20 ways to lick an armadillo and not get leprosy:

I had a hard time titling this piece. I want to convey a series of waypoints that illustrate why republican ideas are so fucked up.

religion
   specifically separation of church and state:
    when religion —mine, not yours— is enforced by the nation, none will be spared. why would I let you enforce your religion through state. I simply illustrate that if I have my way I will take it all. giving someone else's superstition the might of law probably wouldnt be a good idea either.

big guv'ment
   exactly what the fuck do you think the military is?

free-market
   exactly, what is the market? if you cant answer that then you have no place in this discourse. there are things we consider property and things we cannot consider property. property can be exchanged and traded. if it were a "free" market then EVERYTHING could be traded. including people, traded as slaves —or worse: food. clearly we dont even want a "free' market.
anyone who proposes that they do want that style of atrocity get to be the first slaves —or hamburger meat.

self-made man
    feral humans are self-made and they barely resemble a human. go figure...

low taxes make good-time happy-fun perfect-world feeley-squirts
    watch or read "Lord of the Flies". I might expand on this later.

war is peace
    guns. guns are a lot like poison. it is easy to salt the earth with guns. suggesting that mutually assured destruction is a perfect deterrent are not using their brain's critical thinking capacity. weapons do not get aimed at one another in a perfect symmetry. guns are a tool used by the wealthy to exploit the poor —in more ways than one. this is a cacophony of exploitation and phallic extension. there is not one way that increasing our inhumanity towards one another is somehow good. 

wealthy people are good
   job creators: bullshit. why is thin logic allowed anymore? there arent job creators anymore than there are gravity creators. gravity just is there —until other evidence proves otherwise. jobs are attracted to multiple sources of motivation. not just wealthy people's whimsical desires. jobs invent themselves based on desires of base: hunger, shelter, sex, friends / reputation, enlightenment. any of this making a pattern? ICanHasMaslow anyone?

conversely; poor people are bad
   those who do not demand respect will be given none. even those that are weakened by acts of the gods are not exempt. giving the wealth hoarders anything to point at is begging to be trampled upon.

Ronald Reagan is a great man
   great men are often caricatures that resemble less and less reality as the desires, technology and opportunities of the people change. I desire that people learn of EVERYTHING that Reagan did: Iran-Contra traitorous acts, unleashing the US military (including the CIA) and the private sector Chicago Boys, on South American nations —directly leading to mass deaths, torture, disappearances, rape, enslavement (basically the worst parts of the bible).

Homosexuality is unnatural
   just how many homosexual creatures does nature —or god, if youre ignorant— have to create before you realize that they are part of the natural landscape.
lets actually explore that one... if youre not gay you probably cant even imagine being gay. if youre a man you probably cant imagine being a woman. if youre white you probably cant imagine being black. if youre short you probably cant imagine being tall. if youre young you probably cant imagine being old. theres a lot of shit you cant even imagine. quit pretending that somehow you know better!

it was once said...

growing up I learned that by gaining power you also used that power for good. having a great ability meant that the ability would be used in effort to better the lives of everyone even those without the great ability. comic book heroes that could lift cars off injured citizens, mental acuity to solve crimes, compassion for those that have injury by evils hoisted on them by merciless gods or horrible souls.

now we have a new, relatively untested, morality. one that says those of great power have the ability to serve themselves, to gorge themselves. insatiable appetites lined up at the trough with no regard to limited resources, with no regard to others in need. being a hero used to mean something great. now we are lucky if superman drops a few coins as he robs the bank. now we are lucky if he doesnt endanger everyone in the room when he is unpleased with his godly offerings. doctors no longer consider quality of life, only focus on pharmaceutical kickbacks and their busty ski-bunnies in Aspen. priests are no longer considering the good deeds in their neighborhoods but only serve other people's souls as offerings to their gods —if they arent too busy diddling little boys. in fact I cannot see one hierarchical segment of the global society that isnt infected by a core of selfishness.

the weak can no longer look to the strong for help. the weak now must rise up in anger and wicked retribution against those who choke us with their greed. I prescribe two flaming torches and a pitchfork; and call me in the morning.

Rant - 2011/09/19

weep and cry for the misfortune of the job creators. (known as oligarchs)

but rejoice for the fortunate job creator CREATORS! (known as customers)

but we will not be acknowledging —at this juncture— the job creators creators Creators. (known as breeders)

this shit could go on as an exercise in futility. the trick is to be the first and loudest propagandists. wealth hoarders have labeled themselves in positive terms —as the benevolent slavers have done throughout history. which leads me to believe the polar opposite. I view their every utterance as evidence of their evil.

