Stupid people saying Stupid Things

(TW: rape)





Stupid person #1: Bobby Jindal

Bobby Jindal: Bush 'Best American President Since Ronald Reagan'

By John Amato

 

Jeezus God, Jindal! The best since Reagan?  So, the best out of an entire four presidents? What a ringing endorsement! 

So what is it about ol' 43 that was so super awesome?

Jindal: Since Reagan we've had two republicans and two democrats, there are pros and cons. I think George W. Bush did an admirable job protecting our country against the threat, after 9/11, his presidency was largely defined about keeping us safe of international terrorism.

Augh!! Why do conservatives always thin that Bush gets a Mulligan for 9/11? It's always "Bush kept us all safe from the terrorists." Um, what about 9/11? "Oh, sure tthere was 9/11, but other than that one time, boy howdy did he keep us safe from the terrorists!"

Totally not a rapist. (Except for that one time)

Okay, but if you ignore his utter failure to even attempt to do anything to prevent the worst terrorist attack in our history, he really stacks up there with the greats. You know, running defecits that would make the Gipper blush,  putting the horsey guy in charge of FEMA, illegally invading and occupying the wrong country based on a bunch of lies, revoking habeus corpus, approving torture, how is this guy not on Mt Rushmore yet?


Stupid person # 2:  Star Parker
(yeah, I didn't know who she was either, it took me a few minutes to realize they weren't talking about Star Jones)

Star Parker Rolls Out A New Idea - 'Verbal Rape'

By karoli

Um, what? Is she maybe talking about some extreme form of verbal sexual harassment or. . .something?
Haha, no. She's talking about President Obama's comments at the National Prayer Breakfast, of course!

"I was in that room and it was frankly, verbal rape," Parker announced. . . which was what prompted Geraldo Rivera to utter a "Wow" offscreen before he came to a point where he called her pronouncement "harsh." 

Geez, when Geraldo is taken aback, you've really broken new ground in being a shitty hack!

This putz:


thinks you might have stepped over the line. A guy who works on a network that gives Ted Nugent and Ann Coulter a regular forum thinks you've gone a bit too far. Do you have any idea what an accomplishment that is?

 Parker did make a lame attempt at clarification, explaining it this way. “Verbal rape is what it was, because he pulled the air out of the room. There were 4,000 people there to unify.”

You know, I've been in rooms when someone has said something that "pulls the air out" of that room and it's an awkward feeling, a bit uncomfortable, perhaps, maybe even somewhat angering, but I'm pretty sure that one of the most heinous crimes that it is possible to commit is probably like a million times worse than that. I'm fairly sure you should be ashamed of yourself for even making that comparison. I'm pretty sure that you should spend the rest of your days being shunned and shamed and banished from decent society, but since none of those things happened to Todd Akin, I'm not holding out much hope.


 Stupid person #3: Jeff Sessions

“I think it’s an unhealthy trend that judges feel that they’re somehow reflecting popular opinion when first of all, it’s not popular opinion, and secondly, who are they to be ruling on cases based on how they feel.”

Yes. Yes, that's exactly what the courts are doing. Of course.
They make their rulings based on what they think popular opinion is.

 


Also, who are they? They're judges, genius. Ruling on legal cases is exactly their job description. And you might have a point if they were in fact ruling on cases based on how they feel, but actually what they do is rule based on legal precedent and their interpretation of the law and the Constitution which, sure, is pretty much the same thing.





Stupid person # 4: Mike Huckabee

Huckabee: Obama ‘Against What Christians Stand For,' Against ‘Jews in Israel,’ Has ‘Undying’ Support for Muslims

 


Undying support. For Muslims. Really.
The people upon whom drones drop bombs with horrifying regularity. Those people. Those are the people who have the President's undying support. Those people.

"Everything he does is against what Christians stand for, and he's against the Jews in Israel," he said on "Fox and Friends." "The one group of people that can know they have his undying, unfailing support would be the Muslim community. It doesn't matter whether it's the radical Muslim community or the more moderate Muslim community."

So. . . what exactly is it that Obama has done that is anti-Christian, exactly?
Oh, right. Everything!
I know how Jesus would've hated making it a little easier for sick people to see a doctor. Or letting kids stay in the only country they've ever known.
And don't get me started on all the terrible things Obama has done to Israel, like. . . um. . . you know. All those things. All the bad things he does to the Jews over in Israel. Oh, just too many to name. I mean, there's so many I can't name even one.

