Life Under a Democrat Government

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Anarchy 2 : One Thread

One morning in 2007, in an America with a Democrat in the White House, Johny Jones arrives at school already tired. He's had to walk all the way. Since America's humiliating retreat from the Middle East, the price of oil has made most forms of transport scarce, and the environmental lobby has prevented any new domestic energy programs.
Johny's reading skills are poor for his age, but it's doubtful he even needs to know English in today's America. In his neighborhood at least, arrivals from Iran, Mexico and Guatemala now make up the vast majority, and make no attempt to learn the language of culture of their new country. The first lesson of the day concerns the teachings of the Koran, part of the school's new 'Peace and Equality of Cultures'-based curriculum.
As the school day continues, Johny attends History class, where he is taught that 9/11 was a necessary event that led to the liberation of Palestine. Before the day ends, he attends the mandatory Sex Education class in 'Tolerance of Different Lifestyles', which is taught by a lesbian who demonstrates bondage and urination with her lover, to theclass of 10-year-olds.
Johny's long walk home is typical. He passes a building that used to be a church, but is now used as a 'Drop-In Center for Gay Sexual Counseling'. Gang members yell at him in Black or Latino accents, "Hey man, chu wan' some weed?" The gang members all wear the latest designer clothes and shoes, despite the fact that they are on welfare. Or perhaps 'because of' the fact, since welfare payments have increased to the point where getting a job isn't worth their time.
However, Johny's waking nightmare hasn't ended.
When he walks into his house, both his Dads are home. Despite the entrance of a 10-year-old boy, neither get up from the floor, where they are both nude and entangled with each other. The smell of amyl nitrate and marijuana fills the house. Johny is not fazed even by this - but another man, a friend of his gay guardians, emerges from another room, and stares at the boy with undisguised lust. "You were right, he's tasty" says the gay, who undoes his pants and advances toward Johny...
Think of this possible scenario before you vote.
Especially if the future of the country means anything to you.

-- Carl K. (ckrusmeyer313@yahoo.com), July 20, 2004

Answers

This is far too stupid to deserve a resonse.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 22, 2004.

I agree Anti, he COMPLETELY forgot to address the issue of higher taxes! In the WSJ there was a great editorial today on how companies have been giving out dividends NOW because of the specter of Kerry winning and following through on his promise to raise dividend income to the 40% tax rate. Remember folks, being an anarchist means voting for Bush! Voting for any Demokrat is just furthering the nanny state -- as un-anarchy as you can get.

Bazooka Joe

-- 2 (1@3.4), July 22, 2004.


Not as "un-anarchist" as the PATRIOT Act and letting the federal government decide what marriage means.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 22, 2004.

The reasons for the federal government's intervention in marriage are, first, that marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL institution of civilization (look up FUNDAMENTAL in the dictionary), and second, to prevent situations like the one in the above report from happening. Or do situations like that seem 'natural' to you?

-- Carl K. (ckrusmeyer313@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

Yes, because gay marriage will undoubtedly cause America to lose the war on terror, schools to hire lesbian teachers to have sex in front of their students (the would be pretty cool...) and teach anti- American sentiments (you weren't in school during the Clinton years...I was...I learned the same jingoistic bullshit in history class that I learn today...that won't change no matter who is in the White House), destroy churches and turn them into gay counseling centers, legalize marijuana, raise welfare to the point where it is more profitable than working, and cause rampant child molestation.

Wow. I had no idea a couple of homos in Massetchusets going down to the courthouse to get hitched was so dangerous. You've sure sold me on this one.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 23, 2004.



But there ARE far-reaching consequences to junk like this, anti. Look at the sexual revolution of the 60's. On the one hand it was great at the time to allow everyone to be "free", but as a result we now have millions of abortions being performed, a greater than 50% divorce rate, single parents galore, and now even homosexuals getting "married". Kids from single parent homes are more likely to live in poverty, wind up in gangs, etc. Was it worth it? I dunno, but when you are in your fifties you'll be the one who has to deal with the fallout of legal battles for adding another round of entitlements to the country, so think hard before you decide something is a *right*.

Bazooka Joe

-- 2 (1@3.4), July 23, 2004.


If two consenting adults want to get a piece of paper that says they are married, why not let them? It doesn't hurt you. No one is forcing you to recognize that union. No one is forcing your church to perform the ceremony. Live and let live. Seriously, with the economy in the toilet, unemployment on the rise, the Middle East turning into a quagmire, millions of Americans going without healthcare, Osama bin Laden still at large, corporations selling American jobs overseas, and all the other bad shit going on, the biggest problem you conservatives have to whine about is a couple of people getting a civil union is Massetchussets? Get your priorities straight!

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 24, 2004.

Anti,

It was the homosexuals who wanted to get married who made this an issue. They looked around at "the economy in the toilet, unemployment on the rise, the Middle East turning into a quagmire, millions of Americans going without healthcare, Osama bin Laden still at large, corporations selling American jobs overseas, and all the other bad shit going on", and decided that the fact they can't play house and have a bona fide worthless slip of paper that said they were married was an important issue.

Carl,

If you really believe that the above scenario is realistic, I worry about you. We just went through eight years of a Democrat in the White House, and I didn't see any of these things happening. The government does not hold that kind of power over our day-to-day lives; well, at least not mine.

-- J Biscuits (thefilthohgodthefilth@yahoo.com), July 24, 2004.


