Originally Posted on January 19th, 2008:

Since my unfortunate sick leave, while reading through the news and flipping through the channels, I’ve had one recurring thought: What a sad, sad state of affairs. People just don’t get it.

—

We have a recession on our hands, and Bush is asking for a tax cut for businesses while ignoring the blatantly obvious truth: To make money, businesses must make sales. People are not purchasing right now not because of some abstract concept of “consumer confidence,” but because they have no freakin’ money! Believe me, I’d love to purchase a new car, a 60-inch LCD TV, several new computers, a $900,000 house, a private getaway house, stocks and bonds, as well as donate to a hundred charities and sponsor a presidential candidate, but I don’t have the funds to even begin saving for the least of these. Why? Gas. Electricity. Health insurance. School. Low wages… and I’m nowhere near the poverty line.

—

People still find Hillary Clinton appealing. Nevermind the money and support she got from the healthcare industry for her silence after her universal healthcare proposal as First Lady. Nevermind supporting something then calling Barack Obama “naive” or “inexperienced” for suggest the exact same thing (thank you internet, bloggers, newspapers and video archives). Nevermind conveniently claiming Jewish roots right before an election with a large Jewish voting population (oh, PLEASE!). It’s as if her advisors check the polls every morning to see which way the wind is blowing, then brief her on it before she goes out to tell the country what it wants to hear. Not that there’s no place in government for Clinton, just not the White House.

And what about her trying to break “the highest glass ceiling?” Isn’t Obama doing the exact same thing? The first female president of the United States, the first African American president. What a way to benchmark our cultural progress as a nation–it’s a novelty, folks. What should matter is where they stand on the issues, their history, and where they intend to take our country during their time in office. Those are the only things that matter in this race.

—

People are still single-issue voters. Abortion is number one. “Forget every other evil the candidate wants to wreak upon us, if they’re Pro-Life, I’m pro-them!” Save your fight for later; think of what is good for the country right now. “But saving our children and protecting the sanctity of life is more important than any other issue.” How noble of you… and how completely useless. It’ll do no good if they’re born into slavery on a planet consumed by war and greed.

—

The idea that a military man should be in charge because it’s a time of war is obsolete indeed. On the surface, it seems to be sound logic. Now, however, is the time to move past that. We need to be less of a war country and more of a peace country. We’ve flexed our muscles and buried our enemies. What else do we need to prove? The question to ask is who would benefit from continuing to wage war. Follow the money, find the answers.

Another question we need to ask ourselves is how we do we want to be remembered? The mightiest warriors? The fiercest civilization of our era? Why not the kindest? Why not the most benevolent? It doesn’t mean we must concede to our enemies, but it does mean we need to identify who our enemies are and whether some of them live among us–and I’m not talking about the terrorists.

—

The Republican candidates are claiming their conservative credentials. Every damn one of them. But how conservative are any of them? In the past seven years we’ve seen an unprecedented expansion of government. We’ve employed a foreign policy more invasive and interloping than has ever been seen by any previous administration–and the “small-government conservatives” consistently endorse and defend it. We have religious people defending candidates who support pre-emptive war and the death penalty and denouncing homosexuals as less than human while shouting from the pulpit,”Judge not, lest ye be judged,” “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” or “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord!” and sport bumper stickers that say “No Jesus, No Peace; Know Jesus, Know Peace.” Then, after church, they head down to the gun shop to kill “God’s creations” for pleasure rather than need. What? Why do they talk of being victims of modern persecution when they’re persecutors themselves?

—

John McCain claiming that before granting tax cuts, we need to “stop the spending!” Non-Limbaugh conservatives (as ol’ Rush has quite a distaste for McCain) support this and blame so-called “liberal social programs” which account for a meager percentage of our tax dollars. McCain, meanwhile, condones cutting the budget before offering tax breaks to the elite while supporting a 100-year occupation of Iraq, which will cost untold trillions of dollars. The two simply cannot be reconciled.

—

Fox News downplaying the economic recession while conservative pundits blackball others for calling it such. Sure, when you look at the numbers, the economy looks great! The Dow Jones Industrial Average is still above 12,000 (as of now) which was unprecedented a mere decade ago (as I fondly recall the jubilation as it reached and surpassed 10,000). It’s great that the top 1% is doing well–really, it is. Unemployment is down, which is also great. But most workers still aren’t paid a livable wage and are gouged all to hell on what they do earn. The elite are thriving while the rest of us are suffering or struggling to stay afloat. That, to most people, is not the definition of economic stability, let alone economic prosperity.

