Challenge #01389-C294: Inevitable Failure
“Hey, I might constantly manipulate people to stack things in my favor, but actually cheating is pushing it a little bit too far,” – OohLookShiny
“It’s like this,” said the campaign manager. “We gerrymandered, and you’re still losing. We’ve changed the voter ID laws, and you’re still losing. We’ve criminalised a majority of the folks who would never vote for you, and you’re still losing. We’ve sent out false messages about easier ways to vote to the youth demographic and you’re still losing. At this point… what’s a little ballot-stuffing between friends?”
“If we’re caught, we’re going to go to jail for the rest of our lives.”
“I can live with ‘if’. Pass me the bag of fake ballots.”
Continue reading
Challenge #01269-C174: One Heart-Pounding Speech Somewhere in the Southern States
How to defeat evil with these five easy knitting patterns.
Tony Abbott: determined to move Australia backwards in time…
Fucking Scabbot…
I pray he’s a one-term wonder
(via thebicker)
Whoever came up with this wins all the pies :)
I didn’t vote for him.
Nobody likes him.
The only reason he got in was Rudd the Dudd announcing he was going to raise taxes just before the election.
Smart. Not.
Fingers crossed that Abbott is a one-term wonder.
(Source: guessthisisit, via the-gay-is-over9000)
Invisible things are ridiculous says man who lives his life according to a invisible thing
A Sydney man who believes an invisible spiritual being created the earth, impregnated a woman and devised intricate views on what constitutes a family, says the Emissions Trading Scheme is flawed because carbon emissions are not visible to the human eye.
The man, who also hopes to become Australia’s next Prime Minister, is the same man who once described the Clean Energy Regulator as a “police force chasing an invisible, odourless, weightless, tasteless substance”.
“This idea that you’d set up entire institutions dedicated to something you can’t even see, well, that’s just madness,” he told The Shovel today.(X)
Getting involved in politics must be a sign of insanity.
(via the-gay-is-over9000)
It was suggested to me by a brilliant friend that this version might be better. Enjoy Oompa Mitt!
Reblogging for MeMum… And the lols.
(via the-gay-is-over9000)
On the Pro-life/Pro-choice debate
I’ve seen a lot of flame going on with respect to Senator Akin and his shit-for-brains comment that has been distracting America from the real issues, like the economy and why the real criminals are still getting paid shittons to wreck it.
Anyway.
I thought I’d take a step further back and analyse the labels.
Pro-choice is pretty easy. If you label yourself as “Pro-choice” then you, yourself, believe that a woman has the right to choose what goes on in and what grows in her body. That includes her right to decide that she’s pro-life.
Easy.
But then there’s Pro-life.
Lots and LOTS of Pro-life folks are actually pro-punishment.
If you are pro-life, that means you are in favour of people living. That’s important.
How many pro-lifers out there are hot on the subject of executing criminals?
Massive disconnect right there, folks. If a life is sacred when it’s still in the womb, then it’s also sacred after the one living it has decided to -say- mutilate a bus full of children or nuns. No matter how heinous the crime, pro-lifers should be protesting to keep the criminal alive, simply because (s)he needs the chance to repent and make their lives better.
I’ll save the discussion on repentance/comparative religion for another blog. I’m trying to stay on topic.
If you are pro-life, you may also want to consider vegetarianism. Human foeti are sacred, so why not chicken foeti or cows, sheep and pigs? Turning vegetarian means another sacred life is allegedly preserved.
I’ll save the discussion on how vegetarian/veganism can actually accelerate the extinction process for another blog. And yes, I’m keeping notes on this.
If you also happen to be pro-quality-of-life then you may decide to take a vow of abstinence because this entire planet is on the verge of a food crisis, but this is yet another topic…
Pro-life means saving the baby even after rape or incest because the new life is sacred. A real pro-lifer would sponsor a drug addict to take her potential kid to term and then raise the drug-addicted, possibly birth-defected child as their own and pay all the medical bills. Why? Because life is sacred, that’s why.
A real pro-lifer would be anti-war because war ends the sacred lives.
A real pro-lifer would support welfare for single mothers because no real pro-lifer would want a child to starve.
A real pro-lifer would allow a woman to have a life-saving abortion because a woman has the potential to make more sacred babies. Or at the very least, raise some of the ones that weren’t wanted by their genetic progenitor(s).
A real pro-lifer would be red-hot on eliminating pedophilia in general and predatory pedophiles specifically because, if a life is sacred, then it certainly deserves to be lived without being messed up by some selfish idiot with erratic brain wiring. [I have been told there are “harmless” pedophiles who keep their lusts to themselves. Personally, I’m wont to add “so far” to those statements]
A real pro-lifer would be pro-contraception, to make certain that the sacred life that emerges is wanted and valued by the progenitor(s).
