Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Does Anyone Even Know What Welfare Is?


There's a new facebook page that I've become aware of, called "Not giving welfare to lazy people"  It features memes, jokes, and hard hitting social commentary like this gem:


That's some damn fine barely coded racist bullshit there, isn't it?  Don't worry,  it's been liked and shared plenty. Of course it's not all racist,  lots of it is just plain delusional.  Like these that think "welfare checks" are five figures monthly:
Apparently this facebook page, which has 84,954 likes as I write this, is frequented by good, hardworking Americans, who are just sick and tired of all those lazy welfare queens buying nicer cars then those hardworking Americans can buy.  Which of course makes me wonder why they don't all just say fuck it, quit their jobs and collect welfare.  

I mean if the gravy is that good,  if it's really that easy,  why aren't we all doing it?  What kind of idiot would keep slaving away at a job they hate to barely afford their Hyundai, when they could have a Cadillac for nothing?  

Not to mention an iPhone.  Boy are they pissed about the iPhones.  I mean I don't want to tell them,  that you can actually get an iPhone for fucking free if you sign up for a monthly phone plan, which you know,  you have to do anyway if you want a phone, Because they're really just mad at poor people for having something I guess?  

Of course the gravy isn't that good.  It's actually really hard to get cash assistance, and depending on what state you live in,  it might be impossible as it's one of the hardest hit entitlements every time there's a budget cutback,  like you know, the ones the whole country's been having for like almost a decade now.

But "welfare" to these fucking douchecannons is just shorthand for any government assistance; WIC benefits, SNAP, EBT (food stamps) Social Security/disability, Medicaid or actual cash assistance.  It's all the government tit to this lot, and they aren't about to start learning about these programs,  what it actually takes to receive benefits, or what the value of those benefits actually is, because fuck your facts, that's why.

Now I went through their posts,  looking for a single complaint about their hard earned and stolen taxes  going to such freeloaders as the Oil and Gas industry or Wal-Mart, or any of the other corporate freeloaders who by the way collect way more in government handouts and tax breaks then all of the other social welfare programs combined, and wouldn't you know it?  I couldn't find a single one.  

I'm also left to wonder how many of those 89,000 fans of this shitshow receive mortgage deductions, child dependent deductions, or education deductions on their own taxes.  All breaks, that I don't get,  of course I haven't felt the need to start a facebook page to cry about it on just yet.

But wait, surely there are people in the system taking advantage right?  I mean these "welfare queen" stories have to come from somewhere,  we can't possibly be only helping the people who need it right?  Maybe I'm being unfair.  At the top of the page it does say 
If you work and still need welfare, the this page doesn't apply to you. It is only for the people who can work, but refuse and collect welfare
And they feel the need to repeat this a lot:

 Makes it all better right?  They're only talking about a specific kind of welfare recipient.  The ever elusive "lazy welfare queen"  This page is not here to complain about corporate welfare, legitimate disability, or you know,  themselves because the fact is,  we all get something back from the government sometime, and that's totally cool with us you guys, so stop bringing it up!

So how bad is this problem?  This welfare receiving, couch laying, Rolex wearing, iphone talking, Cadillac driving menace....  How many of them are there that 89,000 people feel the need to like and share and jump on this ignorance bandwagon?

Well, in 2012 fraud seems to have accounted for 2.6% of all social welfare transactions.  Clearly, it's a pervasive fucking problem.  

See,  that's I think what bothers me the most.  Not that these assholes hate the poor, despite largely being poor themselves.  It's not that they have no sense of solidarity, or that they turn their resentment with their own station in life and their career choices onto the people who are actually worse off then them.  No it's that they are jealous of a myth.  No one is out there living large on welfare.  And the few criminals who figure out how to?  They get arrested.  The shit they're mad about is already illegal, and aggressively prosecuted. Anyone notice what's actually missing from these stupid memes?  Names.  Because they don't know anyone who actually fits the description they are so fucking busy being angry at.  Because they're assholes



Tuesday, October 1, 2013

This isn't Gridlock, It's a Tantrum...

Our Federal government shutdown for the first time in 18 years.  A stalemate between the Republicans in the House and the Democrats in the Senate and the White House, over the Affordable Care act; Obamacare.

