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...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...