You are currently browsing njlibertarian’s articles.
Having read Steven Crowder’s (@scrowder on twitter) latest controversial column on the benefits of getting married, I feel compelled to voice my opinion as a single, unmarried conservative woman.
The non-marital cohabiting trend seems to have grown more popular in the past decade than wearing tights as pants, and, similarly, leaves bystanders trying not to ask the obvious, awkward questions:
“Oh, nice to meet your…husband? brother?”
“When’s the wedding?! Er…oh…”
“You DO know your butt crack is clearly visible through those things, right?”
Okay, so that last one was for the tights-as-pants crowd (seriously though, ladies…tights aren’t pants). Either way, I’d rather live without the awkward questions.
Quite frankly, when I see couples living together without being married, a phrase comes to mind: “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?” Sure, plenty of these couples end up getting married, but only after getting a little…
View original post 291 more words
Rogue knows his stuff when it comes to sniffing out socialism. Just remember to keep dictionary.com up on a different tab.
Rogue Operator kicks ass and chews bubblegum. Last night five white russians stole all of his bubblegum so he wrote this in full asskicking mode.
Hey WordPress Texasorbusted people, I’m njlibertarian and I’m here to deliver some unfiltered content of the discussion variety.
See, I kind of have this problem where when I post things on Facebook, sometimes people disagree with me.
Being from New Jersey, I can’t let that stand.
Here’s what happens when I Fight On Teh Internetz.
This Example comes from yesterday, December 20th 2011. I have changed the name of my fellow debater to cover my ass.
It all started when I posted this video & comment on my Facebook Wall:
NJL(That’s me!): Wow, I’m taking my charity dollars elsewhere. Seriously, what was the point of making this commercial?
GTNM(Guy that’s not me.): I suppose an angry right wing nut would turn this into something political… oh wait. Breitbart did. Just speaking about the commercial itself, not the organization, poor kids don’t get anything from “Santa” because there is no Santa and the parents aren’t lying to their kids about the concept of Santa because they don’t have the money to buy presents, hence: “Santa” doesn’t do poor countries. The only way for the poorest of the poor to receive some aid, something worthy like food and medicine not some goddamned worthless iPhone, is from a charitable organization or person. Real help comes from real people, not some cooked up lie by the religious and money-hungry stores. Anyone who can’t see the point to this commercial is… most likely a religious conservative (and I’m being kind). Yes. The commercial trashes on the concept of Santa, and I believe it’s also trashing on the big phony scam of all, organized religion and it’s so-called traditions of helping the poor yet they don’t. Cruel commercial? Perhaps. Reality? Truth hurts, eh? (none of the above views represent my view of the organization itself I don’t see anyone getting all angry and upset over Best Buy (consumerism at its finest) trashing on Santa as an incompetent boob with old, unwanted gifts. Are you going to take your money elsewhere? I think not.
NJL: You OBVIOUSLY don’t know me. I am no “religious conservative”, nor am I a “right wing nut”. I am an atheist libertarian and you know what? I am STILL rankled by this ad. It takes a beloved secular (yes, secular) character and makes him out to be a heartless fat-cat, a meme the left employs constantly, to try and guilt a viewer into donating money to one of the most bloated, nontransparent “charities” out there.
I don’t mind hearing about the plight of kids in Africa, I don’t mind being asked to donate to a cause, but when you tell me that “Santa” (i.e. American parents) only ever think about buying their kids presents, I get a little bit annoyed. Are they trying persuade me or are they trying to admonish me? Clearly they aren’t doing a great job of appealing to a wide audience so as to gain and distribute more aid, so what was the point the of making this commercial? Oh, and about those Best Buy ads? There is a difference between a joke and an attack, Best Buy is not” trashing Santa, they are showing mothers who have been successful in getting good gifts being silly. The UNICEF ad is an assault on the character and values of Santa and by extension, the values of the average American parent, there’s a huge difference there.
GTNM: Riiight cause Saint Nicholas had nothing to do with religion. Just because the figure has been commercialized to death, among Americans mostly, doesn’t take away the fact that is a religious icon. I don’t mean the figure itself, but the traditions and everything around it as well. I will agree that it is a very odd way to try to collect charity because they are employing a heavy dose of guilt and they strongly imply that ‘Santa’ is actually all of the people that can afford to and aren’t doing so. I don’t know if you realize it or not, but it is a Swedish commercial. I couldn’t begin to tell you what their politics are but I guarantee a lot of people are blaming the American left right now out of pure ignorance. I do not see the politics behind this, just some morons with a tacky commercial. Whether or not UNICEF had anything to do with it.. I don’t know either. The Best Buy ads may not be on the same level of strangeness but they are just as silly. Mothers putting down Santa for giving bad gifts are actually mothers putting themselves down because they are the Santas. It’s the same message really. “Santa isn’t going to do it”.
GTNM: BTW, I knew you were agnostic, at least as far as your wall states.
NJL: Guy that isn’t me, is the Santa in the ad a Swede? I don’t get that impression. Where does UNICEF collect the majority of its money? Is it America? I’d wager it is. If that’s the case, I don’t care where it originated from, the ad alienates me, it is condescending to me, it is targeted at me, and I don’t very much appreciate it. And by the way, by stating that “an angry right wing nut would turn this into something political…” turned this political far more than what Breitbart.tv’s editors did. Please explain to me how UNICEF DIDN’T “Smear Santa As ‘One Percenter”, I want to read it. That doesn’t say anything about the left, it doesn’t say anything about progressives, it says what happened. UNICEF tried to use the supposed opulence of giving gifts to your kids as a pejorative allegory towards the “rich” in an attempt to guilt them into giving more of that sweet, sweet 1% money. It backfired, not because of over-politicization of the ad, but merely due to the sharing and exposure of the ad.
So, that’s how my most recent Fight On Teh Internetz went. Who came out the winner?
Well, ME obviously, though I suppose I’m not particularly objective on that topic, so fight about it in the comments.
It’s what the Internet is for.