Jump to content

[LSDailyNews] Abortion and religion, thoughts by Edward Ulf, Senator Lu and GOP's Jonathan Spencer


Recommended Posts

LSDN%20Top.png

 

ads.png

NEWS • Politics

Written by Yunisa DELGADO-FLORES • May 19th, 2022 9:35AM

Abortion and religion, thoughts by Edward Ulf, Senator Lu and GOP's Jonathan Spencer

 

The debate surrounding abortion in the state of San Andreas rages strong. Democrat Senator Jackie Lu, SAGOP Chairman Jonathan Spencer and former senator Edward Ulf shares their thoughts about religion, while Spencer and Lu gives details as to their plans for future legislation.

 

 

e6fvnfq.png

Edward Ulf (left), Senator Jackie Lu, (middle) and SAGOP Chairman Jonathan Spencer (right)

- courtesy of Edward Ulf, the office of Jackie Lu, and Jonathan Spencer respectively.

 

 

Edward Ulf, back in late 2021, proposed a bill dubbed the Woman's Health Act of 2021. The act served as a piece of legislation that aimed to protect women's access to abortion clinics; enshrining the Roe vs. Wade ruling into law.

 

Roe vs. Wade is a US Supreme Court case which ruling still is felt to this day. The ruling deemed state legislation that forbade abortion without regard to a fetus’ development, a woman’s health or to be unconstitutional. This, in addition to a ruling made in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey which strengthened the case, meant states cannot give a blanket ban abortion nor make legislature or institutional policies to create any 'undue burden' for women who wish to carry out an abortion.

 

However, due to a leaked opinion draft which shown that the majority of Justices intend to reverse it, many worry for its future.

 

The Women’s Health Act of 2021, if passed, would have locked the Roe vs. Wade ruling into the San Andreas legislature. Since the act did not pass, there is no legislation currently within San Andreas that either protects or, if Roe vs. Wade were to be overturned, restricts abortion.

 

The bill failed to reach the floor. Senator Adrian Rossi, majority leader of the Senate (R), reported that the reason for this was due to the existing ruling still withstanding.

 

“The Women's Health Act of 2021 did technically fail though it wasn't voted on the floor.”, Sen. Rossi shared in a previous written statement to the Daily News. “This is because the case-law of Roe vs. Wade exists, and that was simply a restatement. Therefore, other bills were given priority as there were many important pieces that we focused on.”

 

Edward Ulf however alleges that the reason for the bill’s failure was due to alleged negligence from a state attorney, as well as alleging due to his fellow senators neglecting to remember.

 

“It was ignored and put away on the shelf despite it getting voted out of the committee and into the floor but stopped there because the state attorney ‘wanted to review’ it.” Edward Ulf told the Los Santos Daily News. “She did. Did not tell anyone about it. Then when attempts [were] taken to get it voted on, it was again shelved because ‘nobody remembers that it was voted to the floor’.”

 

The Daily News has reached out to the office of the State Attorney for a comment on May the 16th.

 

ADDED 05/22/22 10:15PM by Chief Editor Yunisa Delgado-Flores

The State Attorney's office issued a response to Edward Ulf the following week to this article being published. The response denied the claims that the bill was left indefinitely in review.

 

"In regards to the Women's Health Act of 2021, the bill was merely put on hold for 24 hours to be reviewed by the State Attorney's Office, which consisted of my staff reviewing it to ensure it had all it needed to continue. It was released back to the committee to continue onto the Senate floor with full knowledge of both the Democratic and Republican parties, and their respective leadership."

 

The State Attorney's office further distanced itself from Ulf's claims, saying that his allegations are "complete hearsay".

 

"If Senator Ulf wished for the Women's Health Act of 2021 to be taken back onto the State Senate floor, he should've brought it back up on behalf of his constituents." 

 

 

ads.png

Senators and leaders from both parties have announced an intent to submit legislature surrounding abortion, however the contents of either drafts remain unknown. In a prior statement from SAGOP Chairman Jonathan Spencer to the Daily News, he stated that he and his party will submit a bill that includes ‘bipartisan points’ and says they are “seeking to make it as fair as possible to men and women across San Andreas”

 

“I'm unable to comment on it at the moment due it being unfinished currently, and would prefer to comment on it in its fullness at a later date once it's complete. However, I would like to make clear we are indeed including bipartisan points in our draft and are seeking to make it as fair as possible to men and women across San Andreas.”

