The Hofoid House of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VII

[America Needs R'hllor]

Please tell me you’re being sarcastic.

Rights are provided by the Constitution, and as our governing document we are inherently bound to it as much as we are to democracy. Violating any of it is tantamount to saying it is no longer applicable, destroying the mandate of Congress, the President, and our society.

Did the moral right to equal protection regardless of race exist before the 15th amendment passed in 1870? Would it still exist if the 15th amendment had never been passed?

If a moral right does not legally exist, it does not exist.

So it's fine to discriminate against African Americans, Asians, lgbtq, women etc if we just amend the constitution a bit. Got it.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I guarantee that it is worse for me than either of them.  When your biggest concern is abortion, elections are really life-or-death events and at least another, maybe 2 more, Holocausts will happen due to this setback.

Have you become full-on liberal?

Using the word "Holocaust" when describing anything but the Holocaust is automatically absurd. The idea that Roy Moore is the difference between ending abortion in America and not might be even more absurd, though.

Using the word 'holocaust' to describe the termination of embryos which are scientifically not humans is the same as using it to describe the meat industry- that is, absurd, ignorant and disrespectful.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Democrats for sure.

Schumer stands there with this stupid look on his big nosed face wanting to shutdown the government. Trump plead with both sides not to let it happen.

I think it's clear, Democrats care more about illegal immigrants who are vastly insignificant to our country, our world and our culture than they do actual American citizens. I can't understand the love for people of no consequence over natural born American citizens and our military.

Quite sad and pathetic. But liberals themselves are cowards. Afraid of guns, afraid of war, afraid of conflict. They are weak physically and emotionally, and we need strong people in the world. Weak people create a huge encumbrance on American life.

In other words, it's nice to give to charity, but make sure you take care of your own expenses first.

That's blatant fascism.

[America Needs R'hllor]

For your interest, I support the Assad government because I believe their the lesser of two evils. The Syrian Rebels are a bunch of Whabbi extremists, and if they overthrow Assad they'll kill every Christian and Shiite Muslim in Syria. It's a shame that America and Israel are backing Sunni Terrorist over a Secular, Democraticly-elected government (Syria had a multi-party Election in 2014 that Assad won with almost 90% of the vote). If I was President I'd pull all US troops out of the Middle East (and East Asia and Europe), and start spending that money on helping our Nations poor, instead of dropping bombs on Third-world countries where we aren't even on the right side of the conflict.

Does this fit here, or should it be in Atlas hilarity because it's hilarious?

[America Needs R'hllor]

I've spent a little time in both, humans are not supposed to live (at least in any great numbers) where Phoenix is.  The environmental costs of people living where people shouldn't live is crazy, and it's expensive in coin too but that's less important because the people living there are paying for it more than I am....but we all get to suffer the environmental degradation.

Yes, people that care about the environment and live in places not suited for humans (ya know, like southern California) are assholes.  Passing laws making plastic bags illegal and watering your grass makes you stupid too.


so Pit, easy as hell.

who even cares about the environment?

The previous quote is even worse tbh.

[America Needs R'hllor]

The entire Israel General Discussion thread right now is like a huge party of absurt and ignorant hot takes. It's like you take an army of trolls who know nothing save for what they read in New York Times or Al Jazeera and add it to the usual dogmatic racism of Famous Mortimer, who views the world through an ultra-nationalist lens and consistently fails to differentiate European immigration, Israeli issues, Mexican immigration the the U.S. and everything else, trying to make everything fit into his racist dogma. This creates a serious hot mess:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=142845.1500

[America Needs R'hllor]

Zionism is an inherently nationalist ideology (and mostly an ethnonationalist one). Supporting mass immigration in Europe but not in Israel is hypocritical. Supporting big, beautiful walls in Israel to keep illegals and enemies out but thinking Canada and the U.S. should take in millions of immigrants is also hypocritical. That's basically all he said. I fail to see what's racist about it. It is correct.

Admittedly he said some more things regarding anti-Zionism not being anti-Semitic that I disagreed with, but that was not racist either.

