Parody
I received the e-mail below from my source for widely-distributed, factually inaccurate, right-wing talking points. When I first read it, I was seething with anger. But given the punch-line, it MUST BE a parody. There's no way it's not. Is there? Regardless, read it, and feel free to offer your tongue-in-cheek retorts.
***
I'm voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.
I'm voting Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe three or four pointy headed elitist liberals need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that when the terrorists don't have to hide from us over there, when they come over here I don't want to have any guns in the house to fight them off with.
I'm voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.
Makes ya wonder why anyone would EVER vote Republican, now doesn't it?
***
I'm voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.
I'm voting Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe three or four pointy headed elitist liberals need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that when the terrorists don't have to hide from us over there, when they come over here I don't want to have any guns in the house to fight them off with.
I'm voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.
Makes ya wonder why anyone would EVER vote Republican, now doesn't it?
Labels: Rabid Conservatives
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 3:55 PM
32 Comments:
Sadly, I don't think it's a parody. Conservative arguments are both ridiculous *and* sincere.
*shivers*
5:14 is right.. people actually reason like that. Not many anymore, but still some.
I just wish we could give them a quick severe collective slap in the face.
In fact... I just had a great idea. What if we parodied this using similar reasoning? I'll go first:
I'm voting Republican because I believe in freedom of religion. Unless of course your religion is something other than Christianity, or no religion at all, in which case you're a terrorist.
I'm voting Republican because I believe only big corporations should get government handouts.
wow, you're on my father-in-law's email list too?
I'm voting Republican because I know that as the richest, most powerful country in the world, America has a God-given duty to use our military to instill and protect democracy in countries that are suffering at the hands of their own government. Unles, that is, said country's population is black and/or said country doesn't have an oil pipeline running through it.
I am voting Republican because I believe my daughter should marry a good MAN. Unless, that is, he happens to be black or Hispanic.
8:56 - you stole my line! Except I was going to say "cousin's" list.
I'm voting Republican because I have the IQ of my horse (that I don't want to marry).
I think it's strange and actually kind of alarming that folks are so surprised by this -- to the point of thinking it might be a second-order parody rather than the first-order parody it is plainly intended to be.
These strike me as fairly commonplace sentiments among a pretty broad swath of the US electorate. I hear most of them -- albeit more respectfully expressed -- regularly from republican friends. I think it's important for liberals and democrats to understand how they're seen by people on the other side. Persistent failure to do so may help one to believe that anyone with different views must be crazy or stupid, but it certainly won't help craft effective advocacy positions -- let alone explore the possibility of finding productive political common ground with one's adversary's.
I'm voting democrat because my father is Janet Reno.
@ibz--I don't see a way to equate same-sex marriage to bestiality that isn't offensive. How do your friends express this argument respectfully--do they say "stallion" instead of "horse"?
12:50: On the assumption that your question reflects something other than a willful misreading of my comment, let me try to answer in a serious way. While there is obviously no non-offensive way to equate homosexuality with bestiality, it should really come as no surprise to any adult who reads the newspaper that a great many Americans are very uncomfortable with gay marriage. Furthermore, although I believe (strongly) that such discomfort is misplaced and that the politics which springs from it is wrong, I equally believe that many of those people are neither evil nor incapable of thought. And I further believe (because I have frequently heard it done) that this discomfort can be expressed in a variety of ways that are, in fact, less offensive than the one appearing in the quoted material in the main post.
i think ibz's eloquent yet complicated point can be restated as: "we should understand that the other side reasons this way".
Where are the factual inaccuracies? Presenting a position in an unflattering or extreme way is par for the course.
Well, one can't rently marry a horse (currently). But you're right, 1:50--it's an attack on perceived Democratic values, not policies.
Still, I'm amused by the attempts to present corporate interests as some form of Republican populism. I don't think "business should be allowed to make profits (including oil companies)" is really a strong rallying cry.
It can work on two levels Carbolic. First, it can appeal to those who don't like to see people singled out and their assets seized.
But second, it can appeal to people who work for oil companies. "People do." Drive along Highway 4 for about 30 minutes, and you'll see that oil companies employ thousands of people in the east bay. It doesn't take much to realize that if the company you work for isn't allowed to make a profit, you might not have a job (or a raise).
And to stay with it for a few seconds, what isn't creepy about going after somebody's "windfall" profits? Why not pharmaceutical companies' "windfall" profits when a new drug is particularly effective? Why not a software company's "windfall" profits when it writes the next killer app? Why not a turbine company's literal "windfall" profits if it patents the next superior turbine design?
And from the perspective of encouraging competition and efficiency in the oil markets, why should Chevron spend money on research or on cutting costs if it knows the government will lay claim to its "windfall"?
I personally feel it's a very effective rallying cry. It's a sensible policy position grounded in common sense and fair play. I'm sure there's a basis for disagreeing, but the argument doesn't spring from the realm of lunacy.
For me, there is a huge difference between going after the windfall profits of an oil company and that of a pharmaceutical company. The oil companies can only make profits because they are not forced to internalize many costs of their business (carbon, smog, etc.). Maybe the windfall profits tax on an oil company is not the optimal way to deal with these externalities, but it is at least a way to deal with them.
obama should take the position that if oil companies have high profits, then people should put their 401Ks in oil stocks.
politicians don't produce energy. political activists don't either. markets do. we can shut down the US economy or we can turn our markets loose on energy. pelosi doesn't have a clue on this issue.