 

Sen. Rossi, when asked about the SAGOP's plans for future bills in a previously written statement, noted how the SAGOP's legislation for abortion would only be submitted if Roe vs. Wade were to be reversed.

 

"To further answer your question, the GOP does plan to submit a bill regarding abortion should the Court overturn Roe v. Wade."

 

 

In an interview with Senator Jackie Lu (D), when asked if there are any plans for any bills to be introduced surrounding abortion, she stated that she “intends to do something about it.”

 

“Women should assert their rightful place in society.”, wrote Sen. Jackie Lu. “And I have not and will not forget about them; We will not be denied the authority to make choices about our own bodies. I will not stop working until everyone, and I mean everyone, regardless of poverty, zip code, or race, has access to safe, legal, and accessible abortions.

 

 

“If [women] are not prepared. How can you maintain a child if you are still in education with over more than $50,000's in student debt? The correct response is no; you cannot.”

 

 

When reached out for a comment regarding what he believes the senate should do in regards to abortion legislature, Edward Ulf was highly critical of the current make-up.

 

"I suggest they, both sides, actually bothers to talk to the people they are supposed to represent instead of going to bars, clubs, yachts or hang out in their Mansions in Vinewood." Ulf wrote in their statement to the Daily News. "I suggest they worry less about the stakeholders and what people will think about them and work towards a better future for the entire state."

 

Edward Ulf currently serves as the CEO for a local web-hosting company named Dot IT Hosting. Dot IT Hosting’s and Ulf's stance on the topic of abortion was shared through a public post on its Facebrowser page on May the 5th, two days after the leak.

 

 

image.png.8d600761910e98ecc996c8d19adee917.png

A screengrab of the post by Dot IT Hosting and Edward Ulf from Dot IT's Facebrowser page, May the 19th 2022

 

One of the core issues surrounding abortion is the religious ramifications where differing religious views - both within Christianity, between religions, and between theists and atheists - debate at what point a fetus is considered to have life, and whether or not abortion is equal to the act of killing.

 

 

SAGOP Chairman Spencer equates abortion to “murder”, citing the federal legislature Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and explains how his religious beliefs has shaped this opinion.

 

"Even though the victim is yet to be born, it is unethical to kill an innocent human being. Unborn babies are considered human beings by the US government." Spencer detailed how exactly the Unborn Victims of Violence Act operates. "Under federal law, anyone intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child should 'be punished... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being', according to the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was enacted 'to protect unborn children from assault and murder.' The act also states that an unborn child is a 'member of the species homo sapiens.' Multiple states have passed similar fetal homicide laws."

 

In accordance of Roe vs. Wade, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act specifically excludes abortion. It notes that the legislature cannot be used to prosecute either the woman undergoing the procedure or the medical practicioner performing it.

 

Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children  

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—

(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

ads.png

 

Spencer’s argument for abortion equaling murder also derives from a biblical standpoint, where he notes how the language used in the bible doesn’t distinguish between a fetus and an infant.

 

 

“The killing of a human being contradicts God's word; the Bible does not distinguish between fetuses and babies, using the Greek word brephos to refer to both an unborn child and an infant. God recognizes a newborn by the time he or she is conceived, as Jeremiah 1:5 demonstrates: ‘Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee.’” Spencer explained to the Daily News in a written statement last week.

 

 

“The Sixth Commandment of the Bible’s Old Testament, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ (Exodus 20:13), applies to all human beings, including unborn babies.”

 

Democrat Sen. Jackie Lu however, a fellow Christian, holds a different perspective. They believe that God would be understanding as to the reasons a woman would want and need to get an abortion.

 

“I am a religious person, but I am confident that God understands why we think this is a good idea” Lu shares. “Having children is a life-altering decision, not a simple choice. And when you can't even say anything about it, the situation gets quite nightmare-like. It will make your life 10 times more difficult, so I think it's a fantastic idea for women to be able to remove it.