Evidence

So I was reading yet another in the endless series of "look how stupid they are at FOX" stories on the internet, when this exchange between FOX interchangeable hot blonde # 5 and some weird minister caught my eye:

"I hear a lot of people saying, you can't prove it," Earhardt noted. "Did someone really get swallowed by a whale, did Noah really build this Ark? What's your response to those skeptics?"
"I think there's probably more less evidence than the average devout Christian would hope for, but way more evidence than our average atheist friend would ever imagine," Dickson opined.

Really?
Evidence?
There's really evidence that a man was swallowed by a whale, survived for 3 days and then was puked back up onto shore?
What is this evidence? He doesn't say and she doesn't ask, but I'm a curious fellow, so I googled evidence + jonah + whale to see what came up. Surprisingly, a lot!
Here's the first thing that came up:

Did Jonah Really Get Swallowed by a Whale?

by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

If I may summarize, the evidence presented in this article amounts to:
A) very large fish exist.
B) God can do what He wants.
What more "evidence" do you need, you dumb atheist?

First, let me say that the historicity of this account is vital to the Christian. Believing it is not an option, for Jesus Christ Himself believed it and made it a model for the doctrine of His resurrection. "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40).

Well, if Jesus used the story as a metaphor, that proves that it's factual! No one ever usess fictional stories to make rhetorical points!

Also, if you're doing "research," and you begin with the postulate that what you are researching must necessarily, inescapably be literally true, then I think you may have a flaw in your methodology.

Could a man survive in a fish’s belly? The Hebrew idiom "three days and three nights" has been clearly shown both from Scripture and other sources to mean a period of time beginning on one day and ending on the day after the one following. It doesn't necessarily mean three full days and nights.

Every word of this story must be believed as the literally true word of God Himself! Oh, 3 days and 3 nights? Yeah, he probably didn't really mean THREE days and nights. It's just a figure of speech!

Furthermore, there have been several reported cases of modern sailors or other individuals swallowed by such an animal, only to be recovered many hours later.

Huh! That's odd, you don't include any links? You don't have links to all these newspaper headlines that read: "Sailor Pulled Alive From Belly of Herring!"

Doesn't count.

Clearly this event was miraculous and not a naturalistic phenomenon. Thus we don’t have to give it an explanation limited by modern experience or knowledge.

 

I don't have to show you any stinking evidence!

 Here's another source:

How could Jonah survive three days in the belly of a “whale”?

 This is from "Christian Answers.net" and they also begin by weaseling on the whole "three days" thing.

In the first place, it has been well established that the phrase “three days and three nights” in ancient Hebrew usage was an idiomatic expression meaning simply “three days,” and was applicable even if the beginning and ending days of the period were only partial days. Thus it could refer to a period as short as about 38 hours. 

Oh, well. 38 hours. Surely 38 hours without air in the digestive acids of a whale's stomach is totally survivable.

Pretty much like this, right?

  There is always some air in the whale’s stomach, and, as long as the animal it has swallowed is still alive, digestive activity will not begin.

Okay, that can not possibly be true. 

How would the whale's digestive fluids know whether the  meat in its stomach was alive or dead? Also, why would it care? Is there some system built into whales that would alert the stomach "hey, not so fast, this guy's still alive?" And would the whale's stomach not answer "what the fuck do I care? I'm starving!"

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE BOOK OF JONAH BEING TRUE
Jews at the time of Jesus viewed Jonah as history.

Oh, well. If First Century goat-herders  belived ithis was true, that's pretty convincing. It's not like anyone believed anything silly back then!

It's not as though the most advanced race of the time believed that their city-state had been founded by two orphaned twins who were nursed by a wolf.

 

Still more legit than the History Channel!

Then of course there's "Answers in Genesis"

• Answers in Genesis
• Answers
• Bible
• Bible Characters
• Jonah and the Great Fish

Jonah and the Great Fish

Could someone survive three days and three nights in a whale’s belly?

• This is the difficult part of the question. There are fish species that surface from the sea and gulp down air into their lungs, like the lungfish for example. But there is no explanation for how air might have been transferred to the stomach.

so. . .No?

What about the digestive juices?

• The Encarta Encyclopedia reports, "When whales swallow food, it travels through the esophagus to a multi-chambered stomach that resembles the stomachs of ruminant hoofed animals such as cattle, sheep and deer. In the first stomach chamber, a saclike extension of the esophagus, food is crushed. In the second chamber, digestive juices further break down food." 4 If Jonah remained in this first chamber, he only needed to be worried about being crushed rather than digested!

What about other stories?

• There are a number of stories that have been around for over 100 years about whales swallowing men whole. Perhaps the most famous is the story of James Bartley, a whaler on the vessel Star of the East, who reportedly was swallowed by a whale and survived. However, there are a number of questions as to the authenticity of this story, and it should not be used as a "proof" of any kind (just Google "James Bartley" and you’ll see what we mean).