—

People who think their straw-man arguments and examples actually discredit an entire ideology and the like-minded people who buy into it. Neo-Conservatives had a good run. They did. They took the House and the Senate while Clinton was in office, then held onto it until late 2006. In every instance, every possible aspect of their policy has failed, fallen flat on its face. Actual conservatism, however, may still have its merits, but what we’ve seen since Bush took office is corporatism, imperialism and corruption at its worst. As some of the GOP presidential candidates have parroted: The Republicans went to change Washington, but instead, Washington changed them. This couldn’t be more true.

—

Neo-Cons claiming to be “moderate” or that they represent “mainstream America.” This is probably the most important point I have to make in this rant. Listening to the radio one day I remember one Justice on the Supreme Court who is considered by some to be one of the more liberal members (can’t remember which one) saying he’s a staunch Conservative, and that it shows “how much the rest have moved to the right.” The fact of the matter is, unlike Limbaugh and O’Reilly claim, the modern Republican party is on the fringe, not the so-called “left.” In fact, when you look at the non-partisan site, politicalcompass.org, you can see for yourself where all the candidates rank. Notice that only two candidates are left-of-center, they are nowhere near a nomination.

That’s right, not a single leading contender on the Democratic side qualifies as a “Liberal.” Even the much-maligned, ultra-evil, liberal hippie pinko commie lesbo tree-hugging spawn of Satan herself, Hillary Clinton, is the second-most conservative of the bunch, and by a considerable amount the most conservative front-runner of the bunch. The only side that even attempts to be “moderate” is the Democratic side, and even they’re far from “Leftist.”

Now take a look at the leading GOP candidates, as indicated by the red dots. The current leader among them, Mitt Romney, is right up there in the “Authoritarian Right.” This is known in other political compasses I’ve taken as the Fascist sub-quadrant. Go ahead and click that link, I urge you to read the whole thing. Pay special attention to the “Significant Correlations” section. So much for being freedom lovers, eh?

(Chef Kevin — when I say historians will someday look back and say there were signs pointing to where we’re headed, this is the kind of thing I’m talking about.)

—

The fact that the educational system under the Bush Administration has been more about testing than about results. Shouldn’t this be the other way around? Since when did we give in and decide that we’d rather spend our time benchmarking our spiraling failure than delivering the kind of quality education that speaks for itself? What has No Child Left Behind gotten us? More tests. What have those tests shown? That we’re getting worse. Nevermind Bush’s claim that the test scores are better by “our standards” (though he admits they still pale in comparison to international standards).

Mr. Bush, that doesn’t mean teachers are able to give students a quality education. It means they’ve gotten better at preparing them for arbitrary tests. The students aren’t learning more, Mr. President. They’re just getting better at taking them.

—

And that’s that.

Finally watched this last night. In case you don’t know, this movie is about the fraud that is our health care system. It spends the first part of the movie exposing all the major health insurance companies for their illegal, unethical and, well, downright evil business practices. Then it compares our health care system to that of other countries: Canada, England, France and, of all places, Cuba (the general hospital in Havana makes St. Francis and Methodist look like third-world outhouses). In a nutshell, it basically re-confirmed what I already thought about the crooked American health insurance and drug companies.

You’ve heard the arguments against universal health care. Long waiting lists. Sub-par service. Shoddy procedures, equipment and staff. It’s odd that it all seems to come from the same sources: Republicans, Conservatives, Big Business; most of all from Pharmaceutical companies, Health Insurance companies and the people they pay to spread their propaganda (I believe they gave Bush somewhere in the ballpark of $850,000).

As the film reveals, right before our very eyes, none of it is true. The months-long waiting lists: false. Bad facilities: false. Unqualified, underpaid doctors and staff: false. Poor quality of care: false. I wish the anti-universal health care bunch would just watch the film and see the lies. If they’re smart, they’ll get the drift: if they’re lying to us about that, what else have they lied to us about? More importantly, what is the reason they’re lying?

