This Just In: 1 In 5 Americans Are Fucking Retarded

See here

Conservapedia Is Stupid + I Am Pissed Off

So, you all have probably heard about this whole "Ground Zero Mosque" thing. Since it is Friday, I'm gonna take a look at Conservapedia's article on the matter. Also, it's really pissing me off. So let's dive in

So, how do they start off the article?

The "Ground Zero Mosque" (officially Park51 and formerly the Cordoba House) is a proposed Muslim mosque under construction two blocks away from the former World Trade Center, which Muslims destroyed on 9/11, killing almost 3,000 people.

And we're off to a great start! Even the name itself is misleading, emotional string-tugging propaganda. How? The mosque is not going to be built on Ground Zero. It's going be in the vicinity of Ground Zero, like two blocks away. Also, it's going to be a community center, which will have an auditorium, a theater, a performing arts center, a gym, a pool, a basketball court, a daycare, a bookstore, a cooking school, a food court, and yes, a prayer space. So if they were going to be more accurate, they should call it the Near Ground Zero Community Center. But that's much less scary to white people

And how about the way they word it? It sounds like they think 9/11 wasn't an act of terrorism by a radical fringe group of Muslim extremists trying to affect political change, but a collective declaration of war by Islam itself. When a Christian shoots a doctor that provides abortions, does everybody consider all Christians violent extremists. When Tim McVeigh blew up a building to try and spark a righteous war against the government, were all Christians terrorists? Or did people realize that just because someone has perverted a belief system into a justification for things unjustifiable, they aren't actually representative of that belief system? Because this is no different that a Muslim terrorists. Extremists who have taken a belief system and perverted it into a justification for violence to meet their political ends. It's not unique to one religion. It's not even unique to religion itself


This whole thing is disgusting. All the arguments of the community center's opponents basically boil down to the idea that building it in proximity to Ground Zero would be "insensitive".

Does anybody remember the time after 9/11? Do you remember people defiantly saying that we need to continue living our lives as usual, and that we can't compromise our ideals, because if we do we're handing a victory to those who attacked us? As cliche as it sounds, it's kind of true

Muslim have a guaranteed constitutional right to free worship, and that absolutely included the right to build a place of worship on private property. Nobody can be denied that right just because it might hurt somebody's feelings. That's a complete betrayal of the ideals of America, a betrayal of one of the core reasons for many of the colonists leaving England and coming to the New World - religious freedom

And when it comes to things like freedom of speech or religion, it's the unpopular positions that have to be defended and protected the most. No one is at risk of being denied the right to agree with everybody. No one is going to face opposition when building a Christian church, when the majority of people identify with that religion. These rights don't just exists to protect the people from government tyranny. They also serve to protect against a far more insidious kind of tyranny: tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of the majority is much more pressing threat, because all it takes is apathy and fear, and we have plenty of that. And when it becomes OK for one group to be denied their inalienable rights, all bets are off. You've opened the door to a huge shit storm. It's a very slippery slope, and one that's very hard to climb back up


I'll say something again that I think bears repeating: The Constitution is Sovereign. And the Constitution protects freedom of religion. It is completely independent of popularity. The people don't have the right to deny it. If the owners of the building want to build a community center, they have every right to. Sensitivity and feelings are completely irrelevant. As terrible as 9/11 was, it doesn't give anybody an excuse to demand a group be denied or give up their rights. I thought conservatives valued rights and liberty above all

I hate this phrase. It's said so often it's basically lost its meaning. It's basically used to describe anything conservatives don't like. But in this case, I think it's completely appropriate. This community center bullshit is un-American.

The worst part of all this? The bigotry is spreading. The issue is no longer confined to New York. All over the country, disgusting people are trying to prevent the building of mosques. At least with the New York situation, there's something to provide the emotionally driven backlash (regardless of how flimsy it is). But there were no terrorist attacks in these places. They're just ignorant morons who want to keep out people who are different than they are, or are given in to the asinine fear mongering that these mosques will be used as terrorist training camps

It's sad, it's despicable, it's disgusting, and it's shameful. And now I have to go unwind, because I'm seriously angry and it's probably giving me an ulcer


AJDGHADJOGHPWGKDJLHBSKDJGLH

And just for fun...

Here's a list of silly quotes, a lot of them relating to same-sex marriage and homosexuality

Marriage: Destroyed

So, I’m sure most of you have heard about the recent overturning of California’s Proposition 8. If not, I’ll get you up to speed

It started as Proposition 22, a simple statute approved by initiative that read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Since it was a statute, it could be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional (with respect to the state constitution). In the case In re Marriage Cases, that’s exactly what happened. The California Supreme Court declared that marriage was a fundamental right, and denying people a fundamental right on the grounds of sexual orientation was blatantly unconstitutional. So, Proposition 22 was out. Good, right?

