Tuesday, February 28, 2012

The logical conclusion to an illogical premise


This blog is mainly dedicated to exposing liberalism as a religion. This religion, like many others, holds certain beliefs to be the ironclad truth and all of their subsequent ideas and actions flow from this foundation of belief. Most people recognize that religious fanatics are in fact able to think logically, particularly when they are dealing with a problem or issue that is unrelated to their religious beliefs. However, one thing that is rarely acknowledged is that these same religious fanatics can also be extremely rational in taking their religious beliefs to their logical conclusion.

Basically, what I'm saying is that when a person holds the false belief A, their subsequent realization of ideas B and C may flow logically from A, but the entire sequence of A->B->C is of course false because their starting premise was untrue.

I believe this describes the very essence of the liberal religion. Almost every liberal idea would make sense if the underlying belief acting as the motivation for their ideas weren't so horribly flawed. What follows is the most extreme example of this phenomenon:

The liberal believes that a fetus is not a person and that the mother's vague right to "choice" trumps any rights of what they consider to be a non-person. The problem of course with this premise is that besides the absolute starting point of human development (i.e. conception) there is no logical event or process that determines when a fetal or embryonic "non-person" magically blinks into existence as a human. However, all fetuses eventually become full grown adults, so the dividing line must logically exist. But where? At birth? Is the definition of human life based literally on geographical location, or does the liberal believe in a vagina fairy that sprinkles each of us with our humanity as we travel through the birth canal? What about newborns? Even a newborn baby has very poorly developed frontal lobe activity, so does that mean they too are "non-persons"? In fact, frontal lobe development isn't completed until well after puberty, so is that the dividing line, puberty? My point is, if you accept the liberal starting premise, the logical conclusion is that newborns and maybe even adolescents aren't fully human and therefore it is morally permissible to exterminate them.

You might say, but Winston you are being ridiculous. Nobody would argue that killing newborns is morally permissible. I mean that would just be absolutely fucking deranged. Well, here you go folks, from the article:

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”
 Well holy shit! That's certainly an interesting idea! Please tell me more!
The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” 
Awesome newspeak, please continue!
The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
 Fuck yea!, we threw in some eugenics in there as well. Fire up those gas chambers boys!
They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.
Well of course early term abortions are preferable, I mean it's not like we are unreasonable people or anything.
The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.”
Ha! morally relevant shmorally shmelevent. We won't let those right wing nuts shove their morality down our throats!

Anyway, you can read the rest of this grotesque piece of uber fucking bullshit during your spare time. Would you believe however that it actually gets worse? The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics that published this garbage has this to say to you pro-life fascists out there: (Warning- the all consuming irony of the following statement may cause your brain to explode)
What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.
What the response to this article reveals, through the microscope of the web, is the deep disorder of the modern world. Not that people would give arguments in favour of infanticide, but the deep opposition that exists now to liberal values and fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement.
You hear that fuckheads? Arguing that we should kill children is proper academic discussion, but arguing that we shouldn't kill children reveals the "deep disorder of the modern world". You crazies need to stop with your fanatical opposition to killing babies. What the fuck is wrong with you people!

I'm seriously starting to believe that this has to be a hoax because it really is beyond comprehension. I think my favorite part of the editor's statement is her unapologetic admission that infanticide is a liberal value. Well, no shit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Again, I'm going to go on the record as saying that this must be a hoax. I mean this is worse than any snide intentionally obnoxious caricature I could ever come up with for a liberal. If it isn't a hoax, well I guess I can just shut this blog down because really what other point about the derangement of the liberal is there to make?*



It's not easy being green



Well, it's looking like members of Iran's Green Revolution did indeed ask for help from the U.S. way back in 2009. It seems to have occurred right around the same time that his excellency King Obama I, was demonstrating his sharp intellect and foreign policy acumen with his precision tactic of saying and doing nothing during the brutal 2009 crackdown on the Greens. After the massacre was over, his majesty  assured his subjects that his court had never received a single correspondence from the Greens, implying that if he had, the same royal generosity that his own subjects enjoy would have been equally lavished upon the Green peasants abroad.

