly assumes that the Democratic party and the Republican party are exactly like they are now.
The Republican party was originally the liberal party, fighting against slavery (with Lincoln) and income inequality (with Teddy Roosevelt). But that morphed, and we went through a long period where each party had liberals and conservatives. There were conservative Democrats (mostly in the south) and liberal Republicans (mostly in the north).
The civil rights movement in the ’60s was largely led (in our government) by President Lyndon Johnson (a Democrat) and mostly fought by George Wallace (a Democrat). There were people in both parties on both sides of the issue.
What you can say with certainty was that it was the liberals from both parties that supported civil rights in the ’60s while the conservatives from both parties fought against it.
Today, there is a parallel: liberals are the ones supporting gay rights and conservatives are the ones against it. It just so happens that our parties no longer look like they did 50 years ago — now all the liberals are in one party and all the conservatives are in another.
This is actually a very bad thing, because it discourages compromise. Our government would get a lot more accomplished if we had liberals, moderates, and conservatives in both parties. We can mostly blame gerrymandering for the divisiveness we now have in America.
But the other reason to ignore this comment is because it so stupidly tries to distract you from the real issue: What do Republicans support today? Usually, a conservative will use this argument when they’ve been attacked for supporting racist policies. “Oh yeah?” they reply. “Well, we were right 50 years ago!”
That certainly doesn’t mean you’re right now.
There has been a huge cry from People Who Would Never Vote For Hillary In A Million Years over this new email scandal which involves … well, I’m not exactly sure. Apparently, Hillary Clinton used her own personal emails for her own personal business.
You can see why this makes her unqualified for the Presidency. That was sarcasm.
Seriously, this is the kind of “scandal” that appeals only to Republicans who are searching for anything they can be outraged about. You remember Republicans — they’re the ones who yawned when millions of legitimate governmental emails mysteriously disappeared in the Bush administration during an investigation, which seems clearly to be a violation of the law. Hillary’s email problem, according to these Republicans, is much different. Hillary violated an internal policy. Sure, it’s not the same thing as actually breaking the law, but it’s at least as serious as not abiding by the Employee’s Handbook.
This is the kind of thing that is really only understood by nerds anyway. I mean that with no disrespect, but not using the right email? There’s nothing sexy about that “scandal.” No one cares.
As Democratic consultant Paul Begala said, “Voters do not give a shit. They do not even give a fart … Find me one persuadable voter who agrees with HRC on the issues but will vote against her because she has a non-archival-compliant email system and I’ll kiss your ass in Macy’s window and say it smells like roses.”
Stop it, seriously. It doesn’t work, and you’re making yourself look foolish.
Using anecdotal evidence to support your argument is a popular but wrong way to win a debate. Examples would include: 
I know a guy who wasn’t wearing a seat belt in an accident and he came out better than if he had been wearing one, so therefore seat belts are bad.
I personally have experienced and met people on welfare who are lazy bums abusing the system, so therefore most people on welfare are like that.
My insurance rates went up, so therefore Obamacare is terrible because it requires insurance rates to go up.
It’s been the coldest month ever, so therefore there is no global warming.
I had a flu shot but still got the cold, so therefore vaccinations don’t work.
I know some (insert ethnicity/sex/sexual orientation/religion here) who are (insert insulting description here) so therefore they are all (insert insulting description here).
See where this leads? Is this the kind of argument you want to be making? Aren’t you smarter than that?
Nothing is 100%. Seat belts are good only 99% of the time. Vaccinations don’t stop diseases in every single instance. The vast majority of people on food stamps are not cheats and they really need them.
The next time you do this, I am going to point to you and say, “This person is an idiot based on the anecdotal evidence I am seeing in their most recent post.”
And hopefully, you’ll get the irony.
* Note: I mostly made this post so that I can link people to it whenever they try to make that sort of argument. Feel free to do the same.
ventrellaquest.com 