It would have been, if gay-marriage opponents had accepted defeat. But, they decided to take things to the next level. Call it, the nuclear option

As many of you might know, the only thing that can supersede a Supreme Court ruling is a Constitutional Amendment (whether it be at the state or national level).

Thus, Proposition 8 was born. If the California Constitution prohibited denying gay couples the right to marry, then the Constitution would have to be changed to explicitly deny that right

And unfortunately, that’s exactly what happened. Voters passed the amendment, with 52% for, 48% against. Luckily, there were plenty of people who weren’t going to accept that without a fight.

And that’s where we are today. In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, two couples sued the state, and the case went to federal court. A little interesting note, the plaintiffs were represented by Theodore Olson and David Boies, the men who represented George W. Bush and Al Gore (respectively) in the 2000 presidential election case Bush v. Gore

And for the first time, a gay-marriage ban has been found incompatible with the Constitution. The big one. The top dog. The Federal Constitution. If you ask me (and if you’re reading this, you have!) that’s a pretty god damn big victory. This could have incredibly far reaching implications. The case is being appealed, and will likely be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court. Now, whether or not they will accept the case remains to be seen. But we might have just seen the first step in the legalization of gay-marriage nationally

Like I said, the decision is being appealed. There are a few arguments that stick out to me as retarded, or without a leg to stand on

“Gay marriage will destroy/damages/sullies the sanctity of traditional marriage!!!” This one is retarded, and is a favorite of the religious-right. I’ve never understood how someone else’s marriage could damage yours, just by virtue of it being recognized as legally valid. As for the institution of marriage itself? Straight couples have managed to fuck that one up just fine by themselves. The divorce rate for first-time marriages is somewhere around 40%, and it’s as high as 73% for third marriages. And don’t forget about good old-fashioned adultery! It’s not exactly uncommon. Hell, remember the supposed “family values” evangelical leader Ted Haggard? It was revealed he was doing crystal meth while boning gay prostitutes. Remember conservative Senator Larry Craig? He pled guilty to soliciting an undercover cop for gay sex in a public bathroom. And apparently it wasn’t the first time he’s been accused. In the 80s, he was accused having sex with male, teenage congressional pages and using cocaine.

Plus, he sounded super creepy when he said this: "The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy - a naughty boy. I'm going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy."

That sounds like he’s masturbating to a picture of Clinton and talking dirty. It’s seriously fucking creepy. Seriously, I cannot get over how weird that is

So the institution of marriage has been plenty unsanctified by straight people.

But there’s another argument that the religious-right has really been pounding ever since the Perry verdict

“Judge Walker has overturned the will of the people!!!!11” Well, strictly speaking, he has. But they say that like it’s a bad thing. When they say this, they’re implying that because banning gay-marriage was the will of the people (well, 52%), that makes it right. But here they’re missing a fundamental key to understanding the United States, its laws, its government, and its very foundation. It’s something extremely important, and something I believe has contributed the continued stability of this country. I’m going make it all bold and capitalized, just so you know how important I think this point is

THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES ARE NOT SOVEREIGN

Let that sink in for a minute. Some of you are probably thinking, “But wait you crazy cat, I thought America was some sort of fancy representative democracy, of the people, by the people, for the people and all that jazz!”

First off, you talk weird. This isn’t the 20’s. Get with the times. Second, what you said is true, but it doesn’t mean the people are sovereign

“Well golly, who’s sovereign then, Congress? The President? The Federal Government? The States? Robots?”

No, no, no, no, and no (for now). In fact, it’s not even a who. It’s a what. In the United States of America, the Constitution is sovereign. If someone or something is sovereign, there is no authority higher than it. But just as important (if not more), there is no authority equal to it. Think about the absolute monarchs of the olden days. Not only were they the highest authority, there was no authority equal to them. “The People” supporting something (especially a fairly slim majority) doesn’t inherently make that something right. Plenty of people supported slavery, but that wasn’t right. It doesn’t even make that something legal, as so aptly shown by Proposition 8. If something is unconstitutional, the only way to make it legal is to change the Constitution, as prescribed by the Constitution itself as the supreme law of the land. Sounds pretty sovereign to me

This case is a perfect example of why this basic tenet is important, and the huge role the Judiciary has in protecting people from a tyranny of the majority. For one, the fact that they are appointed (i.e., unelected) isolated them from the supposed Will of the People. They are beholden only to the Constitution, to upholding our highest laws. This isolates them from the ever-changing, sometimes irrational demands of the populace and the erratic, easily manipulated winds of public opinion

So Judge Walker might have overturned the will of 52% of the voters in California, but he upheld the truest American ideals. The notion that all people have the right to be treated equally under the law, and the idea that we are a nation of laws, not whims, or fears, or prejudices.

