Wednesday, June 15, 2011

'Uglo-Americans': it's OK to discriminate against these folks

As a numbnuts uninformed cretin would say, 'can we be real here?'  This, in response to dreamy ol' Fredd pining away that in Utopia, people would be judged not by the 'arrangement of their skin, but by the content of their character.' (apologies to Martin Luther King for butchering his phrase in his 'I have a Dream' speech).

I just thought I would wander off the conservative reservation for a bit, and point out that the pretty people in this world get a leg up in almost every endeavor, while the less than pretty folk get the shaft when trying to compete for a share of life's goodies against these hunks and babes. 

Kim Kardashian is rich and famous for one thing only: her looks.  She is as dumb as a bag of hammers (my apologies to all of those bags of hammers out there, you are WAY smarter than Kim), she dropped out of third grade, and treats everyone around her like a bag of dirt.  But none of that matters.  She's a looker, and as such is entitled to her fame and riches.  Life is like that, you know, according to this aforementioned idiot.  'Get over it,' he would advise us all. 

There has actually been legislation passed prohibiting discrimination in hiring by race, sex, age, color, creed, religion and sexual orientation. You will note, however, that general appearance does not make the list.  But, as the moron mentioned above, being the wet blanket that he can sometimes be, will jerk us back into reality by pointing out that this is the way things are: that the ugly amoung us should not even bother to apply, and maybe even do us all a favor and just drop dead.

After all, let's get real, shall we?

And the idiot above indeed has an irrefutable point.  We all prefer watching pretty people read the news, rather than a wart covered. wrinkly obese slob, right?   It's not even arguable.  We all discriminate against fat, zit faced, ugly old people.  We do it every day. Virtually all of us.

But is it right?  Is this the way things SHOULD be? 

In Fredd's Dreamland Utopia (where most liberals always hang out), we would ideally be judged by our credentials, attitude, love of life, respect for others, tolerance, people skills, gumption and verve, period.  Looks?  Not applicable. 

But then, the imbecile above will remind us all with his cold bucket of water that we don't dwell in Dreamland Utopia.  Let's get real.  The Uglo-American segment of society can just forget about getting ahead in life based on their credentials, etc. 

And they can certainly forget about sitting behind the newsdesk, for the ugly need not apply.  Indeed, they should do us all a favor and drop dead.  Or, if they choose to keep on living for reasons unknown to us all, at least they should wear paper bags over their heads.

But life is like this, and we all know it.  But it still ain't right....


Kid said...

Where'd you find pelosi's graduation pic?

There is something going on with the ugly people. Democrats Love em. Ugly inside and out? You have a big edge with the Democrat voters.

It's just simple observation. There is someone for everyone and that's all that matters at the personal level. At the political level though, it is very bothersome. Maybe it's the left's Obsession for illusionary "Victims"
I haven't really figured it out yet, but you can take it to the bank.

Fredd said...


Yes, ugly people vote for Democrats as a percentage more than pretty people.

That's because these ugly folks want government to restrict the stranglehold onto the mainstream that the pretty folks have, and that they want access to.

Footnote: that would be Rush Limbaugh's "Life's Undeniable Truth #25: Feminism was established to allow greater access to the mainstream of American culture to ugly women.

Or words to that effect.

Silverfiddle said...

Life aint fair. I've taught my kids that from an early age. You make the best of what you got.

They're making a big deal of that kardashian chick getting married, and all I can think of is that stupid guy she's marrying.

Isn't he embarrassed to be marrying this internet ho, to bravely go where thousands of men have gone before? The film footage all over the internet of her in action leaves nothing to the imagination...

The kardashians, Paris Hilton and their ilk serve one purpose: I point them out to my son as stellar examples of the type of women to avoid like the plague.

I give the marriage less than a year.

Fredd said...

Silver: yeah, JFK said it best, when he uttered that famous phrase 'loif, loif's not fayuh.' (my best phonetic spelling of his Mass brogue).

I've not seen the video of Kimmie doing what she does best (that would be ho'ing), but you are way off the mark: 3 months and that marriage is over. A year is an eternity in the Kardassian world.

On the other side of things, when you live by your looks, you also die by your looks. Since that's all Kim's got, once it starts to go, so does her reason for living.

Just ask Madonna. And Cher.