15

Letter to liberals from my e-mail

Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 6 months ago to Entertainment
108 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

we received this today and thought that it might be
worth sharing:::

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives,
socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters:

We have stuck together since the late 1950s for the sake
of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has
made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated
each other for many years for the sake of future generations,
but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever
agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly
terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable
differences and go our own way.

Here is our separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass,
each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but
I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement.
After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective
representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both
sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes, so you can keep them.
You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.
Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops,
the NRA and the military.
We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and
you can go with wind, solar and bio-diesel.
You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. You
are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle
big enough to move all three of them.
We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical
companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.
You can have your beloved lifelong welfare-dwellers, food
stamps, homeless (except for the Vets), homeboys, hippies,
druggies and illegal aliens.
We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey-moms, greedy CEOs
and rednecks.
We'll keep Bill O'Reilly and Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.
You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right
to invade and hammer places which threaten us.
You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.
When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help
provide them security.
We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political
correctness and Shirley MacLaine. You can also have the U.N. –
but we will no longer be paying the bill.
We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars.
You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.
You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.
We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."
I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine," "I'd Like to Teach
the World to Sing," "Kum Ba Ya" or "We Are the World."
We'll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to
give trickle up poverty your best shot.
Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name
and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other
like-minded liberal and conservative patriots, and if you do not
agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you
might think about which one of us will need whose help
in 15 years.

Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student, and an American

P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin & Charlie
Sheen, Barbara Streisand and (Hanoi) Jane Fonda with you.

P.P.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English
when you call our country.

-- j, prompted by jlc
.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by $ CBJ 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You’re giving us a “best possible case” scenario. Slavery was not confined to large plantations, and while plantation slavery would likely have declined as mechanization advanced, there would have continued to be plenty of demand for household work and heavy manual labor. An improving economy in the South might have even increased the demand for slaves for the personal convenience of economically well-off households and as a status symbol. To a certain extent, an industrialized South would also have stoked demand for slaves to work in factories. Another factor to consider is that most of the white population (not just slave owners) were absolutely convinced of their racial superiority, and feared that freeing a significant number of slaves would undermine their social structure and give the remaining slaves “radical” ideas. No way was the South going to end slavery without being forced to. A “gradualist” approach would have taken decades and perhaps more than a century.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Anti-drug laws ARE economically based, just biased for a very small minority and not free market based. (grin)
    Had the war not occurred slavery would have died and culture would have changed rapidly. There were very few slave owners and when it became unprofitable those would have switched or bankrupted (unless the GOP thought slavery would advance their power.) The culture would have undergone immense changes and by the 40s it would have been completely (and unpredictably) different. The war and reconstruction caused immense hostility in the southerners toward the north, and that adversely affected relations between blacks and whites. WIthout the destruction of the south in the war that effectively enslaved the southern survivors, the south would have adapted relatively quickly to the economic disadvantage of slavery. By the time you were born it would have been a different world. But that didn't happen because Lincoln wanted to enslave southerners to the nothern corporatocracy, and after murdering 600,000, Lincoln got his wish.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree completely, yet the perpetrators usually get off
    scot-free with their millions, unscathed. . that's what the
    taxpayers are funding, it appears to me. . golden parachutes
    for mis-managers. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's one of many and the largest I reckon but it has no one inside that can do a palace revolt and then attract all those Libertarian and others who aren't identified by a party but are disenfranchised. On the other hand if they do nothing it's an easy call ...Republican = RINO 100% RINO = lapdogs of the DNC = read this carefully right wing OF the left.

    Looks like the Devil's Advocate Strategy is the most likely way to go. Vote for whomever will finish the destruction and start over from scratch.

    Not enough cooperation too much pontificating. Too much preaching no plan of action.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Economics would eventually have rendered slavery less profitable, but likely would not have led to its speedy abolition. Cultural factors such as moral aversion to slavery are more important. This cultural factor was distinctly lacking in the South that I grew up in, and was near non-existent in the South of the late 19th Century. Many southern whites of the mid-20th Century were convinced that African-Americans would have been “better off” if they had remained slaves.

    For a present-day example of culture overpowering economics (and common sense), consider the anti-drug laws and the extent of their enforcement.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Economics would have demolished slavery in the South just as it did elsewhere, and your growing up in the 40s and 50s would have been better for people of all colors if Lincoln's parents had never met.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If I knew how many of them existed and I assume they are a minority but who knows, Form a New Reublican Constitutionalist Party bolt from the rest, lose some committees they don't control anyway and go for more votes in the next elections. Gain a majority by voting independently of the Dem/RINO Coalition and showing they are worth something besides using up oxygen.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No doubt, Michael. I complain more about the GOP because the people who support them are much more likely to be for individual liberty, and I want them as allies instead of dupes of the GOP.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In the real world there will be mismanagement whether there is a "fire wall" or not. The question here is, should the taxpayer be forced to bail out a failing private enterprise (assuming the failure wasn't government precipitated like, imho, the recent mortgage debacle)? I say no. In my opinion, GM should have been allowed to break up or reorganize under the bankruptcy laws or to go under completely. Same as the old steel mills. No taxpayer bailouts.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So how does that make them different from the other half of the Government Party? A left wing fascist socialist is a left wing fascist socialist by any other name including corporatist, statist, and union leaders. The rest is just beating a dead horse and ignoriing present day reality
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Conservative - Preservation of the Existing Order. Moderate, Prudent, Traditional, Defense of the Status Quo. Practical