Enough damage was done under the Clinton administration to pave the way for the societal changes I predict. There was an explosion in illegal immigration and multiculturalism, and the army was infiltrated by homosexuals - which led to tragic results.

-- Carl K. (ckrusmeyer313@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.

Yep, Clinton sure did fuck this country up. Why, he did enough damage that the budget was balanced, unemployment was low, the economy was doing great, and Isreal and Palestine were on their way to some form of peace settlement. I'm glad good ol' Dubya came along and fixed all that.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 26, 2004.


A member of the Anti-American Civil Liberties Union, Christopher Anders, stated: "President Clinton has advanced gay and lesbian rights further and given the issues more visibility than all his predecessors combined." Case closed. Furthermore, the PATRIOT act is called thus because if you're a PATRIOT you have nothing to fear from it. No wonder it upsets criminals and terrorist apologists.

-- Carl K. (ckrusmeyer313@yahoo.com), July 26, 2004.

Anti,

You'd better take a closer look at that "balanced" budget before you start lauding Klinton. If you do, you'll note that all the savings realized to pay for it (although credited during his term) were to start taking place AFTER he left office. In short, it was just another lie from a consummate liar. Gullible Dems (and apparently some miguided youth) bought it though, so kudos to the K man for selling America another whopper.

Bazooka Joe

-- 2 (1@3.4), July 26, 2004.


"Furthermore, the PATRIOT act is called thus because if you're a PATRIOT you have nothing to fear from it. No wonder it upsets criminals and terrorist apologists."

Yep. Just because it allows the government to secretly arrest you for no reason and hold you for the rest of your life without a trial is no reason to freak out. Don't worry about the fact that Dubya wants to extend it indefinitely. This is TYRRANY. Plain and simple. There is no other word for it. This is the same debate that went on in Germany in the early 30's. Don't worry, you've got nothing to fear, unless you're a Jew, or a Communist, or a gypsy...we don't have to speak up, because we're not Jews or Communists or gypsies. But then they come for us, and there is no one left to speak up for us. I'm a PATRIOT, and that's why I'm speaking out against the PATRIOT Act. If I wait to speak up until they come for me, it'll be to late. And if you can't see that, I feel sorry.

No, forget everything I said. Let's all be good little Germans and support our Furher. Hey, the Reichstag's burning! Must've been those damn towel-heads!

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 26, 2004.


Your analogy is flawed - the terrorists are Muslims, not Jews. And, if there was a crackdown on homosexuals, then the Johny Jones in my report wouldn't suffer such a fate at their hands.

-- Carl K. (ckrusmeyer313@yahoo.com), July 26, 2004.

So what I'm really hearing is; I'm afraid of homosexuals. I'm afraid of muslims I don't want any immigrants to take over our country. (even though this entire country is made up of immigrants.) Black people apparently have accents If something is different we should destroy it. Sometimes me and the guys get together, and sometimes we like to dress up in robes and pointy hats that happen to be white. Then sometimes when we're bored, and there's someone whos' ethnicity, sexual or religious beliefs we don't understand, we like to burn crosses in their yard.

I like G dub because he thinks the same way I do. Sigheil!

matt

-- matt (kavikamt@yahoo.com), September 21, 2004.



This is really fucked up. Even though I thought it was real funny shit, it was still really fucked, man.

-- -- (dermondstate@citywoxley.org), September 22, 2004.

you are correct. It is pretty fucked up. I do not mean to personally call anyone a nazi or anything, but look at the theory that is being presented here. Intolerance for other ethnicities, sexual, and religious preferences. "If it were'nt for the homos," or "Muslims are terrorists." It is a thing I like to refer to as biggotry. Like it or not this country has decided to grant everyone certain cicil liberties. The key word being civil. If the world goes to shit because of gays, then I guess people can say I told you so. Until then, history has continually shown us that hatred and persecution will never propell the greatness of the United states. Of course nobody has to like gays, or muslims, or cats or pine trees, or sand. However, we all have to be patriotic, and accept the fact that they are all interwoven into the social/cultural blanket that makes up America

-- matt (kavikamt@yahoo.com), September 22, 2004.

"Your analogy is flawed - the terrorists are Muslims, not Jews. And, if there was a crackdown on homosexuals, then the Johny Jones in my report wouldn't suffer such a fate at their hands."

That's always how it starts. First they cart away the undesirables. People that you can take away without a huge public uproar. In Germany it was the Jews. Here it's poor people and gays. First they take them away. Then somebody else. And somebody else. You might be pretty low on the list, but eventualy your rights will be fucked with. If you don't speak up for these people now, who will speak up for you?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 22, 2004.


As far as the "sexual revolution of the sixties" goes, I feel there is a huge difference between that idea and gay marriage. The problems that arose after the sixties cannot be fully blamed on the sxual revoution. If birth control and condoms would have been used, abortions would not be as high, disease would not have spread. If people weren't having children, there wouldn't have been as many people getting married for the wrong reasons, hence a lower divorce rate. I personally think lack of religious dedication could be as much to blame for divorce rates as the sexual revolution. I say could because I don't personally beieve this, but it is as probable of a cause as what took place in the sixties. I don't think sexual exploration was wrong, but unfortunately no one acted with the responsibility that the situation demanded. However, there are plenty of responsible homosexuals out there who believe it or not, really do love each other as much as any straight couple. These couples are just as ready to deal with the responsibilities that come with marriage. I think people need to think about things before they place blame on other people. Unless of course it's bush, because he is always wrong. Wait, I take that back................ ok no I don't! :)

-- matt (kavikamt@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