The news media seems to be unaware that people exaggerate about things like weight or how much they they work out or can bench press. Take Paul (Eddie Munster) Ryan, who claims that to only have 6% body fat and says he weighs 163 lbs, despite being 6'2". Why this self-aggrandizing braggadocio has circulated in the first place, as though it is relevant to his qualifications to be the Republican candidate for the Vice Presidency of the US, is a mystery in itself. However, since it is clear that the Romney campaign is putting out such stuff, as opposed to substantive position points, I say *prove it*.
Let's put a scale up on the stage and see if Ryan is Lyin about this too. See, lots of people lie about their weight. Lots of guys also lie about how much they can bench. As a guy who is 5'11" about about 165 (of course, I could be lying), I am naturally a bit suspicious that someone three inches taller and older than me weighs less. Sure it's possible, but I'm not in bad shape myself. Still, I have friends who are 6'2" and they don't weight 163 lbs -- it's more like 180-185. I guess Ryan wants us to believe that he should have been in the Olympics or something. Maybe if LYING was an olympic sport then he could have won another GOLD for team USA.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Antichrist Paul Ryan Like Damien from Omen Movies
I joke that Paul (Eddie Munster) Ryan is like the kid from the Adams Family. Really, though, he reminds me of another kid in the movies. If you've seen the Omen movies then you remember Damien. Yes, Ryan could very well be the all-grown up Damien style Anti-Christ. You would expect him to be very slick and covered in false piety. What better disguise than to cast himself a "family values" Republican and a "Catholic", when he is really a "screw everybody but me" atheistic Randroid? If you shave that ridiculous mop he's got on his head you're sure to find triple sixes. Cue the creepy music, fundy nutjobs.
Why is Paul Ryan's Hair So Neat if Vampires Have No Reflection
It's been a mystery that comedian philosophers have pondered for some time. Now that the first vampire-American has been chosen as a vice-presidential candidate, however, we must revisit the issue. Of course I am talking about Eddie Munster (aka Paul Ryan), who has been recently pulled from his coffin during daylight hours, and made to be Mitt's running mate.
But, back to the question of vampires and their hair, I suppose there are a few possible solutions. Perhaps they have a team of ghoul hairstylists comb and coif their fancy hairdos. Maybe they comb it without the aid of a mirror, but how would they handle flyaway hairs? Do they employ a team of bats to swoop down and put errant hairs back into place. Perhaps Ryan can finally reveal the answers to all these nagging questions.
But, back to the question of vampires and their hair, I suppose there are a few possible solutions. Perhaps they have a team of ghoul hairstylists comb and coif their fancy hairdos. Maybe they comb it without the aid of a mirror, but how would they handle flyaway hairs? Do they employ a team of bats to swoop down and put errant hairs back into place. Perhaps Ryan can finally reveal the answers to all these nagging questions.
I've Picked Better Things From My Nose than Ryan
I've picked better things from my nose than Romney picked with Paul (Eddie Munster) Ryan. Actually, maybe Romney outsourced the picking of Ryan to his Bain affiliates in Transylvania. That's right, you didn't build that either, Mitt. The only thing Romney's ever built is a tax shelter anyway. Actually, he outsourced those too when he was on the board at Marriott.
Romney Outsourced VP pick to Transylvania
It's just a theory, mind you, but it appears that Mitt Romney must have outsourcde his decision on VP picks to Transylvania. Why else would he end up with creepy, vampire-looking Eddie Munster look-alike as his running mate? BTW, I've noted it before, but aren't MITT and PAUL the *cutest* GAY couple since Brokeback Mountain? Too bad they are both opposed to gay marriage, because it looks like they want to pound each other in the bottom-line all night long. Maybe if Transylvania approves gay marriage then they can both go there when they lose the election. I guess they could still have a "happy ending" after all.
Romney and Ryan Are Cutest GAY Couple
Seeing Romney and Eddie Munster....I mean Paul Ryan with their arms around each other, and their faces just inches apart, I can't help but thinking what a cute GAY couple they make. It sure is too bad that they both oppose GAY marriage, because it means that their torrid, brokeback mountain love affair will have to be forever secret. My only question is which one the "wife" in the relationship. My money is on Mitt being the "bottom b1tch". He looks like he's totally into that sort of thing. OTOH, I guess they could trade off. They just look like they want to pound each other's butts all night long. And if Ryan has never been in a gay porno then it must be someone who looks and acts like him.
Mormon Boy Mitt Picks Catholic Eddie Munster Ryan
Apparently it has not dawned on Romney that people care about the religious affiliation of the candidates. It is true that a Catholic has been elected president, ONCE, and only ONCE. Evangelical nutjobs tend not to be big fans of Catholics, even though Catholicism has made a valiant effort to act a lot more crazy than normal in the past few decades.
Romney already had RELIGION PROBLEMS as a Mormon. Fundy whackadoodles were holding their noses and trying to make the best of voting for him anyway. Now he hits them with this Eddie Munster-looking Catholic car-bomb, known as Paul Ryan. In fairness, Romney didn't have a lot to choose from anyway. I suspect that many of the other candidates, such as Portman, or Pawlenty, or Jindal were starting to get gun-shy about hitching themselves to Romney's clown wagon.
Also, one wonders why he chose to do outside of prime time. Is his political team really this bad at PR? Why bury your biggest campaign decision. Friday by noon would have generated astronomically more coverage and you could still make the Sunday talk shows. If you do it on Saturday though, it would take some fancy footwork to get you on the Sunday morning circuit, which presumably is already booked.
Paul Ryan Happy As Wet Rodent on Titanic
After all, we all know that Ryan was a desperation pick, or should we say a pity poke, meant to appease the fat, angry girlfriend know as the Tea Party extremists. Of course, like all fat, angry girlfriends, one little poke ain't gonna make 'em happy anyway, especially with the substandard equipment Romney is packing. Case in point, Romney picks Ryan and then backs away from supporting Ryan's budget. WTF? He's your VP. If you die then he becomes President. Then he would certainly implement the very budget that Romney now says he doesn't want to stand behind. If you didn't like his budget then why did you pick him. My theory is that Romney picked him solely based on the hair.
Now the ticket is basically the Hair Club For Men ticket.
Romney Taps Eddie Munster As Running Mate
Seriously, Ryan is one freaky looking, Adams Family kind of creepy dude. Can anyone not look at him and avoid thinking of a grownup version of Eddie Munster or some other Brahm Stoker tale of horror? And is there some reason that he is always furrowing his brow? Is it a nervous tick or does he really want wrinkles at 42? I know that as a half-vampire, he probably is still sensitive to sunlight and walking in the daytime, and all.
As to substance, it appears that all Ryan can bring to Romney are the asinine and endless tirades about all things "big government". You don't save water when your house is on fire, and you don't all of a sudden re-discover fiscal sanity after the several decade long spending binges of Reagan and the Bushes. I remember when right-wingers used to proudly argue that "Ronald Reagan spent the Soviet Union into bankruptcy". In other words, even they used to admit that they ran up the deficit with insane abandon and just didn't give a F*CK. Now, they try to pretend that they never did that.