Not to worry though. If the Ayatollahs do acquire a nuclear weapon, the God King will simply use his divine powers of speech to knock these weapons from the sky and restore peace and harmony to the world for ages to come.

If that plan fails, the following quote from the Greens will have textbooks devoted to it in the future:
“Will (the countries of the West) continue on the track of wishful thinking and push every decision to the future until it is too late?”

Monday, February 27, 2012

Liberal Safari # 1


Here is a new segment where I share some of my internet encounters with the Liberalis Fucktardus species. This first one is short, but enjoy!

Winston: "It doesn’t really seem like the cost of contraceptives is causing some huge gap in access. I mean, there’s like 90 Million prescriptions for contraceptives filled yearly, which seems fairly universal. For the few who can’t afford it, couldn’t the HHS simply have ordered Medicaid to end co-pays for contraceptives? Why not end co-pays for Lipitor?...I guess it’s because “Obama Protects Women!” looks better than “Obama Helps Manage Your Cholesterol!” in a campaign ad."

Useless Liberal Retard: "Winston, you seem pretty bitter about the fact that poor women now have more control of their reproductive health".
Interesting. Notice how liberalis fucktardus has evolved to be unable to comprehend the third sentence that I wrote, which directly addresses the issue of poor women. Instead, fucktardus instinctively retreats to its religious belief that as a conservative I must hate women. Therefore,  fucktardus, also being unable to think for itself, restates an asinine liberal talking point that it saw in the Huffington Post and attempts to ass-jam it into a conversation where it makes zero sense whatsoever.

That's all for today.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Sunday Journal Club



I figured it was about time I started actually reading up a bit on this whole Global Warming Climate Change thing, so let's start with this paper from science, which has this interesting statement included within:

“Over the last 12,000 years virtually every centennial time scale increase in drift ice documented in our North Atlantic records was tied to a distinct interval of variable and, overall, reduced solar output".

Hmm, could it be that the giant nuclear fireball in the sky may actually be affecting temperatures here on planet Earth? I don't know, I guess you will have to read the paper to find out.

As I have stated before, I am fairly ignorant of the global warming climate change science, but there are a few things I do know, including the following:

1. Throughout history people have made enormous fools of themselves trying to predict the weather and also trying to predict the end of the world. Global warming climate change theory attempts to predict both.

2. Liberals are extremely shrieky about global warming climate change and every issue in human history that has had a liberal shrieking in its favor has turned out to be exceedingly wrong and stupid.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

There's a straw man waiting in the sky, he'd like to come and meet us, but he thinks he'd blow our minds


Check out this worthless greasy idiot.

First off, this isn't even funny. Second, if we really want to talk about stupidity, how about the breathtaking stupidity required for someone to not even recognize his own strawman arguments. Protesting "health care"? That doesn't even make any sense. People were protesting a health care LAW because they believed it would add to costs and decrease the quality of the health care they received. This is the usual attitude of the arrogant inept liberal. When they are losing an argument, rather than recognize that perhaps their position is false or at the very least requires some amount of calibration, they ludicrously assume that the person they are arguing with is too dumb to recognize the correctness of their position. If those people truly are dumb however, how does the liberal explain that they are losing the argument to these so called dummies in the first place?

Yea, Bill Maher is a real intellect. It takes a super amount of brain power to assign your opponent a simplistic idiotic position, he or she doesn't even hold, and then point out the simplicity and idiocy of said position. What a douchebag. Also check out the title of the video assigned by his fellow brain dead liberal idiots at yahoo: "Bill Maher takes on health care haters". Health care haters?....Again, what a bunch of fucking imbeciles the modern day liberals have become.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Reichskonkordat


The following is not an attempt to equate liberals with Nazis because comparisons such as that are idiotic and therefore only made by liberals formulating arguments against Republican tax and budget proposals.

The purpose of this post is to highlight how fanatical religious like political movements, such as liberalism, attempt to remove competing religious views from the national discourse. This is because ultimately the liberal seeks to create a "religion of the state", meaning that devotions to the old religions get replaced with devotion to the state and to the political party in power. This is what is behind the selective accusations against the Catholic Church of 1st amendment violations, that I outlined previously.

