Some old fuck bragging about his youthful hardships.
Some old fuck bragging about his youthful hardships.
So many Americans on the left pine for a 3rd party. Fine, I do as well. I hear you loud and clear, but there’s a problem with a 3rd party: the right sticks together, the left does not. The right, for all their stupidity and froth, band together like cackling, blood-thirsty hyenas, while the left will be at each other’s throats over the most trivial and asinine goddamn issues.
Want an example? Take a look at our Canadian neighbors. The absolute hack and monumental wingnut, Prime Minister Harper, received less than 40% of the vote, and is currently polling very low among Canadians, but, guess what? He is their Prime Minister. If the Canadian left can’t band together to keep an abject failure like him out of office, I’m not interested in a 3rd, more progressive or socialistic party splintering off of the Democratic party in the United States.
The Democratic party in the US starts slightly to the left of center and extends as far as you can possibly go to the left. With the entire American left under the umbrella of one political party, it gives us a certain unity we probably otherwise wouldn’t have. And under this umbrella, we can all agree on one thing, despite our differences: keep the fucking Republicans out of office.
Now, if the Republican party ever pushes up daisies (which is what will happen if they don’t drag their archaic, drooling carcasses back towards the center-right) and more progressive parties want to commence, thereby leaving the Democrats as what would then become our “right-wing” party, that would be more than okay with me. Until then, no, thanks.
Ah, before I forget. Remember this, too: we have a lobbying problem in the United States. And until we reign that in, a 3rd party would also have the shit lobbied out of it to no end.
The United States, quite obviously, has a secular foundation and is a secular nation.
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.
Read, specifically, from “Congress” to “speech”; one can’t implant religion into law (this is why ‘intelligent design’ is banned); the government can’t tell one not to worship (this is why there are places of benediction everywhere); and all of us are free to worship, not worship, and say whatever the hell we’d like about the subject of religion or disbelief (this is why Americans are so boisterous in discussion).
Really, it’s that simple. The founders were sound here. It’s a nation founded to be accepting of all.
Sounds nice, doesn’t it? But it’s not a sound stance or argument.
Babies are born largely ignorant of everything. The only reason they don’t ‘believe’ in a deity, is because they can’t cognize what a deity is. Babies also don’t ‘believe’ in: government, states, provinces, territories, countries, forests, streams, trees, leaves, the sun, our solar system, the adjoining solar system, our galaxy, the Andromeda galaxy, every other galaxy in the known universe, the entire known universe, and the big bang. Why? Because they have no clue as to what any of it is or means. They’re a-everything
We’re hard-wired to believe nonsense as an explanation for what we don’t understand or can’t yet comprehend. This is why religion has risen ubiquitously the world over and, almost universally, within these religions, the belief in a creator. If babies were left alone and never heard a word from anyone about a god, they would absolutely still wonder whether a god exists; and they would discuss god; some would believe in said god, others would not. The debate would rage on. Even if you raise children in an atheistic household, they’re still going to wonder whether a god exists (I’m one of these people).
Atheism is a conclusion you reach on your own. And I’m not speaking for all atheists here, but most of us reach this conclusion for one reason and one reason only: there’s no evidence of a lord.
So please, stop with this imprudent stance.
(It would be pretty cool, though, if a baby came out of the womb bellowing “I’m an atheist!” *wink*)
Everyone in America should know that an actual candidate for U.S. Senate said this about women who are raped.
Please share this.
but he says he “misspoke”
of course he did
Two of my favorite thinkers of all-time, but I don’t care. I’ll never stop finding the similarity in their appearance funny. Been laughing at this shit since 2006 or 2007, and it’s not going to stop any time soon.
This literally just happened. I tried my best to mentally record the conversation, because I wanted to relay my next encounter with Jehovah Witnesses.
I hear a light rap on the door, so I get up from my chair and answer the door. There stands two women—they’re Jehovah Witnesses.
Jehovah Witness #1: Sir, can I interest you in a discussion about the Kingdom of God?
Me: Of course, I’m all ears. The kingdom of which god?
Jehovah Witness #2: Well, The Lord.
Me: Fantastic. Again, which lord?
Jehovah Witness #2: His Godship, of course. Will you let me explain?
Me: Yes, of course I will. But I have two requests. I’ll ask the first now, and the second later. First request: prove to me god exists.
Jehovah Witness #1: Well, sir, it’s all in the scriptures—
Jehovah Witness #2: —and it’s faith.
Me: Scriptures are a source of very flawed information, not evidence of god. Faith is just believing something because you want it to be true in the absence of evidence.
Now comes an awkwardly long pause where we do nothing but stare at one another on the threshold of my front door for about a minute.
Jehovah Witness #2: May I ask what your second request is?
Me: Sure. Were you able to prove god’s existence, I was going to ask you to prove that this is your god and not one of the other 3,000 gods throughout human history.
Jehovah Witness #1 and #2 stare at me with very puzzled expressions—similar to when Charlie Gibson asked Sarah Palin about the Bush doctrine.
Jehovah Witness #2: Thank you for your time, sir.
Jehovah Witness #2: Thank you
Me: Have a nice day.
I’d like to make a note here. These were two very friendly, very charming women. There was no malice from either of the two or myself. It was a confrontation, for sure, but not an unpleasant one. In a perfect world, they would abandon their bogus faith. I wish them the best, hope they stop trying to ram their religion down people’s throats, and I hope to have at least given them a little bit to think about.
An audio rant about “Italian-Americans” and “Irish-Americans.” For fuck’s sake.
A common thread amongst “smart” people is that intelligence is sexy, brains outweigh appearance etc., etc, and all that extra horseshit—just another mindless cliche that a lot of people think is deep. In one breath people like this will swoon over a person’s intelligence and, in the next, they’re talking about wanting to have children with an impossibly-attractive celebrity. You know, the typical hypocrisy demonstrated by our species.
Intelligence is sexy, yes. Smarts are very important. A caring person is fantastic. These aspects of an overall personality is what makes me, personally, want to connect intimately with a woman over a longer period of time. They are much more important than her appearance, for sure. But I’m not going to lie and say that I don’t want to have sex with a woman based only on her appearance; I do want to. After getting to know her, perhaps I would become turned off by aspects of her personality, but that doesn’t change the fact that when I first looked at her, I thought about having sex with her. I can’t walk around constantly and consciously trying to override billions of years of biological evolution with what many people perceive as “reason.” Nor do I want to, really. I do kind of enjoy being a human.
A brilliant mathematician is dropped into the middle of the Amazon. A tribe finds him shaking like a leaf and terribly confused. They save him. The chief of the tribe, wanting the mathematician to pull his own weight, asks the him to bring food home. The mathematician heads out into the jungle with his weapon of choice, tries his very best for several hours, and comes home with nothing. The chief walks up to the mathematician and asks: “What, are you stupid?”
I used a mathematician as an example here, because the intelligence of mathematicians and physicists is often glorified to the point of them being looked at as if they’re super-human.
Intelligence is relative. Stop calling people stupid. You’re stupid too. We all are. Brilliance and stupidity come in several forms and disciplines. Stop with the silliness.