Alleged pro-lifers who choose not to do any of the things I have mentioned above are not pro life.
They are pro punishment.
They want to punish ‘wicked’ women who have sex. And their best method of punishment is by making her have the baby. They want to punish the idea of sex, but are oddly silent on the issue of porn.
As an enlightened human being, I think the porn industry needs some regulation. It’s almost as toxic as the beauty/fashion industry, but that’s another topic for another time.
Pro-punishment folks see women in general as baby factories and little else. Once a woman has expelled an allegedly sacred foetus into the world, pro-punishment could give less than a shit about that life that was sacred until it was born. It’s not their problem.
Pro-punishment folks endorse -either loudly or silently- the bombing of planned parenthood clinics, abortion clinics, and doctors who perform abortions. Pro-punishment people want to kill all the criminals, especially the poor ones who can’t afford a decent lawyer.
Pro-punishment blames women for most, if not all, of the world’s evils. Just birthed an unwanted child? Stupid woman should never have gotten(sic) pregnant. Just birthed a deformed child? Well, she should have tried to have one when she was younger and could never have afforded it. Welfare mom? Her fault! Teen pregnancy? She must have been driven into uncontrollable lust by the sight of a free/vending-machine condom! Pregnancy threatens your life? Die for the sake of a child that will probably die when you do because otherwise, you’re not a “real” woman!
So how about it? If you’re a real pro-lifer, stand tall and proud and live by your ethic to save a life, no matter how small. Put your money, time and considerable effort into actually saving those sacred lives.
Otherwise, proudly don a T-shirt that reads, “Kill them all and let [YOUR GOD HERE] sort them out!” and thence have nothing at all to do with those wicked and horribly sinful women.
I’m pretty certain they don’t want to breed with you, anyway.
America.
Reagan’s on the wrong side. He was the champion of “trickle down” economics and tax cuts for the wealthy.
(via diamond-sutra)
—Graffitti, Griffith University, Nathan Campus, 1997
Why Bipartisan Politics Fails
Put succinctly: they spend too much time fighting and not enough getting shit done.
I don’t follow American Politics very closely. I can’t tell the difference at a glance between Republican and Democrat. All I know is one lot (generally) cheats on their spouses and the other lot (generally) embezzles from public funds.
Back in the days before corporations could buy politicians, the folks you elected were supposed to represent their electorate based on what the majority desired. The ones with integrity stood for their electorate no matter what the party they belonged to said about the whole issue.
Party A pretty much backs industrialisation. They’re great for business. I’m not positive, but I think they’re the Republicans. I’ll just stick with Party A.
Party B sticks up for the little guy. They back health care, education and looking after the interests of real people.
Party A screws over the little guy in favour of business growth.
Party B screws over big business so the people can theoretically flourish.
In an ideal system, both parties are supposed to reach compromises so that both parties are at least satisfied and an equilibrium between both situations is established.
The problem is that Party A has achieved an almost religious hatred of Party B. So, as a direct result, they block absolutely everything Party B offers just because it was put forward by Party B. Even if it makes perfect sense to do so.
And there’s an interesting cultural fillip in which Party B and all its proponents are lead to believe that what the real majority wants is the stuff Party A wants, and screw off, you lousy hippie.
Party A are a vocal minority. If you actually talk to real people signed up to vote for Party A, you’ll discover that a lot of them are closet hippies, too. At least according to the heavy-industry Party A.
Party B just hasn’t been willing to shout as loud or be as ignorant and loutish as Party A. It’s like trying to tell an opinionated bigot that (insert minority here) are really nice folks by whispering about it as they rev their ghetto-destroying behemoth-mobile.
Therefore, even when Party B is in power, it has no power. They’re constantly trying to appeal to Party A, which is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Environmental Rapists Inc.
Then, to add insult to injury, Party A screams blue murder about how Party B isn’t fulfilling any of their electoral promises and threatens impeachment or whatever.
Party A repeatedly misses the point that if they completely win, they will lose.
No health care == sick workers.
Deregulated everything == more pollution, less pay for the workers.
Why should they care about the workers? Well… they’re the ones with the money to buy all the products they make.
People can’t buy it if they can’t afford it, Party A. And they won’t buy it if they’re sick or dying.
You’d think it would be in Party A’s best interests to make sure folks live longer to buy more. Or have jobs so they can afford more.
But no.
That’s bad for business.
Apparently.