(Vanity) Liberal Family Member's Response to "Bill of No Rights"

Some of you may have seen the "Bill of No Rights" that has been floating around online for awhile; in fact, there was a Free Republic post regarding it here. Well, my wife sent a copy of it to her sister -- a hardcore liberal -- and we got her response over the weekend. Immediately upon reading it, my wife and I both thought that many of you fellow Freepers would find her response interesting and entertaining. I was rather amused by some of her comments (I've learned to expect her inflammatory remarks about President Bush, for example), I yawned over some of her statements (there go those liberal talking points again), and got riled up a bit at some of the things she said.

I thought that, perhaps, some of you might want to dissect and rebut some of the things she said. She threw out a lot of "facts and figures", some/many of which I am sure are inaccurate, skewed, out-of-context, etc. I know that I could probably, given time, come up with counterpoints to some of her vitriol/misinformation, but I figured that many of you would have some responses right off the top of your head.

Oh, by the way, just for a little context, my sister-in-law is late 20's, English degree, works for a large publisher, is married to a Frenchman who is a teacher at an elite private elementary school, no kids of their own (well, one foster child for the past couple of years). Here it is...

****************************************
There are some parts I agree with, articles I, II, and III are good examples. On the whole though, the attitude and posture of the email is self-righteous, intolerant, and arrogant. It is a rant, and these kinds of "declarations" about how you should be, or more importantly how you must think or act (if you want to live and prosper in America) is a good example of why we're probably the most hated country in the word, (by everyone except ourselves of course, who think we're the best country in the world naturally).

That's who America is these days, quite frankly, and it's embarrassing. Haven't you ever seen that kid on the playground that no one wants to play with? No one likes that kid, but she thinks she is sooooooooooo cool in her jeans with her Bedazzled sweatshirt and that everyone wants to be like her. Some kids play with that kid because they want some of her candy. Some other kids play with her because their teachers or parents make them...but still, no one wants to or likes. That's how I see America these days. If you don't like America---get out! That's a great attitude, and very mature, but what about people who love America, despite its flaws, and don't want to leave, they want to improve it. Why can't they be heard?

If you don't like it, leave.... that sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me, and not the democracy we're so proud of ourselves for spreading around the world, even in places where they didn't ask for it and don't want it. Not forgetting of course, that there are places who want intercession and need help, and are asking for democracy as in many countries in Africa, but are being ignored and left to the mercy of the genocidal tyrants who run rough shod over anyone who gets in the way. I can't think of why we aren't doing something there, especially because we all just had to apologize to the world for letting the same thing happen in Bosnia, but it I had to guess, I'd say its because there isn't enough oil running beneath all that blood.

Besides all that, I don't really see what's new or fresh or exciting about this email. It's some man's same-old-spiel about how he's "sick of it." If you haven't known for some time that a lot of people in this country are stupid compounded either with an amazing amount of laziness or a ridiculously inflated sense of self-entitlement, then chances are you are one of them, or you've had your head stuck in the sand since you were 21 and old enough to listen to NPR or read the newspaper.

I also don't think a guy like this would get very far running for president. People who speak with such polarizing sentiments don't generally do well in national politics, and people who are overly adamant about pretty much anything end up on the sidelines with people talking about "that noise he made at the last rally." Even Bush can keep the stupid out of his speeches (if someone else is writing them for him). Probably no one would know he's actually a baboon if he didn't have to speak off the cuff, giving 1 press conference a year, so that the White House press corps can be certain he isn't actually a very large rubber puppet. That is a little partisan, I realize, but I must admit to being extremely embarrassed by our president. As an English major, and editor, or maybe just an intelligent person, I'm mortified to have such an inarticulate, easily confused, and monkey-like in appearance man representing myself, my family and my country to the rest of the world. But, I digress again.

I also take exception with the assertion that "Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need." That is the kind of statement that somebody makes because that's what they think. It's not actually true: For example, the United States provided about $51 per citizen in official development assistance in 2002-03. That ranks it in 16th place among other major donors, behind Norway ($381 per citizen), the Netherlands ($203 per citizen), France ($96 per citizen), and the United Kingdom ($89 per citizen), among others. When aid is measured as a share of national income, the United States ranks dead last at 0.15 percent. Top givers include Norway (0.92), Denmark (0.84), Belgium (0.60), and Germany (0.28).... Private charitable donations per American total $58 per year-or about 0.16 percent of U.S. income-ranking the United States second among major donors in private giving (the first is Ireland at 0.22 percent)...Even with this broader measure (and using the larger estimate of U.S. private assistance without making a similar adjustment for other countries), the United States ranks, at best, 15th among the top donors.

We seem to be the first to pat ourselves on the back, and the last to take any responsibility. Global warming is a fairy tale, but creationism is a viable theory for the origins of the earth that ought to be taught as an alternative to evolution? I don't think that people are uncomfortable with God. Most people believe in him in some form, or they don't, so they aren't uncomfortable...they are pissed off. Because we have a constitution that in its very first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Religion and "God" aren't the same thing. People however don't want their tax dollars going to faith-based organizations when they don't subscribe to that faith, and people certainly don't want one man and his ideological beliefs to legislate their rights over their property and their bodies. Why do churches get tax breaks? Isn't that "an establishment of religion" being respected and endorsed by the government? The 10 Commandments outside of courthouses (just the fact that it is happening in the South ought to be an indication of the temerity of that endeavor). Only 2 of the 10 commandments are even laws! What's the point if not to tie government up with religion? That is what people don't like, not "In God We Trust" on our national currency. Conservative Christians always pull the Founding Fathers right out of their asses and start talking about how they never meant for religion to be absent from government and how they founded this country on religious ideals and freedoms (all the while conveniently not commenting on the fact that most owned slaves and considered black people literally less than human--3/5 of a man). Regardless, that's just not true. People who came to this country were not seeking religious freedom, they were seeking to practice their religion freely and only their religion, and those who held different beliefs were ostracized and killed.

Later came the Founding Fathers, Jefferson, Washington, Paine, etc., and they recognized the brutality and horrors of allowing religion and government to mix too closely. Contrary to what a lot of people believe, not all the Founding Fathers were religious men, and even those who were, recognized the flaws in organized religion and were not silent about their concerns and conclusions:

“I have examined all the known superstitions of the Word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world. The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.” Thomas Jefferson

“...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.” George Washington, to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

“The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.” Thomas Jefferson

“Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins... and you will have sins in abundance. I would not dare to dishonor my Creator's name by [attaching] it to this filthy book [the Bible].” Thomas Paine

“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God.” Thomas Jefferson

“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” Thomas Jefferson

“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.” Thomas Paine

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions.” George Washington

“Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.” George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]

“There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness.” George Washington, address to Congress, 8 January, 1790

“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.” George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792

“To give opinions unsupported by reasons might appear dogmatical.” George Washington, to Alexander Spotswood, November 22, 1798, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

I also disagree with the language of article VI, though not the intent. That is simply because I don't believe in the death penalty, and I'm certain I'm not the only one. However, obviously, no one has the right to hurt another person or to take a person's life but in self-defense. Neither should an imperfect government or system have the right to end a human life either---in my opinion, naturally.
************************************************

That is one verbose broad!! Her response could have been about 4 paragraphs instead of 876. She said little, but used a lot of words to do it. Are family dinners with her interminable? I'd guess so. Ask her, "Would you like a piece of pie?", and instead of yes or no, you'd get a diatribe on starving children in Africa. Sicko.

Here's one thing to rebut...

Charity. I notice they didn't include U.S. Military assistance - only "official" development assistance and private charities.