*(The truth is,  the real argument is between establishment Republicans who would like to govern like grownups and their tea party children who don't and will just take out their more traditional brethren with Koch brothers sponsored primary battles in the next election cycle if they don't play ball the way they want.  But since the so called "reasonable" or moderate republicans refuse to stand up to these petulant crybabies, and have apparently completely given up this argument as lost, I feel completely justified in lumping them all together.)

It doesn't matter to the House GOP that it's the law and has been for 3 years.  It doesn't matter that they've tried to repeal it 42 times and every time the voice of Americans' representatives in government have upheld it.  It doesn't matter that the law was challenged and upheld in the Supreme Court, it's Constitutionality assured.  It doesn't matter that last year we held a presidential election where this law was made one of the centerpieces of the election and the American people democratically re-elected the man who promised to keep it, and not the man who promised to repeal it.  It doesn't matter that in every poll taken,  the American people overwhelmingly support the vast majority of the points in the law, as long as you don't call it Obamacare.

None of that matters, because this isn't "partisan politics", it's not "gridlock" It's a temper tantrum.  The Republicans in the house, and their Tea-Party overlords want this law stopped, and they want it stopped now, and by god they don't care how many people they have to put out of work to do it. Of course it can't be stopped.  Defunding it doesn't actually change anything.  It's still the law.  It could be changed,  it could be fixed.  Congress has the power to do that,  to pass new laws, but it won't.  They haven't even tried.  They have resigned themselves to either uphold it as it stands, or remove it altogether. And now, rather than passing a budget, and going back to work fixing this law,  they have demanded it be defunded or there will be no budget.  They have shut down our federal government over this law.

But the temper tantrum doesn't stop there,  Republicans in (red) state governments are also going out of their way to make sure this law has no chance of insuring the people of their state.  In Florida for example, Governor Voldemort has refused to set up the health care exchanges mandated by the affordable care act.  Market places; where people can be informed when they shop and insurers can compete.  That's right,  GOP Governor Rick Scott is against the free market.  And his health department has issued orders forbidding the ACA's navigators (special case workers who can help people understand the law and their options and purchase private insurance) from accessing any funding for outreach or enrollment.

They're putting ads on TV, funded by the Koch brothers, encouraging young people to break the law.  "Don't buy insurance" they said.  "You don't need it, you're young and healthy.  Fuck those creepy old and sick and poor people.  It's on them."  You know,  like Jesus would say.

But again,  none of this will stop it.  The only thing that could stop this law,  is an act of Congress,  and if there's one thing Congress doesn't know how to do,  it's act.

So we've shut down the government.  800,000 people aren't going to work today, or well,  until further notice.  They won't be receiving paychecks.  Your Representatives in the House and Senate will,  but not those 800,000 people.  A billion dollars will be lost, per week, that this shut down goes on.  For what?  So the Tea-Partiers in Congress can stand up to this Democratically elected "Tyrant" and his law, that was legally crafted according to the Constitution,  by our duly and democratically elected representatives in Congress, and prevent millions of people without healthcare coverage from getting it.  That's what.  Thank you brave patriots for trying to save me from health insurance I can afford.



Now I don't side with the doomsday government shutdown crowd; It's not a good thing, but it will not be a catastrophe.  It happened 12 times under Reagan and Tip O'Neil, and twice under Clinton and Newt Gingrich.  And we still managed to carry on.  But I do have to ask, what is it that's so terrible about this law, a law that (as is wonderfully explained in the above video) is pretty much exactly what Republicans were pushing in the 90's, that Ted Cruz compared it to Nazism?

It makes you buy Health Insurance, something you were going to do anyway, or pay a penalty to help cover the costs of not having you in the system.  A penalty by the way, that Republicans are urging you to choose: (and as you watch this video, try to remember that this is the party that thinks mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds was totally non-invasive, because you already had sex so clearly you're cool with stuff being stuck up there,  but a government navigator helping you buy the right plan is basically the Burger King dressed like Uncle Sam giving you a pap smear)


I'm not going to get into whether it's a tax, a fee, or the government compelling you to buy something.  I'm not going to get into the legal questions,  because the fucking Supreme Court already did that.  And decided this was all constitutional and legal.  There have been a few Supreme Court cases that didn't go the way I thought they should, Citizens United for example.  You know how you change the law if the Supreme Court says it's the law?  You do it in Congress.