 

"I believe that rituals and customs contribute to local culture and are an integral part of who we are, but we must abandon those that are obstructive and demeaning."

 

 

rke5O3k.png

Pillbox Medical Center, Alan Kim. May the 15th 2022

 

Former Senator Edward Ulf stands with an atheistic viewpoint, where he dismisses the notion that religion should be regarded in abortion legislature.

 

“Personally? I follow the consensus of the scientific community, when there is a heartbeat.”, Edward Ulf shared when questioned about what point he believes a fetus has life.

 

In an ultrasound, a heartbeat can be discovered as early as five and a half weeks after gestation, but is usually found six and a half to seven weeks in.

 

He ended with “I do not believe religion should have any say in this.”

 

 

Sen. Rossi’s resolution to condemn the US Supreme Court leaker, Resolution 28, is set to take the floor towards the end of this week.

 


 

Editor's Note: 22/05/2022. 10:15pm

 

At the time of this article being released, the state's attorney's office was unable to provide a comment regarding allegations of negligence from Edward Ulf. This evening, at 6:00:AM, the state's attorney's office issued the following response.

 

 

 

  The State Attorney's Office 

In regards to the Women's Health Act of 2021, the bill was merely put on hold for 24 hours to be reviewed by the State Attorney's Office, which consisted of my staff reviewing it to ensure it had all it needed to continue. It was released back to the committee to continue onto the Senate floor with full knowledge of both the Democratic and Republican parties, and their respective leadership.  What former Senator Ulf has stated is complete hearsay, and shouldn't be considered as valid. If Senator Ulf wished for the Women's Health Act of 2021 to be taken back onto the State Senate floor, he should've brought it back up on behalf of his constituents. 

 

The article has been amended to include these comments, read as the following:

 

 

 

  The Daily News' edit, 10:15PM

The State Attorney's office issued a response to Edward Ulf the following week to this article being published. The response denied the claims that the bill was left indefinitely in review.

 

"In regards to the Women's Health Act of 2021, the bill was merely put on hold for 24 hours to be reviewed by the State Attorney's Office, which consisted of my staff reviewing it to ensure it had all it needed to continue. It was released back to the committee to continue onto the Senate floor with full knowledge of both the Democratic and Republican parties, and their respective leadership."

 

The State Attorney's office further distanced itself from Ulf's claims, saying that his allegations are "complete hearsay".

 

"If Senator Ulf wished for the Women's Health Act of 2021 to be taken back onto the State Senate floor, he should've brought it back up on behalf of his constituents." 

 

 


Comments are enabled:

 

Username:

Comment:

 


ads.png

 

uPNOUtG.png

((monster is the GOAT))

 

 

Edited by Los Santos Daily News
  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, H04X said:

Username: GreekGodxx

Comment: what the fuck is an edward ulf? isnt he a vikings support character?


 

Username: OverlordActualx33

Comment: This guy Ulf talks about how politicians hide in mansions yet poured money into purchasing vehicles for himself. Gotta love it when they try to act like they care. He just wants women to purchase services from DotIT. It’s obviously why he made a post on Facebrowser from his company page. He acts like a raging liberal but then takes a Republican standpoint. Hilarious!!

Link to comment
  • Los Santos Daily News changed the title to [LSDailyNews] Abortion and religion, thoughts by Edward Ulf, Senator Lu and GOP's Jonathan Spencer

Username: Raptors_MMXIX

Comment:  A more balanced article.  LSDN starting to do justice to their quote of Dan Rather.  Good job.


As to the substance, in Congress the other day, 192 House GOP lawmakers voted against an emergency appropriations bill to give the FDA (and related health agencies) $28 million to tackle the nationwide baby formula shortage.  192 voted against the government's response to that crisis.  What happened to advocating for the life of every baby?  It seems now that, in the GOP's eyes, advocacy for the babies begins and ends in the womb!