Example - the Tsunami. What did it costs for our carriers, helicopters, etc. which we rushed to that devestated part of the world while the rest of the world were twiddling their thumbs trying to figure out how to organize a conference to decide the parameters of a fact-finding mission to determine what aid to consider?

That could be my sister-in-law.

She failed to mention we gave almost 19 billion in foreign aid last year. The next closest was Japan with almost 9 billion.

I guess that doesn't matter.

This one, at least, is comparing apples and oranges: private charitable donations vs. "official development assistance".

How many meds is she on?

anyone receiving/believing/regurgitating that much liberal POV-BS (point of view-BS) is either on anti-depressants or is a prime candidate for future med use.

Normal people cannot wallow in so much negativity and remain cheerful and optimistic.

"On the whole though, the attitude and posture of the email is self-righteous, intolerant, and arrogant."

Wow, she made it all the way to the second sentence before rolling out the standard liberal response to all logic and reason.

"It is a rant, and these kinds of "declarations" about how you should be, or more importantly how you must think or act"

No, it's a list of things that you have no constitutional or moral right to; demands that you are making of other people that you have no grounds for making. The idea that a refusal of them is "a rant" is incredibly selfish.

"That's who America is these days, quite frankly, and it's embarrassing. Haven't you ever seen that kid on the playground that no one wants to play with? No one likes that kid, but she thinks she is sooooooooooo cool in her jeans with her Bedazzled sweatshirt and that everyone wants to be like her. Some kids play with that kid because they want some of her candy. Some other kids play with her because their teachers or parents make them...but still, no one wants to or likes. That's how I see America these days. If you don't like America---get out! That's a great attitude, and very mature, but what about people who love America, despite its flaws, and don't want to leave, they want to improve it. Why can't they be heard?"

Now THAT is a rant, and a particularly mindless one.

1) Liberals always argue from a false premise.

Global Warming=False premise

Woman's right to choose=false premise

Gun control means less crime=False premise

Right to die=false premise

2)Liberals will muddy the water with every irrelevant pile they can find.

3 When liberals can't win and you are making them look like an idiot they will confirm it by name calling.

4) Discussing facts with a liberal is like teaching a pig to sing..

They argue from an emotional position and facts are totally irrelevant to them.

5) Liberals pretend to care more than anybody else about individuals they don't .

They think in terms of classes (Marxists) and don't give a flying fig about individuals.

6)Liberals will turn language on it's ear.

Singer is an ethicist but he argues for infanticide and bestiality.

Huh, that sounds like the antithesis of ethics to me.

7)Liberal research=fakery,forgery,falsification

thanks to socialismisinsidious for editorial support

8)History for liberals begins each morning.

9)Pointing out previous contradictions is called attack speech.

10)Pointing out the results of a policy is called racism,homophobia,or attacking the victim.

She may be a nice lady but she is an indoctrinated twit that lacks reasoning ability.

As an English major, and editor, or maybe just an intelligent person, I'm mortified to have such an inarticulate, easily confused, and monkey-like in appearance man representing myself, my family and my country to the rest of the world.

As an English major and an editor, she should be embarrassed by any number of glaring grammatical errors in her missive-- indeed, there are a couple in this one sentence.

I try not to nitpick on stuff like this, but she's the one tooting her own horn here.

It is a rant, and these kinds of "declarations" about how you should be, or more importantly how you must think or act (if you want to live and prosper in America) is a good example of why we're probably the most hated country in the word, (by everyone except ourselves of course, who think we're the best country in the world naturally).

This line alone shows that you're wasting your time arguing with her. What evidence does she have that we are the most hated country in the world? More hated than China, who routinely kills dissidents? More hated than Russia, who enslaved half of Europe for 40+ years? More hated than the Sudan, which engages in racial genocide and slavery? Bah.

Also, notice that, though she disagrees with a number of things in the email, all of her assembled quotes are focused on discrediting Christianity, something that appears to be an obsession with the Left.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.