So what else?  How is this ruining the country?  I found a lot of lies out there; It'll bankrupt the country.  It destroys liberty.  It leads to "death panels".  They've all been debunked, and yet they persist.  But here's my question,  If any of this doom and gloom shit was true,  why wouldn't they just let it fail?  Let the American people see how bad it is to have health insurance, and they'll demand congress repeal it overnight.  But of course that's not what they're afraid of.  They're afraid we'll like it.  Which, of course is ultimately, why it's the law.  Because it's what the American people want.  Sure not exactly, and not all of us, but that's Jeffersonian Democracy folks.

So then there's this sentiment I hear every now and again, about what this will actually mean for our healthcare.  Not our insurance,  not our premiums, not our money,  but the actual care we receive from medical professionals and hospitals.  I hear about waiting lines, and personal attention.  The truth is we won't know exactly how this kind of stuff will change until the system is up and running.  Despite articles like this one where Dr. John Henning Schumann tells us:
The traditional doctor-patient relationship in which a single doctor gets to know you over years will become a luxury. Those who want a personal physician will have to pay extra for that service. Doctors who chafe at the notion of working for big organizations will opt out and choose direct service models, with patients paying them retainer fees.
This last one is the saddest aspect of all our changes, and for me will be the the hardest to accept. It's distasteful that what most of us have taken for granted is likely to become a perk for the privileged few.

Here's the thing,  If you already get that face to face personal touch care from your doctor?  Then you already have insurance, or you already can afford to pay cash.  You're already privileged. Most of us don't  take for granted what you've described,  because most of us don't fucking have it in the first place.  That's the whole fucking point of this bill,  to let the rest of us have a way to pay for a doctor so we can stop choosing between the ER and death.  or pills and rent, or our health or eating.  I'm trying so hard to understand how someone could even be the kind of asshole this doctor has to be to even say a thing like this.  We can't let those filthy poors into our perfect comfortable little system, because then those of us with all the money and privilege won't get as much face time with our doctors unless we pay extra for it. That's what he's saying, and I think it speaks volumes to the people who are so vehemently opposed to this idea that our lives are worth chipping in for.

So fuck you Dr. Schumann.

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

On Syria, and Why I'm Still Opposed to War

The situation in Syria is not a simple one.  It's part of the larger Arab Spring. It's a civil war. It's an armed uprising. There are at least 50 separate opposition groups who vary by ethnic identity, religious identity, and political ideology; from secular democracy to fundamentalist Islamism. Some of the groups are Al-Qaeda offshoots, others are Kurdish socialists.  The only thing any of them seem to have in common is an opposition to Bashir Al Assad and the Baathist party. The Assad government is believed to be using chemical weapons including sarin gas on his people, unless you ask Russia who claims that it's actually Al-Qaeda using gas in the hopes that the Assad regime will be blamed. And Russia and its interests are only one of the myriad of outside influences trying to be involved in picking the winner of this fight. Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China and their varied interests and motives make the situation even more complicated.

And I still don't want to go to war.

Let's not kid ourselves either, just because we're not sending in Marines does not mean we aren't going to war.  Just because we don't have a declaration from Congress, doesn't mean we're not going to war.  Our military machine is already ramping up. Corporations will profit, people will die, property will be destroyed, and we will be responsible because it will be done in our names.

And why?  What do we hope to achieve?

I don't hear any answers to that question.  President Obama has made it very clear that a "boots on the ground" invasion is not on the table. Well then what is?  More drone strikes, more indiscriminate missiles? Is there any reason to believe we won't be hitting schools and mosques this time?  And why would any of that force Assad to step down anyway? Half his country in open violent revolt hasn't. And if he should step down or be deposed, who are we backing to step up?  The Muslim Brotherhood, who we haven't supported in Egypt even after they were democratically put in power and have now suffered another military coup?  The Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians sounds like a nicer name, will they come out on top?  What do we really know about any of these fighting groups and who are we to decide who should run Syria anyway?

If our goal isn't regime change, if it truly is humanitarian, then I have a harder time understanding how missile and drone strikes are in any way humanitarian.  The people affected by this war need food, shelter, water, and medical care.  Is there no way to provide actual humanitarian aid without blowing shit up?  If we really want to help displaced refugees, how about we make a little room here in the US?  No?  Not really interested in helping people escape war, only escalating it?  

