War on Christmas? Or something else?

[flewellyn]

Yet again, this year, we're hearing the right-wingnuts spouting off about how the "secular humanists" and the "liberal elite" are making war on Christmas by saying "Happy Holidays", as if this was some crime. Right wingers are adamant that somewhere, there are "secular humanists" and "ACLU types" who are trying to oppress Christians.

Ignoring the fact that it's hard to oppress a majority that controls most of the wealth and power, I have a message for those right-wing idiots who are still going on about "War on Christmas":

People, please.

We know that you conservatives like to speak in code words, but you're not fooling anyone. You haven't been fooling anyone for some time now.

We know full well that when you say "secular humanists" or "liberal intelligentsia" or "urban elite", you mean "Jews", okay? Give up the pretense already.

And while we're at it, stop saying "welfare mothers" or "illegal immigrants", and just say "blacks" and "Hispanics". We know you hate them too, so stop trying to be coy.

Comments

[lucretiasheart.livejournal.com]

'Specially since most welfare mothers are rural white women-- but, whatEVA!

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Oh, I read that a lot of polygamist Mormon families will have the wives (other than the legal one) register as single mothers to get welfare money for the family.

Meanwhile, the fathers decry welfare as communist.

[lucretiasheart.livejournal.com]

Hypocrisy is fun-- let's all try it! =P

*shakes head*

[randallsquared.livejournal.com]

So you're saying that you, unlike Flewellyn, believe that the right-wingers are (shock! horror!) actually against welfare like they say, rather than hating non-approved shades of skin? ;)

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Must they be mutually exclusive? I mean, they can still hate both non-whites AND hate the idea of not being allowed to hoard everything.

[randallsquared.livejournal.com]

Oh, of course! I'm not at all saying that they can't hold both. I thought you were suggesting that saying they held one belief was just a cover for some other belief they held *instead*. If they hold both, then there's no reason to think that one's a cover for the other... :)

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Never mind that both beliefs are quite contrary to actual Christian doctrine...

[lucretiasheart.livejournal.com]

No... If I thought they were against welfare, I would assume that rural white women would be the thrust of their intellectual diatribe.

Or-- maybe I just think they're all really ignorant and not even aware that most welfare money goes to rural white women. Hmmm... a'course, if they found that out, would they start to develop more "compassionate conservatism" and shift their opinion to say that they're against URBAN welfare, saying that there's no excuse when jobs are so plentiful in cities?? Gotta think like 'em to understand 'em.

*tries* ow.

[randallsquared.livejournal.com]

"If I thought they were against welfare, I would assume that rural white women would be the thrust of their intellectual diatribe."

In the context of Flew's original statement, that's... priceless. :)