Friday, May 09, 2008

musings

Why do people believe that Republicans are going to do anything about illegal immigration? If anything is true about the Republican Party, it is that it is first and foremost the party of Capitalism, and that means money. It doesnt take much vision to see that whatever walk they may walk, their "social" legislation never gets in the way of those with money making more money, and illegal immigration makes money. In fact, to the pure Capitalist, anything that does not make a maximum profit is considered unethical, which is why corporate buyouts often occur even when said buyout is bad for everybody but the stockholders.

Okay, I've got a question: In a polygamist society, it seems like you'd have a lot of disaffected unmarried men, since in all of them that I've heard of, it's only good for the gander, not the goose. This means that if the practice were widespread, you'd either have a lot of lonely, angry, single men or a lot of cheating. Seems to me that polygamy only works if the practicing group is small and has an adjacent society to siphon women-folk off from.
Or maybe it works just like money, wherein the guys with all the money get all the girls, (in addition to everything else). When you come right down to it, Republicans ought to be in favor of polygamy, since it's really just sexual capitalism. To insist on "One Man/One Woman" smacks a bit of socialism, doesnt it?

Can you see a time in the future when governments such as Burmas are charged with crimes against humanity, and world powers step in to eliminate the problem? No? Me neither. Seems like a good idea, though. I mean, if there was a city in your state being run by a criminal gang, you'd expect the state cops, if not the FBI, to bust up the gang and return the city to the people's control (Hey! Stop that snickering! Dont think I dont hear you). Call it humanitarian colonialism, where instead of invading a country to steal its resources, we do so to eliminate human suffering.

If Barack Obama loses the nomination and/or the election, it will be because he's played the gentleman card, and in America, the concept of gentlemanly behavior is dead. We've decided that gentlemen are "elitists" and would rather have oafs and bullies make our decisions. Take that England!

3 comments:

der Hundepo said...

Watch yourself, Dave. With that third argument, you could find yourself looking down a slippery slope. That's basically the justification given for Iraq (yeah, okay, it was the third one given, but still) - saving the people from the bully. Now in the case of Burma, you're right, it would be appropriate, but besides for disaster relief, where does it stop?

daveawayfromhome said...

Yeah, I recognize that. And have problems with it, too. Still, it seems like we ought to have some recourse, doesnt it?

War is not necessarily a bad thing (however terrible it may be). The Bush Administration is, and so is much of what they've done (in our name).
Oh hell, I'm going for broke: Even the things that the BushCorp has done right, has been done worse than it should have been, and generally at a profit for somebody connected to the administration.

United We Lay said...

I don't know why anyone thinks politicians will do anything anymore. This election is a farce.