Trust me, I know

This week's installment of Laughable Sidelines Crap comes from prolific conservative columnist Matthew Hurtt (the two Ts make it extra painful).

He does his readers the courtesy of outlining exactly what makes conservatives and liberals different, a topic never before explored throughout the annals of retarded student newspaper columns*.

First up, this:

The difference between liberalism and conservatism is liberals do what they want with little regard for others - conservatives do what is right for the whole.

Well, of course. The party ordained by God has to carry out His holy wishes, which include eliminating the estate death tax and keeping random brain-dead women hooked up to life support until the country's all atwitter with talk about how much conservatives love life. Meanwhile, Lucifer's Liberals get to prance around and make poor people wallow in their own filth while choleric babies cry, their rotten bottles of formula just out of reach. Mwa ha ha.

What tripe. Everyone knows liberals and conservatives both do what they want with little regard for others. There is hardly any altruism in either party.

New Orleans residents who think the government should rebuild are conditioned for failure. New Orleans should abandon those who do not think it is their responsibility to help rebuild.

Just like those stupid tornado victims piggybacking off the taxpayer to get their trailers rebuilt! How could they possibly think that the taxes they and their neighbors pay might some day provide assistance for them when they had a severe need? Culture of entitlement indeed.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony thought abortion was an abomination. They were pioneers in the Women's Suffrage movement. Why have feminists distorted that thought? Where is the baby's choice?

The One True Feminist Party has not authorized me to say so, but I'm betting it's because not all feminists believe the same thing, and that some feminists today are anti-abortion and some are pro-choice. Just like some liberals are anti-abortion. And some conservatives are pro-choice.

I'm sorry if this is confusing. But different people have different opinions on different things, especially when a century of science and collective experience separate them. You see, Susan B. Anthony was mostly anti-abortion because abortion was an unsafe procedure for women and she felt a woman having to resort to abortion was indicative of larger problems stemming from women's oppression.

But Matthew raises a great point: Where is the baby's choice? Why are we constantly telling babies what to do when they could easily — as humans, I tell you — choose to do what they wish on their own? I expect to see Matthew leading the charge against compulsory baby-food eating and restrictive gender-based color schemes. And I sure hope he fights against those hideous elastic headbands they make little girl babies wear. You know the ones.

Capital punishment solves the problem: it eliminates the person who committed the crime.

To relate the last two, abortion is wrong because it kills the innocent, capital punishment is reasonable because it kills the guilty. There is now no reason to argue the "hypocrisy" of Conservatives who are against abortion, yet support capital punishment.

Of course there's no reason to argue about hypocrisy, unless there were some sort of list showing that not all people sentenced to death actually committed the heinous crimes they were accused of ...

It's amazing that someone who hates government bureacracy would put so much faith in the justice system to decide who lives and dies, isn't it?

Most unions are now useless. I'd like to especially single out teachers' unions, which tend hurt the education of the students. Trust me, I know. On a related note, a free and public education was also a goal of the early communists.

Matthew, you're killin' me! This is a hoot. Trust me, I know. Is he blaming teachers' unions for his asinine lack of anything resembling an education? And how is it that a freshman history major is still so spooked by the communist boogeyman? Trust me, I know. No need to present evidence or argue a point here, folks! Trust Matthew, because what he's about to say will prove his sanity and reason beyond any doubt:

Marriage is not a man-made institution, it is a gift from God; therefore, man cannot change marriage. Period.

I guess if you believe in giving babies the vote and telling New Orleans residents to fuck off, it might make sense to you that we can't change marriage or what it means because that big bad daddy figure in the sky won't like it. After all, it was His idea that fathers should sell their daughters to the highest bidder in exchange for land or prestige or goats or whatever. And, really, that's worked so well for everyone (you know, conservatives — and God is a conservative — are concerned with the well-being of the whole) over the years that there's no reason to give it another thought.

*I know picking on this column is sort of like shooting retarded fish in a barrel of molasses, but I'm really just passing this along for the comedic value, because if I didn't know better, I'd think it was bad satire.