I've heard that we can't look weak.  We can't back down, or it will embolden Iran and Hezbollah; that we can't leave the region to Putin and China to do with as they please.  So we'll throw a few missiles into Syria, then what?  How weak will we look when Russia invades Saudi Arabia and Qatar in retaliation?  Suddenly we'll leave it at that?  Or Iran begins bombing Israel? Do we really think the Israelis are going to allow themselves to "look weak"?  Does no one get that no one wants to look weak? We're on the verge of another cold war, and we're contemplating making it a hot one so that Russia and Iran can't call us a pussy? Are we really willing destroy Syria just to have another pissing contest with Russia? How about, just this once, we try to lead, to set an example by not firing a single shot. We could open aid centers, hospitals, we could transport refugees, and we could send food and medicine. You know, if we were serious about a "humanitarian" mission.

I'm not an isolationist.  I'm not suggesting that we don't have a responsibility to respond to criminal activities from other countries.  If we want to be the moral leader we claim to be then we cannot turn a blind eye.  But I've yet to hear a convincing argument for why killing more people is the solution.  It's not, and it's hypocritical for us to even claim the moral high ground, when we aren't interested in helping during conflicts where our corporations have nothing to gain.  

I used to think, when deciding who I would vote for, that "just war" was a serious concept. I used to think I wanted a president who would only take us to war when it was absolutely the only option left and only when it was morally sound.  But it never is.  It can't me morally sound to kill people.  Not anymore, not in the modern world.  "Just war" is one of the sickest jokes ever told.  What I really want is not a President who will wage only just wars.  What I want is a president who can find other options, who won't wage wars at all. Who when diplomacy fails, he doesn't reach for a gun, he finds a new way to do diplomacy.




Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Liberty vs. Safety

This sentence has been popping up a bit lately:

""Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

It's commonly attributed to Benjamin Franklin, and I'm beginning to think it's the most meaningless sentence in the English language. And not just because it's simply become meaningless by it's constant overuse by the left, the right, and the libertarians. For starters, it's patently ridiculous; by the simple fact that you live in a society, you make this trade off every day.  Every single law we have, whether it's a law compelling us to action, or forbidding us from acting, restricts somebody's freedoms sometime. And we do this in the best interest or safety of the people.

Now we can argue any about specific law you'd like, about whether it's too much liberty being given up, or not enough (or any) safety being delivered, and there are many great very topical problems about privacy, liberty, and safety which should be discussed right now, but if you're going to insist on childishly repeating this meaningless phrase in lieu of rational debate, you're not actually participating.  So just stop.

Secondly. It's a pretty dick thing to say.  You know who I think deserves liberty and safety?  Everyone. Yeah.  People do. Regardless of your politics, or how you feel about drone strikes and the NSA, you deserve to feel safe in your home and in public, and you deserve absolutely as much freedom and liberty as everyone else.

So I'm just going to go ahead and add this little false dichotomy to the list, (right under comparing people to Hitler) of meaningless shit that lets me know someone's not taking their conversation seriously, and it's time to see my way out of it.

Monday, July 29, 2013

Tim Stanley's Feelings are Hurt You Guys

First a quick apology to my reader,  I know I haven't posted in a bit, I'm going to try to get back on this blogging thing.

On to Mr. Stanley, a blogger for the Telegraph, who wanted to weigh in on recent discussions about toning down the dickishness on twitter on behalf of the poor bullied religious 95% of humanity who get to run literally everything, Yeah, life is hard all over for them.

