Download AudioHere's another typical anti-immigration argument. John Gibson, on The Big Story, couldn't be more racist if he went on wearing a white hood.
I still haven't seen an argument against (or for, for that matter), "immigration," that wasn't racist .
View the video, from good ol' Media Matters, here.
Gibby, if America becomes Hispanic, so friggin' what? Will you be forced to eat chimichangas and wash them down with Tequila? Or is the problem that you can't stand to see so many dirty brown people? Clearly he knows his audience when he tells them to start fucking. All of them. Here's hoping that the audience for The Big Story can't stop picturing Gibson's pasty, mealy-mouthed mug every time they have the old in-and-out, no female orgasm involved, under the covers, no dirty-talk, polite sex. Not that they were ever turned on to begin with.
Not that he isn't slapping their wrists for being too snobby and self-centered to have babies. How he figured that there was one atom of selflessness involved in having babies though, I'll never figure. How is it not selfish to have a baby?
So the lefties are telling us the world will end if we keep having babies, and the righties tell us the economy will collapse if we don't have more babies. But if I have to hear any more economic ignorance, and see any more of the faces of Gibson and Vladimir Putin associated with sex, I'm never having a kid--by accident, of course.
It just couldn't be more creepy!
2 comments:
I consider myself to be a "leftie". The world will not end if you have babies. I'm about as sick of that argument as I am about the unhealthy interest the US Government shows in how much water I use when I bathe.
I am about the most un-racist person I know. Strictly speaking for the sake of argument, if I said "People are like locusts. The less you have per square mile, the better." would that constitute an un-racist argument against immigration?
Couldn't be more creepy? Prince Charles?
No, it wouldn't be unracist, per-se (it's more nationalist, actually), because there is still a difference between the people on one side of the imaginary line, and people on the other side of the imaginary line. If there are too many people, what the heck does it matter which side of the imaginary line they are on?
But what does wanting to live somewhere without so many people have to do with immigration, specifically? If a bunch of people decided to move to your neighborhood, what would it matter if they moved from Topeka and Seattle and one borough over (individuals) or "the kind of people who came from across this line that doesn't exist?" If it's against immigration, it's an argument specifically against a classification of people as different as opposed to people who are individuals.
If you're talking about immigration, there's an us and there's a them. Once you start thinking "us," then you've got a problem.
Anyway, I did not mean to imply that you think the world will end if we have too many babies. I should have edited to say "many lefties believe." But I'm sorry you are a leftie. Unless you mean something different than what I mean. Because you could be a communist, a socialist, or liberal, a democrat, or even a left-leaning libertarian, or a marxist anarchist. So I was talking about Doomsday Greenies, like that professor in Texas who is convincing everyone that overpopulation will bring about the end times.
Post a Comment