In fact, he's such an asshat, the hat on his ass has it's own ass, which has another, smaller, hat on it.

I agree that its not helpful to be a dick about it, but im of the opinion that if people want to believe in incredulous or logically impossible shit, to live in a Pluralistic, open society they need to understand that sometimes other people will make fun of it.

And with a lot of this stuff, there is semantic nit picking and an element of emperor's new clothes-ness.

For instance, here is an example of an exchange that i see from time to time around here: (for the purpose of this example, i m using 2 hypothetical DU members, "numyum" and "glingybunger")

Numyum: "I am deeply offended that you referred to God as an 'invisible, unprovable man in the sky' "

Glingybunger: "this God, you speak of- can people see him?"

Numyum: "of course not"

Glingybunger: "can you prove the existence of this God?"

Numyum: "no. That is why we have faith"

Glingybunger: "that lords prayer, what are the first two words?"

Numyum: "our father"

Glingybunger: "which implies gender.. Okay, moving on, what are the next 4 words?"

Numyum: "who art in heaven"

Glingybunger: "and where is this heaven?"

Numyum: "according to the Bible, it is above"

Glingybunger: "okay. So according to you, you believe in an invisible, unprovable male entity (who created man in "his own image") who resides 'above' ... But if i say you believe in an invisible, unprovable man in the sky, it is offensive"

Numyum: "exactly."


Same with Romney. If he wears an undergarment that is supposed to confer supernatural protection or power, "magic underwear" isnt so far off the mark.

ever-escalating reasons for irritation and annoyance, mathematically compounding towards an infinite point upon which a singularity of outrage is always beyond an ever-receding schwarzchild radius of deeply felt indignation, yet never quite reached!


Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's all this Flam-Dam Bandersnatch.

When people try to crap all over the 1st Amendment by saying, in essence, "you're not allowed to say something that might make someone else angry", they are wholly and utterly incorrect. Speech isn't prohibited just because it might make someone angry or offend them.



Sorry.

Someone standing up in front of a group of Fundamentalist Right Wing Christians and saying "I'm Gay", or two men kissing, might very easily be considered "incitement to riot". Sorry, there are no "hate speech" exceptions to the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment protects unpopular speech- that's the whole point. We want to go down the path of banning all speech that might piss someone off? Really?

Why there are so many people falling all over themselves today to attempt to "educate" the rest of us, incorrectly, on the myriad long lists of things apparently we're not allowed to say in this country, I have no fucking idea, but I will be damned if I'm going to sit back and allow the core values of the 1st Amendment to be misrepresented.

I would think they'd be more concerned about that omission.

I waited until I could see "Atlas Shat" on Netflix streaming, for free. Which is good, because I could stand about 3 minutes of it, max. You don't need to spend $10 bucks on a movie to know it sucks.

Don't encourage people to spend 10 bucks on crap. The thesis of "2016" is that Obama was "programmed by his Kenyan father to have an anti-colonial mentality which is why he WANTS TO MAKE AMERICA MEDIOCRE"

HURR DURR HURR



remdi95

Let me break "2016" down for you: Short answer? It's FUCKING CRAP. The people busy making America Mediocre are the dimwitted flat-earth creationists and billionaire greedheads that comprise today's Republican Party. They're people like Mitch McConnell, who didn't give a flying fuck about this country and its people for the past 4 years, because actually doing anything to help us recover from Bush's fuckups might make Obama look good.