Mr. Stanley singles out, who else, Richard Dawkins in his good long cry over at the Telegraph.  Because, aren't all atheists just Richard Dawkins?  but his problem seems to be with all atheists being passive aggressive bullies:
Prof Dawkins is only sending out Tweets rather than Tweeting directly at individuals – which makes him more of a passive aggressive bully than the full on shove-you-head-down-a-toilet variety. But there are plenty of the alpha male atheists around and I've had many come knocking at my Twitter feed. I don't hate them, I don't want them banned, and they certainly don't make me want to boycott Twitter. But I would like them, and the Neanderthal Dawkins, to consider the following.
We'll get to what he wants us to consider in a moment.  But first, I don't use Twitter for anything other than tweeting my own blog posts to the same 7 people who already read this blog, but if twitter is anything like the rest of the Internet, it's probably pretty vile.  But the one thing it's not, is narrow.  Tweets, like blog articles, comment sections, Facebook posts, and most of everything else on the Internet, are not directed at any single person.  The Internet is the ultimate achievement of human passive aggressiveness.  We want to respond to just the person who has irritated us,  but we want an audience, and we want to act like whatever is bothering us is a pervasive problem to justify us broadcasting it to as many people as will listen.  Of course many in that multitude will want to respond just to us, but will set their target just as wide,  and on and on it goes. Just like Prof. Dawkins does, just like I do, and just like you did in this childish little article of yours that cries on endlessly about it.  I'm going to try to aim this blog post narrowly at you, Mr. Stanley.  (and just hope quietly that people will read it  ;-)  Particularly,  this paragraph, where you detail just why when we insult Jesus or Muhammad you get a great big sad on:

When you insult my faith you go right to the heart of what makes me me. When you're trying to convince me in 140 characters of sub-GCSE philosophical abuse that God doesn't exist, you're trying to take away the faith that gets me up in the morning, gets me through the day and helps me sleep at night. You're ridiculing a God without whom I suspect I might not even be alive, and a God that I prayed to when my mother was going through cancer therapy. You're knocking a Church that provides me with compassion and friendship without asking for anything in return – perhaps the greatest, most wonderful discovery of my adult life. You see, people don't generally believe in God for reasons of convenience or intellectual laziness. It's usually fulfilling a deep need – filling a soul with love that might otherwise be quite empty and alone. In short, when you try to destroy someone's faith you're not being a brilliant logician. You're being a jerk.

Let me start by saying, the rules of discourse, of politeness, do not, and never have, extended to ideas.  Ad hominem is a logical fallacy, but you don't get to call every attack on your ideas an attack on you.  Do we really have to say it like this for you to understand?: "You are a unique and intrinsically valuable human being, and you have some pretty fucked up ideas about the universe and how it works"  Does that feel better?  Because if you have fucked up ideas, you deserve to be told you have fucked up ideas.  Even if they make you feel good.

I think you'll find that Santa Claus helps a lot of children sleep at night, get up in the morning, and lead decent lives.  Children are enticed by the idea that he'll bring toys to good little boys and girls, and coal to the bad ones.  I'll bet that he, the Easter Bunny, and the tooth fairy provide a lot of comfort and meaning to the lives of the under 7 set.  But I should be under no obligation to allow adults to carry on with this childish nonsense without at least letting them know it's not true.

Perhaps you're saying the truth of your beliefs is irrelevant, so long as they give you a warm fuzzy.  To which I reply: "Terrific!  enjoy your warm fuzzy, and kindly stop letting my tax dollars subsidize your church, and stop your members from trying to govern the rest of us from their pulpits."  See, you would find that if the religious of the world simply used their faith to give them this profound sense of purpose, good will, and joy, that we atheists would have absolutely nothing to snark at.  Sure, we'd still think you were wrong, but so what?  There would be no need to debate you on it,  no need to point out how wrong you are, because the fact is, if your beliefs would stop meddling with society at large, we couldn't possibly locate a single, solitary fuck to give about what you believe.

Your argument, which amounts to anyone who thinks something you think is silly is a bully, demonstrates your profound misunderstanding of bullying.  Bullying is when someone with power over someone else exploits their power for some sort of  gain. And with that point we get to what's bothering me about what's bothering Tim Stanley: Christians: you guys already have all the power. Stop acting persecuted.  Stop acting like we have to respect and like you for having this baseless oppression over us. We already have to submit to having Christians run every level of government, push non-scientific creationist junk, and revisionist history in our schools, tell women what they can do with their bodies, tell LGBTQ people they have no rights, and we have to have to shut up and be respectful of it? And Tim Stanley thinks Richard Dawkins is a dick?


Thursday, May 2, 2013

The "Redskins" could become the "Redtails"? Not if the Racists Can Help it...

In Washington DC,  Council member David Grosso plans to introduce a non-binding resolution to urge the Washington Redskins to change their name.  And they fucking should.  That name, along with the various other racist club names in professional and college sports, do not honor the first Americans, they trivialize them, and what we as a nation did to them.