Let's look at what the 1st amendment actually says, focusing on the part about the relationship between church and state:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
These words are crystal clear. There isn't much interpretation to be made here. Basically, the government will not establish a state religion and will not interfere with the free practice of religion. Notice how the words say what the government shall not do. It says absolutely nothing about what the members of a religion can and cannot do. The 1st amendment was absolutely never meant to muzzle members of a religion when it came to their right to petition their government just as any other citizen would. Notice how the right to free speech comes immediately afterwords in the text. I think the order that these rights were listed may not have been random. I say this because the liberal interpretation of the 1st amendment has increasingly been that religions and religious people are not permitted to petition their government based on points of view that are in any way derived from their religious beliefs. This line of thought is in direct opposition to what the 1st amendment is saying because this would in effect "prohibit the free exercise" of their religion by forcing these people to give up other enumerated rights in order to be permitted to continue practicing their religion.

The recent contraception mandate is an obvious example of what I am saying. The government made a law that the Catholic Church is fiercely opposed to. Catholics voiced their opposition by petitioning their elected representatives. Liberals then accused the Catholic Church of violating the separation of church and state because they were somehow infusing their religious beliefs into politics. Even if we ignore the numerous secular arguments against the contraception mandate, (chief amongst them being that access to birth control is not an issue for the vast majority of women and there are already multiple programs available to help poor women obtain birth control, which is why birth control is available to 99% of women who want it according to the CDC) and assume that opposition to the mandate is based purely on religious ideology, this still doesn't change the fact that these religious people have every right to lobby against the new law, as guaranteed by the 1st amendment.

What makes this line of attack against Catholics even more disturbing is that it is applied selectively. I have already discussed this in a previous post, but the basics of what I said were that liberals only roll out this argument when a particular religious institution is lobbying against their proposal. However, when a religious group agrees with their proposal, such as in the case of ObamaCare, there are absolutely no complaints from the left. Conversely, notice how Republicans never once cited 1st amendment violations when the Catholics lobbied on behalf of ObamaCare.

The Reichskonkordat, was an agreement between the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany in 1933 that effectively guaranteed religious freedom to the Catholic Church in Germany if the Church agreed to stop any form of "Political Catholicism" within Germany. This was meant to remove Catholic opposition to Nazi policies and to ensure that the loyalty of the citizens of Germany would not be split between the church and the party. This is basically the same vision liberals have for religion in the United States; Tolerated so long as their viewpoints do not interfere with the Church of Liberalism. 

As an aside, the history of the Catholic Church and Nazism is an interesting read, and is a history that has long been perverted by liberals.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

You damn dirty Catholic Firsters!


Hey Papists, Chris Mathews thinks you need to stop being dirty bigots.

The schizophrenia that the liberals display with their attitude towards Catholics is astounding. Liberals didn't seem to have a problem when Ra-Obama secured the Catholic vote by a 9 point margin in 2008. Also, during the Obamacare fiasco, liberals went on this strange campaign to remove the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church because they participate in "political lobbying", until of course the abortion question was sort-of-kind-of resolved, and the Catholic Church became a primary champion of Obamacare. Suddenly the calls to remove the Catholic Church's tax exempt status went silent. Strange, isn't supporting Obamacare also political lobbying? It just shows that liberals have no problem using the power of the state to silence political opposition.

Also, as far as the opposition to gay marriage goes, I'm pretty sure that almost every single religion on the planet opposes gay marriage. So, why are we strangely singling out the Catholic Church? Could it be (and I know this is just a super duper ridiculous long shot) that it's because the Catholics were the most vocal in recent opposition to his majesty's proclamation that all religious groups shall provide contraception and abortifacients to their employees? I know....I know, I'm just being paranoid again. I mean, how inappropriate would it be for a journalist to unfairly smear an entire religion in order to intimidate them into removing their opposition to the sitting Democratic president's legislative proposal? I mean, shit like that only happens in places with state controlled media, right?

Monday, February 20, 2012

A new victim group in the making.


