Skip to main content

The Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act decision and the modern-day Republican Party (R.I.P. logic, consistency, and common sense)

With the conservative Supreme Court ruling to do away with section IV of the Voting Rights Act today, I think I've come to a realization. That is that modern day conservatives believe more in the rights of corporations, guns, and fetuses than actual living, breathing humans. If there were a corporation called Fetuses With Guns, the Republican Party of today would be in heaven, singing happy hymnals to an invisible person whom they believe created this world and is in control of everything in it. Guns aren't counted as part the human population. Neither are corporations. Fetuses aren't either. Yet, they're to be treated as people, as equals in this great land. Guns don't kill people. Corporations and fetuses are people. Well, if we go by that logic, I'm not aware of guns killing corporations or fetuses, so in that context, they may not kill people. Now it's all making sense. Going by that logic, a piece of paper constitutes as a person. Dust = people. A rug is a person. Yet if we legalize gay marriage, that will lead the way to people marrying objects, such as guns, corporations, and rugs. Yet, I thought certain "things" were people. Based on this twisted logic, I guess the only thing a person with such beliefs could do is place all his or her faith in an invisible man who was born from a virgin, lived a perfect life, and sacrificed himself via a crucifixion to save mankind from our sins, only to rise from the dead three days after passing.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more