Breaking News from either Weasel Zippers or American Thinker:
If he wins the 2012 Presidential election, Rick Santorum has vowed to have all U.S. Birth Certificates (including Obama's questionable birth certificate) show a birth date 9 months earlier than what is previously on the certificate.
"Life begins at inception, it is nothing but a complete fraud to state that one's birth date is the day the cord is cut," Santorum told a gaggle of white Baptist men in Ohio today.
Under Santorum's proposal, the child's mother must apply for a birth certificate and social security number no later than the second missed period, even though the sex of the fetus can't be determined until the 4th or 5th month.
"This may limit the names of children to Pat, Casey, Leslie and Jordan, but that is a small price to pay in order to finally make abortions worthy of a death sentence," an uncontrollably blinking Santorum stated.
Santorum also explained that there is another plus to this when it comes to adding 9 months to all American's ages is that it will increase the life expectancy of all Americans. The USA will move up to around 28th amongst all world countries. This will close the gap between the USA and other countries with successful Universal Heath Care Systems. "This should help kill Obamacare once and for all," a confident Santorum said.
In related news, Santorum also wants Congress to pass the Marriage Is For Procreative Sex Only Law. If passed, it will make it impossible for gays to get married. It also makes it impossible for infertile individuals to marry, as well as post menopausal women. "Again, this is a small price to pay to prevent sick sinning homosexuals from walking down the aisle together," a now frothing Santorum stated, "Jack and Jill went up the hill, not Jack and Peter."
Editor's Note: And to think, it isn't even April 1 yet.
February 20, 2012
February 7, 2012
Atheism Is Not A Religion
It gets worse in US election years, many people spew rhetoric which includes making up new definitions for established words or concepts. The idea is to get under ones skin. I find it funny when theists claim atheism is a religion. First, unless it is in the context like "baseball is a religion," calling atheism a religion is a total fail. Religion requires belief in a higher power AND also requires faith that the stuff associated with that higher power isn't made up...in other words, there is no evidence support the higher power or supernatural force(s) that is the core of the particular religious belief.
The second thing is that those who claim atheism is a religion are generally theists who are trying to piss off an atheist by trying to make atheism seem foolish. The ironic thing is that the theist is kind of saying that religion is a foolish thing.
Anyway, Bill Maher put out the atheism is a religion fire much better than I can:
As for Mitt Romney's conversion of his dead father in law to Mormonism, I have a feeling that we haven't heard the end of it. Wait until he becomes the GOP nominee. How is Romney going to defend the Mormons who convert dead Jews?
I'm curious though. Was Romney required to open the grave of his dead father in law prior to converting him? Does Romney own designer grave digging jeans? These questions need to be answered.
The second thing is that those who claim atheism is a religion are generally theists who are trying to piss off an atheist by trying to make atheism seem foolish. The ironic thing is that the theist is kind of saying that religion is a foolish thing.
Anyway, Bill Maher put out the atheism is a religion fire much better than I can:
As for Mitt Romney's conversion of his dead father in law to Mormonism, I have a feeling that we haven't heard the end of it. Wait until he becomes the GOP nominee. How is Romney going to defend the Mormons who convert dead Jews?
I'm curious though. Was Romney required to open the grave of his dead father in law prior to converting him? Does Romney own designer grave digging jeans? These questions need to be answered.
February 2, 2012
Senator Boisvenu Has Nothing To Apologize For
Seriously, what is with my country these days? There is the left and there is the far left. The far left is full of wingnuts who try to blame society or other external factors for the actions of criminals. No, criminals are not victims. Unless someone is mentally ill, and I mean really mentally ill, the criminal is completely responsible for their acts.
Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu told reporters Wednesday the most heinous of criminals and ``assassins'' with no hope of rehabilitation should ``have the right to a rope in his cell and make a decision about his or her life.''
I would agree with the comment from anyone (Boisvenu's daughter was raped and murdered in 2002), and the fact that other politicians are jumping all over his comments taking a hissy fit just makes me feel less happy about being Canadian. No need to get sensitive when it comes to criminals who carry out heinous acts.
What doesn't make sense though, is that Boisvenu is against the death penalty. Over 60% of Canadians are for the death penalty.
Offering despicable criminals the right to choose sounds like a great idea. But if they choose to live, I see nothing wrong with the state deciding differently, as long as there is 100% certainty that the right person is behind bars. It is a great deterrent, since murder and rape are choices. You should lose the right to be rehabilitated when you rape a child or commit first degree murder.
I can't believe some of the comments here.
Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu told reporters Wednesday the most heinous of criminals and ``assassins'' with no hope of rehabilitation should ``have the right to a rope in his cell and make a decision about his or her life.''
I would agree with the comment from anyone (Boisvenu's daughter was raped and murdered in 2002), and the fact that other politicians are jumping all over his comments taking a hissy fit just makes me feel less happy about being Canadian. No need to get sensitive when it comes to criminals who carry out heinous acts.
What doesn't make sense though, is that Boisvenu is against the death penalty. Over 60% of Canadians are for the death penalty.
Offering despicable criminals the right to choose sounds like a great idea. But if they choose to live, I see nothing wrong with the state deciding differently, as long as there is 100% certainty that the right person is behind bars. It is a great deterrent, since murder and rape are choices. You should lose the right to be rehabilitated when you rape a child or commit first degree murder.
I can't believe some of the comments here.
January 19, 2012
Study: Atheists Aren't Trusted That Much
Lets face, atheists are not trusted as much as theists are. Not only that, there are quite a few people out there who wouldn't vote for an atheist politician, especially a President. Not to say that some Presidents in the past may have been agnostic or even atheist (they feigned belief in Zombie Jesus to get the vote), but that is another story.
In a new study, a researcher concludes that atheists are disliked mainly because of trustworthiness.
Not to take anything away from the studies, but I'm pretty sure that atheists are disliked because we throw away the crutch that believers hold near and dear to them, and have no problems surviving our lives without belief in a higher power. I don't think there is much of a difference between why atheists are disliked today versus how Jews were disliked at many times during the past 2000 years (in the case of the Jew, it was not accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior that was the root cause).
I do think that atheists hit believers square in the eye though, because based on the same information we conclude it is highly unlikely God or Gods exist. In other words, atheists create more doubt than the theist really wants to deal with.
OK, back to the study. I do think, intuitively, it makes sense that an atheist would be more likely to commit a crime or do something ethically wrong than a theist. However, unless atheists are that much better at outsmarting the law, empirically, this belief is wrong, as atheists are underrepresented in prisons.
Although atheists go through life under the guise that no one is watching or making judgment, it is also realized that we only have one life, and the last thing most of us want is to be Bubba's boy in 3 by 4 cell.
A theist on the other hand, might be more inclined to break the law or throw away ethics. Why? Because most believe they are dealing with a forgiving God. Catholics just have to spill their guts to their Priest, Baptists just have to accept Jesus prior to the Big Sleep (and though they can't do it on purpose, they are allowed to turn their back on God as many times as they like, just as long as they believe in the end), and Muslims just have to bang their head on the ground 6 times a day just before they meet Allah. Jews are a bit different. Jews sort of believe that if there really is a heaven, it is a bonus, but don't piss God off too much while you are living, because it could get bad for you either while you or on earth, or in the thereafter.
Back to reality, even I would concede that there are certain positions where I would rather deal with an everyday church goer if I had a choice over an atheist. For instance, a car mechanic and a home renovator comes to mind. However, when it comes to leading a country, I don't want belief in a deity to even enter the equation. No country should be run by someone who even considers Armageddon to be a realistic scenario. I can't trust that they won't try to help it come along.
Finally, I would really like to see a study that asks the question: If your 10 year old boy had to be locked in a room with an adult for an hour, would you prefer the adult to be an atheist or a Priest?
In a new study, a researcher concludes that atheists are disliked mainly because of trustworthiness.
Not to take anything away from the studies, but I'm pretty sure that atheists are disliked because we throw away the crutch that believers hold near and dear to them, and have no problems surviving our lives without belief in a higher power. I don't think there is much of a difference between why atheists are disliked today versus how Jews were disliked at many times during the past 2000 years (in the case of the Jew, it was not accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior that was the root cause).
I do think that atheists hit believers square in the eye though, because based on the same information we conclude it is highly unlikely God or Gods exist. In other words, atheists create more doubt than the theist really wants to deal with.
OK, back to the study. I do think, intuitively, it makes sense that an atheist would be more likely to commit a crime or do something ethically wrong than a theist. However, unless atheists are that much better at outsmarting the law, empirically, this belief is wrong, as atheists are underrepresented in prisons.
Although atheists go through life under the guise that no one is watching or making judgment, it is also realized that we only have one life, and the last thing most of us want is to be Bubba's boy in 3 by 4 cell.
A theist on the other hand, might be more inclined to break the law or throw away ethics. Why? Because most believe they are dealing with a forgiving God. Catholics just have to spill their guts to their Priest, Baptists just have to accept Jesus prior to the Big Sleep (and though they can't do it on purpose, they are allowed to turn their back on God as many times as they like, just as long as they believe in the end), and Muslims just have to bang their head on the ground 6 times a day just before they meet Allah. Jews are a bit different. Jews sort of believe that if there really is a heaven, it is a bonus, but don't piss God off too much while you are living, because it could get bad for you either while you or on earth, or in the thereafter.
Back to reality, even I would concede that there are certain positions where I would rather deal with an everyday church goer if I had a choice over an atheist. For instance, a car mechanic and a home renovator comes to mind. However, when it comes to leading a country, I don't want belief in a deity to even enter the equation. No country should be run by someone who even considers Armageddon to be a realistic scenario. I can't trust that they won't try to help it come along.
Finally, I would really like to see a study that asks the question: If your 10 year old boy had to be locked in a room with an adult for an hour, would you prefer the adult to be an atheist or a Priest?
January 2, 2012
The Unelectables
Why is the GOP bothering with certain individuals that have no chance of ever becoming President?
Note to the Religious Right: Whatever you want when it comes to social issues is not what the majority wants, and as days go by, and then years, and then decades, the more marginalized you will become.
Gay marriage, abortion, and creation in public school are not national political issues, except in third world cesspools and/or Muslim nations. No matter how badly the Religious Right wants to turn the USA into a theocracy, it aint gonna happen. Those days are gone, gone, gone.
Yet, one can't deny the amount of influence the RR seems to have on the GOP Party today. It is the ruination of the Party. As long as the Palins, Bachmanns, etc. matter politically, America is basically a one party system...The Democrats.
The internet, awareness of science mainly, has marginalized the Religious Right. Thank you Darwin, Hitchens, Dawkins, etc.
So who is completely unelectable?
Rick Santorum.
Rick Perry.
Michelle Bachmann.
Ron Paul.
The first three are obvious. They are gay hating, pro choice jailing Scienceaphobes. Ron Paul could take away some Obama support: the Far Left Anti-Semite and non Anti-Semite, the conspiracy theorists, and the pot smoking hippie type. But there is a big but:
The thing is that even though Ron Paul was a medical doctor, he also denies evolution (this is completely scary considering his education). If someone denies mounds and mounds of evidence because of either peer pressure or religious beliefs, that person is not qualified to make major decisions on the behalf of a powerful nation. This is why Paul will get chewed up and spat out if his campaign gains any more steam. The internet is Ron Paul's best friend (attracting his whacko support) but it is also his biggest enemy because most sane intelligent human beings also know how to turn on a computer.
"Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter," he said. "I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side."
To the best of my knowledge, Romney, Gingrich and Huntsman all accept evolution. Something that makes the Religious Right cringe. I love it when they cringe.
Note to the Religious Right: Whatever you want when it comes to social issues is not what the majority wants, and as days go by, and then years, and then decades, the more marginalized you will become.
Gay marriage, abortion, and creation in public school are not national political issues, except in third world cesspools and/or Muslim nations. No matter how badly the Religious Right wants to turn the USA into a theocracy, it aint gonna happen. Those days are gone, gone, gone.
Yet, one can't deny the amount of influence the RR seems to have on the GOP Party today. It is the ruination of the Party. As long as the Palins, Bachmanns, etc. matter politically, America is basically a one party system...The Democrats.
The internet, awareness of science mainly, has marginalized the Religious Right. Thank you Darwin, Hitchens, Dawkins, etc.
So who is completely unelectable?
Rick Santorum.
Rick Perry.
Michelle Bachmann.
Ron Paul.
The first three are obvious. They are gay hating, pro choice jailing Scienceaphobes. Ron Paul could take away some Obama support: the Far Left Anti-Semite and non Anti-Semite, the conspiracy theorists, and the pot smoking hippie type. But there is a big but:
The thing is that even though Ron Paul was a medical doctor, he also denies evolution (this is completely scary considering his education). If someone denies mounds and mounds of evidence because of either peer pressure or religious beliefs, that person is not qualified to make major decisions on the behalf of a powerful nation. This is why Paul will get chewed up and spat out if his campaign gains any more steam. The internet is Ron Paul's best friend (attracting his whacko support) but it is also his biggest enemy because most sane intelligent human beings also know how to turn on a computer.
"Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter," he said. "I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side."
To the best of my knowledge, Romney, Gingrich and Huntsman all accept evolution. Something that makes the Religious Right cringe. I love it when they cringe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)