It's not the thread to debate it so I'll keep it short, but: Zionism is clearly a very big tent that has many sorts of people, all of whom believe in the concept of Israel as a Jewish nation-state. That's it. You can be a socialist zionist, an ultra-nationalist zionist, a globalist zionist, whatever. So what I found the most annoying was Mortimer taking zionism into a giant bear hug where he basically enforced his dogmatic race-obsessed ideology on all of us. Also- the issues of Israel, Europe, and the U.S. are all very different and have different complexities. This leads me to oppose mass immigration into Israel and Europe but support it (to some extent of course) in the U.S. and Canada. You can't ignore the fact that these countries are different.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Abortion: Ask Congress for a constitutional amendment similar to the one Tennessee passed in 2014 (or that Alabama is voting on this year) giving Congress authority to regulate abortion except for rape, incest, or medical necessity.

Tennessee's amendment makes for no exceptions and states so very clearly in the text.  For me, every thing I did would be to ban abortion nationwide and without exceptions.  Then, I would put pressure on foreign countries with massive sanctions on any country that allows abortion, possibly including a travel ban.  I might even go so far to declare war on every country that has legal abortion if the sanctions were not working because it is that important to end abortion worldwide and save millions (billions?) of lives.

Wow this is sickening.

[America Needs R'hllor]

+100. In North Texas Devil (R) will easily defeat God Almighty (D), in Bay Area - Devil (D) will do the same with God (R). Idiocy, but - fact...

Ugh.

In North Texas, your parents will throw you out of your house because you're gay. In the Bay Area, people will not like you because you're a homophobe. Both sides do it

[America Needs R'hllor]

If a women was found in a condition where the only way to save their life was for them to have an abortion, would you want to prevent it?

That is a false decision.  It's impossible for there to actually be a "abort or die" situation.  I would never deny treatment to a woman for a life-threatening disease, but you cannot simply give up on the baby and intentionally kill it.  You need to focus equally on saving both lives as long as they are both still alive.

If you asked me whether there's a position I consider illegitimate and one I could never respect, this is it (along with racism etc). Sorry, but it's just mind-boggingly vicious and insane.

[America Needs R'hllor]

If a women was found in a condition where the only way to save their life was for them to have an abortion, would you want to prevent it?

That is a false decision.  It's impossible for there to actually be a "abort or die" situation.  I would never deny treatment to a woman for a life-threatening disease, but you cannot simply give up on the baby and intentionally kill it.  You need to focus equally on saving both lives as long as they are both still alive.

If you asked me whether there's a position I consider illegitimate and one I could never respect, this is it (along with racism etc). Sorry, but it's just mind-boggingly vicious and insane.

Let me be more specific and clarify myself.  I believe that a pregnant woman can receive chemotherapy or something (especially since both lives would likely be lost if the cancer spread), but the doctors need to keep trying as hard as possible to save the baby, even if it is an extremely long-shot.  You can't just start by actively killing the baby.

I understood exactly that. What this means is letting a woman suffer and very possibly die because of personal beliefs.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Man, there used to be something called "innocent until proven guilty."

No, only juries have ever been obligated to use that standard. Private citizens have always been able to use whatever standard they want to decide whether they think an accused is guilty.

I understand that.  And I especially understand that private citizens have been always able to use whatever standard they want.  I'm saying it's bad.  It's basically a modern lynching.  And yes, this term is appropriate. 

I was referring to being a judge, jury, and executioner before you know the facts.  So, yes, I am right. 

Do people die though? 

[America Needs R'hllor]

Why, of all people, is this named after me now?

It might have something to do with this:

It just keeps coming:

In 2008, everything that Obama did wrong, they blamed it on Bush.

Right-wingers frequently engage in intellectual dishonesty, but I thought they'd retire this one in the Trump era.

Or with this:

Two questions:

1. What exactly are they protesting? They are way more privileged than the average American worker, and they have the loony teacher unions protecting them from losing their third yearly vacation.

2. Aren't they supposed to be teaching?

This post might be worse than GreenLine's post in the thread. While I get that it's an American pastime to talk like an expert about subjects we know virtually nothing about, I think the subject which is spoken about with the most ignorance is education/teaching (though climate science is a close second.) The amount people assume that they know about teaching that is completely wrong is staggering. It's as if I were to say "Why do doctors say their job is so hard? Taking blood pressure and stick needles in people for 300k a year seems pretty easy to me!"

[America Needs R'hllor]

No arguments, jdb? Okay then!

