Well, in terms of recent events I can say absolutely no one.

Especially in terms of a particular political party that is supposed to be pro-choice.

Let’s take a look at what the term pro-choice means.  (Since I personally believe that the entire country with the exception of a chosen few need a refresher on this term.)  Pro, derived from Latin, means for, as in for or against.  Choice, is Germanic in origin, and simply means the act or choosing the thing chosen.  So together, in all rational thought you would think that being pro-choice would then mean to be for making choices.  Not deciding to be for a specific choice, but the action of making that choice (sorry for the redundancy, however in the light of the Miss Teen South Carolina candidate, one can never be to sure about proving a point).

So why then do the liberals (who unfortunately get lumped into the category with democrats and lazy republicans), say they are pro-choice? 

The answer is so simple: they lump it together with abortion.  Like a small majority of Christians who consider all other faiths to be heathen and un-christian (ex. my god is better than your god so lets fight about it, which is not unlike early kung-fu movies).

So I say drop the noise and notion that you are pro-choice, because you obviously are not.  If you were, what is your stance on gun control?  I advocate safety and proper technique, not crummy legislation that will keep law abiding citizens from owning and operating guns.  While they are not a toy, neither is an automobile.  I don’t see anyone trying to improve the mass transit in this country either, but I’ll save that for another day.

Next this funny thing called citizenship, it is for citizens.  Persons born in or who migrate legally are citizens.  Not illegal immigrants who work without paying federal, state, and local taxes on their incomes.

So in conclusion, I would venture to say that the majority of liberals by my rationale are pro-choice, like so many other things, when it suits them or is more convenient.

please note: definitions are reduced from merriamwebster.com, with the exception of pro-choice.

As my wonderful blog about LUST didn’t strike anybody’s fancy at all, I kind of went into blog hiding.  I mean, although I haven’t changed my view on my human nature, maybe I shouldn’t have been so darn candid about my personal life.

Regardless of that, it was how I felt at the moment and as with any other facet of life, I pressed “publish” before I really thought about offending anybody.  I apoligize to anybody who read it and thought, “That girl’s going straight to hell.”

     Today’s Asshat comes to us from a magical place where there there was never slavery, no judgmentalism, and is completely devoid of religious and political extremism.

     Yes, of course I’m joking.

     He’s from north-central South Carolina.

     I can only assume this is some ridiculous retort to a recent statement I made, “I’m a lot more than just the sum of my experiences…”  But I wonder why he didn’t leave it in the comments, in that context, instead of giving me such impressive ammunition for an Asshat of the Day post?

     Via the Contact form, this so-called Doctor of Psychology writes:

From: Dr. H.T.B., Psy.D
Date: July 31st 2007, 9:34AM

It is wrong to think that you are more than the sum of your experiences.

It is even worse to combine it under religion.
Your deep faith commits you to slavery of a false ideal.
You are subservient to other masters.
You have righteous indignation.
The worse you feel the more you believe.
Your free will disappears.
It is an arrogant philopshopy of exclusion that breeds hatred.

You are the sum of your experiences and nothing more.
Your are flirting with disaster to think otherwise.

     I’m impressed with your amazing powers of observation, dude!  You must have been wearing your tinfoil hat to have such keen insight into all of the secret messages in the post.  *snicker*
     If you got all of that from a blog post, you’re more f$&*ed up than a football bat.  

     Where did you come up with the idea that I had “deep faith?”  Where did you come up with the idea that people who spiritual or religious are a bunch of exclusionary, hateful bastards?
     While I can agree with this viewpoint in certain cases (i.e. followers of former Asshat Award recipient, Fred Phelps), it’s certainly no reason to condemn every one of them.

     Doc, you apparently think anyone who mentions a Maker is a religious zealot, who’s a slave to false ideals and just out there to screw with people.  People like you, perhaps?  Did you have a bad experience with someone who was deeply religious?

     Seriously, I think you might need to try some of the advice you’re so quick to dole out.  Maybe you should take one of those pills…
     You know…
     The ones with a small risk of sexual side effects, but they are rare?
     Of course, both taking the pill and noticing any sexual side effects would require removing your head from your ass… You’re flirting with disaster to think otherwise.

     It’s a little disturbing that someone who claims to be a Doctor of Psychology doesn’t remember the basic tenets of his practice.  Perhaps some remedial study is in order…
     We are all the sum of our experiences, but it’s the way that we deal with them that defines who we are.  We can succumb to bad experiences and reflect them into our every day lives and be unhappy, or learn from them and move on in order to better ourselves and become well-adjusted.
     Me, I’ll take the latter.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants to see us happy.” If this is true then why is there a last call at the bar, drinking age and limited availability? Why force us partake with regard to responsibility this wonderful gift of our glorious maker? After all, Jesus is the Wonderful Counselor. Counselor is a pseudonym for attorney.  So he could take care of any trouble you could get into.  (Unless it’s not part of the Divine plan.)

I may be the only one who see this train of logic, I still think it is ideal. Oh well, so much for living in a perfect world.

Must have something to do with that whole original sin idea. You’re born and very much guilty until proven innocent. Therefore, you are subject to archaic rituals of cleansing and reckoning. So then, you can think like a child in order to approach an ideal afterlife. However, you went through all the ritual to avoid the tendencies of misdeed in the first place. Something sounds fishy about this. It’s all a little too cyclical if you ask me.

I guess that is what I get for trying it interject logic into a book. Especially since its origins are rooted in religion and supposed to be the words of the Divine. Who in the book translates best as a distant father figure that shakes a finger at you and says, “Damn it, do it my way or the highway.” Then gives you freewill. The problem I think has nothing do with the original idea. The interpretation mistakes lie in the hands of the penholders who recorded it and the translators in later years, not the concepts.

While this guy isn’t specifically saying that God Hates, this is the sort of asshat the pisses me off. This guy and the others that infest public events, spouting that God Hates Fags, liberals, republicans, muslims, all pique my ire.

Assuming for a moment that God is real and not some made up fiction used to perpetuate wars and get rich, how can anyone with bad penmanship and poor social skills claim to know the mind of God? Are they really so enlightened to understand their god so well that they can vouch for his complete and utter hatred of a given group of people?

So for all you people who think god hates people, GOD HATES YOU TOO!