In the UK and France, they were able to get in and out without any problems. In England, for instance, they take no money for hospital visits, and even give you cash for a cab ride home after you’re done. The prescriptions cost roughly $12–that’s for all prescriptions. Need 30 pills? Twelve dollars. Need 50 pills? Twelve dollars. Need 300? You can see where this is going. In Cuba, they showed a pharmacy that had $120 inhalers for the equivalent of 5 American cents–and at their hospitals the sign-in process took a total of five minutes. All they needed was your name and date of birth.

Why do American companies gouge their countrymen for what our supposed enemies are practically getting for free? Why is it that 16% of our GDP goes towards paying these scumbags? As Moore points out, why are we tolerating the fact that 1 percent of the people on this planet control 80 percent of its wealth? Does anybody see a problem with this? Is anyone else seeing why it’s impossible for people to get ahead? Tell that to your conservative buddies that go on about the “American Way;” Ask them how we’re supposed to “pull ourselves up by the bootstraps” when we can’t afford boots! You might want to ask slowly while accurately enunciating each word so they have more time to comprehend the metaphor in your question.

One thing I wish they’d cover in the documentary that occurred to me while watching it was how they paid for it all. Moore addressed the topic briefly while surveying health care in France. Not surprisingly, “taxes” didn’t come up as a major source of financial worry. Keeping the refrigerator stocked with fresh vegetables, however, did. Surprised?

What occurred to me was this: our national priorities are different. In the United States, we police the world. But in the civilized world, they take care of their own.

The United States has a $481 billion dollar baseline for maintaining its military. This does not include the hundreds of billions of dollars that are used to supplement its wars overseas, nor the war on terror, nor its continued military occupation of other countries, nor the DoHS, nor does it cover the billions and billions of dollars of extra money that is used to line the pockets of private weapons manufacturers. What you end up with is basically 700-800 billion dollars of money spent on the military. Compare that with the piddly 56 billion we spend on education (and, due to NCLB, waste).
The only country that comes anywhere near us is Japan–our ally–at 47 billion dollars. No threat there. France spends about $34 billion. So, France’s baseline is about 1/10th of ours. Their GDP is about a sixth of ours. Percentage-wise, their military spending is comparable. And yet, they’re still able to offer free health care to its citizens. What gives?

The answer: the companies that provide health care for profit–and thereby make money by denying you service–are literally paying politicians to pass legislation that is favorable to the health care industry, and to oppose legislation that would hurt it.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I’d say that health care and drug companies are just two branches of the few centers of power that control the world. With them are the Defense Industry, the Oil Industry, the Banking Cartel, Wall Street, the gigantic companies that own the media, among others… Quite honestly, I think it’s these bastards who rule the world, not our elected leaders or even foreign dictators and most definitely not “the people.” It’s these assholes. And I’ll bet a bazillion dollars that they’re well aware of it, too.

Originally Posted on January 11th, 2008:

My poor, poor neglected blog. There’s so much that’s happened since last time that.. well, I’m not sure where to start.

RealID. This turd has been floating in the toilet known as Washington D.C. for quite awhile now. Today, I find out that they’re trying to renew efforts to implement it.

Besides the obvious difficulties to overcome with manufacturing and distributing such a thing, getting states to comply and putting in place an infrastructure to get the RealID from the government to the citizen, there’s the ethical argument against it, which goes something like “WHY THE FUCK IS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTING LIKE NAZI GERMANY?!”

Really, folks. They’re talking about requiring one of these things to board aircraft (and possibly trains) and enter federal buildings. Next thing you know, they’ll have traffic stops with armed guards (which are already a well-practiced scam) requiring a RealID to pass through. Police are already infamous for randomly asking for identification without a reason. There’s no question about it, this is awfully reminiscent of WW2 German soldiers stopping people at checkpoints to check their “papers.”

Only, we don’t have papers. Instead, we’ll have an ID card with a sort of microchip inside. This chip will store your personal information (and will quite probably act as a gateway to all sorts of other information, like what books you read, for instance), which is easily attainable by people with what amounts to an RFID snooping device. All they need to do is stand next to you. And we thought identity theft was a problem today!

I understand the concern for protecting against terrorism. I really do. I understand that certain measures can be taken to prevent it, including standard security procedures. But also, not inflaming people’s hatred of our country with belligerent foreign policy while letting our corporations do whatever they damn well please overseas would help.

