Skip to main content

The seemingly thoughtless Mo Brooks' thoughts on being thoughtful

On Sunday, National Journal's Ron Fournier told Fox News host Chris Wallace that "the fastest growing voting bloc in this country (the Latino community) thinks the Republican Party hates them. This party, your party, cannot be the party of the future beyond November if you're seen as the party of white people." This was in response to the recent immigration debate.

In response to Fournier's comments, Alabama Representative Mo Brooks (Republican), said this:

"This is a part of the war on whites that's being launched by the Democratic Party. And the way in which they're launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else. It's part of the strategy that Barack Obama implemented in 2008, continued in 2012, where he divides us all on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare, all those kinds of things. Well that's not true."

He also said the following:

"Democrats, they have to demagogue on this and try and turn it into a racial issue, which is an emotional issue, rather than a thoughtful issue. If it becomes a thoughtful issue, then we win and we win big. And they lose and they lose big."

Obviously Mr. Brooks wasn't being very thoughtful when uttering such words. Let me review a couple of things the Alabama Representative said:

Point #1: "This is a part of the war on whites that's being launched by the Democratic Party..."

Point #2: "Democrats, they have to demagogue on this and try and turn it into a racial issue..."

So, to clear this up, Mr. Brooks is saying that the Democratic Party, which he claims is waging a war against whites, has turned this into a racial issue. Okay then... He's also saying that the president has been dividing this country via race (and other issues), when he and the party that he represents are wanting to come to a resolution which provides the potential for a more diverse country. So, based on these statements and this rationale, Mo Brooks would probably respond to the following issues in the ways I'll sarcastically list below:

Issue: Equal pay for women

Brooks: "This whole thing that Obama is pushing isn't really about women. What he's doing is waging a war on men!"


Issue: Raising the minimum wage

Brooks: "I'm getting a little fed up with all this "oh-we're-poor-oh-woe-is-me" crap! Look - if you can afford to live in a cardboard box, you can afford to buy a house and a car! It's as simple as that. Obama really needs to cut it out dividing us by classes! We're all Americans, dammit!"


Issue: Equal marriage rights for the LGBT community

Brooks: "Why does President Obama, his wife, and all those other kinds of people hate straight couples so much? I just don't get it. What did a straight couple ever do to the President and the First Lady, huh?"


What was it you were saying about being "thoughtful," Mr. Brooks? That may be one of those unsolved mysteries we'll never quite uncover...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/04/mo-brooks-war-on-whites_n_5647967.html

Comments

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

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

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!"