The Princess trapped in the Ivory Tower (lesa) wrote in r_conservatives,
The Princess trapped in the Ivory Tower

  • Mood:
I'm completely disgusted and generally I have a HIGH tolerance for people who disagree with me, as a conservative I have gotten used to it.

I got an email entitled "Bill of Wrongs" from my best friend, it's been circulating around the net since 2000. It is contributed to Mitchell Kaye, a State Representative from Georgia, according to Snopes, it was actually written by Lewis Napper in 1993. But who wrote it is neither here nor there. The point is that I found it amusing and posted it in my LJ. So you know chances are if you post anything political or politically humorous you will probably get comments either agreeing or disagreeing with what you've posted...

What disgusted me is how some liberals on my friend's list completely missed the point and found that my post was OFFENSIVE and voiced such opinions, saying that the thing I had posted made these IMPORTANT issues seem entirely too meaningless....

We, the people

This is probably the best e-mail I've seen in a long, long time. The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President one day...its all so true!

"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from t he looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people.
If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!


ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!

I had a person comment that the phrase "Liberal Bed-wetters" was typical of the type of rhetoric Republicans liked to fling around and that it was tired and old, my response was name calling came from BOTH sides of the aisle and yeah sometimes it really did get old.

I had people take it in the spirit in which it was intended.

I had people who debated the points of it, which is fine with me. Debating can be fun.

But then, the comment that really annoyed me...the one I haven't found the "grace" to respond to....

"Gotta say I found it offensive too. The reason it's amusing on one level is b/c it oversimplifies complex issues , presenting them as if only one side could possibly make any sense. FWIW, non-Christians have been victims of prejudice in the U.S. and continue to be. As to learning English, immigrants are frequently working two jobs or they're being exploited by their employers and working extremely long hours for very little pay, *and* they have families to take care of. I'm sure most immigrants would be taking English classes if they had enough hours in the day or they spent even less time w/ their own families than the long hours they're working allow them.

And "the rest of us" don't believe in the death penalty. I fail to see how committing the same morally repugnant act as the person being punished can be considered anything but making us no different from the murderer.

I don't expect everyone to share my opinions, and I have nothing against people who express opinions w/ which I disagree. I'm just going to state my own opinions as well. "

It's amusing on ONE level but she is offended. Non-Christians are the victim of PREJUDICE...okay, well so are Christians...
Article XI stated "You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!! "

Excuse me if I read this wrong, but it says that you are given the freedom to believe what you want with no fear of persecution.

Persecution: punishment or harassment usually of a severe nature on the basis of race, religion, or political opinion in one's country of origin.

Now, while I cannot argue that non-christians aren't victims of prejudice in today's society, nowhere in this was is ADVOCATED that Christians or Non-Christians be persecuted or victims of prejudice. The point of this article was to outline how society SHOULD be, not how it ACTUALLY is. What the article is saying is that don't try to TOSS the core beliefs OUT of this COUNTRY, you don't have to agree with them, but stop insisting that God be completely abolished. But yet, it's "offensive" when a fact is stated about the Christian foundation that the country was founded, try as they might, some of us will fight to not have that HISTORY erased, no matter how hard you try.

I think that if I boil it down to what really annoyed me about this comment is when she defended the immigrants. As a resident of North Carolina (as I am sure that most states deal with a similiar problem) illegal immigration is a sore topic, with the influx of people crossing the borders and flooding our country, taking jobs away from Americans because illegals will work for less money, refusing to learn english and making numerous excuses as to why they shouldn't be expected to legitimize their citizenship or have the courtesy to learn the language so they can communicate effectively. I don't like it at all when yet another person defends them like they already have TOO MUCH put on them, they shouldn't be required to learn how to speak english...then my gut response well then they can GO HOME!

But, you know, she's entitled to her opinion and I am entitled to disagree with it and get annoyed that she had to go point by point and dissect a post and ARGUE each point. The simple truth is, the post had nothing to do with her and by responding the way that she did, to me she solidified the fact that Liberals have no sense of humor.
  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 1 comment