After the recession that right-wing deregulation of banks and markets, the only thing that reversed it was government spending, and it is clear now that Obama's stimulus was too small, since it just barely got us out of the recession they created. Ryan style spending cuts would guarantee the collapse of the American Economy, usher in a second Great Depression, and probably take down the Global Economy with it.
As to substance, it appears that all Ryan can bring to Romney are the asinine and endless tirades about all things "big government". You don't save water when your house is on fire, and you don't all of a sudden re-discover fiscal sanity after the several decade long spending binges of Reagan and the Bushes. I remember when right-wingers used to proudly argue that "Ronald Reagan spent the Soviet Union into bankruptcy". In other words, even they used to admit that they ran up the deficit with insane abandon and just didn't give a F*CK. Now, they try to pretend that they never did that.
After the recession that right-wing deregulation of banks and markets, the only thing that reversed it was government spending, and it is clear now that Obama's stimulus was too small, since it just barely got us out of the recession they created. Ryan style spending cuts would guarantee the collapse of the American Economy, usher in a second Great Depression, and probably take down the Global Economy with it.
Romney Just Lost Election Picking Ryan as VP Running Mate
Mitt Romney apparently thinks that picking an Ayn Rand quoting lunatic like Paul Ryan as his running mate is going to reinvigorate his stalled out campaign. I'm sure it will go over great with seniors when they learn how Ryan has sworn to destroy Medicare and Social Security, as well as trim $3.5 trillion from other "worthless" "big government programs" over the next 10 years. While some right-wing crazies at the _Weekly Standard_ advocated for Ryan, apparently Mitt has never learned that the content of right-wing blogs and magazines are "not intended to be factual statements", as Senator Kyl put it.
Hilariously, however, now that Romney has picked Ryan as his running mate, he is apparently backing away from Ryan's Ludicrous, Economy-crashing, Slash-and-burn budget plan which he laughable called _The Path to Prosperty_. Of course it IS a path to prosperity for billionaires who want to pay lower taxes, because that is the sole purpose of collapsing the government. Rich people don't want to pay the bill for government, even though they use government services more than anyone else. That's right, rich people constantly run to government to get it to defend their property interests. They are always using the court system, whereas the average person might be in court a few times in their whole lives. Rich people also rely on government infrastructure to operate their businesses and these businesses would not exist with things like the Interstate Highway system that many right-wing wealth-ocrats opposed in the first place. Certainly Ayn Rand opposed it, and she is Ryan's hero.
Time will tell whether voters think this is a good pick. I don't think that even having Ryan on the ticket will make conservatives fall in love with him, and I don't think that Ryan can sell his brand of bat$h1tCRAZY to independent voters. Ryan will be a new vote loser. It probably cost him the election. Then again, he was on a trajectory of failure even without this newest albatross.
Hilariously, however, now that Romney has picked Ryan as his running mate, he is apparently backing away from Ryan's Ludicrous, Economy-crashing, Slash-and-burn budget plan which he laughable called _The Path to Prosperty_. Of course it IS a path to prosperity for billionaires who want to pay lower taxes, because that is the sole purpose of collapsing the government. Rich people don't want to pay the bill for government, even though they use government services more than anyone else. That's right, rich people constantly run to government to get it to defend their property interests. They are always using the court system, whereas the average person might be in court a few times in their whole lives. Rich people also rely on government infrastructure to operate their businesses and these businesses would not exist with things like the Interstate Highway system that many right-wing wealth-ocrats opposed in the first place. Certainly Ayn Rand opposed it, and she is Ryan's hero.
Time will tell whether voters think this is a good pick. I don't think that even having Ryan on the ticket will make conservatives fall in love with him, and I don't think that Ryan can sell his brand of bat$h1tCRAZY to independent voters. Ryan will be a new vote loser. It probably cost him the election. Then again, he was on a trajectory of failure even without this newest albatross.
America's Dumbest Jihadist Gets Life Sentence
This week on America's Dumbest Jihadist, we look at the case of Naser Abdo, who yesterday earned himself a well-deserved double life sentence plus 60 years for plotting attacks against soldiers at Fort Hood. We had already considered Mr. Abdo some while back when we compared him to an Anders Brevik Wannabe of the Muslim variety. Abdo apparently drew his inspiration from Nidal Hassan, the psychotic Muslim traitor at Fort Hood, who shot his fellow soldiers at the army base due to his paranoid beliefs that the US military was engaged in a war against Islam.
Fortunately for the US, and probably the world in general, Mr. Abdo was perhaps one of the dumbest Jihadis since the Shoe Bomber, Richard Reid, or the Underwear Bomber, Omar Abdulmutallab. Interestingly, if all three of these incompetent plotters could be put together in the same supermax prison facility, they might form a comedy troupe, which should be dubbed "The Three Stooges of Jihad".
However, in that troupe, Abdo would clearly be Curly, the dumbest of the dumb. As but one example, he showed up to court in a strange "mask" on the day of sentencing that appeared to be fashioned from underwear, that covered the lower part of his face. Perhaps he was going for the bondage look, but that will have to wait until he meets his new prison husband, Bubba.
Now, it is true that, like his dim-witted colleagues, Abdo never actually managed to injure anyone. He only unsuccessfully plotted to do so, shot off his mouth about his intentions, and downloaded Al Qaeda literature such as _How to Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom_. He also apparently was partial to the child pornography, but given that the founder of Islam "married" a girl who was prepubescent, this isn't much of a surprise either. In fact, even Osama bin Laden's compound contained a stash of pornography.
In any event, Mr. Abdo should have plenty of time now to wear his underwear on his face, and to get bent over five times a day "praying" to Allah.
Monday, August 6, 2012
Robertson Wrongly Blames "Atheists" for Sihk Temple Massacre
Despite having no facts to back up his claim, the increasingly senile Pat Robertson suggested on the 700 Club today that a mass shooting at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin occurred because "atheists hate God". As of yet, no credible news source has claimed to know the religious affiliations of the shooter, Wade Michael Page, though many are reporting that he was a member of far-right wing, neo-nazi and skinhead groups. Most Neo-nazis are members of radicalized Christian organizations, such as the "Christian Identity" movement, which preaches a violent and militant re-interpretation of Christianity.
Take for example, Anders Breivik, the Swedish mass murderer and white supremacist who killed dozens of his countrymen, while declaring himself a member of the Knights Templar, and expressing his hope that his actions would ignite a new crusade against Muslims in Europe. Even Pat Robertson couldn't claim that guy was an "atheist", though it seems that there is always a new effort to do so, whenever one of these violent events occurs.