Before I wrap this up, I’ll briefly touch on the religious aspect of this debate. Basically, it’s completely irrelevant. Marriage may have a religious aspect to it for some people, but all that matters legally is, well, the legal aspect of it. Marriage is a legal relationship recognized by the government, and according to the Constitution, all people are considered equal under the law.

There are even some churches in California that are condemning Prop 8 on the grounds that, by not allowing them to perform same-sex marriages, the government is infringing on their religious freedom

Here’s another interesting angle I thought about the other day. Technically, gay people can get married. A gay man could marry a gay woman. Obviously, that probably wouldn’t happen, but they technically could. The issue is that two people of the same gender can’t get married. So if for whatever reason, two straight men or two straight women wanted to get married, they couldn’t. So if you want to think about it that way, this isn’t a case of discrimination based on sexual orientation, just good old fashioned gender based discrimination

Not that I expect that to be an actual legal argument. It was just an odd angle I had never thought about before

Well, that’s all for now.

Also, I originally wrote this in Microsoft Word, and the formatting/font isn't translating right, so it looks different than my other posts and I hate it.

I'm a tricky Liberal

This Friday, I'm sharing secret information with all of you. So don't tell anyone

This is (apparently) all the little tricks we liberals use to win debates, turn other people to the dark side, etc.

Making arguments that have superficial appeal to the dimwitted, but are actually nonsensical and probably not believed by the liberal himself

Such as: the gays are trying to destroy the Family! Terrorists hate us for our freedom! The government wants to take your guns and ban Jesus! Oh, wait, is that not liberals?

So as not to show his true beliefs of supporting evil infanticide and taxpayer-funded abortion, Barack Obama insists he is pro-choice, but not pro-abortion.

You got me there. I think abortion is the best thing since sliced bread, and I just can't stand babies. I'm sure Obama feels the same way

Inserting a liberal assumption into a question, as illustrated by the classic "When did you stop beating your wife?!"

First, I have never heard anyone use that in a serious discussion. Second, everyone realizes how stupid this is in about, oh, 3rd grade

Pretending that atheism equals intelligence.

Right, no Christian ever acts all high and mighty when discussing their beliefs. I absolutely have know some fucking stupid, holier-than-thou atheists, but it's certainly not unique to one side

Liberals befriending you so that you become liberal. (Conversely, why don't they become conservative?)

Completely true. The only reason I speak to my father is because he used to be a Republican, but I turned him.

Citing "it doesn't hurt to try!" (In reference to drugs, alcohol, and other immoral behaviors such as premarital sex, worshiping other gods/many gods/no gods, homosexuality, or abortion)

First of all, some of these things are absolutely fine to try. Second, I don't think people really "try" abortion. And remember when I brought up people thinking Christianity = intelligence happens just as much as atheism = intelligence? Well here's a great example

Claiming that because everyone else supposedly believes in something, therefore it must be right.

Completely false. A lot of people believed that segregation was right (conservatives), but it wasn't. Many people still think denying gay couples equal rights under the law is right (conservatives), but it isn't. The recent overturning of California's Proposition 8 is an excellent example. The majority believed in it, but that didn't make it right. That's the reason we have the court system. That's why the Constitution is sovereign, our laws. Not the people. The people can be wrong and swept up by emotions

There is a shortage of everything we want.

Wait, isn't that a conservative thing? There's not enough for everyone, so I'm gonna get mine, everyone else is on their own?

Prayer is for dummies, or is antiquated.

Just factually retarded. There are plenty of religious liberals. Does Conservapedia think that none of the many Catholic liberals pray? Cause that's just stupid. Are they even trying to be serious at this point?

Kids are getting smarter than old folks.

They say that like it's an obvious impossibility. With the incredible access to a huge amount of information today's youth has, it's actually not a patently unfair statement. Respect your elders does not equal considering them automatically more intelligent than you

Demonizing conservatives and pretending they don't care about regular people.

That's because the very essence of conservatism is advancing of the interests of the powerful and wealthy elite. I suppose a conservative can care about regular people, and just be blind to the fact that they won't be helping them at all

If you don't like it (something offensive on television), don't watch it (but they don't seem to go for if you don't like whales being killed, don't watch them being killed).

Boobies and death are basically the same thing

Believing the poor are blameless because they have nothing and the rich are to blame because they have everything.

Clearly it's just that simple. If your poor, it's because you're not trying. Circumstances be damned. Yes, some people just don't try. But there are plenty of people who haven't even had the opportunity to try. The myth of the poor man simply pulling himself up by the bootstraps and becoming wealthy is exactly that, a myth. The real world just isn't that simple. Conservatives would know that if they actually lived in it

Inserting false information, usually lewd into a respected work or group of works.

Someone's butt-hurt that their online encyclopedia was vandalized. And respected? Keep dreaming

Defending the assuration that democrats.com is not affiliated with the Democratic party. (We are told as an independent website, Democrats do not control the views of democrats.com.)

Democrats.com is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and it is an independent website. That's just reality. Not hard to grasp. Also, "assuration"? Does whoever wrote this think that's real word?

Pretending an honorary degree does not give someone the right to be called "Doctor".

There's a difference between using the title, and using the title to fool people into thinking you're some kind of authority on a subject. When people hear doctor, they think expert. It's intellectually dishonest

Pretending affirmative action is the best way to fill positions, including President of the U.S.

Plenty of liberals don't believe in affirmative action. Also, I'm pretty sure that's a racist stab at Obama. It's not the first time either

Saying "If you believe that abortion is murder, don't have one!" as if abortion isn't undisputably the murder of a human being.

Well, it isn't "undisputably" murder. It isn't even indisputable. There's quite a bit of valid dispute

Supporting classlessness while pretending to care about the preservation of world culture.

Economic class, or classiness class? Cause the first isn't true, and the second is entirely subjective. And stupid.

Finding a diverse individual to be appealing or “cool” until they learn that the individual does not conform to their liberal agenda.

I think Bruce Willis is cool, and he's a conservative. Disproved.


I have to stop, you can read the rest of the list yourselves. See if they have anymore non-existent words. This is giving me an ulcer.

Fuck the Astros

Seriously. Fuck those guys.

It's Friday! And what does that mean?

It means Conservapedia can suck my balls! Hooray!

Perhaps you recall, or have just read, my last post (it was from the original site). In it, we discovered what Conservapedia thinks Liberalism is all about

So I think it's appropriate to look at what they think about their own political ideology. No doubt it will be as fair and unbiased as the liberal article

Here's how it starts

Conservative values recognize the adversarial nature of politics, and much in life. As a result of their ability to deal with adversity, conservative values are superb in defending against obesity, addiction, adversity, anxiety, fear, depression, narcissism, risky law-breaking activities like dangerous driving, self-destructive behavior, illiteracy, rejection, wastefulness, and serious mental disorders. Conservatives are happier than liberals, and one study gives a reason: conservatives do not insist upon a mindless equality.

Conservative values also spontaneously generate puppies and cure erectile dysfunction! So lets get this straight. I can only assume that there are no fat Republicans, and Rush Limbaugh was never addicted to Oxycontin. How does being conservative protect you from being bipolar or schizophrenic? How does laissez-faire economics keep you from driving dangerously? How does believing that Gays shouldn't marry reduce anxiety? And fear? Really? You mean to tell me there is no fear or terrorists, gays, or immigrants involved in Conservatism? Cause conservatives sure love to pander to fear

Conservative values are also helpful in recognizing and combating deceit. A conservative understands the many incentives by others to engage in deceit, and the political power that can result from such deceit. A conservative is often not surprised by the deception that fools others.

They make it sound like deceit is unique to the left. Deception like, oh, covering up a hotel break-in

Anyways, here are some of the values of the conservative movement

• a never-ending quest for the truth, despite obstacles based on emotion and personal experience, and spreading such truths for the benefit of all

Unless that truth involves little things like global warming or evolution. Science in general really

• a devotion to the principle of justice

As long as it isn't Social Justice. Because all you need to add is -ism, and you've got Socialism

• recognizing the media for its bias, bullying, deception.

Excluding Fox News, of course

• rejecting the deification of government officials

Unless it's Reagan

• giving those in authority due respect, but not to the point of accepting orders or assertions that are contrary to logic or morality

Unless it's Reagan

• not complaining, and instead taking practical action to improve one's situation

Someone should tell that to the Republicans in Congress

• emphasizing humility and open-mindedness instead of arrogant certainty about one's own views

Too easy, not gonna touch it

• understanding that a rising tide lifts all boats, e.g. tax cuts benefit all.

A rising tide doesn't help you if you're fucking drowning



Well, that's it for now