What other people need to understand is that terrorism, by its very nature, is random and unpredictable. The only way to control that which is random is to have control over everything. The Patriot Act. Gitmo. Checkpoints. Department of Homeland Security. Unauthorized wiretapping. Real ID. This is obviously what they’re trying to accomplish. To that, I say benevolence brings about better conditions that totalitarianism. We, as a nation, need to go back to fighting the good fight rather than trying to justify fighting the bad one.

Even the government itself has been transparent about being opaque. Donald Kerr, our deputy national director of intelligence, says that “Privacy is not synonymous with anonymity.” Well, Mr. Kerr, you cannot maintain freedom through control, nor can you save it by forcing protection upon it. Despotism is synonymous with tyranny.

—–

In other news, women who are planning on voting for Clinton because she’s a woman are sexist idiots.

 Originally Posted on October 10th, 2007:

“The refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. If Republicans don’t have the guts to hold the line, they deserve to lose their seats.” — Michelle Malkin, blogger, as quoted in this New York Times article.

If that were the case, the Republicans deserved to lose their seats long ago. I’m not going to comment on the article, though it illustrates modern conservatives perfectly. Instead, I’m going to talk about my beef with the above statement.

For many years, the fundamental tenet of American conservative ideology has been small government. Back when I didn’t know much about politics and happened to be a staunch conservative (two conditions which I suspect are related), the mantra had always been “less government, more freedom.” What was the source of this unchecked government expansionism? Why, it was the liberals! The liberals were there to dictate your lives, tell you what is and is not moral, tell you how you should spend your money and make you feel bad for being an American! The right to privacy; that was the conservative way. The liberals, on the other hand, were the ones who wanted to know where you were and what you were doing at all times, or so we were told. In the 1990’s it was they who wanted to police the world, not the self-proclaimed “constitutionally grounded” conservatives.

The whole conservative “movement” marched to the beat of keeping government out of our homes, out of our lives, out of our checkbooks and out of our business. Especially those damn liberals.

But then again…: Conservatives on Privacy.

It is well known how conservatives fought to let the government in our bedrooms to tell us what we can and cannot do in the most private of situations with anti-sodomy laws. (Sodomy, in case you were wondering, has been defined by the law as anything from masturbation to oral or anal sex between straight or gay couples.) This has been going on for decades.

There are more recent examples. On December 19th, 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confirmed the existence of an NSA domestic wiretapping program which did not seek to obtain the necessary warrants as required by 50 U.S.C. sect;1802 (a)(1)(A) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (consequentially, it is not surprising that they’re also not enforcing 50 U.S.C. §1809 as a result).

I’m not even going to get into the “Real ID” and the hypocrisy of conservatives who complain about the “liberal” government wanting to know everything you’re doing.

I guess that throws conservative privacy out the window. It is selective at best.

It’s only wrong when the other side does it: Conservatives on Big Government.

Less than two months after the events of 9/11/2001, President Bush signed into law the USA PATRIOT Act, which has increased the powers of the government exponentially.

Meanwhile, the only part of the act President Bush repeatedly mentions is Section 203 or Title VII, which allows for increased sharing of information between law enforcement agencies. He leaves out the parts about granting the government the authority to seize property at its discretion in times of war (Section 106), the addition of judges in Washington (Section 208), the liabilities for unauthorized intelligence disclosures (Section 223), of which many have either been leaked from the white house or other high officials, or the apparent selective suspension of habeas corpus.

How convenient.

Additionally, they’ve created the Department of Homeland Security which, according to wikipedia, is the third largest U.S. government entity. One must question how this supports the idea of small government. With what so-called conservatives have supported in the last 6 years, they have absolutely no credibility when criticizing even a perceived expansion of government, nor government spending.

We’re saving them from themselves: Conservatives on Foreign Policy.

Afghanistan is justifiable, regardless of the long history of bad foreign policy that got us to this point. Iraq, however, was based on a lie told to us by a shady Iraqi defector, yet was presented to the world as strong intelligence supporting the claim that Iraq was not only in possession of weapons of mass destruction, but had a massive program in which it was continuing to produce them. With that, we invaded a country, unprovoked, and found out that what the vast majority of the intelligence community already knew: there were no WMD’s.

After that, we tried drawing connections between Iraq and 9/11, then to international terrorism, even though Iraq was not a fundamentalist state and simply did not have terrorists or a terrorism problem prior to the U.S. invasion. Even after such a claim was thoroughly debunked and the government admitted there was no link between them, the Bush administration and conservative journalists continued to propagate the lie. Why?