 

What they voted against was a one-page supplementary appropriations bill.  You can read the text of that bill here: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr7790/BILLS-117hr7790eh.xml.  You can read its history here (note the "Amendments (0)" tab): https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7790?r=9&s=1.  Note that it contained no modifications; unlike Trump's 479-page tax bill, which contained numerous handwritten modifications in the margin that were barely legible (in some places, not legible at all).

 

Would the GOP care to indulge us in explaining where the problems with this bill are?  The GOP is evidently not interested in using every resource available to address this crisis.  They either want it to drag on so they can weaponize it for political aims, or they want to avoid spending any money on it to protect donors' economic interests.  Politicking by the GOP at its worst; no integrity and little done in the public interest.

 

Above all, they have not shared a comprehensive proposal to address the crisis.  Were they planning to cite another bible verse to get through this crisis, or will they instead offer thoughts and prayers to malnourished babies and their alarmed mothers? 

Link to comment

Editor's Note: 22/05/2022. 10:15pm

 

At the time of this article being released, the state's attorney's office was unable to provide a comment regarding allegations of negligence from Edward Ulf. This evening, at 6:00:AM, the state's attorney's office issued the following response.

 

 

 

  The State Attorney's Office 

In regards to the Women's Health Act of 2021, the bill was merely put on hold for 24 hours to be reviewed by the State Attorney's Office, which consisted of my staff reviewing it to ensure it had all it needed to continue. It was released back to the committee to continue onto the Senate floor with full knowledge of both the Democratic and Republican parties, and their respective leadership.  What former Senator Ulf has stated is complete hearsay, and shouldn't be considered as valid. If Senator Ulf wished for the Women's Health Act of 2021 to be taken back onto the State Senate floor, he should've brought it back up on behalf of his constituents. 

 

The article has been amended to include these comments, read as the following:

 

 

 

  The Daily News' edit, 10:15PM

The State Attorney's office issued a response to Edward Ulf the following week to this article being published. The response denied the claims that the bill was left indefinitely in review.

 

"In regards to the Women's Health Act of 2021, the bill was merely put on hold for 24 hours to be reviewed by the State Attorney's Office, which consisted of my staff reviewing it to ensure it had all it needed to continue. It was released back to the committee to continue onto the Senate floor with full knowledge of both the Democratic and Republican parties, and their respective leadership."

 

The State Attorney's office further distanced itself from Ulf's claims, saying that his allegations are "complete hearsay".

 

"If Senator Ulf wished for the Women's Health Act of 2021 to be taken back onto the State Senate floor, he should've brought it back up on behalf of his constituents." 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 5/20/2022 at 8:40 AM, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

Username: Raptors_MMXIX

Comment:  A more balanced article.  LSDN starting to do justice to their quote of Dan Rather.  Good job.


As to the substance, in Congress the other day, 192 House GOP lawmakers voted against an emergency appropriations bill to give the FDA (and related health agencies) $28 million to tackle the nationwide baby formula shortage.  192 voted against the government's response to that crisis.  What happened to advocating for the life of every baby?  It seems now that, in the GOP's eyes, advocacy for the babies begins and ends in the womb!

 

What they voted against was a one-page supplementary appropriations bill.  You can read the text of that bill here: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr7790/BILLS-117hr7790eh.xml.  You can read its history here (note the "Amendments (0)" tab): https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7790?r=9&s=1.  Note that it contained no modifications; unlike Trump's 479-page tax bill, which contained numerous handwritten modifications in the margin that were barely legible (in some places, not legible at all).

 

Would the GOP care to indulge us in explaining where the problems with this bill are?  The GOP is evidently not interested in using every resource available to address this crisis.  They either want it to drag on so they can weaponize it for political aims, or they want to avoid spending any money on it to protect donors' economic interests.  Politicking by the GOP at its worst; no integrity and little done in the public interest.

 

Above all, they have not shared a comprehensive proposal to address the crisis.  Were they planning to cite another bible verse to get through this crisis, or will they instead offer thoughts and prayers to malnourished babies and their alarmed mothers? 

