A few days ago, the state of Georgia murdered Troy Davis. Predictably, liberals and black activists are outraged, blaming America's justice (sic) system, white racism, and law-and-order conservatism. They are overlooking, perhaps intentionally, the real culprit: big government.
This is what governments do: they give people fancy uniforms, titles, and weapons and let those people kill others without consequence. Governments are founded upon violence. Whether it's by starving and working to death people in concentration camps or gulags, by dropping atomic or conventional bombs on cities, or injecting lethal drugs into peoples' bloodstreams, governments have perfected the art of murder.
If liberals want to prevent another murder such that of Troy Davis, instead of wasting their time ranting against White America, they should use their energies to combat the mafia that the sheeple have foolishly given the power to destroy lives.
Showing posts with label liberals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberals. Show all posts
Monday, September 26, 2011
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Happy Columbus Day
Today marks the 518th anniversary of Chrisopher Columbus' landfall in the Americas. A hundred years ago, Columbus Day was a celebrated by Americans (particularly Italian-Americans). Now, it's a day where the liberal elite trashes Columbus, America, and white people in general.
I understand why Native Americans protest Columbus Day, although it's worth noting that they are treated better than most other conquered indigenous peoples throughout history. But I suspect the white progressives who rant against Columbus are doing so only to open another front in their self-hating war against white people. Indeed, it's understandable as to why they hate the day so much, since Columbus' discovery led to the European colonization of America and eventually the creation of the United States.
I understand why Native Americans protest Columbus Day, although it's worth noting that they are treated better than most other conquered indigenous peoples throughout history. But I suspect the white progressives who rant against Columbus are doing so only to open another front in their self-hating war against white people. Indeed, it's understandable as to why they hate the day so much, since Columbus' discovery led to the European colonization of America and eventually the creation of the United States.
Monday, June 21, 2010
When Black Knights Attack
By now, the video of the black girl being punched by a Seattle police officer has been commented on by innumerable bloggers, reporters, and writers. What most of them fail to note is that the police officer did not punch the girl for no reason - he did so after she shoved him when he was arresting her friend.
Liberals, libertarians, blacks, and feminists are uproarious, attacking the police officer for his "excessive use of force," "police brutality," "racism," etc.
They really should just admit that they are upset because a man hit a woman. If a man - even a black man - had shoved a police officer and received a punch to the face, there would be no news stories, no YouTube videos, and no blog posts ranting about the police.
Liberals, libertarians, blacks, and feminists are uproarious, attacking the police officer for his "excessive use of force," "police brutality," "racism," etc.
They really should just admit that they are upset because a man hit a woman. If a man - even a black man - had shoved a police officer and received a punch to the face, there would be no news stories, no YouTube videos, and no blog posts ranting about the police.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Liberal Free-dumb
In the Bush II years, liberals often claimed to be defenders of the Constitution and supporters of freedom and liberty. Their actions during the Obama era have shown that they don't care about the Constitution, just certain parts of its penumbras.
In fact, liberal freedom (which I refer to as "free-dumb") is generally limited to the following freedoms, some of which conflict with others' rights to life and property:
1. The freedom to get an abortion and access to contraception (with taxpayer funding!).
2. The freedom to have anal sex.
3. The freedom to tresspass (see anti-discrimination laws).
4. The freedom to enter this county illegally.
5. The freedom to commit crimes more easily.
6. The freedom to use drugs (except nicotine).
Essentially, the only freedoms liberalism supports are those that attack the established, and now collapsing, social order.
In fact, liberal freedom (which I refer to as "free-dumb") is generally limited to the following freedoms, some of which conflict with others' rights to life and property:
1. The freedom to get an abortion and access to contraception (with taxpayer funding!).
2. The freedom to have anal sex.
3. The freedom to tresspass (see anti-discrimination laws).
4. The freedom to enter this county illegally.
5. The freedom to commit crimes more easily.
6. The freedom to use drugs (except nicotine).
Essentially, the only freedoms liberalism supports are those that attack the established, and now collapsing, social order.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Repost: Anti-Unionism
I'm too tired to write much tonight, so I've decided to repost something that I posted several months ago when I first started the blog (and had fewer readers).