It is, of course, necessary to note, at this point that Sikhs are NOT Muslims, though mental midgets such as Mr. Page, probably thought they were. He was reported, for example, to have a "9-11" tattoo on his arm, but nobody has ever even remotely hinted at the possibility that any Sikhs were involved with 9-11. That's because none were involved. However, because they wear turbans and look similar to some people in the Middle East, Sikhs are often confused with "muslims" and "arabs", and other categories which likewise have nothing to do with them.
So, of course, it might make sense to blame Mr. Page's appalling ignorance of human geography. It would also make sense to blame his apparently right-wing xenophobia against people he wrongly thought were associated with 9-11. It would even make sense to blame Mr. Page's probably insufficiently treated alcohol and other mental problems. But it would make no sense to blame atheists, since Mr. Page is likely no more of an atheist than Sikh is a follower of Islam.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Gabby Douglas and God's Glory Hole Blessings
At this point we are used to athletes universally proclaiming themselves "God's gift" to this sport or that sport and then trying to spin that arrogance into humility by attempting to share the glory with God, or saying maybe the creator of the universe deserves a bit more credit. Gee, that's quite a concession.
Of course these OCD-for-God athletes conveniently forget that 98% of their fellow athletes are bible beating Christians just like them, but there can only be one first place finisher, so all the rest of those devout Christians apparently are under God's curse. Indeed, it is hard for athletes to not be superstitious and credit some miraculous force like God, rather than lucky genetics, with their good health and physical prowess.
It is also excusable that a very young person like Gabby, who comes from an underprivileged background would be soaked in religion. Poor people just love religion, or so they think, because it's all they've got, and it takes every bit of what they do scrape together in tithes, often times.
Still, some of the claims she is making, albeit probably just lifted from the preachers he hears every Sunday, can't go completely unchallenged. For example, Gabby claimed "I give all the glory to God." Well, not exactly. I think she will keep the $90 Million in endorsement deals that she is expected to be given. God, in the form of his Earthly representatives at various churches will certainly try to skim as much of the top as they can from her, but God is unlikely to see much of it.
She goes on to mouth boilerplate platitudes that she surely heard from some slick and sleazy minister saying, "It's kind of a win-win situation. The glory goes up to him and the blessings fall down on me." Well first off, one wonders about the "kind of" qualifier. It's also not clear that "win-win" applies with respect to God, since he is already all-powerful and already has everything. But my question is about the second part. She is claiming that she takes absolutely no credit for things she does with HER OWN BODY, but instead says that GOD, not her, really did the somersault. She then says that by claiming that God, did something that he obviously did not do, that she is blessed with the ability to continue doing somersaults that are really being done by God. Clear as mud? Good, because it gets murkier.
The real problem is that plenty of people give constant "glory" to God all the time and they get no "blessings" at all. In fact, plenty of people pray all the time and they then get terrible diseases, or experience horrific accidents, or a variety of other misfortunes. Gabby's mercenary, quid-pro-quo attitude toward worshipping at God's "glory hole" and havings "blessings fall down" her throat afterward clearly doesn't match reality very closely. My advice to Jesus fanatics like Gabby would be that, "I know Jesus says he loves you, but you should still make him wear a condom".
Of course these OCD-for-God athletes conveniently forget that 98% of their fellow athletes are bible beating Christians just like them, but there can only be one first place finisher, so all the rest of those devout Christians apparently are under God's curse. Indeed, it is hard for athletes to not be superstitious and credit some miraculous force like God, rather than lucky genetics, with their good health and physical prowess.
It is also excusable that a very young person like Gabby, who comes from an underprivileged background would be soaked in religion. Poor people just love religion, or so they think, because it's all they've got, and it takes every bit of what they do scrape together in tithes, often times.
Still, some of the claims she is making, albeit probably just lifted from the preachers he hears every Sunday, can't go completely unchallenged. For example, Gabby claimed "I give all the glory to God." Well, not exactly. I think she will keep the $90 Million in endorsement deals that she is expected to be given. God, in the form of his Earthly representatives at various churches will certainly try to skim as much of the top as they can from her, but God is unlikely to see much of it.
She goes on to mouth boilerplate platitudes that she surely heard from some slick and sleazy minister saying, "It's kind of a win-win situation. The glory goes up to him and the blessings fall down on me." Well first off, one wonders about the "kind of" qualifier. It's also not clear that "win-win" applies with respect to God, since he is already all-powerful and already has everything. But my question is about the second part. She is claiming that she takes absolutely no credit for things she does with HER OWN BODY, but instead says that GOD, not her, really did the somersault. She then says that by claiming that God, did something that he obviously did not do, that she is blessed with the ability to continue doing somersaults that are really being done by God. Clear as mud? Good, because it gets murkier.
The real problem is that plenty of people give constant "glory" to God all the time and they get no "blessings" at all. In fact, plenty of people pray all the time and they then get terrible diseases, or experience horrific accidents, or a variety of other misfortunes. Gabby's mercenary, quid-pro-quo attitude toward worshipping at God's "glory hole" and havings "blessings fall down" her throat afterward clearly doesn't match reality very closely. My advice to Jesus fanatics like Gabby would be that, "I know Jesus says he loves you, but you should still make him wear a condom".
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Reid sez Romney a Gutless Coward and a Tax Cheat
It's really sad seeing candya$$ Mormon-boy Mitt implode these days. Romney apparently thought he was being quite the "macho" dude, telling Harry Reid to "put up or shut up" on the issue of .... Mitt Romney's unreleased tax returns.
I believe the canonical reply is "Why don't you MAKE me, you little B1TCH!". After all, Romney has inflicted this wound UPON HIMSELF by not releasing HIS TAXES, and, if he has nothing to hide, all he has to do is MAN UP and slap them tax returns on the table. You gonna pull them pistols or whistle dixie? Mitt, of course is a yankee, and has never been in a real fight in his life, so it's not surprising that he's confused. Mitt apparently has mistake trying to have a pissing contest with a silly slap fight.
So, since Romney has no clue how the maning up process works, I'll enlighten him. Mitty-boy hid behind his mother's skirt and refused to release his taxes. Reid effectively said, "You're a nutless mama's-boy for hiding, Mitt....and BTW, your mother's a whore too". The correct response is NOT, "Oh YEAH!? You PROVE she's a whore".
See, because Reid's next response is "Or else WHAT, M*otherf*cker?!". That's how this Sh1t works. Seriously, what is Mitt going to do about it? Will he SUE Reid? If he did then presumably he would have to produce his TAX RETURNS in court to prove his case. But that's precisely what Mitt lacks the cojones to do in the first place.
The fact is that Mitt CAN'T DO Sh1t and everybody, including Mitt, knows it. He won't release his taxes, and Reid is under no obligation to stop calling him a coward, or the son of a whore, until he does.
Now I KNOW some of you are just dying to drool like a fool the "innocent until proven guilty" line in reply. This isn't a court of law, mittHeads. Mitt's too cowardly for that, for the reason we have already noted -- he would have to produce his taxes. Because Mitt tried to be macho about it, he is now bound by Man rules to defend his honor. Reid already slapped Mitt in the face. Mitt cannot win any extra man points by demanding that Reid do it again, but harder this time. So, unless Mitt has a picture of Reid screwing a hooker, then Mitt is the one that's screwed here.