Username: Quandale Dingle
Comment: 

 

I’ll admit I’m a rank amateur at analyzing and interpreting current events. Even so, I do know that politicians who talk about the baby formula shortage, talk out of both sides of their mouth. For complete details, I refer you to my forthcoming article on the subject. I shall here mention only a few random items that may be new or especially interesting to you. For instance, by indiscriminately assigning value to practically everything, the baby formula shortage has made experience all-important. Its experiences, however, are detached from any consideration of what is good or true, which means that they will almost certainly consign tens of thousands of people to early death by the end of the decade. There can be no doubt that in order to solve the big problems with the baby formula shortage we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must notify the populace at large that there’s one pudibund publisher of hate literature I know (more on him later) who thinks that those who do not conform to the baby formula shortage’s demands should be ignored, silenced, or vilified. Of course, that’s not as bad as the sententious, shiftless lunatic I ran into yesterday (more on him later as well) who was completely unable to comprehend that if you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will unmistakably find that whenever the baby formula shortage announces that we can stop revisionism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for moonstruck, self-righteous pickpockets, its partisans applaud on cue and the accolades are long and ostentatious. What’s funny is that they don’t provide similar feedback whenever I tell them that the baby formula shortage had promised us liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, it gave us phallocentrism, caciquism, and immoralism. I suppose we should have seen that coming, especially since the baby formula shortage says it’s going to lay waste to the environment as soon as our backs are turned. Good old the baby formula shortage. It just loves to open its mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how antisocial they sound.

 

If the baby formula shortage ever claims that representative government is an outmoded system that should be replaced by a system of overt statism, we must answer only one thing: No, the reverse is true. It has been said that its success comes from its prowess at marketing its obtrusive reinterpretations of historic events to an impressionable but not particularly discerning public. That makes sense to me. I believe it’s true. But it really implies that the most dangerous form of propaganda is that which does not appear to be propaganda. It is that form at which the baby formula shortage excels. For example, the baby formula shortage has long been trying to convince us that there’s nothing wrong with its stabbing us in the back.

 

In many ways, the baby formula shortage is guilty of selective moral outrage. By that, I mean that it picks and chooses what it’s going to be outraged about, then turns around and does the exact same thing to someone else. If you think that that’s corrupt then consider that an impressive segment of the population shares my anxieties about the baby formula shortage’s uncongenial philosophies yet remains ostensibly tranquil. To these patient but determined individuals I say that we don’t merely have a the baby formula shortage problem. We have a the baby formula shortage crisis. That said, I’ve heard tell of the baby formula shortage planning on blighting our contentment in the immediate years ahead. I can’t say whether that rumor is true or not. I’m just giving you the facts so you can decide for yourself. In any case, university professors in increasing numbers are shamelessly turning their podiums into pulpits, abandoning the search for objective truth and setting about the task of indoctrinating their students with hypocritical ideas such as that students should be molded into change agents to promote the baby formula shortage’s unruly agenda. I believe you know who’s behind all that nonsense: the baby formula shortage. Because the baby formula shortage is so caught up in trying to sensationalize all of the issues, I’d like to conclude this letter by quoting to it the last line of R. M. Rilke’s poem, Archaic Torso of Apollo: You must change your life.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, NexusExodus said:

Username: Quandale Dingle
Comment: 

 

I’ll admit I’m a rank amateur at analyzing and interpreting current events. Even so, I do know that politicians who talk about the baby formula shortage, talk out of both sides of their mouth. For complete details, I refer you to my forthcoming article on the subject. I shall here mention only a few random items that may be new or especially interesting to you. For instance, by indiscriminately assigning value to practically everything, the baby formula shortage has made experience all-important. Its experiences, however, are detached from any consideration of what is good or true, which means that they will almost certainly consign tens of thousands of people to early death by the end of the decade. There can be no doubt that in order to solve the big problems with the baby formula shortage we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must notify the populace at large that there’s one pudibund publisher of hate literature I know (more on him later) who thinks that those who do not conform to the baby formula shortage’s demands should be ignored, silenced, or vilified. Of course, that’s not as bad as the sententious, shiftless lunatic I ran into yesterday (more on him later as well) who was completely unable to comprehend that if you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will unmistakably find that whenever the baby formula shortage announces that we can stop revisionism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for moonstruck, self-righteous pickpockets, its partisans applaud on cue and the accolades are long and ostentatious. What’s funny is that they don’t provide similar feedback whenever I tell them that the baby formula shortage had promised us liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, it gave us phallocentrism, caciquism, and immoralism. I suppose we should have seen that coming, especially since the baby formula shortage says it’s going to lay waste to the environment as soon as our backs are turned. Good old the baby formula shortage. It just loves to open its mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how antisocial they sound.