Most libertarians and conservatives, with the exception some paleocons and left-libertarians, are staunch opponents of trade unions. Warner Todd Huston, a rather eccentric "conservative" (and from his picture, evidently a donut-eating contest winner) has said "unions are inherently unAmerican", a belief not uncommon on the mainstream right. Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist Lew Rockwell even titled a UAW-related blogpost "Another Criminal Strike". Indeed, the LewRockwell.com writers in general frequently refer to unions as criminal gangs.
As a libertarian, I oppose the privileges granted to unions by the federal government, but nor do I like the privileges granted to corporations and groups of corporations by all levels of government, including eminent domain takings, tax increment financing, subsidies, and insane copyright laws such as the DMCA (which in no way "promote(s) the Progress of Science and useful Arts", but that's a topic for another day). Corporations themselves are government creations and receive special protections and privileges from governments. Now, I realize that libertarians criticize corporate welfare and Big Business, but it is ludicrous that conservatives and Chamber of Commerce libertarians will call Big Labor criminals and anti-American while at the same time verbally fellating Big Business, which can be pretty criminal and anti-American itself (i.e. hiring illegal immigrants).
Sure, the SEIU is probably close to being a criminal organization, but I doubt anyone could honestly call the bricklayers union a group of thugs. In some trades, joining the union means higher wages and better benefit, so it makes sense for the workers to join unions, just as it makes sense for different corporations of certain fields to form trade associations to protect their interests and for white-collar workers to join professional organizations (for example, the IEEE).
The union most frequently targeted by conservatives is the National Education Assocation (NEA). The conservative hatred of the NEA is comparable to the liberal hatred of Wal-Mart. Yes, the NEA is dominated by liberals and feminists, but whenever a conservative bashes the NEA, inevitably they bring up its policies that affect "urban students." These commentators correctly note the fact that urban schools, well, suck.
However, the fact that urban schools suck has nothing to do with the NEA. Suburban students are taught by NEA members and they have decent test scores. The fact is, urban schools suck because they are predominantly black and Hispanic, while suburban schools are attended by whites and Asians. Blacks have a mean IQ of 85, Hispanics 89, Whites 103, and Asians 106. Lower IQ students will simply do worse in school than higher IQ students. Neither the liberal solution, spending more gigadollars on urban schools, nor the conservative solution, abolishing the NEA (and giving the black kids vouchers), will solve this.
Yes, this post was supposed to be about anti-unionism, but I wanted to point out how far conservatives will go just to prove that they are not racist to liberals who will hate them anyways and blacks who will never vote for them.
Originally posted here on February 10.
Most libertarians and conservatives, with the exception some paleocons and left-libertarians, are staunch opponents of trade unions. Warner Todd Huston, a rather eccentric "conservative" (and from his picture, evidently a donut-eating contest winner) has said "unions are inherently unAmerican", a belief not uncommon on the mainstream right. Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist Lew Rockwell even titled a UAW-related blogpost "Another Criminal Strike". Indeed, the LewRockwell.com writers in general frequently refer to unions as criminal gangs.
As a libertarian, I oppose the privileges granted to unions by the federal government, but nor do I like the privileges granted to corporations and groups of corporations by all levels of government, including eminent domain takings, tax increment financing, subsidies, and insane copyright laws such as the DMCA (which in no way "promote(s) the Progress of Science and useful Arts", but that's a topic for another day). Corporations themselves are government creations and receive special protections and privileges from governments. Now, I realize that libertarians criticize corporate welfare and Big Business, but it is ludicrous that conservatives and Chamber of Commerce libertarians will call Big Labor criminals and anti-American while at the same time verbally fellating Big Business, which can be pretty criminal and anti-American itself (i.e. hiring illegal immigrants).
Sure, the SEIU is probably close to being a criminal organization, but I doubt anyone could honestly call the bricklayers union a group of thugs. In some trades, joining the union means higher wages and better benefit, so it makes sense for the workers to join unions, just as it makes sense for different corporations of certain fields to form trade associations to protect their interests and for white-collar workers to join professional organizations (for example, the IEEE).
The union most frequently targeted by conservatives is the National Education Assocation (NEA). The conservative hatred of the NEA is comparable to the liberal hatred of Wal-Mart. Yes, the NEA is dominated by liberals and feminists, but whenever a conservative bashes the NEA, inevitably they bring up its policies that affect "urban students." These commentators correctly note the fact that urban schools, well, suck.
However, the fact that urban schools suck has nothing to do with the NEA. Suburban students are taught by NEA members and they have decent test scores. The fact is, urban schools suck because they are predominantly black and Hispanic, while suburban schools are attended by whites and Asians. Blacks have a mean IQ of 85, Hispanics 89, Whites 103, and Asians 106. Lower IQ students will simply do worse in school than higher IQ students. Neither the liberal solution, spending more gigadollars on urban schools, nor the conservative solution, abolishing the NEA (and giving the black kids vouchers), will solve this.
Yes, this post was supposed to be about anti-unionism, but I wanted to point out how far conservatives will go just to prove that they are not racist to liberals who will hate them anyways and blacks who will never vote for them.
Originally posted here on February 10.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
The Futility of Arguing Race and Intelligence With Liberals
Since liberals started making a national controversy of involving the e-mail Harvard law student Stephanie Grace wrote (which was forwarded to a black group by Yelena Shagall six months later) in which she stated their was a possibility of blacks having a lower average intelligence than whites, I've attempted to argue on various liberal websites about this topic, with no success at all. Instead, I discovered that liberals do not even want to touch this topic. On pretty much every issue from healthcare to abortion, liberals relish a debate with right-wingers. But when it comes to racial differences in intelligence, liberals' only goal is to shut their opponents up.
A lot of the comments I made arguing point that racial differences in intelligence were simply deleted from various blogs and websites. Those that were not were usually met with comments simply calling me (and others who attempted to debate the issue) a "racist." Indeed, one liberal commenter at Above the Law responded to a multi-paragrah comment I made by writing that most of what I wrote was worthy of argument due to fact it was "racist." Unlike when they discuss black crime, they don't even bother with their standard explanations for black deficiency - slavery, Jim Crow, poverty, institutionalized racism, etc. They just say that the idea of racial differences in intelligence is just so racist that it's not even worth debating.
Another common response from liberals to people who discuss race and intelligence is that if you're not a scientist, you can't say anything on race and intelligence (another liberal at Above the Law responded to my comment this way). The requirement to be a scientist to discuss science, naturally does not apply to liberals. Otherwise, we couldn't have the joy of reading journalism majors inform us of how global warming will destroy the planet if we don't give the government more power. Likewise, this does not stop sociology students who do not know the difference between circuit-switching and packet-switching from calling for "net neutrality," nor does it prevent liberal arts majors who don't know what the "broadband" in "broadband Internet" means from criticizing the recent court case limiting the FCC's regulation of broadband Internet companies.
The reason for the liberals' absolute refusal to even debate this topic is obvious: they've seen the statistics and understand that it's pretty much impossible to refute the results of pretty much every test that measures intelligence or a function of it. If they had to acknowledge that there were racial differences in intelligence, then that means egalitarianism is founded on a lie, which means their entire worldview is essentially incorrect. Thus, it's easier for them just to call their opponents racists and move on. Ignorance is bliss.
A lot of the comments I made arguing point that racial differences in intelligence were simply deleted from various blogs and websites. Those that were not were usually met with comments simply calling me (and others who attempted to debate the issue) a "racist." Indeed, one liberal commenter at Above the Law responded to a multi-paragrah comment I made by writing that most of what I wrote was worthy of argument due to fact it was "racist." Unlike when they discuss black crime, they don't even bother with their standard explanations for black deficiency - slavery, Jim Crow, poverty, institutionalized racism, etc. They just say that the idea of racial differences in intelligence is just so racist that it's not even worth debating.
Another common response from liberals to people who discuss race and intelligence is that if you're not a scientist, you can't say anything on race and intelligence (another liberal at Above the Law responded to my comment this way). The requirement to be a scientist to discuss science, naturally does not apply to liberals. Otherwise, we couldn't have the joy of reading journalism majors inform us of how global warming will destroy the planet if we don't give the government more power. Likewise, this does not stop sociology students who do not know the difference between circuit-switching and packet-switching from calling for "net neutrality," nor does it prevent liberal arts majors who don't know what the "broadband" in "broadband Internet" means from criticizing the recent court case limiting the FCC's regulation of broadband Internet companies.