I believe the canonical reply is "Why don't you MAKE me, you little B1TCH!". After all, Romney has inflicted this wound UPON HIMSELF by not releasing HIS TAXES, and, if he has nothing to hide, all he has to do is MAN UP and slap them tax returns on the table. You gonna pull them pistols or whistle dixie? Mitt, of course is a yankee, and has never been in a real fight in his life, so it's not surprising that he's confused. Mitt apparently has mistake trying to have a pissing contest with a silly slap fight.
So, since Romney has no clue how the maning up process works, I'll enlighten him. Mitty-boy hid behind his mother's skirt and refused to release his taxes. Reid effectively said, "You're a nutless mama's-boy for hiding, Mitt....and BTW, your mother's a whore too". The correct response is NOT, "Oh YEAH!? You PROVE she's a whore".
See, because Reid's next response is "Or else WHAT, M*otherf*cker?!". That's how this Sh1t works. Seriously, what is Mitt going to do about it? Will he SUE Reid? If he did then presumably he would have to produce his TAX RETURNS in court to prove his case. But that's precisely what Mitt lacks the cojones to do in the first place.
The fact is that Mitt CAN'T DO Sh1t and everybody, including Mitt, knows it. He won't release his taxes, and Reid is under no obligation to stop calling him a coward, or the son of a whore, until he does.
Now I KNOW some of you are just dying to drool like a fool the "innocent until proven guilty" line in reply. This isn't a court of law, mittHeads. Mitt's too cowardly for that, for the reason we have already noted -- he would have to produce his taxes. Because Mitt tried to be macho about it, he is now bound by Man rules to defend his honor. Reid already slapped Mitt in the face. Mitt cannot win any extra man points by demanding that Reid do it again, but harder this time. So, unless Mitt has a picture of Reid screwing a hooker, then Mitt is the one that's screwed here.
Why do old people waste time on crosswords
Ok, this is a pet peeve that has been building for a long time. As a teacher I am off in the summers and I see tons of retired people sitting around doing crossword puzzles. Sure, they have time to waste and do whatever, but WHY? Why, when you are facing death would you want to ridiculously squander your remaining time? You may say, "Maybe they enjoy it", but you're wrong. Most of them suck at it. They can't figure out what a nine letter word for "stupid time waster" is. Hint: the answer is "crossword".
I have talked to some old people and they say, "I've already accomplished all my goals", so now apparently they're just effing around until they die. I call bull$$hit on this excuse too. You never have to run out of goals. Even at a late age there are real, significant, important things that could be accomplished. They don't have to go back to work, but with the same mental effort they put into crossword puzzles, they might be helping to make the world a better place.
This is really not a criticism of old or retired people. It is the opposite. I'm saying that they don't have to give in to the stereotype of being some ancient codger with thick glasses, obsessed with crossword puzzles and "The Price Is Right". Old people should not give up on life like this. They need to do a little more raging against the dying of the light. They need to write their life stories.
Therefore, I will be supporting a law banning crossword puzzles, on pain of revocation of social security benefits. Of course I joke, but only with half a smile. The reality is that if you are just going to completely waste your golden years, maybe you don't deserve them.
I guess what I am saying is that I wish there was a polite way of saying to these people, you are still valuable in this world despite the fact that you feel you may have nothing more to contribute. You could still think great thoughts. I would be much happier to see them commenting on philosophy or even attempting to write doggerel on some web hangout for seniors.
I realize that these people don't want the stress of a full-time job anymore, but plenty of people retire to a life of leisure and still end up doing productive things afterwards. One doesn't have to abandon all curiosity in the world and engage in made up activities to waste what light is left.
I have talked to some old people and they say, "I've already accomplished all my goals", so now apparently they're just effing around until they die. I call bull$$hit on this excuse too. You never have to run out of goals. Even at a late age there are real, significant, important things that could be accomplished. They don't have to go back to work, but with the same mental effort they put into crossword puzzles, they might be helping to make the world a better place.
This is really not a criticism of old or retired people. It is the opposite. I'm saying that they don't have to give in to the stereotype of being some ancient codger with thick glasses, obsessed with crossword puzzles and "The Price Is Right". Old people should not give up on life like this. They need to do a little more raging against the dying of the light. They need to write their life stories.
Therefore, I will be supporting a law banning crossword puzzles, on pain of revocation of social security benefits. Of course I joke, but only with half a smile. The reality is that if you are just going to completely waste your golden years, maybe you don't deserve them.
I guess what I am saying is that I wish there was a polite way of saying to these people, you are still valuable in this world despite the fact that you feel you may have nothing more to contribute. You could still think great thoughts. I would be much happier to see them commenting on philosophy or even attempting to write doggerel on some web hangout for seniors.
I realize that these people don't want the stress of a full-time job anymore, but plenty of people retire to a life of leisure and still end up doing productive things afterwards. One doesn't have to abandon all curiosity in the world and engage in made up activities to waste what light is left.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Self-deport Before Romney Sends Your Job To Mexico
Perhaps Mitt Romney's otherwise laughable call for illegal immigrants to "self-deport" is not really as bad an idea as it sounds, in the increasingly unlikely chance that Romney is elected. Now hear me out on this people. You see, Mitt made his fortune by firing American workers and sending their jobs overseas to China, India, and Mexico. Therefore, it stands to reason that, if Romney is elected, that you will lose your job and it will be sent overseas. However, if you self-deport now, you will be one step ahead of the game, because you will already be there when Romney creates jobs in Mexico to replace all the ones he is attempting to destroy in this country. But you will already be there, ready to scoop your exportted job right back up.
Take, for example, Mitt's insistence that Detroit automakers should not have been bailed out and should have been forced to go broke. That was because he wanted millions of American auto industry jobs to be lost here so he could profit by sending them to Mexico. Naturall, those jobs will only pay a tiny fraction of what they pay here. But hey, the cost of living is far more affordable there, and the women are "muy bonita". That means "real purdy", gringo, so what you waitin' fur...get packing...Andale.
Oh wait, Mitt is polling about 5% points behind Obama in most of the crucial swing states, as of now, so, fortunately, he is on the fast track to losing the election. So it looks like the middle class can keep their jobs for another 4 years, until the billionaires field a better presidential candidate.
Take, for example, Mitt's insistence that Detroit automakers should not have been bailed out and should have been forced to go broke. That was because he wanted millions of American auto industry jobs to be lost here so he could profit by sending them to Mexico. Naturall, those jobs will only pay a tiny fraction of what they pay here. But hey, the cost of living is far more affordable there, and the women are "muy bonita". That means "real purdy", gringo, so what you waitin' fur...get packing...Andale.