The liberal newage religious sect that goes by the name "atheists" are marching on D.C. because of all the horrible discrimination they are facing. Awwww. *sniff*, *sniff*...poor guys. Here's a quote from one of these unfortunate souls, bravely soldiering on in the face of extreme hardship:

“There are more atheists in the country right now than Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists combined and doubled – that’s a lot of people, and we are the most hated … for no reason other than pure and simple religious bigotry, spurned by ignorance”

Can we please be serious for a second? Nobody gives a fuck whether you are an atheist or not. This is that whole lame ass, "yea, we are totally freaking out the squares, man", mentality. You know, that inflated sense of self importance where you actually believe other people are all sitting around thinking and talking about you.

It's more than that though. It's also an attempt by yet another group of fucking assholes to carve themselves out a piece of that "victim group" pie. That way these losers can be comfortable in the belief that they are special and have a harder go of it than the rest of us in society. You know, without actually having to accomplish anything or experience any true hardship that would make them legitimately deserving of special recognition.

Also, do these dipshits actually think that questioning the existence of God is some sort of miraculous quantum leap in the history of human thought and therefore deserving of special praise? I'm pretty sure that the great majority of us have pondered that possibility at some point in our lives. They also seem to think that we are living in the age of Copernicus and by declaring themselves atheists they are fearlessly exposing themselves to the wrath of the unenlightened masses (Which reminds me..where did I put my stack of burning people at the stake kindling?). Well not to worry, nobody actually gives a shit. Plus you aren't even atheists anyway.

Are you a looter or a producer...or just a parasite?


Here's the quick background; A man named Mr. Ahadzi was somehow convinced to let #Occupy Rape Street use his home for a publicity stunt last December. The basic idea was that members of ORS would take over Mr. Ahadzi's house while he was negotiating foreclosure with his bank. ORS planned, with the help of Democratic councilman Charles Barron, to find a homeless family to move into the house. Presumably they hoped this stunt would would put banks on the defensive by creating a miniature anecdote that they could then exploit for some sort of political gain. Well, the actual result was pretty much as expected for anyone who has been following ORS; They completely gutted and destroyed everything (including literally the kitchen sink), so now nobody can live there. Isn't this pretty much how liberalism works? They claim some vague noble cause as a smokescreen for their parasitic looting of everything good and decent in society.

Anyway, a world in which liberals have a free run on things can be summed up pretty succinctly with the lyrics of "Mile End" by Pulp. It's a good song, itunes it:

We didn't have no where to live, / we didn't have nowhere to go
'til someone said / "I know this place off Burditt Road."
It was on the fifteenth floor, / it had a board across the door.
It took an hour / to pry it off and get inside. / It smelt as if someone had died;
the living-room was full of flies, / the kitchen sink was blocked,
the bathroom sink not there at all. / Ooh, / it's a mess alright, / yes it's
Mile End. / And now we're living in the sky! / I'd never thought I'd live so
high, / just like Heaven / (if it didn't look like Hell.)
The lift is always full of piss, / the fifth floor landing smells of fish
(not just on Friday, / every single other day.)
Below the kids come out tonight, / they kick a ball and have a fight
and maybe shoot somebody if they lose at pool.
Ooh, / it's a mess alright, / yes it's / Mile End.

Oo-ooh / Nobody wants to be your friend
'cause you're not from round here, / ooh / as if that was
something to be proud about. / The pearly king of the Isle of Dogs
feels up children in the bogs. / Down by the playing fields,
someone sets a car on fire I guess you have to go right down
before you understand just how, / how low,
how low a human being can go. / Ooh, / it's a mess alright, / yes it's
Mile End. / (don't do that! Leave it out!)



Saturday, February 18, 2012

Where have all the richly deserved ass beatings gone?



This story is kind of old, but worth a revisit. Basically, members of a nationwide rape gang, who go by the name "Occupy Wall Street", threw a bunch of condoms at Catholic school girls during a pro-life event in Rhode Island. Many people have voiced their disgust at this behavior wondering exactly what kind of weak demented brain would lead a person to do this, but I think questioning the motives of Occupy Rape Street is hugely missing the point. The real story is that these weak pathetic parasites went through all this trouble to guarantee that they would be the recipient of a mammoth sized ass beating, yet were unjustly denied said ass beating. The fact that that these liberals could throw condoms at children and not a single person kicked the shit out of them is the real sign of a nation in decline.

After seeing this story, I started to think about how previous generation of Americans would have dealt with this situation, specifically the WWII generation. I tried to imagine what my grandfather's reaction would be if some random disgusting liberal pervert threw a condom at one of his daughters. I concluded that someone would have needed a technologically advanced high speed camera capable of high resolution at over 100,000 frames per second if they wanted to record the lightening speed coma beating that would have been presented to each and every liberal within a 10 mile radius.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Don't Touch My Shit


I found this above one of the postdoc's benches in my lab today. If only I could slap this passive-aggressive note above America, as a reminder to liberals to leave us all the fuck alone.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Atheist = NewAger


Atheists are in actuality newagers. Obviously this is not always true, but it is definitely true of the atheists who make the news. You know, the ones who are always suing over streets being named after a Catholic saint, or a cross at the 9/11 memorial, or a nativity scene being located anywhere, or a prayer being said before a public high school football game.

Let's take that last one (a prayer at a public high school football game) and do a little compare and contrast. I wonder why on earth I have never heard shit from any atheist about this garbage, which has already spread to hundreds of PUBLIC schools and is growing exponentially. The liberal newager, er.. atheist, will reply that yoga is not religion, it's exercise. Exercise you say? Let's see what some of the benefits of yoga are according to the yogaed website:

Yoga expands and enriches awareness and sense of self
Yoga brings inner harmony through experience and connection
Yoga serves as the counter pose to the challenges of modern life 

Oh, I must have been misinformed, that doesn't sound like newage bullshit at all! Alright, I'm already thoroughly convinced that yoga is just so totally on the up and up, but why don't we check in with one of the big atheist blogs and get an even more convincing argument:

"In my own Ashtanga-style classes, I've been very comfortable with my instructor's approach to teaching. Like many instructors, she promotes and supports each student's personal journey--both in the physical and meditative aspects. We chant an occasional om and offer namaste at the end of class, and that doesn't bother me"
Meditative journey you say!? Totally legit! No religion there.
During my first class, I felt a little uncomfortable with this concept, but then I realized that the "intuition" of my "third eye" can easily be compared to the emotional brain that is described in Jonah Leher's book How We Decide.
 Oh, i see what you did there, you threw in a plug for the newage self help movement, that you are clearly not a part of because you're a super logical atheist liberal douche. I know, I know, Leher's book is science not self help. Very convenient the way these newagers always seem to find a way to claim that their deranged beliefs are actually science isn't it? Hey just look at homeopathy...that's as sciency as science gets! Now, let's all go to Whole Foods!!!


Wednesday, February 15, 2012

The Liberal Religion and the Rorschach Blot



So Jim Messina, the douchebag campaign manager of Ra-Obama the God King, made the following tweet today:

  "The chimichanga? It may be the only thing Republicans have left to offer Latinos"

So the discussion amongst conservatives is really only been of two forms:
  1. Highlighting the usual hypocrisy where a liberal's quasi-racist comment is met with silence in the media versus the batshit uproar that occurred a few weeks ago when some rando Republican mayor made a very similiar comment involving tacos.
  2. Discussing whether or not Republicans should force the political correctness shit sandwich down this asshole's throat so that he can get a nice big taste of what we deal with on a daily basis. 
Well, I'm here to tell you that neither 1 or 2 will accomplish anything for the simple reason that liberals are not in fact employing some sort of diabolical plan to silence conservatives through selective application of their political correctness newspeak. That's right. There is no great conspiracy, but you should all know this because a conspiracy actually takes cunning, intelligence, and hard work for it to be carried out successfully and none of these traits even comes close to describing the liberal.

So if this is not part of the Democratic strategy then what is it? Well, listen closely children because this is a very important point that nobody seems to get. The liberal literally believes that all conservatives are evil. Therefore anything a conservative says or does is evidence of their evil/racism. So when a liberal makes a remark that is at worst slightly off color, they see it for what it is, a slightly off color remark, but when a Republican makes the same comment, they can only see evidence of what their liberal religious beliefs already hold to be true. This is why a Republican can even say something as benign as "we need to cut spending" and liberals will actually argue that this is a racist "dog whistle". It makes no sense until you look at it from the perspective of someone who is acting on behalf of their fundamentalist religious beliefs.

This may not be clear, so allow me to illustrate with the example of an extremely religious Catholic. Now, when someone is very religious, they tend to see evidence of the truth of their faith in everything that happens in ordinary life. The best example here would be Catholics who see images of Christ or the Virgin Mary in burnt toast. To anyone who doesn't share their devotion, they see the burnt toast for what it is; a Rorschach blot in a bit of burnt bread. Well everybody, conservatives are a Rorschach blot with an ink stain shaped like common sense and decency, but all the liberal faithful will ever see is racism and malignant intent.

Liberalism is a religion, and making them confront logic and reality is not going to change a damn thing. The only way to defeat them is to make the larger public aware of the leftist's attempt to change the nation into their own little newage theocracy.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

The awesome power of PUBMED for destroying the Liberal's NewAge belief system


You may have heard that his majesty recently dictated to his subjects that they must now provide free contraception to all of their employees. In an attempt to support the Sun King's proclamation, the media has been constantly reminding us that 98% of Catholic women use birth control such as herehere, and here, to name a few.

Well, I found the name of the author of the study they are referencing, went to PUBMED, typed "jones + catholic + contraception", and shazzam!, this article titled The secularization of U.S. Catholics popped up. I read this article, specifically focusing on the population sample they used and it turns out that 98% of sexually-active Catholic women between the ages of 15-44 who want to avoid pregnancy have used some form of birth control in their lives. Well holy fucking shit, that is an Earth shattering finding. Hey, I just did a study and it finds that 98% of Buddhists who are currently in a swimming pool and want to avoid getting their normal clothes wet are wearing bathing suits. So, I can only conclude that Buddhists wear bathing suits at all times. Have these people ever heard the phrase, "begging the question"?

Gimme Danger, Little Stranger.


I think I have figured out why the liberals attack Santorum for the stupidest most irrelevant shit imaginable. Simply, it's because Santorum is basically a liberal on all of the important issues, so they don't really have anything else to attack. Redstate has already outlined the vast number of leftist ideas Santorum has not only embraced, but voted for. In fact, Santorum is such a tax and spend big government totalitarian that I feel he has already earned a high level position in the Democratic Party. However, Santorum isn't finished yet. It turns out he's also uncertain on abortion. Hmm, I wonder if he is still feeling feelings of uncertainty about armed robbery as well.

But wait! We're still not done.

From Ace of Spades, Santorum on Contraception:

One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea … Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay … contraception’s okay.” It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal … but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special. Again, I know most presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues.

Here's the thing kids. Just as I don't want the government telling anyone that they must provide contraception for free, I also don't want the government telling people they can't use contraception at all. I want the government to fuck off. As Ace of Spades pointed out, it doesn't sound like Santorum is talking about a personal opinion, but rather he seems to be suggesting some sort of future public policy. I mean he actually says the words "public policy".

Before any of you have a conniption and start with the whole, "but you want the government to stop abortion meeeeh!". Yes, because abortion and contraception are two completely different issues and the government does have some bare bones responsibilities, chief amongst them is regulating the citizens' attempts to kill one another. That, and build some roads, put out some fires, and stop Russian invasions. That's about it.

Monday, February 13, 2012

Let's Play a Game: Gov. Gary Herbert, Republican or Democrat?


I happened upon this AP Article about someone who yesterday attempted to murder Gov. Gary Herbert. This article offers one of those opportunities where I get to test whether or not we live in a nation where the liberal cult actively and brutally controls the information the public sees or whether I am actually in fact just a paranoid lunatic experiencing the early stages of late onset schizophrenia.

Now the article doesn't mention what party Gary Herbert is a member of, but I am willing to bet the fucking farm that he is a Republican. Why am I so sure? Here's why:

1. Someone tried to kill an elected official and the article doesn't mention the political party of said official.
2. The article is short with only the barest of facts mentioned. There is not even a suggestion of a possible motive.
3. It is hard to find much at all about this incident from any of the news sources. This means that the media doesn't consider it important or it doesn't follow their usual narrative.

Basically what I'm saying is that I know Gary Herbert is a Republican because the media is not having a colossal fucking shit fit about this story. Plain and simple. Now you will have to just trust me when I say that I have never heard of Gov. Herbert, I have no prior knowledge of his party affiliation, and I did not Wiki him before writing this post. I will Wiki him tomorrow and if I am wrong I will check myself into the nearest mental health clinic, but until that time I dangle my balls in the wind without any hint of anxiety because there is virtually no chance that I am wrong.














Liberals: “Conservatives oppose our policies because of religious zealotry except for when they oppose our policies because they aren't blindly following their religion as they should”


When most people find themselves arguing two completely opposing ideas at the exact same time, they may take a step back and reexamine their position. However, this is not the case for the Liberal cultists. Check out this bizzare article.

We have seen this argument many times before; Republican opposition to abortion and the contraceptive mandate is due to christian religious fundamentalism that has taken over the Republican Party. Yet, the author goes to great lengths to outline the multitude of Christian teachings that are far more aligned with liberal ideology (or should I say theology). How is it that the author, Juan Cole, does not see that what he is basically arguing is that Republicans indeed do not blindly follow their religious faith, but rather choose their principles based on logic and experience.Sometimes their conclusions are aligned with Christian ideology and sometimes they are not.

The second part of the article engages in the usual liberal circular logic.Basically he is saying that the Catholic Church is violating the separation of church and state because it is possible for the state to make laws that the Catholic Church would not follow. That means that since it is also theoretically possible that the government could make a law that all Jewish Delis are required to serve pork chops, the Jewish religion is in the constant existential condition of violating the separation of church and state. In reality though, the Catholics would not violate the law, they would simply close every single Catholic hospital in the country in order to comply, which I believe is something like 15-20% of the nation’s hospitals. So this empty argument basically boils down to, “The Catholic Church is violating the 1st amendment by not continuing to operate its non profit hospitals and charities in a way that violates the basic beliefs of their religion”.



Sunday, February 12, 2012

Liberals: "Dealing with the death of your child in the way that is clinically suggested obviously makes you unfit to be president."


Well this piece of shit article is just fucking stupid even by liberal standards.


Let's begin:
An ABC News blog post from early January quotes liberal Fox News contributor Alan Colmes (ahem, I will take that label with a grain of salt) as saying, “Get a load of some of the crazy things he’s said and done, like taking his two-hour-old baby when it died right after child birth home and played with it so that his other children would know that the child was real.” Unfortunately folks, that is not an incendiary rumor. This happened.
Well, let's see what the American Pregnancy Association has to say on the subject:
  • You can give your baby a bath and dress them in a special outfit. Before leaving the hospital you can take the a piece of this clothing to have as a keepsake.
  • You can take pictures of your baby.
  • The hospital staff can give you an imprint of handprints and/or footprints.
  • You may want to take a lock of your baby’s hair.
  • It may seem odd at first but you can read a story or sing a lullaby to your baby.
  • If you would like, the nurse can record your baby’s measurements.
  • You probably have also named your baby by now. Be sure to tell the hospital staff as soon as possible so all documents can have your baby’s name listed.
  • You can have your baby christened or blessed while in the hospital.
  • A baptism certificate will also be given to you to keep.
You will be able to spend as much time as you need with your baby, but at some point you will need to say goodbye. This will probably be one of the most challenging things to do because it is so final. Allow yourself to cry; expressing emotion is natural in the grieving process. Having the keepsakes will remind you that a part of your baby will always be with you.
With the loss of your baby, your family members will also grieve. Your baby is someone’s granddaughter, brother, cousin, nephew or sister. It is important for your family members to spend time with the baby. This will help them come to terms with their loss. If you have other children, it is very important to be honest with them about what has happened by using simple and honest explanations. It is your decision whether you would like the children to see the baby. Ask for a Child Life Specialist at the hospital; these are trained professionals who can help you prepare your children for the heartbreaking news, and prepare them to see the baby if you wish.
What makes this even worse is that this dipshit liberal wrote this piece of shit today when the Alan Colmes comment that he referenced occurred several weeks ago. When this happened, several people pointed out the exact same recommendations that I just outlined above. It appears that dumbshit liberals aren't even capable of learning from their fellow dumbshit's dumbshit comment.

I suppose if Mrs. Santorum had simply aborted her baby and dumped its body in the dumpster behind the hospital, liberals would be praising her for being just so brave and progressive. Vote Democrat!
The article ends by also dismissing Romney as a legitimate human being because of a completely unsubstantiated story about a dog on a roof. Yes ladies and gentlemen, that is all liberals can come up with. Truly pathetic.

Why do liberal graduate students love evolution?



Let's start off by saying that I am a student of the biological sciences and I am well aware that evolution is both elegant and true. However, why is it that my fellow graduate students, particularly those in majors having nothing to do with biology, will shriek to high heaven the moment they catch the slightest whiff of someone who doesn’t believe in evolution? Adding to the confusion is the fact that the vast majority of these shrieking cultists do not have any true understanding of evolution aside from perhaps once overhearing something about natural selection, or “survival of the fittest”, or some shit. Go ahead, voir dire your local computer science graduate student liberal cultist asshole and see just how little he or she knows about evolution. You will find that at best their knowledge rivals that of your average 6th grader.   



So what’s the deal here? Why does the cultist defend so fiercely the truth of a scientific principle that they have little to no understanding of? The answer is simple; Evolution is actually a cultish “belief” amongst liberals that just happens to be true. It was adopted into the liberal faithful’s bag of beliefs simply because they imagine that those they consider themselves to be superior to believe the opposite. Notice that I said, “imagined” since denial of evolution is not some phenomenon confined only to the right side of the political spectrum or to just those nasty evil evangelicals that the liberal constantly warns us about. In fact a pew poll showed that 39% of Republicans do not believe in evolution and 30% of democrats don’t believe in evolution. So I guess that 9% difference is enough to convince the liberal of their overwhelming superiority over conservatives. However, I digress. The real point is that if you have two people with opposite opinions on a subject that neither of them understand, being right makes you lucky, not smart. In this example, the liberal turned out to be right, not because they are some super-duper smart intellectual, but because they found a position that they could  first apply to those they are bigoted against and then mock them because of it. 



This brings us to global warming. I have no opinion on global warming. Why you ask? Simply because I have never found the time to read a single primary source publication on the subject. This however doesn’t stop the liberal who will dial up his shrieking madness if you dare question global warming.Why does he shriek so violently? The answer is simply that global warming is the Holy Grail that will allow the liberal to force their deranged religion on the entire world.  So they believe it MUST be true. Do you honestly believe that if the scientific consensus on global warming was that it could only be stopped through banning abortion that the liberal would continue to be its champion? Of course not. We already see evidence of this in the fact that the liberal absolutely rejects the idea of geoengineering. 


This brings me to my last point and one that I will talk about extensively in future posts. Within the first month of medical school, I was subjected to an otherworldly fucking stupid round table discussion about complementary and alternative medicine. When I saw this topic listed in the curriculum, I thought it would be a fun little hour of mocking CAM. This was back when I was na├»ve and didn’t realize that I was swimming in the belly of the liberal cult. What I was actually subjected to was an hour of the cultists all siting around agreeing with each other that CAM wasn’t used because the “corporations wouldn’t allow it”. Are.You.Fucking.Kidding.Me? I attempted to dissent citing that no study had ever shown CAM to have any clinical efficacy. I was welcomed with the following three horseman of the apocalypse of liberal stupidity:

Liberal Cultist #1: “Yes but they are trying to show that it works right now, they just haven’t yet”

                                                [Holy Fucking shit, did she actually just say that??]

Liberal Cultist #2: ”It has been shown to work like a placebo, so it actually does make people feel better so what’s wrong with using it?”

                                [Please somebody punch me in the cock and throw me out back.]

Liberal Cultist #3: “Things like Chinese medicine haven’t been allowed to be shown to be true because Americans think they are superior to all other cultures. The Chinese were a booming civilization when Europeans were still living in caves.”