Well that's refreshingly honest! You're actually admitting that this story is probably bullshit and isn't really "evidence." Okay, so we've gt no air, crushed by the stomach, and probably digested. What's your bottom line, based on your examination of all the evidence?

The bottom line:

1. God needed to discipline a runaway prophet.
2. God did prepare a "great fish" aquatic creature.
3. God brought the runaway prophet and the "great fish" together for His glory and the salvation of a large city. 

You know you can believe whatever yoiu want, right? You can believe that Jonah was literally swallowed by a literal fish, lived in his belly for 3 literal days and literally survived. Or you can believe that the story is a legend, or myth, or a parable or fable, or whatever you want. Just let's not pretend that you can prove that it actually happened. Because that's just silly.

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION. . . to be defended in this day and age.

Okay, it all started when the President made a seemingly pretty darn innocuous statement about people using their religion to justify despicable behavior. First he talked about Al Qeda and ISIS/ISIL. Then he said this:

And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ…

Which is pretty generous considering he could have used much more recent examples of faith-based murder, like the killing of Dr. Tiller, or the bombing spree of Eric Rudolph, or the Phineas Priesthood, etc. Of course, this led to a ton of faux-outrage on the right, with high dudgeon for everyone, and all the umbrage you can take!
That was, of course, to be expected. But I know I, for one, never expected anyone to defend the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades. Not in 2015!

Boy was I in for a surprise!

You see, I hadn't counted on . . . (Dramatic music). . . Jonah Goldberg!!!

Yes, the man whose sole qualification is being the doughy amorphous offspring of the contemptible Lucianne Goldberg, I hadn't reckoned with him!

It seems you have underestimated me again, Professor! Bwuhahahahahaha!!!

He begins his little column sanely enough, talking about ISIS's disgusting videos and President Obama's comments on the subject. He even goes so far as to admit:

Obama’s right. Terrible things have been done in the name of Christianity. I have yet to meet a Christian who denies this.

The first two words of that paragraph are probably enough to get him fired from National Review Online.
But then he redeems himself, and by "redeems himself" I of course mean "goes completely off the rails and drives the train into bullshit canyon."

But, as odd as it may sound for a guy named Goldberg to point it out, the Inquisition and the Crusades aren’t the indictments Obama thinks they are. For starters, the Crusades — despite their terrible organized cruelties — were a defensive war.

Wow. Why do guys like Goldberg think they can just make up their own facts? A defensive war? I'm sorry, were you under the impression that the Turks had invaded Vatican City? Because, sure, then it would have been a defensive war. But when you have to travel 1,400 miles in order to engage the enemy, it's pretty hard to claim that you're playing defense!

 “The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual response to the jihad — a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war,” writes Bernard Lewis, the greatest living English-language historian of Islam.

Sure, and had the Crusades been fought by the residents of the Holy Lands against the Muslim invaders, you might have a point. But seeing as how they were fought by European Christians, not Palestinian Jews or Arabs, I really don't see how you can call this "defensive."

As for the Inquisition, it needs to be clarified that there was no single “Inquisition,” but many. And most were not particularly nefarious. For centuries, whenever the Catholic Church launched an inquiry or investigation, it mounted an “inquisition,” which means pretty much the same thing.

Okay, let's assume that that is true. I don't know whether it is, but I've been out of school for awhile so no one can make me do research anymore, so I'll just assume that the term "Inquisition" was also used to refer to any type of inquiry or investigation. So what? You know perfectly well what people are referring to when they mention the Spanish Inquisition. They mean the one with the torture and the killing. It's like when an American says "football," you know perfectly well he mean the sport with the  touchdowns and the field goals and the life-threatening cranial injuries, not the one with the kicking and the nets and the non-use of hands. And you can say "you know, erm, in the rest of the world, erm, when they say "football" they mean what we call, ahem,  'soccer.'" but that just makes you this guy:


And no one likes this guy.

I cannot defend everything done under the various Inquisitions — especially in Spain — because some of it was indefensible.

Also, I cannot justify everything that Charles Manson has done, but. . .

I cannot defend everything done under the various Inquisitions — especially in Spain — because some of it was indefensible. But there’s a very important point to make here that transcends the scoring of easy, albeit deserved, points against Obama’s approach to Islamic extremism (which he will not call Islamic): Christianity, even in its most terrible days, even under the most corrupt popes, even during the most unjustifiable wars, was indisputably a force for the improvement of man.

Um, really?
I think Galileo might disagree.
It's just possible that doing everything in their power to prevent science from happening might not have really contributed to all that much "betterment."

Also, I'm guessing the women burned as witches might have some comment on that. As would the Aztecs, The Mayans, and other native American groups decimated by Spanish "missionaries" who believed in conversion through enslavement.

