Two Minutes Hate 2/1/2013


February 1, 2013 by Julia

(I know I’ve been totally AWOL; I promise that there are good reasons)

1. An older story that I added to The Big List of Racism when it came out:  WTF, Hank Johnson? The NRA opposes Pres. Obama’s gun policies because it supports free enterprise, believes the federal government should only be involved in national defense, and is racist against Obama because he is black.  Obviously.  Thank you, Rep. Johnson, for decoding the conspiracy.  The NRA has been advocating gun rights for decades specifically to set itself up to oppose a black president in 2013.  Of course, that makes perfect sense . . . to a guy who is worried that Guam may tip over.  What an idiot.  These people need to invent racist intent so they don’t need to bother responding to other people with actual arguments, because why argue with a racist?  It demonstrates a serious lack of intellectual heft.

2. I have a personal rage trigger for unreasonably and outrageous public school punishments (or treatment of students in general, I suppose), stemming from my own experiences and my utter disdain for teachers unions. Therefore, I have been flipping out over stories like this and this.  I mean, really:

“He yelled at me and said I shouldn’t have brought the gun to school and I kept telling him it was a paper gun but he wouldn’t listen,” the fifth grader told the station.

How terrifying is THAT?  This poor girl is trying to use logic on an adult in a position of power over her, and he wouldn’t listen.  That’s an absolute nightmare to me, up there with being involuntarily committed to an inpatient program for mental illness when you aren’t crazy, and trying to convince the staff of such.  (this is quite apart from the politics, which is also clearly ridiculous)

3. Every time a Democrat tells you how awesome Obamacare is (it’s happened to me twice in the last month), remind them that they love a policy specifically crafted to help Big Pharma, while taking advantage of people who could be helped by policies that actually work.  Also, memorize this quote:

4. Here’s an older link, but I just stumbled across it yesterday.  Essentially, Clinton’s HUD Secretary fully admits that the Democrat plan to increase mortgages to “minorities” and those with lower incomes will create problems for banks . . . and shows no remorse.  Worth remembering, especially when Obama wants to make the Community Reinvestment Act stronger.  Seriously, do these people even understand economics a little?  Do they have some kind of short-term memory defect?  What’s maybe even worse is how schizophrenic their approach to subprime loans is.

5. And in ridiculous environmentalist news, one of our employees in the Department of the Interior wants a “policy intervention” to prevent cats from killing birds and rodents.  Yes.  One of our alleged betters wants the government to stop cats from killing birds and rodents.  No matter how many times you say it, it’s got to be one of the dumbest things you’ve ever heard, right?  I’m saying this, of course, as both an advocate of limited government and a long-time cat owner (there are two sitting on the couch with me right this second.  They are terrible hunters, and wouldn’t know how to kill a bird or rodent if they ever met one).  I’m pretty sure the Second Amendment was written for the day they come for my cats.


7 thoughts on “Two Minutes Hate 2/1/2013

  1. Null says:

    “Seriously, do these people even understand economics a little?”

    No, they really don’t. I once tried to explain to a bunch of leftists how the contraceptive mandate is economically foolish (in that it causes costs to rise) because (a) insurance should not cover regularly recurring expenses like buying birth control and (b) if it really cost for-profit insurance companies less in the long term to provide contraceptives for free then they’d already be doing it and no mandate would be needed.

    I explained it multiple times and in multiple ways but to no avail. When they couldn’t answer my direct questions anymore they just stopped responding altogether.

    • Julia says:

      A good friend of mine actually said, “And now my birth control is free, yes!” with glee. I was trying to not start a fight, so I kept my mouth shut, but I wanted to ask her how much her premium went up a month–I bet it was more than what her co-pay for the birth control used to be. Their thinking is so compartmentalized: “Shit, my premium went up!” can appear in the same conversation as “My birth control is free, yay!” without any understanding of the connection.

      And then I had another friend actually argue to me that it’s not wrong for men to be forced to buy maternity coverage, because men are required for women to get pregnant, so they should “bear some of the cost.” I was all like, “Um, the pregnant woman has her own policy already with maternity coverage, so the guy’s money is going to a totally separate policy that may not even cover that woman,” and I got a blank stare in response. Absolutely no understanding of economics, at all. (the argument that the men lower the cost for the women by joining the group fails in practice, because premiums are, in fact, going up)

  2. Ish says:

    This past summer, I had cause to do some digging into contraceptive costs… in order to ensure no one could accuse me of cherry-picking my numbers from “anti-wymyn” sources I used the numbers provided by Planned Parenthood. According to Planned Parenthood’s FAQs, an IUD “can range from $500 to $1,000. That cost pays for protection that can last from 5 to 12 years, depending on which IUD you choose.”

    Let’s assume the most expensive device and the shortest period of coverage: that’s $16.67 per month or $3.85 per week… I mean, really, that’s less than a cup of plain coffee at Starbucks.

    When discussing the economics of birth control with most leftists, I’ve learned the hard way that one shouldn’t ever bring up the world’s only truly free form of contraception — not having sex — unless you want to give people the vapors.

  3. Woodman says:

    Only crazy religious people push abstinence as a method of birth control.

    I had a conversation with someone about the religious left the other day. They had no idea what I was talking about. I pointed out to her the churches downtown that almost outnumber the liquor stores. She was dumbfounded to think that all the people that go to those churches are democrats and belong to her party.

    I also pointed out that quite a few union employees were also regular church goers, and that she should thank her lucky stars that the Republicans are the stupid party and haven’t gone after those “fringe” democrats.

    Oh, and the cheapest form of birth control is a vasectomy. $1k and you are out the door. Amazing how Planned Parenthood doesn’t help get those done. Considering the number of men out there with multiple “accidental” kids I have to wonder what they are thinking. I’m sure there is a “not manly if not virile” sentiment, along with a “don’t cut my boys” mindset, but paying all them baby mommas got to be rough.

    • Ish says:

      Abstinence isn’t just for crazy religious people, for cheapsakes that don’t want to have kids now but would like to eventually it sure beats a vasectomy.

      Plus, abstianing from vaginal intercourse doesn’t mean you can’t have fun. I won’t go into details, but you’re reading this on the Internet… you should be able to find plenty of “reference material” all by yourself.

      • Woodman says:

        Sorry, the crazy religious comment was supposed to be /sarcasm.

        It does amaze me that people assume that because someone is religious people instantly assume they are republican.

        Yeah, the alternate methods speech is an awkward one to have with a daughter, I’ve made it through two of them, only one left.

    • Julia says:

      Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform vasectomies because they are “one and done”–i.e. Planned Parenthood can only make a profit from the “patient” once, not over and over like using abortion as birth control. But, I’m sure you already knew that 😉

      (I’m a little curious why Margaret Sanger decided to focus on women and not men, but I’m too creeped out by her eugenics to bother researching it)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

The Ministry of Nerds

We're nerds . . . who talk politics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: