My Friends on the other side
I am sure you have heard the phrase "my friends on the other side of the aisle" many times from members of Congress when addressing some legislative failure that just occurred to the detriment of the American people, for example, last night's defeat of gun control legislation by the worthless repubs. It is a disgusting phrase, a cowardly phrase, a phrase meant to portray some facade of cooperation, humanity, mutual respect while in reality it is BULLSHIT!!
Saying that you have friends on the other side is totally bogus since the "other side" is your opponent. They were elected to block your policy and to promote theirs and in the case of republicans that means obstruction to the fullest extent. I often hear President Obama talk about his "friends on the other side" after seven years of obstruction, racism, homophobia, disrespect toward his family, innuendo, and countless lies. Are those truly your friends, Mr. President? Fuck No!!
Not only does the President spread this BS, but numerous demos when confronted by the media try to explain how with a little cooperation from their "friends of the other side" they can get certain legislation passed. (Although in actuality, demos' betrayal each other is more likely). Really? Maybe the dumber-than-dogshit-voters will believe that but smarter people know it is crap.
Anyone able to "connect the dots" which excludes Trump voters and most of the GOP and many stupid Demos, know that the is no real government in America concerned with the people. Government requires people who believe in a common good, improving the country for the benefit of all, and ending the status quo corruption, etc that infests America. The other side has no interest in doing that and for that reason they sure as hell are not my FUCKING FRIENDS!!
The religion of hate
According to Webster's the definition of religion is to have a specific system of beliefs, worship, etc., often involving a code of ethics, or a belief in and worship of God or gods. As an atheist, I could not care less about the God crap but I do wonder about the ethics issue that always arises when some maniac commits murder, terror, rape, or thief in the name of his/her religion. What are those ethics? How are they derived?
What were the ethics in Orlando when a maniac killed fifty and wounded fifty-three at a gay bar? The news reports claim that he was upset at seeing two men kissing. That he was also a supporter of ISIS and that his father was pro-Taliban. Okay, did his religion tell him that it was his duty to kill and maim one hundred plus people? Or was it his self-generated hatred of those people, created by his own mental delusions, driving him to perform the cowardly act?
Is his hatred for those gays, the same hatred that drove men to blowup a church in Birmingham, Al. killing three black girls. How about the man who entered the Charleston church and killed nine people worshiping their god? Newtown? What does it say for the Boston Marathon bombers or the Oklahoma bombing, World Trade Center disaster and countless others in past decades in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave? What about the lynching of Black Americans or the genocide of the Native(Real) Americans in the past?
The religion of hate does not require a "religion". It is a sickness, self-imposed based on an individual's own inadequacies and shortcomings. An individual's ignorance of reality and an appreciation of the humanity we all possess. Hate is a virus driven by a need to survive at all costs that thrives in the mind of the intellectually weak, uninformed, or willfully ignorant who are comforted in their narrow view of reality and feel uplifted when surrounded by like-minded haters. That is the religion of hate the only true religion of man.
Desperation? Warren as Veep
Now that Queen Hillary has secured the Demo nomination and been endorsed by President Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren, the worthless corporate main stream media is floating multiple stories that Warren will be chosen as the vice presidential candidate. This is a fanciful idea I suspect floated by the Clinton campaign to assuage the "Bernie or Bust" crowd and to make Clinton appear to be unifying the party and to appear "progressive".
In addition to providing phony optics for the progressive crowd, I suspect it is a way to lessen Clinton's unfavorable rating which has improved in the last few days from a high of 57% to less than 50%. Whether it is a move of desperation or a philosophical realignment on Clinton's part does not change a simply fact. It is a dumb idea!
Why, you ask? For several reasons, one being that Senator Warren is an effective voice in the Senate for progressive pro-equality ideas. Second, she is from a state with a Republican governor, thanks to the lazy, apathetic demos who did not vote in 2014 state election, and hence would likely bring another worthless Republican into the Senate. That defeats the purpose of regaining Demo control of the body in 2016. Third, for Warren to accept the VP slot would suggest to true progressives that she is a fraud and just another party insider.
If the Clinton campaign has an ounce of sense which is debatable they would select the current Secretary of Labor, Thomas E. Perez, who has a distinguished resume and happens to be of Latino heritage which considering the Latino voting block could be beneficial to the campaign. Of course, we have to consider the fact that the party insiders: the Goldman Sachs, Big Pharma, Big Oil, healthcare lobbyists, etc. are only looking to win the election and don't really care what the voters want.
The AP announced today that Hillary Roddam Clinton has enough delegates to win the Demo nomination. Primaries are still to be held in several states including California and New Jersey tomorrow. A conspiracy theorists may conclude that this was a planned announcement to discourage Bernie supporters, of which I am one, from going to the polls on Tuesday. But whether it was or not, the fact is that I will have to vote for a candidate whom I consider a fraud.
I base this conclusion on several simple observations. First, she claims she against the Keystone Pipeline, fracking, unregulated drilling. Okay, then why does she have oil and gas lobbyists working as fundraisers from those industries in her campaign? Am I to believe that THEY GAVE HER THE MONEY TO LOWER THEIR PROFITS?
Second, she is against "Medicare for all". Is that because she has numerous health insurer and Big Pharma lobbyists working in her campaign? Knowing that "Medicare for all" would do great harm to their profits, I doubt that also.
Third, she was one of the main supporters of her husband's NAFTA and led the State Department in the TPP trade agreement which hopefully will fail. Is that because she has many Wall Street and corporate donors who won't benefit from further enslaving the American worker?
Finally, we have the backers of corporate-run prisons, foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation, and etc. that makes me wonder who she is not indebted to!
Is this the person who is going to address infrastructure, economic inequality, middle class job loss, financial regulation, tax reform, education issues, environmental destruction, and global warming? I don't think so! She represents the status quo. We get nothing with her but more of the same incrementalist bullshit. And given that her election win will probably be a narrow one at best, the GOP will obstruct everything and possibly try to impeach her over anything.
So excuse me for now but I have to go back to the toilet, I think I still have some guts left.
Comments to think about.