Chief Douchebag Replies

Posted on 13. Mar, 2010 by Justin Veals in Politics

If you haven’t read them yet, this post is part a disagreement that we have been having this week. It all started with this …

http://www.23chromosomes.tv/2010/03/meanderings/

Then, John wrote this …

http://www.23chromosomes.tv/2010/03/meanderingredux/

So, I wrote this …

http://www.23chromosomes.tv/2010/03/brace-yourself-my-opinion-of-an-opinion-whoa/

In order to prove he really likes to get the last word, John then posted this …

http://www.23chromosomes.tv/2010/03/in-honor-of-this-argument-i-turned-the-blog-red/

Now that you are up to date on our little spat, please enjoy my reply.

Well, John, I see we have already fallen into the part of the argument where we start calling each other names.

I watched your video until I saw Hillary Clinton saying that she wanted to send her child to the school of the white supremacist. I knew something was wrong there so I did some digging. She was speaking against school vouchers for families to send their children to private schools. The entire quote is, “First family that comes and says ‘I want to send my daughter to St. Peter’s Roman Catholic School’ and you say ‘Great, wonderful school, here’s your voucher.’ Next parent that comes and says, ‘I want to send my child to the school of the Church of the White Supremacist …’ The parent says, ‘The way that I read Genesis, Cain was marked, therefore I believe in white supremacy. … You gave it to a Catholic parent, you gave it to a Jewish parent, under the Constitution, you can’t discriminate against me.’”

Doesn’t really have the same meaning does it?

As far as my quote from JFK, I am sorry that I attributed it to the wrong original speaker, but nothing you said changed the sentiment of the statement now did it? The exchange of the word party for government really does not change what I was trying to say. However, perhaps I can find another to fit my feelings.

“The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is the Democrat is a cannibal — they have to live off each other–while the Republicans, why, they live off the Democrats.” – Will Rogers

Or this

“It is certain that stealing nourishes courage, strength, skill, tact, in a word, all the virtues useful to a republican system and consequently to our own. Lay partiality aside, and answer me: is theft, whose effect is to distribute wealth more evenly, to be branded as a wrong in our day, under our government which aims at equality? Plainly, the answer is no.” – Marquis De Sade

I also think you might want to watch pointing out my mistakes after using a video that grossly misuses a quote from Mrs. Clinton. Seems a little hypocritical.

You seem to be extremely concerned with being able to call Jefferson a Republican. You need to realize that it does not matter if he would have been or not. If you want to argue about whether he would be considered one today, that is another story. Let’s take a good look.

From the beginning, you should acknowledge that the political platforms of the current two parties would not have stood a chance in Jefferson’s time. The two parties would have been hopelessly authoritarian and unworkable. He was effectively a liberal, secular humanist, which would be closer, in today’s world, to the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, but close to neither.

In 1792-93 Jefferson and Madison created a new “republican party” in order to promote their version of ideal politics. They wanted to suggest that Hamilton’s version was illegitimate. According to Federalist Noah Webster, a political activist bitter at the defeat of the Federalist Party in the White House and Congress, the choice of the name “Republican” was “a powerful instrument in the process of making proselytes to the party…. The influence of names on the mass of mankind was never more distinctly exhibited, than in the increase of the Democratic Party in the United States. The popularity of the denomination of the Republican Party, was more than a match for the popularity of Washington’s character and services, and contributed to overthrow his administration.” The party, which historians later called the Democratic-Republican Party, split into separate factions in the 1820s, one of which became the Democratic Party.

Both of us can claim he belongs to our party, but the truth of the matter is that he belonged to both … kinda. To simplify this issue, both of our current parties sprang from Jefferson’s original Republican Party.

Jefferson can be described as an anti-Federalist. Jefferson believed in a small but powerful peacetime navy, no peacetime army, and minimal government intrusion in people’s lives. If Jefferson were alive today, I believe that he would be neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I think he would most likely be a Libertarian.

Now that is all settled, and you can let it go since it really is not that important to the overall argument. I mean to say that it should not matter because I used his words to attack both the GOP and The Democrats.

You have tried to simplify my meaning about religion being pushed into the laws of this country. My viewpoint has nothing to do with generally accepted moral codes of conduct. You mentioned the Ten Commandments as if you were making a point. Please do not try and make any statements about how everyone is accepted into heaven if they allow Jesus into their hearts. I know that stuff. I spent my time in the pews. You know very well that most of the arguments against marriage equality stem from religious views and not political ones. The same goes for abortion, and to try and say otherwise would be asinine and fallacious.

Let’s not ignore the push from the right to get prayer back in school, a place which has no need of such indoctrination. Our republic is strong and fantastic and wonderful for many reasons, one of which is the fact that you have the right to worship any faith you see fit. Our founding fathers all came from different faiths. They saw the problems of allowing religious ideals to creep into the laws of our young country. Religious wars have forever scarred the world and led to unneeded bloodshed. Therefore, the diverse group of men that chose the words that created our government set aside the fact that they were Quakers, Christians, or Deists and set out to prevent petty religious squabbles from mucking up a system based on the rule of law and not the rule of God.

The word “God” does not appear within the text of the Constitution of the United States. After spending three-and-a-half months debating and negotiating about what should go into the document that would govern the land, the framers drafted a constitution that is secular. The U.S. Constitution is often confused with the Declaration of Independence, and it’s important to understand the difference.

The Declaration of Independence is seen as the document that established the new nation of the United States. It was written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776. It was signed by the Continental Congress and sent to King George III of England. It is a very eloquent document that is celebrated every July 4, but it is not the law of the land. It is a statement of sentiments directed to King George III in reaction to unfair taxation. The U.S. Constitution was ratified on March 4, 1789 — thirteen years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence refers to “the Creator:”
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document; it is not the U.S. Constitution. Foes of the principle of separation of church and state often refer to the word “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence as proof that the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended for the United States to be ruled by a sovereign being. Nothing could be further from the truth. The United States Constitution was written and ratified by elected officials representing a coalition of Enlightenment rationalists and evangelical Christians who were deeply concerned about entanglements between religion and government.

The separation of church and state is one of the most necessary cogs to the clockwork that makes our country work properly. You have tried to low-ball GOP attempts to altar and diminish this integral part of government.

However, the most upsetting and cruel idea that you put forth during your post was the audacious categorizing of homosexuality as a “Special Interest Group”. I suppose you are still under the backwoods assumption that being gay is a choice. Being gay is no more a choice than being born with black skin is a choice. No one chooses to be gay, and there is no proof to the contrary from credible sources. You ignorance on this point is to the point of insult, and I think you should thoroughly reexamine this belief of yours. Well, either that or move to Connecticut and open a gay camp for troubled teens.

You believe that my statement that Republicans are infringing on the rights of minorities is irresponsible, well trying to say that homosexuals are nothing more than a special interest group is negligent. You consider yourself straight. Can you imagine just one day deciding that you will only have sex with men. Why would any choose to be discriminated against like the gay community has been for thousands of years? Can you even fathom someone making the choice consciously and with the purpose of living a life of persecution all for some sex that only barely interests you?

For all the patting your back just got from your own hand, the only thing that you accomplished was proving that you are more concerned with proving Jefferson was a Republican than being informed on the actual subject at hand: The Civil Liberties of Minorities in this country.

Bookmark to: