Bad Commie!

helping commies get to know knives

My favorite stabbings:
God, Mother Earth, W, Prayer, Poetry, Uptight Nervous Canadian Frostbacks, Debating,
Self Stabbing, Ann Coulter, The Ketchup Prince, Gay Marriage, Fantasy

Friday, February 20, 2004
Bad Commie has been busy feeling up the statue of naked Justice that Ashcroft covered up. I was groping the curves in the curtain to see if I could find capitalism somewhere. My search was unsuccessful. This was probably because Justice is deaf and dumb, as well as blind. She wandered away from under the curtain because she didn't hear Asscraft telling her to stay there. Incidentally, she probably became deaf and blind by looking at too much porn.
Good thing Asscraft covered her up, since her moral character was so weak.

I wonder if Justice is gay? If Justice was gay, Bad Commie could gay marry Justice. If you marry a lesbian it counts as a gay marriage. Unless the lesbian is ugly and can't get any hot women. Then no one is very happy (i.e. gay). Maybe Asscraft just covered her up because Justice was an UGLY lesbian? You don't see the LIEberals telling you that, do you?

Here is an excellent article saying Americans are very smart and they won't take any minimum wage jobs. Therefore its good if those jobs go to wetbacks:

By contrast, jobs will be created that demand skills to handle the deeper incorporation of information technology, and the pay for these jobs will be high. The demand for computer-support specialists and software engineers, to take two examples, is expected by the Bureau of Labour Statistics (BLS) to double between 2000 and 2010. Demand for database administrators is expected to rise by three-fifths. Among the top score of occupations that the BLS reckons will see the highest growth, half will need IT skills. As it is, between 1999 and 2003 (that is, including during the recession) jobs were created, not lost, in a whole host of white-collar occupations said to be particularly susceptible to outsourcing.

Yes, individuals will be hurt in the process, and the focus of public policy should be directed towards providing a safety net for them, as well as ensuring that Americans have education to match the new jobs being created. By contrast, regarding globalization as the enemy, as Mr Edwards does often and Messrs Kerry and Bush both do by default, is a much greater threat to America's economic health than any Indian software programmer.

I wonder if they realize that the jobs being outsourced ARE the good jobs. Hmmm? Probably not. Oh well. You can't expect the government to be on our side. As a perfect example of the government being on the wrong side - just look at what that fucker Ronald Reagan did - he lost the cold war!
Russia is now much much better off than before that commie Reagan forgot which side he was on.

Reagan was probably a KGB agent.

Speaking of stereotypical KGB agents like Ronald Reagan, here is excellent article about VICIOUS STEREOTYPES in polite society:

One of the less attractive patterns in human behavior is our tendency to stereotype those with whom we disagree, those whose interests conflict with our own, or those who are simply different from ourselves. Such stereotypes create and reinforce prejudice, and they distort our politics, our policy debates, and our constitutional debates. These evils are of course well known; they are an important part of racism, sexism, and discrimination against lesbians and gays. But we do not appear to have generalized the lessons.

Among the educated classes that have been most sensitized to the dangers of the most widely condemned stereotypes, other stereotypes and prejudices flourish. Respected academics and journalists, and respected journals who pride themselves on their tolerance, publish extraordinary statements about groups that have generally failed to engage the sympathies of intellectuals.
Academic hostility to serious religion is part of a larger cultural gulf in contemporary society. The Wall Street Journal denounces limousine liberals, the Beltway crowd, and the white wine and brie set. The people targeted by these labels denounce Reaganites, hardhats, white ethnics, or-if they are above a certain age-Archie Bunker types. Some of these labels target a cluster of attitudes, some target a specific group, and none are used with precision. But from either side, such labels embody a set of political and cultural stereotypes: a whole group of people all have the same bad ideas, and that whole group of people is dangerous.
It is easy to be tolerant of unimportant differences. But all of us tend to think the worst of people who disagree with us on really important things. We tend to assume that our opponents followed the same chain of reasoning we did, so that if they reject our conclusion, they must also reject our most fundamental premise. If they believe that-fill in any belief that really upsets you-then they must also believe even worse things, and if they believe such bad things, they are likely to act on them. We have all thought in this way, and sometimes spoken or written in this way. I do not exempt myself.
But these stereotypes also poison our public discourse, distort our understanding of the real differences among us, and reduce the chances for resolving those differences even in part. These stereotypes corrode the bonds of mutual concern and respect that hold a pluralistic society together. These bonds are stretched enough by honest disagreement and simple demands for change. Once in our history they broke entirely, and some minority groups have been placed outside their protection for long periods. But generally these bonds have held. They make it unsurprising when Americans from "opposite ends of the political and cultural universe" help one another.[19]

To corrode these bonds unnecessarily is a dangerous thing. [Page 403] And we should have no illusions about who is most endangered. In any outbreak of intolerance, in any reduction of mutual concern and respect, the weak and oppressed will suffer more than the strong and dominant. Those who are most endangered by stereotypes and prejudice have special reasons to avoid invoking their own stereotypes and prejudices against others.

Hah! What a commie! I double stabbed him! Commies are mass murdering scum. If he's afraid of that conclusion - THEN HE SHOULDN'T PLAY WITH KNIVES AND COMMIES. SOMETIME PEPLE REALLLY ISS STUPID.

Anyway, I found this really neato article about censorship. You can read it if you want to learn how to uncensor yourself so you can be free like Bad Commie!

What we have here is one of the peculiarities of American censorship: in the US, it's language that gets you in trouble. You can kill as many people as you want, but don't call them ethnic names while doing it. You can squeeze billions out of the ordinary suckers out there, as long as you don't talk like an elitist. And you can let your highly-insured tit flop around America's living rooms all you want, as long as you don't make the NYT use a word like nipple.

The other sort of censorship is harder to spot and much more cruel. It's a matter of which stories get told or noticed in the first place, rather than fussing about the language in which they get told. Put it this way: how many things happened yesterday? and how many of those things made the nightly news? For starters, you probably didn't. Yup, if you're reading the eXile, it's a good bet that nothing you did or ever will do made the news.

Your story is just too depressing. To make the news, your story has to be one of the consoling lies that a culture, any culture, tells itself to make the ordinary suckers' lives seem bearable to them. If your bike is rearended at a stoplight and you spend the rest of your life tetraplegic, it's not going to be on the news. It's a big story to you, and it's the kind of story total strangers enjoy hearing, if only out of morbid curiosity, but it won't make the news. It's too true. It's not an exception.

Comments: Post a Comment

Powered by Blogger