The reason for the liberals' absolute refusal to even debate this topic is obvious: they've seen the statistics and understand that it's pretty much impossible to refute the results of pretty much every test that measures intelligence or a function of it. If they had to acknowledge that there were racial differences in intelligence, then that means egalitarianism is founded on a lie, which means their entire worldview is essentially incorrect. Thus, it's easier for them just to call their opponents racists and move on. Ignorance is bliss.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Tea Partiers and the Half of Americans Who Don't Pay Taxes
At Feministe, Jill Filipovic remarks on the fact that nearly half of US households pay no federal income tax, as if taxes really aren't that bad because many people don't even pay them and so maybe "anti-tax conservatives" and Tea Partiers should just shut up and go home.
The fact is, many of the Tea Partiers are well aware of this fact and are angry about it (conservative anti-tax organizations have been reporting it for years). They are upset that the money they work hard for is redistributed to "poor" people through the many government welfare programs (it's funny how these "poor" people who can somehow afford alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, electronics, "urban" clothing, and expensive rims, but that's a topic for another post). If you go to a Tea Party protest you will find that the people are working-class, middle-class, upper-middle-class, and even some wealthy people. Virtually all of them are white. And not only do they have to live in expensive neighborhoods and commute long distances to avoid NAMs, but they have to subsidize NAMs' (and lumpen whites') lifestyles, as they are the ones paying the taxes. The Tea Partiers are too afraid to say it, but most of them are probably aware of the racial composition of their group versus that of the people whose existence they pay for.
Each year when they put away money to pay for their young child's future college education, they pay for part of others' in the form of Pell Grants. When they work every day to feed their families, they pay for fat ghetto queens and their broods to consume junk food with food stamps. When they work to pay the mortgages on their houses in nice, expensive white flight suburbs, they pay for Mexican immigrants to pour into the apartments of those neighborhoods with Section 8. When they spend thousands of dollars each year for daycare due to requiring two incomes to support the high cost of a modern suburban lifestyle, they pay for ghetto sluts to nest their myriad children in virtually free child care. While they work because they were raised to believe that's what adults do, they pay for the lumpen to be motivated to do so with tax credits and refunds such as the "Making Work Pay" credit and the EITC (which, by the way, basically cancels out the FICA taxes that the lumpen pay).
Yes, I realize my language in the last paragraph was probably inflammatory, racist, classist, and insensitive. But I don't care. If anyone doubts me, then drive through a white suburb during the day where you will find everyone either at school or studying for it, staying at home with children, working at local businesses, or out of the area due to a long commute. Then drive through a black inner city and look at all of the people driving around playing loud rap music, sitting around drinking, and standing around on street corners doing nothing.
It's ironic that blacks continue to whine about slavery that ended 145 years ago, since in the present-day whites have to work from January 1 to April 9 to pay for them to live.
The fact is, many of the Tea Partiers are well aware of this fact and are angry about it (conservative anti-tax organizations have been reporting it for years). They are upset that the money they work hard for is redistributed to "poor" people through the many government welfare programs (it's funny how these "poor" people who can somehow afford alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, electronics, "urban" clothing, and expensive rims, but that's a topic for another post). If you go to a Tea Party protest you will find that the people are working-class, middle-class, upper-middle-class, and even some wealthy people. Virtually all of them are white. And not only do they have to live in expensive neighborhoods and commute long distances to avoid NAMs, but they have to subsidize NAMs' (and lumpen whites') lifestyles, as they are the ones paying the taxes. The Tea Partiers are too afraid to say it, but most of them are probably aware of the racial composition of their group versus that of the people whose existence they pay for.
Each year when they put away money to pay for their young child's future college education, they pay for part of others' in the form of Pell Grants. When they work every day to feed their families, they pay for fat ghetto queens and their broods to consume junk food with food stamps. When they work to pay the mortgages on their houses in nice, expensive white flight suburbs, they pay for Mexican immigrants to pour into the apartments of those neighborhoods with Section 8. When they spend thousands of dollars each year for daycare due to requiring two incomes to support the high cost of a modern suburban lifestyle, they pay for ghetto sluts to nest their myriad children in virtually free child care. While they work because they were raised to believe that's what adults do, they pay for the lumpen to be motivated to do so with tax credits and refunds such as the "Making Work Pay" credit and the EITC (which, by the way, basically cancels out the FICA taxes that the lumpen pay).
