HERE'S A SPAM EMAIL I GOT FROM ONE OF MY FRIENDS FROM THE RIGHT
NOVEMBER 25, 2004
"How To Be A Hypocritical Liberal"
The cult of Liberalism probably encompasses the most twisted belief systems in the world, far worse than any beliefs held since the Middle Ages by the Judeo-Christian religions they despise so much. In order to be a modern Liberal, one must abandon all use of cause-and-effect, so-called "common sense", and Occam's Razor (of equally good explanations for a phenomenon, the best one is the simplest which accounts for all the facts). One must defy logic at every turn. One must embrace the most illogical, convoluted, simply WRONG solutions for every problem.
OH MY... This is a HUGE essay into why I'm a hypocritical jerk!!
Normally I would post this in full since its an unwanted spam email AND I LOVE GETTING SPAM EMAIL LIKE THIS...but this particular letter seems like it is from somebody's copywrited column. I didn't check into it but there are two reasons I guarantee it is.
1- It's written like a professional
newspaper editorial
2- Joe Liberal's first law of debating Right Wing nuts which says:
|
YOU WILL NEVER SEE A RIGHT WING NUT SAY ANYTHING
THAT HASN'T BEEN FED TO THEM BY SOME MEDIA OUTLET. |
Therefore...
This is someone's work that was copied word for word and send to the internet as a spam mailing.
First and foremost: to be a Liberal, one must believe that
there is a finite amount of wealth in the world. For every dollar I make,
for instance, there is one dollar less for someone. Every dollar I don't
spend but keep is a dollar that I'm deliberately preventing someone else
from having. One must believe that government, not business, creates wealth.
One must conceive the idea that it's the job of the government to redress
the imbalance -- that is, the government exists to hand out money, and to
make sure that everyone gets an equal amount by taking it away from people
that wrongfully keep it. By this twisted perversion of logic, anyone who
makes a profit, keeps a bank account, owns stocks, or has anything they
don't actually need is Evil. In other words: Capitalism bad, Socialism good.
This paragraph and the following one kinda tells me that I, a liberal, think everyone is equal and deserves the same exact wealth.. That I think there should never be winners or losers at anything and that I think everyone who is rich should give all their money to all the people that are not to balance things out.
With colorful writing and a large vocabulary, this section eloquently explains the "Gimme Gimme Gimme!! Mine Mine Mine!!" philosophy of the hard core right wing mentality. (I do NOT write colorfully and due to my very limited vocabulary, I call this the "Daffy Duck Syndrome" or the "DDS").
Although I do not speak for all liberals, I will have to disagree with him about his accusation that we are "socialistic".
I DON'T think that every rich person should give his money away until it everyone has the same amount. That's crazy.
I DON'T think that people don't deserve to enjoy the wealth they have made by working harder than others ....or even by being lucky.
BUT, I'll tell you what I do think.
I think its wrong that a homeless person starves to death while the same people who wrote this article supports giving tax breaks to a corporation in return for campaign money.
I think it's wrong to walk past someone starving and not help them out if you can afford to because you cant be bothered.
I think people like the writer of that article is two faced when they say welfare is wrong for poor people but just fine for millionaires.
This is common sense. People should help each other. It's taught to you in first grade and as soon as the Daffy Duck Syndrome kicks in, it's totally forgotten.
I fail to see how people fall for a lie that says "helping kids who cant afford an education get one means trying to make everyone equal and taking away from advantaged people".
The next part is about "Affirmative Action" .
This passage sums up the paragraph
Nothing is preventing those non-Whites, non-Straights and non-Males from getting jobs, but they must be given preferential treatment they don't need! In fact, they should get jobs even if they cannot perform them well, which harms the company they work for, which reduces the number of jobs the company can offer and the amount of money the Rich can give the Poor! The Liberals call this "Affirmative Action", but its effects are generally negative.
I agree.
Yup. It's stupid to put a minority in a position where he can't handle it. And I think it's wrong to put a minority in a position that takes jobs away from people more qualified.
So what do you do about the kid that grew up in a slum and lives in a crackhouse and cant get out of the city?
Once again I seem like a dreamer but if I was in charge..you would take ALL that money for programs that unfairly insist that he gets a job over qualified people ... and you give him an education and clean up his building! Give him a chance, not a handout. Spend that money to make that poor kid just as qualified as someone else.
So in part I agree with the right winger. But for him, it stops when you just take away Affirmative Action. I say redirect it.
Again... It's just about helping people and lifting them up. You learn it in first grade.
----
Then comes the big finish.
The final four paragraphs
(over half of the article) deal with the Harvey Milk High School. This is
the school in NYC set up for gay kids.
To be a Liberal, one must believe that Segregation and Exclusion are bad, and that Segregation and Exclusion are also good. Any of the "oppressed" groups can exclude Straight White Males (part of the "Privelege" they are "owed"), but for SWMs to exclude anyone at all is the worst form of oppression.
This becomes the author's version of the question I have heard all my life
talking to bigots. "Why cant there be a 'NAAWP'?" or "How
much trouble would I get in if I had a 'White entertainment television'"?
The truth is, you DO have White entertainment television. It's called "The News".
I know this....
I'm white. I'm middle class. I have never been oppressed by a black guy. EVER.
I don't feel the need to start a group as an oppressed white.
Let's reverse the scenario for a minute and imagine the nuclear explosion of outrage we'd hear from the Left. Let's find a private school that openly admits only heterosexuals. Gays will be barred from teaching at or attending. (If you can find a school like that in America, the FBI has a career waiting for you!.) Let's turn the school into a public institution funded by the government, and spend several million taxpayer dollars expanding and refurbishing it. We'll have a private vehemently anti-gay group like The American Family Association run the school, and choose the principal. No gays will be allowed, remember, at our public school. The curriculum will teach strictly from a "heterosexual perspective", whatever that is. The Liberals in this country would suffer a meltdown before the first day of classes. Should we allow a public school to be run by the KKK? The National Rifle Association? I know -- how about a high school run by the anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee? Wouldn't it be only fair to allow other private interest groups to run high schools? I can hear the Liberals spontaneously detonating in umbrage now.
So why are we expected to swallow this sort of openly anti-Straight White Male bias with a smile? I wonder why the standards the Left pretends to espouse -- tolerance, desegregation, and fairness to "all" -- don't apply to US. Liberals should not be allowed to run a mass social engineering enterprise in the heart of New York City at public expense. No one will actually benefit from it -- certainly not the misfits it will produce. How can they learn to get along in a society they are insulated from?
Wow.
This person thinks that that school was set up out of elitness? That they set it up and kids go there because they "want" to get away from straight white males "for the hell of it"? Like its some kind of exclusive club?
No, these kids wanted to get an education without getting the shit kicked out of them between classes. These kids wanted to not have to worry about taunts and ridicule from other kids and adults. And these kids had expected some protection from public school but got none. That's why they're there.
Maybe you could use that stupid "Reversal" scenario if the heterosexual only school was for straight kids that were being beat up and prevented from getting an education because they were straight. Then I think the horrible liberals would be all for it.
Because we are all about helping people. Lifting up someone that needs a lift. You learn that in first grade.
To the person who sent me the email...
Shame on you for buying into this crap.
To the DDS afflicted author of this article...
Screw you buddy!
When did it become so politically incorrect to want to be nice and help people?