Oh wait, Mitt is polling about 5% points behind Obama in most of the crucial swing states, as of now, so, fortunately, he is on the fast track to losing the election. So it looks like the middle class can keep their jobs for another 4 years, until the billionaires field a better presidential candidate.
Chick-fil-a or Hate-fil-a
If truth in advertising were required of companies then maybe Chick-fil-a should change its name to Hate-fil-a, since they are so hate-filled when it comes to gays and non-christians. It's apparent that most of their customers are haters too, right out of the "God Hates Fags" mold. They come for the chicken, but stay for the extra spicy hate-sauce.
Why are these people even selling chicken sandwiches? Shouldn't they be out picketing a soldier's funeral along with their Westboro Brethren. At the very least, shouldn't they be giving corporate sponsorship and nice like Nascar style uniforms to the "God hates fags" Westboro Baptist church.
Maybe Mike Huckabee should next declare a Westboro Baptist God Hates Fags Day of Hate. You can guess who will provide the sandwiches with all the hate money they raked in from hating people for being the way God made them.
Why are these people even selling chicken sandwiches? Shouldn't they be out picketing a soldier's funeral along with their Westboro Brethren. At the very least, shouldn't they be giving corporate sponsorship and nice like Nascar style uniforms to the "God hates fags" Westboro Baptist church.
Maybe Mike Huckabee should next declare a Westboro Baptist God Hates Fags Day of Hate. You can guess who will provide the sandwiches with all the hate money they raked in from hating people for being the way God made them.
Don't Be A Dick-fil-A
It is not surprising that a bunch of Chick-fil-A fundamentalist d1ckheads made it a point to eat there and show what a bunch of tasteless, backward, unhealthy buffoons they are. I have never eaten there because I have always known that they are run by religious fanatics and therefore have always avoided them.
I also know that some people are trying to sell the "1st amendment defender" meme, where they claim that they will support Chick-fil-A's right to say moronic things, but this is as bogus as it gets. An employee at Chick-fil-A is not free to exercise first amendment rights. You can bet that they would fire you in a heartbeat for not saying "God, and Jesus, and Mary bless you" every time a customer sneezed. Does anyone think for a second that they they would hire an employee who was a goth or a wiccan or wore a pentagram? The CEO claims that all the franchisees are "married to their first wives", so it sounds like, if you get divorced then, on the basis of religion alone, they would kick you to the curb. They claim that there is no evidence that Chick-fil-A has engaged in discriminatory practices, but that is because, in many places an employee can be fired without cause, basically for any reason. You can bet that they would never hire gay people, and would certainly invent any convenient reason to get rid of them the moment such information was discovered.
Many naive "defenders of the 1st amendment" never seem to grasp this, but you cannot defend people who would would undermine the very freedoms you are claiming to protect. If Dick-fil-A Dan Cathy had his way and ran the country as he wished there would would be no freedom of religion. It would be worship the way Dick-fil-a Dan commands or face deportation, or prison, or burning at the stake for your heresy.
I will always defend the rights of people who respect my rights, but it must be a two-way street or you will end up sabotaging your own freedoms.
I also know that some people are trying to sell the "1st amendment defender" meme, where they claim that they will support Chick-fil-A's right to say moronic things, but this is as bogus as it gets. An employee at Chick-fil-A is not free to exercise first amendment rights. You can bet that they would fire you in a heartbeat for not saying "God, and Jesus, and Mary bless you" every time a customer sneezed. Does anyone think for a second that they they would hire an employee who was a goth or a wiccan or wore a pentagram? The CEO claims that all the franchisees are "married to their first wives", so it sounds like, if you get divorced then, on the basis of religion alone, they would kick you to the curb. They claim that there is no evidence that Chick-fil-A has engaged in discriminatory practices, but that is because, in many places an employee can be fired without cause, basically for any reason. You can bet that they would never hire gay people, and would certainly invent any convenient reason to get rid of them the moment such information was discovered.
Many naive "defenders of the 1st amendment" never seem to grasp this, but you cannot defend people who would would undermine the very freedoms you are claiming to protect. If Dick-fil-A Dan Cathy had his way and ran the country as he wished there would would be no freedom of religion. It would be worship the way Dick-fil-a Dan commands or face deportation, or prison, or burning at the stake for your heresy.
I will always defend the rights of people who respect my rights, but it must be a two-way street or you will end up sabotaging your own freedoms.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Chick-fil-a hypocrisy
In this article at CNN religious extremist Albert Mohler demonstrates that bigots like himself can dish it out religious intolerance, but they can't take it when people respond to them in kind. He and his ilk of religious fanatics have tried to use religion as a weapon, starting/endorsing campaigns to boycott and financially ruin businesses that say "Season's Greetings" or "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", for example. Now that consumers are doing similar things to Chick-fil-a, they scream "religious discrimination".
All these religious people would happily discriminate against other religions, be it Muslims who they forbid from building mosques on private property, or atheists, who they would run out of town on a rail in any city in the Bible Belt. These are the people leading the charge to deny government benefits to gay couples, and they and their followers would do everything in their power to make sure that an openly gay business owner was shut down or worse. They certainly see no problem in refusing to provide all kinds of services to gay individuals on "moral grounds". So why can't the rest of us say, "I will do everything I can to shut down Chick-fil-a on MORAL grounds".
These people are constantly attacking the religious freedoms of others and therefore have forfeit any right to complain when similiar tactics come back to bite them. It's Karma, and yeah, that's another religious concept that they hate, because it's not theirs.
BTW, people like Mike Huckabee want all the religious fanatics to go eat at Chick-fil-a next week. Maybe it's not such a good idea for them to all be in one place where people have such easy access to them. It would be a shame if all those restaurants accidentally burned down with Huckabee and his lame-brained followers inside them.
All these religious people would happily discriminate against other religions, be it Muslims who they forbid from building mosques on private property, or atheists, who they would run out of town on a rail in any city in the Bible Belt. These are the people leading the charge to deny government benefits to gay couples, and they and their followers would do everything in their power to make sure that an openly gay business owner was shut down or worse. They certainly see no problem in refusing to provide all kinds of services to gay individuals on "moral grounds". So why can't the rest of us say, "I will do everything I can to shut down Chick-fil-a on MORAL grounds".
These people are constantly attacking the religious freedoms of others and therefore have forfeit any right to complain when similiar tactics come back to bite them. It's Karma, and yeah, that's another religious concept that they hate, because it's not theirs.
BTW, people like Mike Huckabee want all the religious fanatics to go eat at Chick-fil-a next week. Maybe it's not such a good idea for them to all be in one place where people have such easy access to them. It would be a shame if all those restaurants accidentally burned down with Huckabee and his lame-brained followers inside them.
Monday, July 30, 2012
God AWOL in Aurora
CNN tapped Denver Pastor Rob Brendle to give the standard, form-letter non-answer that all religious people must deliver up when called upon to "explain" why his god allows senseless tragedies, such as the one in Aurora. In particular Brendle tried, and quite spectacularly failed, to answer the reasonable question of "Where was God?"during the murderous rampage of James Holmes in a crowded movie theater last week?
Rob starts by complaining about how hard his job is at times like this. He makes it sound like he is an emergency responder, when in reality he is just being called upon to phone in shabby platitudes, which admittedly, don't satisfy anyone but children, and often not even them. So, granted, his job is a little rough at that time, trying to sell people turds and tell them it's chocolate. But the rest of the time his job is likely quite cushy and overpaid for just glad-handing and acting like a human Hallmark card.
The funny thing about Brendle is that he thinks his job is hard, but then just proceeds to string together a couple of pat answers that probably most teenagers could generate with no theological training. He starts by hiding behind the tired and threadbare excuse of "free will", which automatically signals that he's got nothing. It is particularly laughable, in this case, becausee James Holmes appears to be mentally incapacitated. Why then would God be worried about the "free will" of Mr. Holmes, who thinks he lives in a Batman comic book? We can understand God protecting the alleged "free will choices" of sane and rational people, but it makes no sense whatsoever to protect the "free will" of an individual who doesn't even know where he is or what he is doing. Now, I realize that free will is NORMALLY flogged by religious apologists harder than a hooker in a cheap porno, but it probably would have paid for him to go off script in this case. Free will is really not the best defense for certain kinds of tragedies. It doesn't work well for earthquakes, and to this list one should also add, it's not very convincing when trying to explain away the actions of a crazy person.
For good measure Rob throws in a few references to Satan, and natural law that make no sense whatsoever, but we will largely just ignore those, since he takes them nowhere. At most he is saying, if you don't buy my first line of baloney about free will, then maybe it was God's will, or maybe it was Satan's will, or maybe it was Nature. Despite his lack of development, the whole point of the question was to figure out why God would allow it, so saying, "Maybe it was God's plan, but we don't know why" is failing to answer the question on the most basic level. Clearly Brendle hasn't thought or, by his own admission, even tried to think this through very carefully.
On the other hand, if we believe in the childish notion that evil is personified by a little man with red skin and horns, then we can try to blame it all on Satan, but we would still have to explain why God allowed Satan to do this and not do other things. After all, Satan is depicted as tormenting Job in the Bible, but even Satan did not take possession of Job and make him kill random people. So that's no kind of good answer.
As to "natural law" I know of no law or force of nature that requires an individual to dress in riot gear and shoot people in a movie theater. It's not like Holmes is an earthquake or tsunami, etc. In other words, invoking "natural" law is just plain nonsensical.
So none of his scatter gun excuses even come close. But, undeterred by this, he then proclaims that Jesus was still "there", presumably in invisible form, simply because a few religious freaks were there making crosses and praying and acting even more clueless than Brendle. For what it's worth, however, at least these people seem genuine in their faith, whereas Brendle is trying to pretend offer even a modicum of wisdom, when, in reality, he doesn't have the first clue.
Therefore, this article would have been much more honest, if Brendle had just said, "F*(k if I know!!"
Rob starts by complaining about how hard his job is at times like this. He makes it sound like he is an emergency responder, when in reality he is just being called upon to phone in shabby platitudes, which admittedly, don't satisfy anyone but children, and often not even them. So, granted, his job is a little rough at that time, trying to sell people turds and tell them it's chocolate. But the rest of the time his job is likely quite cushy and overpaid for just glad-handing and acting like a human Hallmark card.
The funny thing about Brendle is that he thinks his job is hard, but then just proceeds to string together a couple of pat answers that probably most teenagers could generate with no theological training. He starts by hiding behind the tired and threadbare excuse of "free will", which automatically signals that he's got nothing. It is particularly laughable, in this case, becausee James Holmes appears to be mentally incapacitated. Why then would God be worried about the "free will" of Mr. Holmes, who thinks he lives in a Batman comic book? We can understand God protecting the alleged "free will choices" of sane and rational people, but it makes no sense whatsoever to protect the "free will" of an individual who doesn't even know where he is or what he is doing. Now, I realize that free will is NORMALLY flogged by religious apologists harder than a hooker in a cheap porno, but it probably would have paid for him to go off script in this case. Free will is really not the best defense for certain kinds of tragedies. It doesn't work well for earthquakes, and to this list one should also add, it's not very convincing when trying to explain away the actions of a crazy person.
For good measure Rob throws in a few references to Satan, and natural law that make no sense whatsoever, but we will largely just ignore those, since he takes them nowhere. At most he is saying, if you don't buy my first line of baloney about free will, then maybe it was God's will, or maybe it was Satan's will, or maybe it was Nature. Despite his lack of development, the whole point of the question was to figure out why God would allow it, so saying, "Maybe it was God's plan, but we don't know why" is failing to answer the question on the most basic level. Clearly Brendle hasn't thought or, by his own admission, even tried to think this through very carefully.
On the other hand, if we believe in the childish notion that evil is personified by a little man with red skin and horns, then we can try to blame it all on Satan, but we would still have to explain why God allowed Satan to do this and not do other things. After all, Satan is depicted as tormenting Job in the Bible, but even Satan did not take possession of Job and make him kill random people. So that's no kind of good answer.
As to "natural law" I know of no law or force of nature that requires an individual to dress in riot gear and shoot people in a movie theater. It's not like Holmes is an earthquake or tsunami, etc. In other words, invoking "natural" law is just plain nonsensical.
So none of his scatter gun excuses even come close. But, undeterred by this, he then proclaims that Jesus was still "there", presumably in invisible form, simply because a few religious freaks were there making crosses and praying and acting even more clueless than Brendle. For what it's worth, however, at least these people seem genuine in their faith, whereas Brendle is trying to pretend offer even a modicum of wisdom, when, in reality, he doesn't have the first clue.
Therefore, this article would have been much more honest, if Brendle had just said, "F*(k if I know!!"
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Religious Dumbas$ claims Holmes was Possessed
I actually anticipated that a religious dumba$$ would immediately claim that James Holmes was "possessed" by evil spirits and that this is why he did what he did. After all, the Bible strongly suggests that mental illnesses are due to the influence of evil spirits which must be exorcised. However, I also expected that many religious people would loudly deny this and attempt to tap dance around the truth of what their religious texts teach. "We're not that backward and stupid," they would have protested.
Unfortunately they are that stupid and backward when it comes to the person of Rev. Longenecker, a Catholic priest from Greenville, SC. It's gratifying to see that official religious nuts are now taking this position, which is certainly consistent with the Vatican's extensive use of exorcism.
The problem is that this actually creates more problems than it solves for religious nutjobs. To begin with, there is really no evidence of possession....but lack of evidence doesn't usually deter them anyway. Holmes wasn't wearing any pentagrams or showing any interest in the occult. All the evidence suggests that he was raised as a Christian, and may have even attended a church in the month or so before the shootings.
Also, if he was "possessed" then it must have been for months, because he appears to have stockpiled these armaments and explosive devices for some time. His journal also indicates that he was planning this for some time. He was also seeing a psychiatrist, who probably would have noted that he his head was spinning and he was reciting the Lord's Prayer backwards.
Holmes showed no signs of worshipping the devil when he was conducting his rampage. Witnesses say he said nothing. He identified himself as a comic book character to police, not Beelzebub. In fact, virtually no serial killer in modern times has claimed to be possessed by the devil. Isn't that odd?
More importantly, if demonic possession is true then it seriously undercuts theologians' frequent, and typically disingenuous arguments about "free will". If Holmes was "possessed" then he was not truly exercising his own will, and could certainly not be held responsible for his actions.
Also the fabrication of "free will" is essential to modern theological excuse-mongering to explain the existence of evil in the world. See, it's not God's fault that evil exists, they claim, because evil is just the result of bad choices that people make with free will. They say that "free will" is so G*ddamn important that God allows genocidal maniacs to butcher others by the thousands or even millions, rather than violate the "sacred" free will of some dictator or serial killer.
But if there are evil entities that can take over the wills of humans then this excuse falls apart. A God who was obsessed with free will at any price surely would not allow for evil spirits who have the power to circumvent human free will at their whim. If he allows that then free will apparently isn't all that important, and we can't use it to explain away so many of the bad things that happen in the world on a daily basis.
Of course, if you accept that mental illness is caused by chemical imbalances, as opposed to primitive superstitions about evil spirits, then you still have a problem for so-called free will. We don't hold insane people responsible for their crimes because they are not in control of their whims to a reasonable degree. Yet again, God apparently just isn't that into free will. So you'll have to find another excuse for God to just shirk all responsibility for preventing terrible events from taking place.
Unfortunately they are that stupid and backward when it comes to the person of Rev. Longenecker, a Catholic priest from Greenville, SC. It's gratifying to see that official religious nuts are now taking this position, which is certainly consistent with the Vatican's extensive use of exorcism.
The problem is that this actually creates more problems than it solves for religious nutjobs. To begin with, there is really no evidence of possession....but lack of evidence doesn't usually deter them anyway. Holmes wasn't wearing any pentagrams or showing any interest in the occult. All the evidence suggests that he was raised as a Christian, and may have even attended a church in the month or so before the shootings.
Also, if he was "possessed" then it must have been for months, because he appears to have stockpiled these armaments and explosive devices for some time. His journal also indicates that he was planning this for some time. He was also seeing a psychiatrist, who probably would have noted that he his head was spinning and he was reciting the Lord's Prayer backwards.
Holmes showed no signs of worshipping the devil when he was conducting his rampage. Witnesses say he said nothing. He identified himself as a comic book character to police, not Beelzebub. In fact, virtually no serial killer in modern times has claimed to be possessed by the devil. Isn't that odd?
More importantly, if demonic possession is true then it seriously undercuts theologians' frequent, and typically disingenuous arguments about "free will". If Holmes was "possessed" then he was not truly exercising his own will, and could certainly not be held responsible for his actions.
Also the fabrication of "free will" is essential to modern theological excuse-mongering to explain the existence of evil in the world. See, it's not God's fault that evil exists, they claim, because evil is just the result of bad choices that people make with free will. They say that "free will" is so G*ddamn important that God allows genocidal maniacs to butcher others by the thousands or even millions, rather than violate the "sacred" free will of some dictator or serial killer.
But if there are evil entities that can take over the wills of humans then this excuse falls apart. A God who was obsessed with free will at any price surely would not allow for evil spirits who have the power to circumvent human free will at their whim. If he allows that then free will apparently isn't all that important, and we can't use it to explain away so many of the bad things that happen in the world on a daily basis.
Of course, if you accept that mental illness is caused by chemical imbalances, as opposed to primitive superstitions about evil spirits, then you still have a problem for so-called free will. We don't hold insane people responsible for their crimes because they are not in control of their whims to a reasonable degree. Yet again, God apparently just isn't that into free will. So you'll have to find another excuse for God to just shirk all responsibility for preventing terrible events from taking place.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Holmes Would NOT have been Stopped by Concealed Carry
From day one, dumba$$es have been saying that, if only a bunch of armed yahoos had been sitting in the theater that they could have shot Holmes before he was able to kill as many victims. Of course, such claims ignore the fact that he THREW TEAR GAS. Without a gas mask, they would apparently be squinting through tears, trying to bust off rounds that would probably hit other movie patrons. Then there is the fact that Holmes was wearing a significant amount of body armor. Some people claim that shots still might have knocked the wind out of him, if they hit in the proper places, but the odds of hitting him properly in a tear gas fogged, darkened theater, amid pandemonium are low enough, and staggering him would probably not be enough. In general, in a gun fight, the guy with the biggest, baddest gun usually wins. Therefore, unless these guys also had AR-15s stuffed in the legs of their pants then Holmes still would have had the upper hand and been able to take out anyone with little pea-shooter trying to plink him through his armor.
Also, we have had concealed carry now for almost three decades in 49 states now, and according to studies such as this one, it has not decreased crime rates by any statistically significant margins. In fact, the only significant effect seems to be to increase the rates of aggravated assaults.
Therefore, it IS time for concealed carry nuts to sit down and shut up.
Also, we have had concealed carry now for almost three decades in 49 states now, and according to studies such as this one, it has not decreased crime rates by any statistically significant margins. In fact, the only significant effect seems to be to increase the rates of aggravated assaults.
Therefore, it IS time for concealed carry nuts to sit down and shut up.
Dark Knight Trailer Depicted Movie Shooting
Lots of people are falling all over themselves to disclaim any blame for inspiring Mr. Holmes's actions. In large part this has to be correct, because the fact is that millions of people play First-person-shooter, or "murder simulator" video games, and yet almost none of these players become actual murderers. However, when it is discovered that Jared Loughtner, or James Holmes, or the Columbine kids liked to play violent video games, some m0r*ns start screaming that the video games caused it. They appear to have got the causality reversed. People with violent tendencies will surely be attracted to violent video games, but the games didn't make them that way in such cases.
Others say that Hollywood's ultra-violent John Woo style "action movies" that glorify guns is responsible. Again, it's clear that hundreds of millions of people watch these movies and do not become violent. They clearly do not CAUSE it.
However, they certainly do make people numb to it. Also, while violent movies and video games do not cause MOST people to become homicidal maniacs, people who are already very emotionally disturbed to begin with may only need a little extra push.
It is in that vein that I feel it necessary to point out that the "Dark Knight Rises" had a trailer called "Gangster Squad" that depicted a shooting IN A MOVIE theater. Many people are not even aware of this, since Warner Brothers quickly pulled the trailer in the wake of the news. I remember seeing the original trailers in the movie theaters months before the movie came out. A number of people expressed discomfort at this time and some in the media did even warn that such trailers might lead to copy cat behavior. It is hard to avoid the possibility that Mr. Holmes may well have been inspired to copy cat the trailer, just as at least three other unstable individuals have been inspired to copy cat threats of violence against movie theaters in the couple of days since Holmes's attack.
Others say that Hollywood's ultra-violent John Woo style "action movies" that glorify guns is responsible. Again, it's clear that hundreds of millions of people watch these movies and do not become violent. They clearly do not CAUSE it.
However, they certainly do make people numb to it. Also, while violent movies and video games do not cause MOST people to become homicidal maniacs, people who are already very emotionally disturbed to begin with may only need a little extra push.
It is in that vein that I feel it necessary to point out that the "Dark Knight Rises" had a trailer called "Gangster Squad" that depicted a shooting IN A MOVIE theater. Many people are not even aware of this, since Warner Brothers quickly pulled the trailer in the wake of the news. I remember seeing the original trailers in the movie theaters months before the movie came out. A number of people expressed discomfort at this time and some in the media did even warn that such trailers might lead to copy cat behavior. It is hard to avoid the possibility that Mr. Holmes may well have been inspired to copy cat the trailer, just as at least three other unstable individuals have been inspired to copy cat threats of violence against movie theaters in the couple of days since Holmes's attack.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Non-christian victims of Holmes damned to hell, says evangelical propagandist
Miserable piece of human garbage Jerry Newcombe, and evangelical scum like him, have already started shamelessly exploiting the Aurora massacre perpetrated by James Holmes as an opportunity to scare people into signing away their souls. Because Newcombe is an unthinking ignoramus, he already blundered directly into the trap I predicted in this article by claiming that Christian victims of Holmes would be going to a "wonderful place" (aka Heaven), whereas non-christians would be going to a "terrrible place" (aka Hell).
However, by his logic, if massacred Christians are going to a "wonderful place", then he is basically saying that Holmes "did them a favor" by slaying them. There really is no way around that. No matter what other good experiences they could have had on Earth it would pale by comparison and be utterly insignificant compared to what they could experience in Heaven, according to standard Christian mythology. Therefore, if they are correct then Christians should be clamoring for their neighbors to *kill them immediately*, if they honestly believe the nonsense they claim to profess, so that they don't have to waste one more minute not being in Heaven. After all, if they wait they could have doubts or even get an education, and this may shatter their faith. Then it's no more Candy Land for them.
Now the thing is that there were many devout Christians in the theater, and many of them voted with their feet, proving that they did not really believe what they claim about heaven being so wonderful. Otherwise they would have sat right there and taken their bullet, so they could be with Jebus on a cloud with a harp. Chicken$*it par excellence Jerry Newcombe would not have sat there either. He probably would have been the first person to trample old ladies and children to save his pathetic skin when the shooting started.
As for the true fate of non-christians, there is nothing to fear. If there is a God and he is truly just then nobody is compelled to believe made-up human mumbo jumbo of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or other varieties in order to be treated fairly in the afterlife. Believing that Jesus was his own daddy and walked on water thousands of years ago is no virtue and certainly is not any kind of guarantee of anything, except the capacity to tax the limits of your own sanity with a litany of absurdities.
In Mr. Newcombe's case, his fanaticism also has manifested as a severe lack of empathy and depraved delight in the imaginary suffering of others. Is that truly who you want to be? If not then the time to get off the crazy train is now.
However, by his logic, if massacred Christians are going to a "wonderful place", then he is basically saying that Holmes "did them a favor" by slaying them. There really is no way around that. No matter what other good experiences they could have had on Earth it would pale by comparison and be utterly insignificant compared to what they could experience in Heaven, according to standard Christian mythology. Therefore, if they are correct then Christians should be clamoring for their neighbors to *kill them immediately*, if they honestly believe the nonsense they claim to profess, so that they don't have to waste one more minute not being in Heaven. After all, if they wait they could have doubts or even get an education, and this may shatter their faith. Then it's no more Candy Land for them.
Now the thing is that there were many devout Christians in the theater, and many of them voted with their feet, proving that they did not really believe what they claim about heaven being so wonderful. Otherwise they would have sat right there and taken their bullet, so they could be with Jebus on a cloud with a harp. Chicken$*it par excellence Jerry Newcombe would not have sat there either. He probably would have been the first person to trample old ladies and children to save his pathetic skin when the shooting started.
As for the true fate of non-christians, there is nothing to fear. If there is a God and he is truly just then nobody is compelled to believe made-up human mumbo jumbo of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or other varieties in order to be treated fairly in the afterlife. Believing that Jesus was his own daddy and walked on water thousands of years ago is no virtue and certainly is not any kind of guarantee of anything, except the capacity to tax the limits of your own sanity with a litany of absurdities.
In Mr. Newcombe's case, his fanaticism also has manifested as a severe lack of empathy and depraved delight in the imaginary suffering of others. Is that truly who you want to be? If not then the time to get off the crazy train is now.
Will God Strike Holmes Dead In Court?
In the Hebrew Old Testament, when someone did something naughty Yahweh would often on his patent leather beetch-slappin' gloves, reach down smack the crap out of them right on the stop. However, unfortunately, for some unknown reason he stopped doing that. My theory is that he wore out his gloves.
But one wonders when he might get a new pair, so to speak. To wit, James Holmes appeared in court today, acting all dazed and confused. Would this not have been the perfect time for God to "use the force" and choke him out Vader-style? What difference would it make at this point? For those still hiding behind the ridiculous figleaf of "free will", how much "free will" is Holmes going to have in prison. The free will to be some big burly dude's "prison wife". As gratifying as that might be for some to imagine, surely there are quicker and more efficient punishments. Why not at least slap some boils or plague or leprosy down on his freaky, orange carrot top? God supposedly did this to people in the past, notably even to just and loyal servants like Job. So why would he hesitate to do this to Holmes? American heros like Sally Ride are being struck down with pancreatic cancer while this miserable waste of skin is allowed to breath air. What gives with God these days? Why the namby-pamby, hippy-dippy routine? You gonna squick this guy or not, G-man? Hello?! Anybody up there???
But one wonders when he might get a new pair, so to speak. To wit, James Holmes appeared in court today, acting all dazed and confused. Would this not have been the perfect time for God to "use the force" and choke him out Vader-style? What difference would it make at this point? For those still hiding behind the ridiculous figleaf of "free will", how much "free will" is Holmes going to have in prison. The free will to be some big burly dude's "prison wife". As gratifying as that might be for some to imagine, surely there are quicker and more efficient punishments. Why not at least slap some boils or plague or leprosy down on his freaky, orange carrot top? God supposedly did this to people in the past, notably even to just and loyal servants like Job. So why would he hesitate to do this to Holmes? American heros like Sally Ride are being struck down with pancreatic cancer while this miserable waste of skin is allowed to breath air. What gives with God these days? Why the namby-pamby, hippy-dippy routine? You gonna squick this guy or not, G-man? Hello?! Anybody up there???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)