 

If the baby formula shortage ever claims that representative government is an outmoded system that should be replaced by a system of overt statism, we must answer only one thing: No, the reverse is true. It has been said that its success comes from its prowess at marketing its obtrusive reinterpretations of historic events to an impressionable but not particularly discerning public. That makes sense to me. I believe it’s true. But it really implies that the most dangerous form of propaganda is that which does not appear to be propaganda. It is that form at which the baby formula shortage excels. For example, the baby formula shortage has long been trying to convince us that there’s nothing wrong with its stabbing us in the back.

 

In many ways, the baby formula shortage is guilty of selective moral outrage. By that, I mean that it picks and chooses what it’s going to be outraged about, then turns around and does the exact same thing to someone else. If you think that that’s corrupt then consider that an impressive segment of the population shares my anxieties about the baby formula shortage’s uncongenial philosophies yet remains ostensibly tranquil. To these patient but determined individuals I say that we don’t merely have a the baby formula shortage problem. We have a the baby formula shortage crisis. That said, I’ve heard tell of the baby formula shortage planning on blighting our contentment in the immediate years ahead. I can’t say whether that rumor is true or not. I’m just giving you the facts so you can decide for yourself. In any case, university professors in increasing numbers are shamelessly turning their podiums into pulpits, abandoning the search for objective truth and setting about the task of indoctrinating their students with hypocritical ideas such as that students should be molded into change agents to promote the baby formula shortage’s unruly agenda. I believe you know who’s behind all that nonsense: the baby formula shortage. Because the baby formula shortage is so caught up in trying to sensationalize all of the issues, I’d like to conclude this letter by quoting to it the last line of R. M. Rilke’s poem, Archaic Torso of Apollo: You must change your life.

Username: Raptors_MMXIX

Comment:  tl;dr but I'm happy for you or sorry that happened, bro 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

Username: Raptors_MMXIX

Comment:  tl;dr but I'm happy for you or sorry that happened, bro 

Username: Quandale Dingle

Comment:

Those who suspect that Democrats may be planning on pulling the levers of favoritism and oiling the gears of paternalism would be well-advised not to read this letter. They may discover that they are right. The first thing I want to bring up is that we ought to ponder the lessons and examples of the 19th century’s abolitionist movement. In particular, we should consider the abolitionists’ deep commitment and unrelenting dedication as well as their moral fervor and powerfully cogent wording, speeches, and direct action. I propose we expand upon those and make the associated lessons and guidelines usable in today’s world, emphasizing that Democrats has no shame. Never had it, never will. If I am correct that Democrats’s gibes will cause more harm than good, then it does not merely promote the sort of behavior that would have made the folks in Sodom and Gomorrah blush. It does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. Once, just once, I’d like to see its toadies transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence. But until they do that (if they ever do that), we must realize that the first thing we need to do is to get it to admit that it has a problem. Democrats should be counseled to recite the following:

 

I, Democrats, am an unflappably huffy self-proclaimed arbiter of taste and standard.

 

I have been a participant in a giant scheme to make people weak and dependent.

 

 

I hereby admit my addiction to phallocentrism. I ask for the strength and wisdom to fight this addiction.

 

 

Once Democrats realizes that it has a problem, maybe then it’ll see that its opinion is that clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that I’ve known some buffoons who were impressively improvident. However, Democrats is insufferable and that trumps improvident every time.

Efforts to create a hostile environment are not vestiges of a former era. They are the beginnings of a phenomenon which, if permitted to expand unchecked, will prop up corrupt despots around the world. How I pity Democrats if I were to be its judge. I would start by notifying the jury that by organizing a whispering campaign against me, Democrats has erected a monument to warlordism. Only it does not seem proper to say that such a thing has been created.  Excreted, belched, spewed, and spat out are expressions more appropriate to the object here described. You see, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, don’t believe that Democrats can scare us by using big words like counterexpostulation. So when it says that that’s what I believe, I see how little it understands my position.