Pretty sure this guy would beg to differ:


Look, I know that if Obama is fer it, you're legally required to be agin' it and if Obama is agin' it, you are contractually bound to be fer it, but Jeezus Christ, the Inquisition? The Crusades? A more clever person than I once said that if Obama came out in favor of oxygen, Republicans would all suffocate, and I'm starting to think that may not be that big an exaggeration. If you're going to defend these kinds of atrocities just because Obama said they were bad, I mean. . . I mean. . . what the hell, man?

 

Sure, this looks bad, but on the other hand, Obama condemns it, so. . .?

We are all descended from cavemen who broke the skulls of their enemies with rocks for fun or profit. But that hardly mitigates the crimes of a man who does the same thing today. I see no problem judging the behavior of the Islamic State and its apologists from the vantage point of the West’s high horse, because we’ve earned the right to sit in that saddle.

Okay, see - why not just say that? Why not just say that we in the West are at least no beheading people or burning them alive, so we have a moral superiority compared to ISIS? It's hard to argue that. Although, one might note that most non-Westerners, most Muslims are also not beheading or burning people, so let's not act like our superioroty extends to all non-Westerners, but still. You can certainly make that point without going through the mental gymnsatics required to come up with a defense of the Spanish Inquisition!

Wait, how long have I been gone?

How the hell did this happen?

GOP Rep. Sean Duffy: ‘Oppressive’ to Mandate Vaccines

by Josh Feldman | 5:47 pm, February 3rd, 2015Republican Congressman Sean Duffy said on MSNBC earlier today that only an “oppressive state” would mandate that all children get vaccines, and that shouldn’t happen in America.

Is this not still the 21st Century?

I know these monstrously stupid and narcissistic anti-vaccine imbeciles have been around for a while now, but how has this exploded as an issue now?

Chris Christie expressed concern about vaccine autism link 

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie suggested Monday that officials find a “balance” between requiring vaccinations and allowing parents to turn them down.

Why now? Why, at the exact moment in time that we are beginning to see the horrible consequences of  pompous, solipsistic  morons refusing to vaccinate their children, why is now the time that the right-wing decides to make "choice" a political talking point?

Rand Paul: Children Got 'Profound Mental Disorders' After Receiving Vaccines

Oh, great! They'll probably grow up to be Libertarians!

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) argued Monday that debate over whether to allow parents more choice in the vaccination of their children was a matter of "freedom," citing personal knowledge of kids "who wound up with profound mental disorders" after receiving immunizations for diseases like Hepatitis B and measles.
"I don't think there's anything extraordinary about resorting to freedom,"

Oh, fer fuck sake!
I know you guys are all about the FREEDOMMMMMMM!!!!!! but we are currently seeing the results of this kind of bullshit thinking, and it's not only those kids whose dickweed parents don't vaccinate who are at risk, it's everybody. And once your FREEDOMMMMMM!!!! begins to cause injury to your fellow citizens, it's no longer just about what you want.

I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children, who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. I'm not arguing that vaccines are a bad idea, I think they're a good thing. But I think parents should have some input. The state doesn't own your children, parents own their children, and it is an issue of freedom. "

Oh my God, where to begin?
First of all, if you really believe this nonsense about children getting profound mental disorders from vaccines, how do you then turn around and argue that vaccines are a good thing?
Also, parents do NOT own their children. Children are human beings. No one owns them.  And sure, we give parents a ton of leeway in deciding how to raise the children for whom they are responsible, but when we are talking about something like vaccines, something about which there is no legitimate debate, if you as a parent are such an idiotic lunatic that you would deny your children something which prevents deadly diseases then, yes, the State needs to step in and say "yopu do not have the right to make that decision for someone else, especially not for a helpless child who can't possibly grasp the consequences of your fuckheaded decision."

We have laws that say you have to educate your children (even allowing for home-schooling which is a topic for another day). You are legally required to feed, clothe and shelter your children. So why not have vaccines be mandatory?

I can't think of any reason not to require vaccines for all children. I can think of a few reasons why we should.

US Measles Outbreak Growing, CDC Says - ABC News 

Ohio mumps cases at 35-year high, measles outbreak still growing

Whooping cough outbreak sickens 10,000 in California

Another thing I learned in Italy

1. Hoard olive oil!
Apparently, winters need to get down to a certain temperature in order for olive trees to produce olives that are worth harvesting for oil. Last winter did not reach this level, and it looks like this one won't either. (But don't worry, global warming is still fake!)
Anyway, I would expect the price of olive oil to go way up in the near future. So, even if you no longer need to dip your bread into it, you might want to load up on olive oil right now.