Wednesday, June 29, 2005

i think that every country needs a right wing gun holding christian morality party for everyone's entertainment purposes. for instance stephen harper's recent logic that the bloc quebecois's parliamentary votes don't really count is funny. or how the members of his party compare same sex marriage to polygamy. i love some of the rhetoric - "i wanted to protect the santity of marriage for my children".... well how about protecting the environment? i hope their children choose an "alternative" liftstyle and are thankful that their rights were protected instead of the definition of marriage.

the right wing is filled with ironies. the neo con leader dick cheney's daughter is a lesbian. in america, segregationist strom thurmond, has a mixed race child with a black mistress. there are so many great right wing characters that play idiotic or evil villians - american house leader tom delay, former canadian alliance leader stockwell day, rush limbaugh, fox news... then there's george w bush.

i think i'm going to start a political party whose sole purpose is to irrate and alienate people on the right to provide entertainment for everyone else. i agree the there is an conflict because the concept would go against the liberal ideal of consensus and tolerance that the party would promote.

i hope my statements don't come back to haunt me when i'm running for political office and some newspaper publishes excerpts from my blog.

Comments:
i've got this on tape!
i mean on a jpeg file

-icky-
 
just wondering...

what would you consider yourself? right? left? middle left? middle right? dead middle?

from what i know you seem to be fairly right on economic issues, but fairly left on rights issues.

~esquif
 
a compassionate conservative? [sic]

no i'm a liberal by that fact that i've made myself unwelcome to all other parties. the ndp doesn't give membership to mba students, and after reading my latest blog post, i don't think the canadian alliance[sic] would want me either
 
i'd like to bring up ur usage of "[sic]" its suppose to be latin for "so written in the original" according to google. i think ur only supposed to use it when ur quoting something and, say, they have spelt something wrong or have grammatical errors, then you would use it to indicate that it was not ur error, but that u're just quoting the original.
 
"the ndp doesn't give membership to mba students"

are you serious? has anyone attacked them for discrimination yet?
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?