Although Democrats bristles at my accusations that it is dragging men out of their beds in the dead of night and castrating them, it cannot deny that its desire to move increasingly toward the establishment of a totalitarian Earth is the chief sign that it’s a delirious swaggerer. (The second sign is that Democrats feels obliged to disintegrate all political and social institutions that navigate a safe path between the Scylla of Democrats’s uncouth, homophobic soliloquies and the Charybdis of nihilism.) While it’s true that Democrats’s warped, evil teachings are lunacy unlimited, it has yet to acknowledge that fact. I had a conversation recently with some unethical yutzes who were trying to show a clear lack of respect not just for those brave souls who fought and died for what they believed in but also for you, the readers of this letter. That conversation convinced me that serving in Democrats’s camarilla is nothing short of nirvana for juvenile, feebleminded radicals—no disagreements, no arguments, no reasoning, no thinking, no responsibility. Democrats tells them what to do, and they do it. They never even consider that Democrats’s ability to capitalize on the economic chaos, racial tensions, and social discontent of the current historical moment can be explained in large part by the following. Unless we do something now, Democrats will line its pockets with ill-gotten money by the end of the decade. We will be, to put it mildly, in a world of trouble. I therefore propose we maintain social tranquillity. This will not be easy, and progress will not be instantaneous. Still, I am committed to getting it right, and that’s why I’m telling you that Democrats’s most steadfast claim is that its modes of thought surpass most intellectual discourse in terms of the cogency of what they promote and the morality of their implications. Last I checked, the reality was that those who have most injured and oppressed humanity, that have most deeply sinned against it, are, according to Democrats’s standards and conscience, good people. Apparently, bad people are those who have noticed that I myself am tired. I am tired of hearing that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that Democrats can dole out or retract. I am tired of Democrats taking what few remaining kernels of traditionalist thought remain and eviscerating them with the convoluted hogwash of Fabianism, tammanyism, and recidivism. I am tired of all the overt Zendicism in Democrats’s garrulous, sanctimonious ruminations. But I am not too tired to stop declaring a truce with Democrats and commencing a dialogue. I hope and pray for success in that endeavor. Without decisive action, though, hope and prayer will not deliver us. We must therefore fight to the end for our ideas and ideals. Without going into all the details of how that can be accomplished, let me say simply that Democrats talks a lot about plagiarism and how wonderful it is. However, it’s never actually defined what it means. How can it argue for something it’s never defined? To help answer that question I will offer a single anecdote. A few weeks ago, I overheard some featherbrained pest tell everyone who passed by that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. Astounded, I asked this person if he realized that outrage pounded in my temples when I first realized that Democrats wants to do away with intellectual honesty. Not only was his answer no, but it was also news to him that Democrats doesn’t want us to build a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance. It wants us to behave like sheep, not showing any inclination to saunter off in a direction other than that in which the shepherd (Democrats) wants us to go. Democrats intends to keep us sheep blissfully ignorant of the fact that in this world, there are amateurish noddies. There are stupid bourgeoisie. There are rats who walk like men. And then there is Democrats. Of those, I think that Democrats is the most sanguinolent because it will probably never understand why it scares me so much. And Democrats does scare me: its doctrines are scary, its memoranda are scary, and most of all, many people are looking for a modern-day Moses who will split the sea of parochialism and free Democrats’s mind from the constricting trammels of entryism and the counterfeit moral inhibitions that have replaced true morality. I can’t claim that I’m the right person for the job, but I can say that if Democrats’s publicity stunts weren’t so absurd, they’d be tragic. Now that this letter has come to an end, let me remind you that it was intended to provide an accurate, even-handed, and balanced discussion of Democrats and its misdeeds. Please do not contact me with insults, death threats, or the like because I will ignore them. If you disagree with my arguments or can provide further information about Democrats, please contact me and I will endeavor to make any necessary corrections to this post.

Edited by NexusExodus
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...