Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

The happiness that is.

Ever since moving to Houston, my emotional mood has swung around nearly 180 degrees.  In Fort Walton Beach, the job I was doing was pretty much a dead end, no opportunity to progress and expand my skills and abilities.  But now, here in Houston, I'm able to figuratively stretch my wings and get involved with new things and opportunities that didn't exist in Florida.

As a sign that things have been getting better, I've taken to sharpening my writing and cognitive skills by writing on the Washington Post commentary areas.  Usually you'll find me posting in areas like "The Plum Line" and "Achenblog", where intelligence and literate skills are welcomed, but sometimes I'll dip into the opinion pieces to see how much chaos I can cause.  Since my writing style will switch from totally serious to sarcastic and humorous within seconds, it's fun to watch the reactions they cause.  For example, here's some of my writings today:


[On someone saying an honest president will take over in 2010]:  "Abraham Lincoln is running again?  I thought my party was against stem cell research and cloning?"
[Concerning the image of Romney on the article]:  "If they posted images of each of the Republican candidates and rotated through them, the WaPo might be in violation of the Geneva convention about the use of torture."
[Concerning the offerings of the Republican Party for President]:  "
That's good, because as a voter, these sorry excuses of the sub-genus Homo Sapiens Republicans wouldn't qualify for even a position as a street sweeper. It boggles my mind that this is the best my party can offer me, and that I'm forced to between such examples of vapidness."
[On the idea of Rick Perry for President, compared to Bush]:  "
Yeah, but when both of them have room temperature IQ's, it's hard to tell the difference. [I'm speaking Celsius here, not Fahrenheit.]"

And this gem:
Honestly? If there was a truly serious Republican candidate out there, he or she would be ignored since it wouldn't play into the mediagenic, sound-bite driven, talking-points only sort of coverage that is provided. It's also because the normal person's attention span is extrem... SQUIRREL! 
Ahem. As I was saying, the normal person's attention span is extremely short, and I doubt that if you asked them what was the most significant event from last week was, it'd be either Oprah stepping down or Harold Camping's 'End of the World' prediction."


Then there's this posting, which is an example of why debating with me is dangerous to your health:

If you would bother to read some of my postings here, Pilot1, I generally don't like to 'roll in the mud' as most of the posters here seem to enjoy doing. I prefer trying to carry on an intelligent debate with people here, hard as it is when folks like you use false assumptions and ad hominem attacks. At no time have I stated that if you're against Obama then you're racist, however I have clearly seen racist attacks against our President by individuals who describe themselves as Tea Party members and/or Republican party faithful. It dismays me as a Republican that we have, as a party in general, lost the ability to at least be respectful to others despite their political beliefs. *We* are the ones who started this back in the 1980's and has accelerated it until the point that it exists in today, where neither party will talk to the other and our ability to govern this country becomes paralyzed. 
I post here in these forms to try and show that there are a few out here who do respect our President who do exist on the other side of the political line. I do not expect others of my party to agree with me, in fact I am quite used to the hatred that is expressed over the fact that a Republican is willing to point out the fallacies and failings of the party both individually and collectively. You, of course, are free to feel otherwise, but I will *NOT* stoop to the point of name calling and personal attacks that seem to be extremely prevalent in these forms. I can, and will continue to use satire and humor to underline some of my points here (as my earlier post was meant to show) but I will also continue to post these types of postings, backing up my statements with facts and evidence in the occasionally futile hope that someone will at least listen and consider what I have to say with an open mind.


( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
May. 30th, 2011 12:48 am (UTC)
Tyrant Abe an honest president? We are talking about the president that unilaterally suspended habeas corpus and ordered thousands of citizens arrested without warrants, who closed courts by force, who closed newspapers that printed editorials critical of him and his conduct of the war, often arresting their editors as well, who censored telegraph communications, who ordered the blockade of Southern ports without a declaration of war, and who deported a sitting Senator who criticized his conduct of the war? The same person who took our country into a bloody civil war, claiming that the United States was a permanent compact between the states and could not be dissolved, while only fifteen years earlier said:
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable — a most sacred right — a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of their territory as they inhabit."

He was speaking, in 1847, of Texas in its attempt to secede from Mexico, yet somehow the situation was utterly different when the secession might cost him some of his power as President of the United States. On March 4, 1861, during his inaugural address, he flip-flopped completely:
“Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.”

And I find it humorous that the primary thing for which he his remembered was something he never did -- he never "freed the slaves". Go back and read the Emancipation Proclamation; it freed the slaves only in those parts of the South that were not under the control of the Union Army -- a country in secession from the Union, over which he had no authority. And after that edict, the Union Army suffered tens of thousands of desertions. The citizens of the North were willing to fight to "preserve the Union"; many of them weren't willing to fight to end slavery.
May. 30th, 2011 01:08 am (UTC)
Oh, I know, but a lot of today's Republicans seem to venerate him in the same fashion they venerate Ronald Reagan. Which is why I made the comment in the fashion I did, as more of a humorous take on just what today's Republican party views as an honest politician.

And some areas of the Union were willing to fight for ending slavery. Iowa actually had it in their state constitution that any slave who enters its borders was to be considered free and no longer property in any sense of the word. This is the same state that ruled that the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness applied to all couples, whether two males, two females or a male and a female.

May. 30th, 2011 02:27 am (UTC)
There are many times I think back to the heady days of Republicans when they had merely evil or not-empathetic leaders Nixon, Bush, Reagan. I like to say Bush Sr was at least competent-evil vs W Bush who was incompetent-evil. I miss the competent part! I honestly considered voting my first time for Bush Sr... And don't think it would've been a disaster had he remained president.

But since 2000? They've cut taxes multiple times and then blamed everything on Democrats and gays and muslims. It's crazy.

Whenever someone tells me that Democrats have moved left or right, I just remind them that what really happened was that those who paid attention are Democrats now. And it sucks for me, from the left, because there's no actual balance.

And the people who don't have time to pay attention to the parties? The news is seriously doing them a disservice, never telling them who really is lying.
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )


Tal Greywolf

Latest Month

February 2017
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow