Showing posts with label Bryan Fischer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bryan Fischer. Show all posts

Friday, March 28, 2014

Even Stupider People Saying Even Stupider Things


Stupid person # 1: Donald Trump







Oh, right. Because otherwise no terrorist would ever think of striking MANHATTAN!
Has the right-wing re-write of history been so thorough that not only does Dubya not bear any responsibility for his failures surrounding 9/11 but now 9/11 never even happened?

Y'know, I really really don't get Trump. This guy had all the money he could ever want, a string of airhead model-looking wives/girlfriends and completely undeserved fame and respect. He had somehow managed to sell this image of himself as a business genius, despite all the bankruptcies and as a self-made man despite having been born a millionaire. But at some point, he thought "no, I don't want to be remembered as a successful entrepreneur. I want my legacy to be that of a delusional, stupid bag of mis-directed hate and anger! I want to be remembered as the guy who hated the black president so much that I forever linked myself to Orly Taitz. When people think of the name "Donald Trump," I want them to think of the ridiculous gasbag who spouted every conceivable type of nonsense into any microphone I could find because I just couldn't bring myself to accept a black guy being president." Well, mission accomplished, Donnie, you pitiful buffoon.

Stupid person # 2: Bryan Fischer


Fischer said that there were other jobs in the church that only men could do, but the secretarial job "is going to be reserved for a woman because of the unique things that God has built into woman."


Well, sure, because how are you going to do all that filing and typing without a vagina? What're you gonna do, type with your dick?

OK, to be fair he never said it was because of vaginas. Could be the boobies that help you do secretary stuff.

Also, those "other jobs" that "only men could do?" I'm gonna guess that those are the "good jobs." The jobs that "pay well." 'Cause I know God doesn't want ladies doin' those!


Stupid person # 3: Donald Rumsfeld.

http://popwrapped.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Rumsfeld.jpg

Our relationship with Karzai and with Afghanistan was absolutely first rate in the Bush administration. It has gone down hill like a toboggan ever since the Obama administration came.


Wait, our relationship with that corrupt, ineffectual douchebag has gone down hill? Perish the thought!
“Nobody likes to hear a foreign leader side with Putin on the Crimea the way he has. But I really think it’s understandable, given the terrible, terrible diplomacy that the United States has conducted with Afghanistan over the last several years."


Yes, if only we had taken the "bomb the fuck out of and invade" approach to diplomacy. Or maybe the "arrest random people, take them to a foreign country and torture them for years without charges" technique.

Fuck you, you murderous war criminal.




Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Can we just go ahead and arrest Bryan Fischer now?


Because he's trying to encourage people to kidnap children.

Why we need an Underground Railroad to deliver innocent children from same-sex households:

The article he references is a confessional from a young man who claims to have grown up in a household with a loving mother and her mother's lover. And oh, the horror:

To most outside observers, I was a well-raised, high-achieving child, finishing high school with straight A’s.
Inside, however, I was confused. When your home life is so drastically different from everyone around you, in a fundamental way striking at basic physical relations, you grow up weird. I have no mental health disorders or biological conditions. I just grew up in a house so unusual that I was destined to exist as a social outcast.

So, because this teenage boy felt "weird" growing up, we should go around kidnapping children? I felt weird growing up, I'm glad no one kidnapped me. I think if you were going to kidnap every kid who grows up feeling "weird," you'd have to kidnap almost every adolescent in America.


Quick, get the van!

Oh, but there's more:

My peers learned all the unwritten rules of decorum and body language in their homes; they understood what was appropriate to say in certain settings and what wasn’t; they learned both traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine social mechanisms.

Can you imagine? Growing up without learning the unwritten rules of decorum? And of body language? These children must be saved! Damn the laws against kidnapping!

Even if my peers’ parents were divorced, and many of them were, they still grew up seeing male and female social models. They learned, typically, how to be bold and unflinching from male figures and how to write thank-you cards and be sensitive from female figures.  

So, not only must there be both a male and a female parent, they must both be total stereotypes? By the way, if you want to learn how to be "bold and unflinching," you should start by studying the lesbians!

  
Pretty Bad-Ass!

These are stereotypes, of course, but stereotypes come in handy when you inevitably leave the safety of your lesbian mom’s trailer and have to work and survive in a world where everybody thinks in stereotypical terms, even gays.

Stereotypes come in handy? In what world? What, if you have a problem with your computer, do you just ask the nearest Asian?  You need investment advice, you head to the nearest synagogue? What does your embrace of stereotypes have to do with your mother and her girlfriend?

I had no male figure at all to follow, and my mother and her partner were both unlike traditional fathers or traditional mothers.
Um, since these were the only parent you ever knew, how would you know that they were "unlike traditional fathers or mothers?" To whom could you compare them?

 

As a result, I had very few recognizable social cues to offer potential male or female friends, since I was neither confident nor sensitive to others. 

So, you're an insecure jerk? How was that caused by your moms? I mean, they must have had "social cues to offer," since they attracted each other. And before that, each had attracted a husband. So it seems that maybe you just didn't learn from them what you should have.


I was neither confident nor sensitive to others. Thus I befriended people rarely and alienated others easily. Gay people who grew up in straight parents’ households may have struggled with their sexual orientation; but when it came to the vast social universe of adaptations not dealing with sexuality—how to act, how to speak, how to behave—they had the advantage of learning at home. Many gays don’t realize what a blessing it was to be reared in a traditional home.

Seriously? You had no idea how to act, how to speak, how to behave?You weren't raised by wolves! You act like a fucking human being, like your mom, like your brothers, like your friends, like your mom's partner! It's really no different, whether you were raised by two women, two men, or one of each.

My home life was not traditional nor conventional. I suffered because of it, in ways that are difficult for sociologists to index. 

Because there's nothing wrong with you, you're just  a jerk. If you had suffered any harm, someone would be able to "index" it.

Both nervous and yet blunt, I would later seem strange even in the eyes of gay and bisexual adults who had little patience for someone like me. 

Because you're a jerk! You just demonstrated what a jerk you are by saying  " strange even in the eyes of gay and bisexual adults." You think that those folks are so weird that they're bound to be okay with your weirdness, or something, and you wonder why they have no patience for you?

 Life is hard when you are strange. Even now, I have very few friends and often feel as though I do not understand people because of the unspoken gender cues that everyone around me, even gays raised in traditional homes, takes for granted.

Life is hard when you're a jerk that blames your late mother for your inability to connect with other humans.  There are no secret "gender cues" that those of us from traditional families are keeping from you. You're just a jerk.

When I got to college, I set off everyone’s “gaydar” and the campus LGBT group quickly descended upon me to tell me it was 100-percent certain I must be a homosexual. When I came out as bisexual, they told everyone I was lying and just wasn’t ready to come out of the closet as gay yet.

So you're bi? And you're still this contemptuous of other LGBT people? You know you're the "B" in that acronym, right? Also, that story never happened. There is not some LGBT coven that cones swooping down on unsuspecting bisexuals to declare them gay. You made that up.

Anyway, this article goes on and on in this whiny, blame-throwing way. But apparently, for the horrible horrible Bryan Fischer, it's all the justification needed to start kidnapping children, tearing them away from the only families they've ever known and, presumably, depositing them with crazy right-wing religious fanatics to be raised as paranoid little assholes. Can we just go ahead and arrest this insufferable little prick now?

Thursday, February 17, 2011

AFA's Bryan Fischer Doubles Down on the Racist BS

Bryan Fischer's last column, wherein he stated that the Native Americans had no right to North America because, um, I don't know, mainly because skin color, I think, has been taken down from the AFA's awful horrible website. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't stand by it. He will proudly defend his belief that Indians were too evil to keep the land because I mean, have you seen Fort Apache?

http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Bond,%20Ward/Annex/Annex%20-%20Bond,%20Ward%20(Fort%20Apache)_03.jpg 
Could Indians throw a cotillion like this? No!

So here is his reasoning for pulling the article in which he still totally believes:

On Tuesday, I posted a column on the settlement of America by Europeans. The column generated so much intense, vitriolic and profane reaction that it threatened to take on a life of its own, and serve as a distraction to the fundamental mission of AFA, even though when I blog I am speaking only for myself and not for the organization. So we took it down. 

Remember, he speaks only for himself, not the AFA when he writes on THIS:

 

  


It's only a project of the AFA, it certainly doesn't reflect their views!


The template that the left has generated is that the displacement of indigenous tribes by European colonists and settlers was irredeemably evil. All the land which now comprises the United States was stolen from its rightful owners. 
Yeah, like that matters! USA! USA!
So the question is whether that template is right, or whether the displacement of indigenous nations was consistent with the laws of nature, nature’s God, and the law of nations and history

Hmm, that's a tough one! Is this the same God who said "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not kill?"  'Cause I gotta think He might have a problem with all the killing and stealing involved.


http://beacononline.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/gorkha-soldiers-with-dead-j.gif


A lot is at stake here. If Americans believe that the entire history of our nation rests on a horribly evil foundation, then there is nothing to be proud of in American history, and our president is correct to identify America as the source of all evil in the world

 I'm sorry, which President are you referring to? Cuz I've certainly never heard this President or any other US President say anything of the sort. Also, even thought our history does rest on the twin evils of genocide and slavery, that doesn't mean we can't still be proud of defeating Hitler. Or intervening in Kosovo. Or The Bob Newhart Show.

But Aaaaaany way. . . even though Fischer felt compelled to pull that column, that doesn't mean he isn't going to replace it with one equally as awful!






Bryan Fischer: Pocahontas Shows What Could Have Been

Is He Fucking Serious? 

Of course he is!

Pocahontas was the daughter of a powerful native American chief, Powhatan, at the time of the settlement of Jamestown. . . She also did much to help the early colony of Jamestown avoid both starvation and attack from the surrounding tribes, by bringing both food and information during what became known as “the Starving Time.” In fact, John Smith subsequently said that, “next, under God, [she] was still the instrument to preserve this Colonie from death, famine and utter confusion.” 

Wow, what a gal! How could the English ever repay her for her many kindnesses?

She subsequently was captured by English settlers, who intended to exchange her for English prisoners who had been taken into captivity by the Algonquins, or Powhatans, who also helped themselves to various weapons and tools.

http://th05.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/f/2011/022/8/9/young_pocahontas_gagged_by_ashgaggedfan7-d37rmyo.png

Class act! She has saved our little colony from certain starvation and death, and you know what, she'd make a damn good hostage. Grab her, boys!

The Powhatans, along with many of the indigenous peoples, seemed to have little respect for private property, including boundaries, and little regard for obedience to the eighth commandment and its prohibition against stealing. (On the Oregon Trail, the primary problems travelers suffered from the indigenous peoples were not massacres but thievery.) 

Oh my God! They stole stuff from the people who were stealing their land? Savages!


Chief Powhatan released the prisoners, but did not return the weapons and tools which his people had stolen, so the English held on to Pocahontas. 
Hey, you took our tools, we kidnapped your daughter. Even-Steven!

During that year-long wait, she was treated with “extraordinary courteous usage,” according to colonist Ralph Hamor. 

And if you can't trust one of the hostage-takers to give an honest account of the treatment of the hostage, well. . . um. . . my brain hurts!
Anyway, he goes on with this bullshit  for a while before he comes to the moral of the story:


It’s arresting to think of how different the history of the American settlement and expansion could have been if the other indigenous peoples had followed Pocahontas’s example.

Yes, if only more Native girls had had the foresight to get themselves kidnapped by Englishmen. What a wonderful world this could have been!

She not only recognized the superiority of the God whom the colonists worshipped over the gods of her native people, she recognized the superiority (not the perfection) of their culture and adopted its patterns and language as her own. 

It's like Dances With Wolves in reverse! With Stockholm Syndrome!


In other words, she both converted and assimilated. She became both a Christian and an American (technically, of course, an Englishman).
Well, techincally an EnglishWOman, but why quibble? Oh, because it's fun? Okay!
Had the other indigenous people followed her example, their assimilation into what became America could have been seamless and bloodless. Sadly, it was not to be. 

If they had just realized how totally superior white people are, they could have handed over their lands voluntarily! The problem comes when these not-white folks don't recognize their inherent inferiority and start thinking they deserve to live their lives the way they see fit!


Is He Fucking Serious? 

Sadly, yes.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

AFA's Bryan Fischer Still Allowed to Comment Publicly, For Some Reason

And apparently, he's still obsessed with how nobody better try giving America back to them Injuns!

And you know why? 'Cuz they don't deserve it. Just being here first is no defense against God-sanctioned genocide!


Native Americans Morally Disqualified Themselves From the Land

Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:38 AM
By Bryan Fischer
In all the discussions about the European settlement of the New World, one feature has been conspicuously absent: the role that the superstition, savagery and sexual immorality of native Americans played in making them morally disqualified from sovereign control of American soil.

I got nothing. How do you even respond to a statement like that?



International legal scholars have always recognized that sovereign control of land is legitimately transferred in at least three ways: settlement, purchase, and conquest. Europeans have to this day a legitimate claim on American soil for all three of those reasons.

Um, really? Conquest is considered a legitimate transfer of sovereignty?  So if I beat you up and take your wallet, do I have a legitimate legal claim to your money? And does "settlement" really count if someone else is already living there? Can I "settle" in your living room and claim your house as mine since I've already unpacked my stuff and I'm pretty much settled in? I think I might like these rules, assuming that I could take you in a fight.


http://hill-kleerup.org/blog/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/bryanfischer.jpg

Oh, yeah. I'm gonna like these rules.




Much of the early territory in North American that came into possession of the Europeans came into their possession when the land was purchased from local tribes, Peter Minuit’s purchase of Manhattan being merely the first. 

I don't know where you're getting this, but even if we pretend that Manhattan was a legitimate purchase, that's still a pretty miniscule fraction of the North American land mass. "Buying" a tiny portion doesn't excuse or mitigate taking the rest by force of arms.


And the Europeans proved superior in battle, taking possession of contested lands through right of conquest. So in all respects, Europeans gained rightful and legal sovereign control of American soil. 

"Contested lands?" When I kick your ass and take your money, will you refer to "contested funds?" How in the hell do you get the idea that forceful conquest somehow equates to legitimate acquisition?




But another factor has rarely been discussed, and that is the moral factor. 

I think the moral angle would have to be that stealing and killing is bad?

In the ancient tradition of the Hebrews, God made it clear to Abraham that the land of Canaan was promised to his descendants. But he told Abraham the transfer of land to his heirs could not happen for 400 years, for one simple reason: “[T]he iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (Gen. 15:16). 

Hmm, what an odd coincidence. The book says that God promised the land to the people who wrote the book? What are the odds? And why would God wait until their "iniquity" was "complete?" If He knew that there was 400 more years of iniquity coming, why not just launch a pre-emptive strike? Had He not seen "Minority Report?" 


The Amorites, or Canaanite peoples, practiced one moral abomination after another, whether it was incest, adultery, sexual immorality, homosexuality, bestiality or child sacrifice, and God finally said “Enough!”
His patience was not rewarded, and finally the day came when the sin had reached its full measure. The slop bucket was full, and it was time to empty it out. Israel under Joshua was God’s custodian to empty the bucket and start over. 

Really? So how does this work? How many child sacrifices can I get away with before God gets fed up enough to do something about it? Is any of this in writing? How do I know how much sexual immorality I can indulge in before the slop bucket fills up? (Insert your own filthy joke here)


The native American tribes at the time of the European settlement and founding of the United States were, virtually without exception, steeped in the basest forms of superstition, had been guilty of savagery in warfare for hundreds of years, and practiced the most debased forms of sexuality. 

Okay, you really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? I certainly don't pretend to know anything about the sex lives of Native Americans 


http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2009/11/sexy-pocahotness.jpg

(I'm guessing this wasn't a documentary)

but I can tell you that the Native Americans that the first white folks encountered were pretty peaceful.

 
Does this ring a bell?
 
And those groups that were more bellicose were certainly not any more guilty of "savagery" than the Europeans who developed practices like the "Blood Eagle"  burning at the stake and Crucifixion.


One of the complaints listed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence was that King George “has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
Sounds a lot like "shock and awe." And of course, there's no way that Thomas Jefferson would just be saying something totally racist! (*cough* had slaves *cough*)


The native American tribes ultimately resisted the appeal of Christian Europeans to leave behind their superstition and occult practices for the light of Christianity and civilization. They in the end resisted every attempt to “Christianize the Savages of the Wilderness,” to use George Washington’s phrase. 

Oh, well, why didn't you say so? Fuck 'em then. If they won't adopt the ways of the guys with guns, then they deserve to be wiped out and. . .  wait, that doesn't sound right.

God explained to the nation of Israel that because of the “abomination(s)” of the indigenous Canaanite tribes, the land had become unclean and “vomited out its inhabitants (Lev. 18:25).”
Is this to say the same holds true for native American tribes today? In many respects, the answer is of course no. 

Oh, wow, I thought for sure you were going to say "yes!" It's nice to see that you have some shred of dignity. . .oh, you weren't done yet, were you?

In many respects, the answer is of course no. But in some senses, the answer is yes.

Oh, Goddammit!
 
 Many of the tribal reservations today remain mired in poverty and alcoholism because many native Americans continue to cling to the darkness of indigenous superstition instead of coming into the light of Christianity and assimilating into Christian culture. 

You do know how alcohol came to America, right? Maybe once the Indians tried the European custom of booze and saw how much harm it could do, they decided not to adopt other European practices? Just a thought. And we all know that there are no alcoholics in Christendom!


Sadly, this column will likely generate a firestorm of nuclear proportions among wingers on the left rather than the thoughtful reflection the thesis deserves.

Oh my God, I've seen episodes of Sponge Bob that deserve more thoughtful reflection than your "thesis!" 
If I'm understanding this right, your "thesis" is that anyone who doesn't share your religious beliefs is undeserving of land and whoever takes it from them is doing God's will. I assume that that would include the Christian epicenter of Europe, 8th Century Spain being conquered and ruled by the Moors for almost 8oo years. And the Ottoman Empire. And the empire of Alexander the Great? 


Also, you're a racist asshole. And no one has defended Manifest Destiny in decades. 


Idiot!