Found on Facebook

I thought I’d share with you some of the things my friends have posted on Facebook.  First, a cartoon that’s obviously meant to support the Progressive open border policy, but that just as obviously proves the opposite:


I understand that you’re supposed to read the cartoon to mean that, without the Native American’s open border policies, we white people would still be floating around the Atlantic.  Therefore, open borders are good.  I have this strong urge to explain to the Progressives reading the cartoon that, if one looks at what happened to the Native Americans, they would have been wiser to adopt the policies that Republicans now advocate.

The next thing I found on Facebook was this anti-Romney poster:

I get it.  Romney is an incredible hypocrite because his ancestors weren’t monogamous. He therefore has no basis for asserting that marriage is between one man and one woman. My response?

Dear Progressive, yes, some cultures are polygamous, but they’ve still involved a man on one side of the bed and a woman on the other. You see, historically, marriage has always been about two things: procreation and a wealth transfer system that allowed the man (who historically created wealth) to be assured that his own progeny, whether from one woman or from several, received his wealth. It’s kind of atavistic.

I’m not saying that atavistic human behavior is a good reason to keep the marriage status quo. As you know, I think the state should get out of the marriage business and get into the civil unions business, with an eye to promoting whatever conjoinings of people are best for the state. However, it’s foolish to pretend that relationships that never have natural procreative abilities are the same as the heterosexual marriages that have been normative throughout history. And no, please don’t hurl the words “adoption” or “artificial insemination” at me, and don’t mention that the English aristocracy so embraced cuckolding that the wife’s marital duty was limited to an heir and a spare. The fact remains that our lizard brains have always focused on getting a man to impregnate a woman, safe in the knowledge that she wasn’t cheating and that it would be his genetic offspring that got the benefit of his labor.

And lastly, a video that several of my friends posted.  I don’t know about Prop. 37 and I may discover after researching it that I support it.  Nevertheless, watching these vapid, alcoholic, misogynistic Hollywood types promote Prop. 37 (in insulting and condescending tones) inspires in me a visceral dislike for the proposition, and a strong desire to vote against it:

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Leah

    Prop 37 will do to food prices in CA what ‘clean air’ laws have done to gas prices here. Vote no. 

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com David Foster

    The American Indians obviously couldn’t have built a wall, but their best bet to negotiate a better settlement with the Whites would have been a stronger alliance system among the tribes. This was an extraordinarily difficult problem due to problems of geography, communications, languages, cultures, and preexisting tribal hostilities. (There were plenty of cases of tribes forming alliances with the Whites in order to gain advantage against their traditional enemies.)

    In America today, we don’t have the excuses of language and poor communications…but we do have hostility among our various tribes which is just about as strong as anything that could have been found among the Indians of old times. The urban educated upper-middle class liberal typically feels far more hostility toward southern Christian conservatives than toward radical Islamists or nuclear-bomb-seeking dictators.

    We need a Tecumseh, and even that may not be enough. 

  • http://furtheradventuresofindigored.blogspot.com/ Indigo Red

    Tecumseh’s immediate problem with uniting the tribes throughout the land was the “sign” he foretold that would tell all Indians to rise up against the Whites in unison. The great earthquake (possibly an eruption of the New Madrid fault line that was part of Shawnee history) he said would signal the uprising never came and we’ve yet to have a reliable method of e-quake prediction. The other problem was that Tecumseh didn’t predict the time of the sign, he only said to wait for it.
     

  • JKB

    Seems to me it would be simpler and more cost effective to label the non-GMO food.  

    Does anyone know of any foodstuff that has not been genetically-modified in some way or another since humans started cultivating it? 

    What exactly are they calling GMO? 

  • Libby

    Hey, I thought the Left was pro-science! That video reminds me of the similarly condescending “Don’t Vote” ad in 2008., and I sure a heck don’t value any advice from people as repellent as Bill Maher.

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

     
    Prop 37 has less to do with food content than with enabling tort lawyers to sue all and sundry. 
     
    Have you Californians noticed the signs (I have ceased to register their presence) warning you that the State of California has determined that chemicals known to cause cancer, etc. are present in the immediate area?  What does this do for anyone?  I mean, have you stopped pumping your gas and escaped to your car when you see the sign?  Or left the night club, bar, or brew pub (ethanol is a carcinogen)?  I thought not. 
     
    But LOTS of small businesses in California have been the subjects of lawsuits for not having their sign worded correctly, or posted at exactly the right height, or because the font was too small, or not the right color, etc. etc. etc.
     
    The new GMO law being proposed will allow ANYONE to bring suit, regardless of harm, and a certain class of lawyers is going to have a field day.  The precise class of lawyers who wrote the law you’ll be voting on, by the way.
     
    Vote NO on 37!
     

  • SADIE

    Great-great grandfather had 12 wives … and the President’s father had a handful as well.