Rant - 2011/08/01

argument: if you tax the employers they will just pass the costs down to the customers who are pretty undeniably, to a considerable degree, employees but if you tax the employees they will just request more money in wages from their employers who will raise the costs to the customers due to higher overhead which will cause the employees to request more money in wages from their employers ....

pity for the unfortunate employer who cant seem to ever extort anywhere near enough all the while all the selfish bottom feeders want to steal their gots.

circular logic much?
the person who makes this argument wishes all those pesky employees were just slaves so they wouldnt have to split the profits. oh and also, no taxes, EVER.

Rant - 2011/08/01

I usually try to keep to a normal volume about hypocrisy. albeit I have no intention to ignore said hypocrisy(s). that being said I find myself fuming whenever I hear someone call for a flat tax and in the same breath say that the lowest earners would be granted exemptions from that tax burden; so 0%. So lets recap... I know I threw a lot of —or very few— big and complex —or brain dead simple— social engineering ideas out there. the flat tax that they want is applied progressively —or we could call it a progressive-flat tax. well, not to sound as stupid as flat taxers, isnt that what we have? we have a flat tax for people who make between 8,500 and 34,500; they pay a flat tax of 15%. and we have a flat tax for people who make below poverty; they pay a flat tax of 0%. and we have a flat tax for people who make 379,150 and above; they pay a flat tax of 35%.
oh, the flat taxer would say, we meant that we want to get rid of all those exemptions...
but didnt you just say that low earners would be getting an exemption? no one else merits any exemptions at all? what about the military? what about first responders? what about the people who work in less hospitable environments where as a condition of their employment they are unable to buy insurances at the rates that a normal person would pay? what about the disabled? what about the un-employable elderly?

so, thank you to all who have vomited out nonsense about flat taxes all these years. you are officially stupider than 4th grader logic.

Rant - 2011/05/03

it is often said —by assholes— that vast income disparity is not a horrible thing. the assumption is that if we all get wealthy enough that we can all rest comfortably. that is obviously NOT true. 100% of the population cannot ever live off of trust funds and dividends. that would leave 0% of the population growing food, 0% of the population making products and 0% of the population providing services.

it IS a fucking zero sum game and only part of the population can win it.

Regarding Kings and Princes

by now you have all read Common Sense by Thomas Paine. so you will likely agree with me that there is not a genuine reason to have kings, princes —or any hereditary title for that matter. so I would rather devote some time to the wants and wishes of man. those who have children are a force to be reckoned with. they have a deep love for their children. those that can put aside anything and everything they can afford to ensure a good life for their children. they sacrifice their own happiness for that of their child. they attempt to make a balance of joy during childhood for a solid quality of life after adolescence. AND they will go to hell and back before they let someone take away ANYTHING from their child's quality of life.

this is pretty easy stuff to understand. even those who do not have children will agree about those human conditions. I wont argue the wants and wishes of the parents. but I will argue the exploitation of those human conditions that give rise to the inheritant* aristocracy. the ones who align the roads of our society that benefit themselves and almost no others. passing virtually unlimited wealth down generations does not guarantee good people with good intentions will use that wealth for good. often those born into hordes of wealth are not only insulated from hardship, they will in fact not even know hardship exists. there are PR firms dedicated in preventing out-of-touch gaffes like"let them eat cake". no one likes to have their head cut off, least of all the aristocracy; its just beneath them to be executed by the rabble. but no matter how much publicity is scrubbed the fact remains that parents should keep in mind that there is too much of a good thing. the idea of insulating you children from any labor whatsoever produces a have and have-not society. furthering a split society is something that we should all condemn.

///////////////////////////Stop Reading Here, You've Been Warned//////////////////////////

I do have an idea to propose: parents bequeath a socially acceptable amount of money to their children. a tax exempt stipend for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc (but limited to family within the bequeather's* lifetime). that amount would be the median income salary of the people inheriting it but not more. and the grandchildren upon reaching the age 25 (I pick this age as it is the age at which someone can get state/federal college assistance) earlier if they join the military, have disabilities, dependents of their own etc. but all in all you cannot pass on the whole horde as a lump sum. essentially what I'm getting at is that a billionaire cannot birth another billionaire. your billions ARE passed on as a comfortable life but when that child grows and desires more wealth or desires to ensure that their great-grandchildren get that same way of life they must labor. it will be understood that if you have less money than monthly checks cover then the money runs out. but if you have even more then the money becomes part of the federal/state coffers. everyone involved gets to lead a decent life but no one gets to go berserk. clearly if we were nomads or hunter-gatherers we would not have to make these special social arrangements but ever since the earth was parceled out among the aristocrats of old we have been at each other's throats and there must be some form of acceptable equalization.

* yeah Shakespeare, I can make up words also