So instead we poised ourselves as liberators of a country that, while having a despotic ruler, were not occupied and did not ask to be liberated. Seems any excuse will do, won’t it? I won’t spin my web of theories as to what the horribly obvious ulterior motives might be, but if this doesn’t fall into the category of “policing the world,” nothing does.

The conservative response? They’re protecting us from the terrorists. Bring that up the next time one of them criticizes liberals for “wanting the government to take care of everything for you.” The blogger quoted above says providing healthcare for children brings a sense of entitlement? What part of the conservative-inspired belligerent American nationalism and the subsequent claims such as driving a gigantic gas-guzzling SUV as your god-given right (or something similarly petty) doesn’t reek of entitlement?

—————–

I’m just incredulous. Why do people continue to fall for this? Conservatives decry liberals for being in favor of big government, yet cheer the Bush administration for creating the DoHS! We already had agencies that took care of this, namely the INS, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the DoJ and police forces, and the National Guard. How can so-called conservatives chide liberals (or anyone who disagrees with them and is therefor labeled a liberal, regardless of their actual political alignment) for creating a never-ending bureaucracy when they have done exactly that.

Conservatives consistently deride the left for wanting to police the world, yet we are now in two unprovoked wars: Afghanistan, as a result of crimes allegedly committed by Saudi Arabian nationals; and Iraq, which, with what we know now, can not be justified as anything greater than a war of opportunism and profiteering! At least in Bill Clinton’s time, we invaded foreign countries who were committing atrocious crimes against humanity. Whether you think we should have partaken or not, no one can argue the comparative altruism to the gravely mis-titled War on Terror.

Not all conservatives can be this dense. If only they would look at what they claim to believe in and compare it to what they’ve supported. Would the two correlate with each other? Not likely. Could they really all be sheep that unquestioningly support whatever the Republican party is doing? Do they listen to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly to know what to think? How is it possible that all these people–or any group, for that matter–can be unified on every single issue? When I see that all these people from all different backgrounds have the exact same opinion about every topic, it is impossible for me not to question whether any of them think at all. That goes for Democrats and so-called “free-thinking” liberals, too.

To sum it up: Conservatives, you’ve lost your credibility and moral authority. Start supporting legislation and policies that correlate with what you claim to believe in or shut up and stop making everyone dumber by spreading bullshit. Some of you may need to re-evaluate your entire political philosophy, as I had to do when faced with the eventual disillusionment that comes with discoveries of learning. This is not easy to do, and most of you won’t bother because it is easier to be told what to think instead of figuring it out yourself. For this, I pity you and mourn your independence. For those of you who do know what’s going on yet deliberately piss in the proverbial pool, congratulations; you are successfully destroying America.

———————-

I’m aware that the average person, conservative or not, really doesn’t pay much attention to politics. That doesn’t necessarily make them dumb for their views. The problem is that even though many don’t bother with politics, they still carry the power to vote, and that scares the hell out of me.

The point of this blog, in a nutshell? I’m not particularly anti-Conservative or anti-Republican. I’m anti-bullshit. Next time I’ll talk about some other bullshit that has been bothering me for ages: the lie that America is–or ever was–a Christian nation, and the exploitation of religion as a political tool. See you next time.

Originally Posted on August 22nd, 2007:

I was listening to 89.9 WCBU yesterday on my way home from work when I heard something so ridiculous I could have driven off the road: our dumbass president was mildly criticizing the Iraqi government. It wasn’t so much that he was criticizing them that got under my skin, but how he was doing it.

In the interests of being “Fair and Balanced” (sarcasm) I’ve copied the quote from foxnews.com:

“The fundamental question is, will the government respond to the demands of the people?” the president said, without mentioning al-Maliki by name. “And if the government doesn’t … respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government. That’s up to the Iraqis to make that decision, not American politicians.”

Has anyone else noticed the irony of this situation? Is President Bush really chastising the Iraqi government about not responding to the “demands of the people?” Let’s talk about your approval ratings these days, Mr. Bush. That’s not even the worst of it. Here we have the man who forced a regime change upon Iraq telling the world that it’s up to Iraqis, not American politicians, to decide for themselves whether the government needs to go.

Then we have this turd:

“The Iraqis will decide,” Bush added. “They have decided they want a constitution. They have elected members to their parliament and they will make the decisions just like democracies do.”