Now of course even if this resolution passes, it will be completely non binding.  The NFL and all of it's teams are private businesses and can do as they like.  But that hasn't stopped racist sports dicks like those at the Washington Times from getting severely butt-hurt over this.  It is to these specific dicks that I would like to respond today.  As the editorial does not have a name in the byline for me to address directly, I'm just going to call you dick.  Cool?
"Mr. Grosso, a composer yet, says the team’s popular anthem can be easily modified — “Hail to the Redtails” — and “you can still keep the feather.” Hooray. But if “Redskins” demeans Indians, why wouldn’t “Redtails” demean fighter pilots?"

Is this a serious question?  Do you actually not understand the distinction here? On the chance that you really have a cognitive disability and you're not just being a fucking asshole because "Football!" or whatever, I'll answer your question.  Because "red tails" does not refer to the race of the people you're describing, dick.
"The first-term councilman doesn’t appear to have any particular connection to football"
Nor does he need one.  I don't even live in D.C., and I find myself perfectly capable of being offended by your racist traditions, dick.
"Mr. Grosso might not know that “Redskins,” as they have been called for 80 years, was actually adopted to honor its second coach, Lone Star Dietz, who was descended from American Indians"
I didn't know that either, dick.  I also don't care.  If the dodgers had changed their name to "The Coons" or some other horrible name, and said it was to honor Jackie Robinson would that make it okay?  Do you not understand that "redskin" is a racial slur? It's always the same thing with racists, you guys think if you can find someone not offended that it somehow negates everyone who is.  Or you throw out those "Someone will be offended by something no matter what we do" tropes but have you ever asked yourself why you think it's so awesome to offend people?  What exactly is so great about everyone thinking you're racist, dick?
"before “Indians” became “Native Americans” (which is what most of us are)."
nothing racist here right?
This is what respect looks like
Just fucking wow, dick.  I think we're getting to heart of the matter here. First of all, most American Indians are fine with the word "Indian"  but they still don't like the Cleveland Indians because "Chief Wahoo" is a fucking racist caricature, and white people waving inflatable tomahawks and wearing war bonnets is not a way to "honor" their culture and history.

 Furthermore, from a cultural standpoint, no, most of us are not native Americans, dick.  We are a nation of immigrants and their descendants. Which is why that term was coined for the original inhabitants of this land.  But regardless of weather you like either term, or feel that political correctness is a personal slight against you because offending the people that America systematically tried to eliminate from the planet is your god-given right as an American, the fact remains that "redskin" is not okay.  It's a slur.  It's a reduction of a people to their skin color.  The fact that you don't get this, doesn't make them or me or Councilman Grosso oversensitive, it makes you a dick, dick.
"Mr. Grosso says Democratic council members Muriel Bowser (Ward 4) and Kenyan McDuffie (Ward 5) have signed up so far for his crusade. This issue bubbles and squeaks from time to time because certain politicians are more concerned with getting their names in the newspapers than with the pain of the masses who are not offended by a name honoring the bravery and fighting spirit of the original Americans"
Remember: You don't tell me when I'm offending you;
I tell you.  That's how being white works.

Or, Dick,  Or maybe it "bubbles and squeaks" from time to time, because some Americans, and Washingtonians find it makes their skin crawl that their football team has a racist slur for a name.  Maybe, that name is not in fact used to honor anyone, but rather to reduce an entire people to a fucking mascot.  Maybe some people are a little more sensitive to the holocaust that was carried out by this country on an entire people.  Maybe if you have a problem with his name being in the paper, dick, you shouldn't have published your racist rant.


"A D.C. councilman’s life can be a lonely one."
Apparently so can an editorial writers' for the Washington Times.

Look there's really nothing to discuss here.  You have no argument.  Your only point is "tradition"  The idea that we've done it a certain way for long enough that it now justifies itself.  That logic holds exactly zero water, dick.  It's a football team.  You keep making the argument that there are more important things for the council to do than worry about football, which means you ostensibly agree that football doesn't fucking matter.  So what do you care if they stop calling themselves a racial slur?  Football may be a silly subject for the council to address but racism isn't, Dick.

Friday, April 5, 2013

Holy Shit. Did I Just Agree with Bill O'Reilly?



I'm seriously speechless.  Bill O'Reilly is telling conservatives to keep religion out of the policy debate?  I don't know what to believe anymore.