@ibz--I did not willfully misread your comment. There is a big difference between opposing gay marriage and comparing it to bestiality. I hope the latter isn't a "commonplace sentiment."
As for "windfall profits," what about "price gouging" as a more accurate term? When record prices lead to record net profits, it fits.
Still, the most egregious thing the government has done regarding oil is blocking states (e.g. CA) from requiring cars to meet higher MPG standards. The oil companies are going to try to maximize profits--as well they should--and I don't believe that they sincerely want to research alternatives to their product, any more than Marlboro sincerely wants to prevent teenagers from smoking.
No one on this thread seems to understand what a windfall is. When you make large profits from an invention you yourself made, you have not received a windfall. But, when you make large profits as a result of a fortuitious exogenous event, then you have received a windfall.
Because many Americans found the large oil price increases unforeseeable, they have concluded that the oil companies similarly did not expect such a run-up in prices and have therefore received a windfall.
Of course, whether the oil companies have actually received a windfall depends on whether the companies account for oil price volatility in their financial forecasting models. I'm inclined to think that these companies are sophisticated enough to have foreseen this possibility.
3:11 - I don't think its people on this thread who don't understand what a windfall is. It's you or the certain members of Congress who, for example, defined "'windfall profit' as the excess of taxpayer adjusted taxable income over the reasonably inflated average profit for the taxable year (average of taxpayer adjusted taxable income for 2000-2004, plus 10 percent of such average)." See http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4276&tab=summary.
That definition essentially states that whenever a company profits more than 10% above their previous four year profit average, that company has made a windfall profit. It makes no mention of fortune or exogenous events (read: those events originating outside the company). Given the relevant source of this definition, I conclude that you must be wrong.
So please don't criticize the people on this thread for not using your grandiloquent (and I presume academic) definition of windfall profit, when everyone has been using the pertinent definition all along.
Of course, whether the oil companies have actually received a windfall depends on whether the companies account for oil price volatility in their financial forecasting models.
lol.
So, a state of affairs is a "windfall" if the recipient failed to predict that the state of affairs would occur. Only idiots and the unwitting receive windfalls!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Am I the only one that loves seeing fuel prices as high as they are? While it really sucks for people that are already budget-strapped, I think it's the motivation needed to finally get off fossil fuel, quit borrowing money from country A and giving it to country B who's leader continually spouts anti-US propaganda. The economies of those countries will drop out, the oil companies everyone loves to hate (myself included) will go belly up, and car manufacturers will finally be spurred into designing cars that make sense (vs. the massive SUVs & trucks that everyone - again, myself included - drove a few years back).
Paradigm shifts need triggering events, and $4.30/gallon might just be that. Plus, Republican money will dry up without oil companies .... :)
Toney you're going to have to learn that sarcasm needs to be really obvious to work on N&B. People seem to miss it and go on rants. I myself just wrote a few paragraphs in response, but then realized it was just too easy, and the title of the thread is "parody". You're being sarcastic right?
In the meantime I'll go fantasize about a magical world where the economies of the Middle East have collapsed and those foolish middle-classers learn their lesson when the bank repossesses their house. What a glorious day it will be!
Yeah, I was mostly being sarcastic. I think there is some truth to the fact that a good chunk of the US's foreign policy problems come from energy dependence, but that aside, I don't REALLY like paying more for gas.
It doesn't bother me if people don't get my sarcasm, since I do get a little joy out of seeing undeserved rants. Plus, my biggest pet peeve is people who take themselves too seriously, so I like to try to identify who those people are in advance (even if they post under the "anonymous" moniker).
3:11 here--
I still don't think y'all understand what a windfall is. One dictionary definition is: "an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage." The metaphor behind the word is that of something literally falling from the wind (such as fruit) to the recipient. Contrast this with a large corporation which has been investing in oil exploration, production, and delivery over a long period of time and profits due to the (inevitable) fluctuations of such a price-volatile commodity.
And it's not as if current prices are due to some totally unforseeable event such as the 1973 Arab oil embargo. Rather, price increases are almost entirely explainable by increased demand that has been building for a number of years.
And 7:22--of course that is what it means for something to be a windfall! It's not a windfall if you've been planning and waiting for it. But some people would rather have it both ways and believe that oil companies (1) practically rule the world through extensive lobbying and political manuevering and (2) are simply the recipients of extraordinary luck. It's intellectual laziness.
That 1:16 can write an entire defense of oil industry "investment" without mentioning the word 'OPEC' suggests how seriously his views should be taken.
3:11 - if you purposefully stand underneath a palm tree, is it a windfall when the wind blows a coconut down?
Not if you planted that tree or paid dearly for the right to stand under it and catch its fruit.
I'm voting democrat because I'd pay dearly for fruit to fall on my lap.
Everything about the Republican party today is, as they say on the internet, "lol fail".
If you are a Barry Goldwater style conservative, or a decentralist, you basically don't actually have a party anymore.
That's probably a response to the "I'm Voting Republican" video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU
Post a Comment
<< Home