Yes, they wanted it so bad that we had to go in and “liberate” them, right? This, coming from a man who has done more to undermine our own Constitution than any politician since FDR.

This is about as bad as a few months ago when the Bush administration threw a fit over China increasing their defense budget 17.8%. That brings the grand total of this grave threat’s defense spending to… $45 billion. When you add all supplemental funding, that’s less than a tenth of our total military spending for 2007, or perhaps even less than that according to some estimates.

The Bush administration may be losing support, funding and officials, but they’ve definitely retained the ability to bullshit the world with a straight face.

Originally Posted on August 14th, 2007:

I was having this discussion elsewhere, and felt the need to elaborate. You don’t need to go there to find out what was said, because I’ve conveniently rehashed the issue here. The discussion has to do with whether or not English is an important subject at school. My answer: absolutely! The main argument against this is that even someone who fails English as a subject will still know it “well enough to get by” in day-to-day life. They say the English language is adaptable–that words can mean whatever you want them to mean–because when a phrase or word is used often enough, it becomes integrated into the language itself. I agree in the sense that words and expressions are an adaptable part of the English language.

However, I think the rules should be observed.

Language is easily the single most important human construct in existence. The purpose of language is to convey a message or to express an idea. Clever expressions, similes, anecdotes and parables all assist in explaining a meaning, but even with these the rules should be followed so that the meaning of the message remains intact. For when the mechanism by which we communicate is crippled, the message is compromised as well.

Language can be a barrier as much as a facilitator, even when the language is the same. Here’s how I put it in the forums:

Suppose I want to convey that I’m hungry. I would say,”hey, let’s go get something to eat.” You would understand the meaning of that. Likewise, you would understand the meaning of slang (”grab a bite”, for instance) or a humorous adaptation such as,”the track is empty. I need to rebuild the poop train.” You’d also understand a simile such as “I’m going on empty, need to refill.”

You would not, however, understand “Zeegbarper quarter goofenhorfer blung revelation,” even if I was trying to say the same thing. This is why rules for language exist and why it is important to understand and abide by them. If we lose the means by which to communicate, nothing will get done, ideas will not be shared, meanings will be lost or misinterpreted.

If we are simply able to make up the rules as we go, the purpose of language is lost. There needs to be grammatical structure, proper spelling and proper punctuation. The example sentence above has none of these, as all the words can mean whatever we want them to mean, and the sentence structure can be whatever we want it to be.

There are a number of limitations people place upon themselves when they disregard the proper use of English, be it written or spoken. Career choice is the major limitation, but speaking and writing in poor English may not have as large of an effect on this as the common response to it: indignation.

Yes, indignation is the number one response we have to the butchering of our native language. Following that is a perceived inferiority towards the offender and then, sometimes, ridicule. This is common among all cultures, including the German, the French, the Spanish, Italians, Russians, etc., not just our own.

Think of the last time you talked to a non-Americanized Chinese or Indian over the phone or in person, and the frustration and indignation you felt when you couldn’t understand them clearly. Or perhaps you mocked the person to their face or laughed about how they spoke behind their back. That’s what I’m talking about. You’ve been there. Against you, that person didn’t have a chance. It didn’t matter how smart they actually were; you either treated them as being inferior or perceived them as such. Or, on the opposite end of things, perhaps you treated them with too much care because you thought they wouldn’t be able to understand you at all.

Why?

Because of the way they spoke. Because of language. It is a prejudice we all have and there is no escaping from it. For instance:

why people dont find a darn job instead of holding up people,attacing people on the street,stellin at food stores,,get a job lazy azz people in peoria.the cop should of shot him,,one less lazy person in peoria

That was written by someone known only as “why this don’t suprise me” in response to this article on pjstar.com. I don’t know about the rest of you, but judging by what this person wrote, their grammar, punctuation and spelling, I’d say they’re a god damn idiot, wouldn’t you? Is it true? Who knows, doesn’t matter, look at the way they write!

This is why you get spelling/grammar trolls on forums and websites who would rather decry the poor spelling and shitty grammar of someone than listen to what they have to say or engage them based on the merits of their argument. The trolls aren’t any smarter. They simply know that if the person is perceived as stupid it won’t matter what they say. Honestly, how often do we genuinely listen to people we think are stupid? (Hint: the answer is “never”)

That’s my case for it.