Yes, I realize my language in the last paragraph was probably inflammatory, racist, classist, and insensitive. But I don't care. If anyone doubts me, then drive through a white suburb during the day where you will find everyone either at school or studying for it, staying at home with children, working at local businesses, or out of the area due to a long commute. Then drive through a black inner city and look at all of the people driving around playing loud rap music, sitting around drinking, and standing around on street corners doing nothing.
It's ironic that blacks continue to whine about slavery that ended 145 years ago, since in the present-day whites have to work from January 1 to April 9 to pay for them to live.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Welcome to the USSA
Everywhere socialism has been tried, it has failed miserably. It didn't work in Russia. It didn't work in East Germany. It didn't work in Cuba. It didn't work in Zimbabwe. It didn't work in .
But American liberals think that they can make it work thanks to their mulatto Changeman.
Good luck.
But American liberals think that they can make it work thanks to their mulatto Changeman.
Good luck.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
If Diversity is Our Strength...
... then why isn't the Middle East a paradise? It has myriad ethnic groups - Arabs, Bedouins, Lebanese, Egyptians, Ashkenazi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Greeks, Turks, Persians, Azeris, Armenians, Georgians, other Caucasians, Assyrians, Turkmen, Kurds, as well as Asian workers in the Gulf. The people have many different religions - there are Sunni Muslims, Shi'a Muslims, Alawites, Druzes, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Yazidi, Mandeans, and Baha'i.
The media and politicians are always telling us how wonderful diversity is. It seems to me that such a diverse place should be a prosperous, peaceful region, yet it is the site of many current conflicts. I wonder why that is so?
The media and politicians are always telling us how wonderful diversity is. It seems to me that such a diverse place should be a prosperous, peaceful region, yet it is the site of many current conflicts. I wonder why that is so?
Monday, February 15, 2010
Government Paid Broadband Internet
That's the newest campaign of the parasite left, as promoted here and advertised here. They want the federal government, via the Universal Service Fund, to help pay for mobile phone and broadband internet for the poor. This isn't really news, as Obama has been pushing for the government to work towards ending the digital divide, which is Beltway-speak for "make overtaxed working-,middle-, and upper-class white people pay even more money to give free stuff to blacks and Mexicans."
According to this article, the average cost of broadband internet is $35/month, which adds up to $420 a year. Liberals practically worship poor people, but the vast majority of poor people (excluding Mexican immigrants who work multiple jobs) are lazy, lack a decent work ethic, and are undependable. I used to be a bleeding heart liberal, but my exposure to ghetto trash of all races while working in various jobs during high school and college helped to cure me of that affliction. I've worked with poor people who would spend their weekends going to "da club", smoking various types of illegal and legal drugs, and getting drunk. They would come in the next morning forty-five minutes late due to a hangover (hence, the "undependable" part), while the rest of the week they would incessantly complain about being broke. For the price of one Saturday night's worth of clubbing and drinking, the poor could buy a month's worth of broadband Internet access.
According to this article, the average cost of broadband internet is $35/month, which adds up to $420 a year. Liberals practically worship poor people, but the vast majority of poor people (excluding Mexican immigrants who work multiple jobs) are lazy, lack a decent work ethic, and are undependable. I used to be a bleeding heart liberal, but my exposure to ghetto trash of all races while working in various jobs during high school and college helped to cure me of that affliction. I've worked with poor people who would spend their weekends going to "da club", smoking various types of illegal and legal drugs, and getting drunk. They would come in the next morning forty-five minutes late due to a hangover (hence, the "undependable" part), while the rest of the week they would incessantly complain about being broke. For the price of one Saturday night's worth of clubbing and drinking, the poor could buy a month's worth of broadband Internet access.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Anti-Unionism
Most libertarians and conservatives, with the exception some paleocons and left-libertarians, are staunch opponents of trade unions. Warner Todd Huston, a rather eccentric "conservative" (and from his picture, evidently a donut-eating contest winner) has said "unions are inherently unAmerican", a belief not uncommon on the mainstream right. Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist Lew Rockwell even titled a UAW-related blogpost "Another Criminal Strike". Indeed, the LewRockwell.com writers in general frequently refer to unions as criminal gangs.
