It's not bad enough that troglodyte chief justice Roy Moore has decided that Alabamans don't have to obey the law if they don't want to, now they can arrest someone who does obey the law?
Same-sex couples married in some Alabama courthouses today, but many
counties refused to allow the unions despite rulings on Monday from a
federal judge and the U.S. Supreme Court to permit them.
Jeezus Christ! Haven't we been over this already? Didn't you assholes already try try this shit with segregation? And you're still just going to pretend that the Supremacy Clause doesn't exist?
As of Friday, the Autauga County Probate Office ceased all marriages
inside the office. Probate Judge Al Booth told the Montgomery Advertiser
newspaper that the decision to stop performing the ceremonies was
related to work flow, not the recent federal court order lifting the
state’s ban on same-sex marriages.
Oh, of course. Of course. There are just so darn many people trying to have their weddings at the Astauga County courthouse, you just can't possibly accommodate all of them! The only way to be fair is to just not do your fucking job for any loving couples. gay or breeder. Of course!
Autauga County Sheriff Joe Sedinger tells ABC News that Diprizio's
attempt to perform a marriage was the only reason she was arrested for
disorderly conduct and not with the fact it was a same-sex marriage.
Of course. It's weddings in general to which you object.
Obviously.
How many times do you slack-jawed yokels want to re-fight the Civil War? The Supreme Court of the United States is, as the name implies, the supreme court of the United States. If they say same-sex marriage is legal, guess what, moron? It's legal. Do you never tire of being on the wrong side of history?
You're just lucky Ike isn't president anymore, or he'd have the National Guard down there enforcing the goddamm law.
While explaining why he believes that funding for education should be cut, Brat crapped out this gem of logic:
“Socrates trained Plato in on a rock and then Plato trained in Aristotle roughly speaking on a rock. So, huge funding is not necessary to achieve the greatest minds and the greatest intellects in history.”
Oh, of course! Oh, it's so simple! How did we not see this?
Instead of spending a bunch of money on schools, all we have to do is give each student a rock!
And then hire a brilliant philosopher to be a personal tutor/teacher/mentor for each student. Each student gets a rock and his own personal genius to take him under his wing and mold him. How much could that possibly cost?
Gosh, it's almost like he wants to return to a time when education was a luxury of the wealthy!
It's fairly shocking that the "50 Shades" books became so popular. Partly because when did it become acceptable to tell people about the bondage porn you're reading, and also because from the excerpts I've seen online it appears to be a poorly-written extta-long letter to Penthouse Forum.
It's doubly shocking that the books have been embraced largely by suburban housewives because first of all, since when do suburban housewives read pornography, and second how is anyone not offended/disgusted by these books?
I've not read the books, nor do I intend to see the movie, but from what I've gathered from seeing the ads and a few brief on-line excerpts, the "50 Shades" franchise seems to teach the following lessons:
--It's super hot when a guy forces you to do something you're not comfortable with
and
--If you put up with his abuse long enough, he's sure to fall in love with you even if he says he won't.
So naturally, there has been a backlash on social media which is good. But what I find shocking is that, among the posts and tweets decrying the film's portrayal of domestic abuse as erotica, I've seen several like this one:
After visiting a BDSM dungeon while preparing for his role as Christian Grey in the 50 Shades of Grey film, actor Jamie Dornan told Elle UK, “Then going back to my wife and newborn baby afterwards… I had a long shower before touching either of them.” It’s this kind of shame, fear and judgment that has kept
the BDSM community out of the limelight in the past decades, and so many people confused and prejudiced.
Seriously? That's your objection to "50 Shades?" This is a book series and movie that glamorizes and romanticizes an abusive relationship with lines like this:
And your objection is that it's contributing to misunderstandings about the "BDSM community?" Really? That's what bothers you about this, not the fact that forcing her to do some sex thing that she doesn't want to is presented as erotic or hot? Not the fact that emotional manipulation and intimidation are presented as a romantic love story? You see that and you think "darn it, now people will think that sadists are bad people!" Any normal, decent person would think "dammit, I hope no young women/girls see this and think that this is acceptable behavior from a partner." What the fuck?
Thing # 2:
Two actual sitting members of Congress, not am talk radio loons or random internet morons, but actual United States Congressmen accused the President of the United States of siding with ISIS.
First up, Pennsylvania Republican Scott Perry
Perry said that while he feels “duty bound” to stop the “growing
scourge” of the Islamic State, he doesn’t want to sanction the use of
force by Obama, who he claimed is “really working collaboratively with
what I would say is the enemy of freedom and individual freedom and
liberty and Western civilization and modernity.” “And in that context, how do you vote to give this commander-in-chief
the authority and power to take action when…you know in your heart
that, if past performance is any indicator of future performance, that
he won’t, and that he actually might use it to further their cause and
what seems to be his cause and just drag you as a complicitor [sic] in
it,” he said.
And then Arizona's Matt Salmon
Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., is joining other Republicans in expressing doubts that President Obama actually wants to defeat the ISIS terrorist group, telling the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins yesterday that he is wary of voting for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force because he fears Obama has no intention to fight the so-called Islamic State, also called ISIL.
“This president, I believe, does not want to do anything to make Iran mad, and so I think if he did what it takes to topple Assad and destroy ISIL, it could upset his applecart,” Salmon said. “I don’t believe that the president really wants to prosecute a war that would truly destroy ISIL, I don’t think he has any intention of doing that it. I think he wants to micromanage his generals to the point that it’s a political front, it is not a real prosecution of an effort to destroy ISIL.”
Wait, check that. It's 3 US Congressmen now, including Texas' Randy Webber
“I was at an Israeli function, uh, AIPAC function couple weekends ago,”
said Weber. “One of friend’s there said, ‘Congressman Weber, we’re not
sure the president has Israeli’s back.’ And I looked at him dead center
Craig and said, ‘friend, we’re not sure he’s got America’s back.’”
“So we don’t trust him to prosecute the war. Now we don’t want to seem
to be anti you know, anti—not to be in favor of fighting terrorism. We
understand that this is a cancer that has got to be cut out and so we
have to be very diligent about how we do this but again realizing that
the president apparently thinks he is the smartest man in the world. He
doesn’t have to listen to his generals. He knows better than them? And
so really it puts us in a quandary because really we want to go after
this cancer and cut it out but then we remember who the
commander-in-chief is.”
Jesus Christ!
Remember when the Dixie Chicks said something mildly negative about the President and got death threats and had their music boycotted and everything? Now it's apparently perfectly acceptable for, not entertainers, but men in positions of serious responsibility to accuse this President of siding with the nation's enemies?
Has there been any uproar about these scumbags slandering the President?
Has anyone called for them to be drummed out of office?
Has anyone even demanded an apology?
How is this acceptable?
If they said this shit about a private citizen they should be sued into the poorhouse. And they're saying it about the goddamm president? And there are no repercussions?
Every time you think these shitbags have hit rock bottom, they find a new low.
And I wouldn't have thought it was possible anymore, but I am shocked!
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)
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.
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.
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:
God needed to discipline a runaway prophet.
God did prepare a "great fish" aquatic creature.
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.