I mean, the post speaks for itself. You're basically saying that associating with neo nazis and indirectly encouraging antisemitic groups is OK as long as you support the Israeli government. I personally think that we should call out repugnant stuff like this both on the left and on the right. When Trump brings us a Christian fundamentalist who said we're all going to hell to an official ceremony, when he says that there are "very fine people" in a hate march of nazis and racists who scream "Jews will not replace us"- I couldn't care less about the fact that he's moving some embassy.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I mean, the post speaks for itself. You're basically saying that associating with neo nazis and indirectly encouraging antisemitic groups is OK as long as you support the Israeli government. I personally think that we should call out repugnant stuff like this both on the left and on the right. When Trump brings us a Christian fundamentalist who said we're all going to hell to an official ceremony, when he says that there are "very fine people" in a hate march of nazis and racists who scream "Jews will not replace us"- I couldn't care less about the fact that he's moving some embassy.

Nope, supporting Nazis and encouraging antisemitic groups is not okay at all. I don't think Bannon or Trump did that, though, but I would like to invite you to come up with examples that prove me wrong. The Christian guy at the embassy ceremony should not have been invited but I don't think saying we're all going to hell is necessarily antisemitic (but it's bad either way, agreed). In Charlottesville there were probably a lot of bad people and a few fine people on both sides. The Nazi protesters were bad and the Antifa counterprotesters were bad. Trump was probably too charitable to both sides. The "Jews will not replace us" chant was absolutely terrible but has never been condoned by Trump. His daughter is literally Jewish and so are his grandchildren. And it is a choice to attach so much weight to this perceived moral failure of Trump and not to look at his impressive support for Israel.

I actually do agree that the preacher is probably not antisemitic himself- he's just rabidly religious. However, when he says that all Jews will go to hell, he's encouraging antisemitism, and I think it's time for us to remember that decades ago, antisemitism came mostly from religious Christian Europeans who wrote blood libel stories and feared the Jews who killed Jesus. So yeah, inviting him was unacceptable.
As for Trump- I know he's not an antisemite and has a Jewish daughter. That's all fine. My problem is with the fact that parts of his base are antisemitic, and he encourages these parts by taking too much time to condemn David Duke or, as I said, by the "fine people on both sides" thing. I think you're fully aware that what people understood from this was "there are fine white supremacists". With all due respect, you're doing some serious false equivalency here- yes, there were unpleasant antifa parts in the counter-protests, but most counter-protesters were just normal people who despise nazism. The march itself, meanwhile, was literally a "Unite the Right" rally organized by white nationalists and nazis. There is no wiggle room here- this was a rally by the racists, for the racists. No one who attended this rally is a "fine person"- even if not all of them are antisemites, all of them are racists. So yes, by saying that there are "very fine people on both sides", Trump encouraged the antisemitic parts of his base.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Yeah the anti-semite isn't winning this. For republicans Freitas and Vogel are both from this seat

For heaven's sake she is not an anti-Semite. Criticizing US policy with Israel is not anti-Semitic and that is what her book highlighted. What is anti-Semitic was the march on Charlottesville that the Jesus Christ adorned GOP refused to sharply condemn. Get it right.

Nobody's allowed to say anything about Israel in this country. For all the right wing whining about people like Laura Ingram being taken down by "leftist SJW mobs," you never hear those on the right say anything about all the laws passed that essentially criminalizes the criticism or boycotting of Israel.

AIPAC has such a stranglehold that even the overwhelming majority of the politicians accused of being anti-semitic because they actually criticized Israel for something still voted to have $225 million of US taxpayer money go to Israel's Iron Dome system to allow them to kill as many Palestinians as they want without any consequences.

My favourite posts on this site are the posts that imply I should die

[America Needs R'hllor]

What percentage of Democrats believe that homosexuals are "born that way" even when there is no scientific evidence to make that assertion?  What is the likelihood that such beliefs are, in fact, narrative-driven for political reasons?

Disgusting. What is the likelihood that Fuzzy ignoring myriad of scientific research and human experience is, in fact, narrative-driven for bigoted reasons and missing the times when they were making homosexuals miserable and abusing their human rights?

[America Needs R'hllor]

What percentage of Democrats believe that homosexuals are "born that way" even when there is no scientific evidence to make that assertion?  What is the likelihood that such beliefs are, in fact, narrative-driven for political reasons?

Disgusting. What is the likelihood that Fuzzy ignoring myriad of scientific research and human experience is, in fact, narrative-driven for bigoted reasons and missing the times when they were making homosexuals miserable and abusing their human rights?

I don't ignore human experience, but the scientific research is just not there to state that particular conclusion.  If it were, this would be proclaimed from the rooftops.

Although I've posted this many times, I am opposed to sodomy laws, etc, and I'm opposed to discrimination against LGBT in housing, employment, etc.  I don't condone meanness and harassment (although to some, merely quoting Scripture on this subject is considered mean and harassing).  I'm not going to refute Scripture, however.  That's really what people are asking me to do.  That my God means little or nothing to many of these folks doesn't mean that I should view him as anything less than LORD. 

I've attempted, and will always attempt to put myself in the positions of others even when there is a chasm that can't be fully bridged, and try to assume the best of people.  I like to think people will do that in return, but there are some here (not Parrotguy, but others) that aren't interested in that one bit.  I'm posting this for the reasonable and the rational, and not for those who are as "scortched earth" oriented as the factions they despise.

But there is myriad of research that points exactly to this direction. Sure, there could be social factors, but they're likely very weak- scientists agree that the biological explanations are by far the strongest. Sure, you could claim that anything is not exactly proven- such is science, it's a process that always discovers new facts. But when something has so much evidence for it, why would you claim that believing it is "political"? If anything, claimign that it's purely from social factors is clearly politically motivated.
Also, the respect I've got for your ability to have civilized discussion is mutual, I've got two questions for you on this subject:
1. If you refuse to give up on this particulat law in the old testament, do you also follow the rest of the old testament, considering there is nothing on homosexuality in the new testament? Do you observe the Shabat? Do you eat pork and other non-kosher food? I'm sure you don't observe these so why exactly focus on the "lay with other men" part?
2. Would you consider randomly coming up to a gay person and quoting this particular line of the scripture mean and harrassing? Because I've experienced this, and while I personally found it hilarious and it made my day, I do believe it's clearly not a legitimate thing to do.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Have to laugh at everyone laughing this off. There are people who support reparations. A lot. I think it's not far-fetched at all that Democrats will ultimately support special reparations taxes on white people.

It's very common for the left to start out denying that they would ever support something and calling the suggestion absurd, only to slowly but surely move towards it as the years go by. It's part of their subversive nature and we've seen this play out multiple times.

That's not a leftist thing, that's a politician thing.

The left has been extremely effective at it with regards to changing the culture, though.

Let's play "inserting homophobic dogwhistles in unrelated posts"!

[America Needs R'hllor]

It doesn't matter how many insanely suicidal Jewish groups people post saying "Actually the Jews have it coming" or whatever twisted rationale it is today. They're irrelevant tokens. Might as well be posting Alan Keyes making the case that blacks commit most of the crimes so mass incarceration is okay.

I think we all know what Corbyn is at this point, but what's really been instrumental about this crisis is just how many people not just stand by him, but stand by his anti-semitic beliefs.

Thank God this world has Israel to keep it in check.

Are you always this disrespectful towards Holocaust survivors? Tokens? Really?

I thought you denied the Holocaust?

I denied that Israelis died in the holocaust, as Israel did not exist yet. The Holocaust most certainly happened, and I'm sure your Nazi ancestors were a big help.

I'll take stupid things to say to a Jew for $200 Alex.

Add these comments:

Go ahead. I've posted on this form for 15 years and only been cited once, I will gladly take a second one. People like David are incredibly hurtful and harmful to the Jewish Community, especially the diaspora. Calling him a Nazi was tame.

Also, David isn't Jewish so I can't be anti-Semitic towards him.

This is crossing so many red lines I find it a fully bannable offense. If someone said something like that about any other group they'd be promptly banned, this is just... honestly, one of the most racist things I read on Atlas.

[America Needs R'hllor]

This whole thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=299867.msg6380571#new

Atlas, it seems, is way worse than I thought when it comes to loving nazi defenders (who also happen to hate immigrants and be extremely corrupt). I'm really disappointed in several posters there who seemingly would be willing to sacrifice the Jewish people on the altar of populism.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I am a male, so I would not have to worry about Grandpa Joe grabbing my genitals.

[America Needs R'hllor]

5. I was about to name Brian Schatz for Sarah Jeong support, but he's not up for re-election, so... Phil Scott because it would be advantageous to have someone like him lose to Christine Hallquist.

Yay transphobic dogwhistles.

[America Needs R'hllor]

5. I was about to name Brian Schatz for Sarah Jeong support, but he's not up for re-election, so... Phil Scott because it would be advantageous to have someone like him lose to Christine Hallquist.

Yay transphobic dogwhistles.

I honestly can't see the dogwhistle in this. Am I missing something painfully obvious?(not that the post isn't vile of course).

Why would it be "advantageous" for Scott to lose to "someone like her"? In light of the rest of the post, it just smelled really bad.