As a libertarian, I oppose the privileges granted to unions by the federal government, but nor do I like the privileges granted to corporations and groups of corporations by all levels of government, including eminent domain takings, tax increment financing, subsidies, and insane copyright laws such as the DMCA (which in no way "promote(s) the Progress of Science and useful Arts", but that's a topic for another day). Corporations themselves are government creations and receive special protections and privileges from governments. Now, I realize that libertarians criticize corporate welfare and Big Business, but it is ludicrous that conservatives and Chamber of Commerce libertarians will call Big Labor criminals and anti-American while at the same time verbally fellating Big Business, which can be pretty criminal and anti-American itself (i.e. hiring illegal immigrants).
Sure, the SEIU is probably close to being a criminal organization, but I doubt anyone could honestly call the bricklayers union a group of thugs. In some trades, joining the union means higher wages and better benefit, so it makes sense for the workers to join unions, just as it makes sense for different corporations of certain fields to form trade associations to protect their interests and for white-collar workers to join professional organizations (for example, the IEEE).
The union most frequently targeted by conservatives is the National Education Assocation (NEA). The conservative hatred of the NEA is comparable to the liberal hatred of Wal-Mart. Yes, the NEA is dominated by liberals and feminists, but whenever a conservative bashes the NEA, inevitably they bring up its policies that affect "urban students." These commentators correctly note the fact that urban schools, well, suck.
However, the fact that urban schools suck has nothing to do with the NEA. Suburban students are taught by NEA members and they have decent test scores. The fact is, urban schools suck because they are predominantly black and Hispanic, while suburban schools are attended by whites and Asians. Blacks have a mean IQ of 85, Hispanics 89, Whites 103, and Asians 106. Lower IQ students will simply do worse in school than higher IQ students. Neither the liberal solution, spending more gigadollars on urban schools, nor the conservative solution, abolishing the NEA (and giving the black kids vouchers), will solve this.
Yes, this post was supposed to be about anti-unionism, but I wanted to point out how far conservatives will go just to prove that they are not racist to liberals who will hate them anyways and blacks who will never vote for them.
As a libertarian, I oppose the privileges granted to unions by the federal government, but nor do I like the privileges granted to corporations and groups of corporations by all levels of government, including eminent domain takings, tax increment financing, subsidies, and insane copyright laws such as the DMCA (which in no way "promote(s) the Progress of Science and useful Arts", but that's a topic for another day). Corporations themselves are government creations and receive special protections and privileges from governments. Now, I realize that libertarians criticize corporate welfare and Big Business, but it is ludicrous that conservatives and Chamber of Commerce libertarians will call Big Labor criminals and anti-American while at the same time verbally fellating Big Business, which can be pretty criminal and anti-American itself (i.e. hiring illegal immigrants).
Sure, the SEIU is probably close to being a criminal organization, but I doubt anyone could honestly call the bricklayers union a group of thugs. In some trades, joining the union means higher wages and better benefit, so it makes sense for the workers to join unions, just as it makes sense for different corporations of certain fields to form trade associations to protect their interests and for white-collar workers to join professional organizations (for example, the IEEE).
The union most frequently targeted by conservatives is the National Education Assocation (NEA). The conservative hatred of the NEA is comparable to the liberal hatred of Wal-Mart. Yes, the NEA is dominated by liberals and feminists, but whenever a conservative bashes the NEA, inevitably they bring up its policies that affect "urban students." These commentators correctly note the fact that urban schools, well, suck.
However, the fact that urban schools suck has nothing to do with the NEA. Suburban students are taught by NEA members and they have decent test scores. The fact is, urban schools suck because they are predominantly black and Hispanic, while suburban schools are attended by whites and Asians. Blacks have a mean IQ of 85, Hispanics 89, Whites 103, and Asians 106. Lower IQ students will simply do worse in school than higher IQ students. Neither the liberal solution, spending more gigadollars on urban schools, nor the conservative solution, abolishing the NEA (and giving the black kids vouchers), will solve this.
Yes, this post was supposed to be about anti-unionism, but I wanted to point out how far conservatives will go just to prove that they are not racist to liberals who will hate them anyways and blacks who will never vote for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)