    Liberal - lacking restraint, not bound by orthodoxy or traditional forms, progressive ideals, one who favors religious freedoms - We want it all and we want it now. Pragmatic.

    From three different pre-PC dictionaries.

    Of course the winner gets to rewrite the dictionary but going fifty years one can easily find the majority of the status quo conservatives are currently sitting in the White House and the Government Party (Democrats RINOS) of the Congress.

    The outsiders wanting in are now the liberals. Progressive to them is re-instating the Constitution and Religious Freedom has nought to do with DNC/RINO Inc.

    The point is those in power build castles to defend. Those not in power build battering rams

    So those of you who are of the former liberal present day conservative persuasion.

    Except when it comes to scamming and bilking the working classes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    yes, and that firewall allows mismanagement to make
    a mess of things and we in the rest of the u.s. must
    make up for it. . like the GM bail-out paid for by us taxpayers.
    there ain't no free lunch. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    unfortunately, these days, the union pension fund is paid in full
    and the shareholders get nothing. . that's the government way
    of handling a bankruptcy. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by xthinker88 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You might convert me as I read your posts. But this would require a complete collapse before rebuilding this way. Changing mid stream would cause a big collapse.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think not. Now-a-days, creditors are not paid back and shareholders are not liable for more than they put in. Shareholders should be liable for the entire debt calculated at their % of ownership, which is their investment and earnings.

    Let's say I invest $1,000 in a company worth $3,000,000. Let say over 5 years I earn $75 per year. That is a total of $375. Let's say there are 2,000 other investors who have invested $2,000 each, and each earning $150 per year totaling $750 each over 5 years. That is a total investment of $4,001,000, and total earnings of the shareholders over 5 years of $1,500,750. My percentage of the investment is .02% and the other 2,000 investors percentage is .05% each for a total of 99.98%.
    Then let's say the company goes under, (because they have been paying a CEO $2,000,000 a year salary). Let's say the company owes $10,000,000 to vendors and banks in goods, services and loans. My share of what is owed is $2,500. ($10,000,000 X .02%). So even though I invested $1,000 and earned an additional $375, I still have to pay my share of the debt. And so do the other shareholders. What is so hard to understand about this?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    OK, so we're narrowing the field to whom actually gets a piece of the pie when a company fails. I invest in stock equities as well as bonds so I am clearly on both sides of the equation in this discussion. On the corporate bond side I'm currently well invested so I'm fully aware of being a creditor. I'm also aware of the risk. I know (up front) if a company I am a creditor of through my bond ownership fails, I will very likely not get all my money back. I also know (up front) if grandma's pension held stock in that company, my lawyers and I will not be reaching out for anything she has beyond her share of the company. THAT risk was MINE, not hers. Her personal wealth is protected by the incorporation laws. Too bad for me and as a creditor/investor I darn well should be aware of that up front before I loan money to a corporation via a bond purchase. [Side note: Actually, I purchase shares of various bond funds as part of my overall investment portfolio, rather than individual bonds. That way if any one issue defaults, I may say "ouch", but I can still go out to dinner the next day. IMHO, purchasing well managed bond funds is far less PITA (Pain In The A**) than managing the laddering of a bunch of individual bonds myself.]

    Likewise, if grandma holds bonds in a failed corporation that I hold stock in, she and her lawyers might get the value of my shares, but will not be able to raid the rest of my personal wealth. THAT is the risk SHE took.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ah, johnpe1, it looks like your "squirm" isn't so much with incorporates as it is with the Great Welfare/Bailout State. A different subject all together.

    Incorporation places a fire wall between an individuals unrelated personal wealth and the equity that individual has invested in the given enterprise. NOW grandma's house can't be taken if she owns stock in a company that fails, but if you change the law so that fire wall is taken away, then grandma's house will be up for grabs.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You assume quite a bit. I have explained my position quite clearly already in this post. Your share of responsibility should be based on the same percentage as the earnings your make. Duh. Responsibility should be is based on your percentage of investment to the whole, not 100%. Your premise just does not make sense to me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    mc: Grandma would not be nor any shareholders would not be responsible for the employees losing their jobs if the company files for bankruptcy. Employees are not creditors. They are paid for time worked, not for possible future pay! I was speaking of creditors only. Companies need to pay their bills. They are responsible for merchandise and services they used and so are the shareholders. Again, just my opinion.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo