Illustrated Stupidity

The Reason for the Season

2009-12-24T14:25:00.000-08:00

I'm taking PZ Myers' advice and upon consideration decided to celebrate the holidays with a nice dose of NOFX. Without further ado, 'Best God in Show':

I have no consideration
Zero mutual respect
For billions who suffer from rational thought neglect
I don’t wanna waste a sentence
I don’t want a conversation
That’s gonna end in disdain disbelief and aggravation

And I find it’s getting harder to hang out
With grown adults who actually believe
In Santa Clause and Noah’s Ark, and Their god is the best
My distaste has turned into detest

Who would read a 2000-year-old medical journal?
Techniques for blood-letting
Advice on trichinosis
Would you navigate the globe
With a map of a flat Earth?
Without DNA testing would you believe virgin birth?

And I find it’s getting painful to put up
With grown adults who actually believe
In unicorns and creation and god always takes their side
That’s when my innocent jabbing turns snide

Thank god for the Grammy
Thank god for the touchdown
Thank god for blowing up the enemy’s sacred ground
So how am I supposed to take anything you say seriously
When you swap free will for faith, hope and pre-destiny?

And it’s getting agonizing to hang out
With grown adults who actually believe
Mythology and history trump physics and science
My aversion has turned to aberrance

Here's wishing everyone a happy godless holiday!

Anti-Lubrication Movement

2009-11-14T21:14:00.000-08:00

I came across this the other day, and it was so good that I had to post it. Thanks to jer_j.

Awareness of Lubrication Controversy Growing

Backed by famous actress, movement picks up momentum

Associated News Service, September 2009

For years, the conventional wisdom had been taken for granted: putting oil into your car will protect it from the effects of friction and maybe even increase its lifespan.

But now, in this era of ever-increasing consumer awareness, more and more drivers are questioning the value and the safety of this practice.

"Everybody's just always assumed they're supposed to lubricate their cars," said Big Tom, owner of Big Tom's Automotive and one of the few experts who's spoken out on this issue. "But is it really that smart to take the most important part of your car, with all its complicated little moving pieces, and fill it with this goopy black sludge? Most people never really gave it any thought. They just did it because they were told they should - because it's what everybody was doing."

So what's the harm? "You just don't know what that stuff is doing to your vehicle," Big Tom adds.

And that's where drivers have started getting concerned. Over the last few years there's been a growing epidemic of Random Airbag Deployment (known as RAD) as more and more cars reportedly have had airbags that, for whatever reason, go off when they're not supposed to. It's dangerous. It causes accidents and injuries. And worst of all, the vehicle suffers from erratic behavior that makes it unable to cope with most normal driving situations - or to engage in meaningful interaction with its driver. Drivers, shocked and devastated to find that their vehicles suffer from RAD, have had no idea where to turn for answers.

More and more, however, a small but vocal group has started theorizing that the effects of RAD are at least in part caused by some aspect of the lubrication process. And this group has gained increasing attention - as well as credibility - by the recent addition of a high-profile celebrity to its ranks.

Bimbo Larue, formerly a porn star, has since become a Hollywood icon, staring in such films as Honk if You Like My Bod, Randy High School Road Trip, and Pull My Finger. But three years ago her world was rocked when her car, a blue 2006 Ford Focus, was diagnosed with RAD.

She recounts her journey on her web site, as well as on any talk show that will have her: "The first time that airbag slammed me in the face like a brick wall... Well at first I was, like, shocked - then I thought, 'You know, there's really something special going on here.'" Based on her experience she came to believe that her car was a "Burnt-Orange Starship of a Higher Plane" and that she was its "Pilot/Aquarial Guide-Presence."

"I just knew that car was meant for great things," Larue said, "that it was just too great for this dimension, you know, too advanced for the narrow little roads it was forced to travel... With all that built up tension inside, it's no wonder it felt the need to just let go and throw out its airbag."

Since then, though, things have changed. "Now I realize that my car's just, like, broken - and it's all because those guys put oil in its engine."

She's since started up a crusade, becoming a leading figure in what's become known as the "Anti-Lubrication Movement." "My goal is to educate as many people as possible about the effects lubrication can have on a car - to tell my story and help others make more informed choices. The oil industry owes it to us to provide a safe way to keep our engines running without filling them with dangerous chemicals that expose our cars to the effects of RAD." And her car? She takes her vehicle in to Big Tom to have the airbag repacked whenever it deploys. She rejects conventional avenues, such as having her car's electrical system diagnosed or reexamining her driving habits - and she says there's no way she's changing her car's oil again. "They've already done enough damage to Mr. Ford Focus," she adds sadly.

Naturally, there's been a backlash against this movement, and against Bimbo Larue.

The Department of Transportation has begun the now well-known "Put oil in your car or your engine will get ruined" ad campaign. And several experts have started to express their disagreement with the movement.

"Good, clean motor oil is essential to the safe operation of a vehicle," says engineer Ed McCallister. "Without it an engine will simply burn out, and the car becomes useless... Really, I'm puzzled that there's even any controversy about this. There's absolutely no plausible reason to believe that airbag misdeployment could be caused by engine lubrication."

"Ridiculous," says Larue. "This one site on Google says that, like, 150 years ago, almost nobody lubricated the engines on their vehicles. And how many airbags misdeployed? None. Now we have airbags firing off left and right - after more vehicles got lubricated. Coincidence? I think not. Anybody who denies the effects of lubrication on RAD is either in denial or is willfully closed-minded to anything that doesn't fit their 'science.'"

But mainstream engineers like McCallister persist in their denial of the oil-RAD connection. "We'd been lubricating vehicles for decades before the airbag was even invented. And even now, the number of airbags that misdeploy falls within the expected range of electrical and mechanical malfunction. There simply is no 'RAD epidemic.'" However, most readers will easily identify McCallister as a mean old poo-poo scientist who never agrees with anything fun or interesting, and who only says boring technical stuff in interviews.

Many other drivers agree, and they're growing angry that they've never been informed of the dangers of lubrication, or the fact that there are alternatives. The government still requires people to lubricate any vehicles they drive on public roads - but in some states they can apply for an exemption based on religious preference or personal fears.

"[The exemption] is a positive first step," says Big Tom, "but there's still much more progress to be made both in laws and in overall public perception. People need to be made aware of their rights. Is it possible that oil might help a vehicle? Some studies say yes - there have been isolated cases where engine seizure has been attributed by some to a lack of motor oil. But there are a lot of different theories out there, and we really need to inform people of both the dangers and the benefits - then let them make the choice."

Tom emphasizes open-mindedness. He adds that the Anti-Lubrication trend is not monolithic, that even within the movement people don't agree on everything. It originally encouraged people to avoid oil altogether. Over time, a few people started demanding the removal of substances like sulfur, detergents, and alkaline additives before they would lubricate. And when a study showed that these measures made no difference in the rate of RAD, some advised spreading out the oil changing schedule - changing the oil only every four to five years, or adding only a quart at a time. "The beautiful thing is, we have our differences, but unlike the 'scientific' community, we can live with them and be open to each others' ideas. That's really what this is about: letting people decide for themselves."

So what about the body of evidence that contradicts the Anti-Lubrication movement? Why would anybody listen to Bimbo Larue when experts with years of mechanical experience disagree with her?

Perhaps she says it best: "I'll always trust my driver's instinct over the so-called experts. I have Mr. Ford Focus back home - he's my years of mechanical experience."

* DISCLAIMER: All people, movements, and organizations named or implied in this article are fictional, except for "the government" and the Department of Transportation. No actions or stances attributed to government agencies in this article are real.

Dumbfuck of the Week

2009-11-04T20:52:00.000-08:00

Awarded for amazing stupidity/bigotry, the first Dumbfuck of the Week award goes to jojame for his work over at Pharyngula. A few samples:

There is a difference between the traditional nuclear family and a family with homosexual parents.
Either one or both of guardians of the child is essentially a stepparent. There is less stake in the child where there is no blood relation.

Children is the reason sex feels good similar to how fat and sugar is the reason cheesecake tastes good.

Congratulations jojame! You earned it.

The "Pro-Family" Movement

2009-11-04T19:27:00.000-08:00

How many families in Maine were strengthened and helped last night?
How many were harmed?

The "pro-family" movement hurts families.

A great quotation from MAJeff over at Pharyngula that perfectly sums up the actions of the religious right.

Ray Comfort: Moron, Plagiarist

2009-11-04T18:13:00.000-08:00

Ray Comfort is an absolute moron who is trying to make money off of the work of Charles Darwin. He has released a version of the On the Origin of Species with an introduction written by him. Never mind that in his first 'edition,' Comfort removed large portions of the text (especially parts that contradict his idiotic claims). Now, it turns out that the only part of the book that he actually wrote, the introduction, is at least partly plagiarized. The rest consists of old and tired creationist ramblings. We can't really expect much more from Comfort though; aside from assisting Kirk Cameron with Crocoducks, Ray came up with the banana argument for God's existence.

Atheist Blogroll

2009-10-31T17:03:00.000-07:00

Illustrated Stupidity has been added to The Atheist Blogroll, which you can now see in the sidebar. The Atheist Blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

Crocoducks!

2009-10-21T19:32:00.000-07:00

I just came across these shirts, and they are awesome. It's probably the only thing for which we can be grateful to Kirk Cameron.

http://store.richarddawkins.net/products/crocoduck-t-shirt

Dallin H. Oaks is a Bigoted Asshole

2009-10-20T20:24:00.000-07:00

Dallin H. Oaks, one of the Mormon church's self-proclaimed apostles, recently gave a speech to the students at BYU-Idaho that was mentioned in the media because he compares the treatment of Mormons after the vote on Proposition 8 to the treatment of blacks during the civil rights era. But, what the media surprisingly missed, is how absolutely stupid the rest of the speech was. It's like 'Elder' Oaks sat down, took a list of discredited right-wing talking points, and created his speech by randomly stringing them together. Seriously. Here a few examples:

Atheism has always been hostile to religion, such as in its arguments that freedom of or for religion should include freedom from religion.

Apparently, Oaks (who, by the way, was a lawyer before he jumped on the full-time crazy train) thinks that the Constitution does not give people the freedom to choose no religion. The First Amendment says that

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

We obviously can't force people to be religious because that would violate the first clause of the amendment. Thus, people who want no part of any religion have this right guaranteed to them as well. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't true, asshole.

An 1833 revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith declared that the Lord established the United States Constitution by wise men whom he raised up for that very purpose (Doctrine and Covenants 101:80). The Lord also declared that this constitution "should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh" (Doctrine and Covenants 101:77)

Ok, aside from the fact that many of the people who created the Constitution weren't Christian and the early American government unanimously approved a treaty stating that the United States was not founded on Christianity, this actually contradicts the beliefs of the Mormon church. If, as they say, the god intended for the nation to be governed by the Constitution, why did the Mormons setup a theocracy in Utah instead of creating a government based on the Constitution? What was that part again about the government not establishing a religion?

Then, he starts to go on about how religious freedom is being threatened. His evidence for this claim? Religious ideas aren't being unquestioningly respected all the time. If we don't respect all of his beliefs, then his freedom of religion is somehow being compromised. In the real world, people are expected to be able to use reason and evidence to support their positions. If you can't do this, then your idea is not worthy of respect. And, "god said so" is not evidence of the correctness of an idea. Just because people no longer just accept that you talk to god and know better than we do doesn't mean that your freedom is being threatened. You are still free to believe and practice all the fucked up shit that you want.

Again, somewhat strangely for a lawyer, Oaks doesn't seem to understand freedom of speech either.

But unless the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of religious freedom?

What he is basically saying here is that we can't criticize religious beliefs because freedom of religion somehow trumps freedom of speech, which is complete and utter bullshit. The 1st Amendment does say that the government can't tell you that your religion is wrong, but says nothing about other citizens telling you how stupid your beliefs are. In fact, if the government tried to stop this from happening, it would be violating our 1st Amendment rights, not upholding them. It basically comes down to this: you can say what you want, and I am allowed to say what I want in regards to that. If you don't like it, tough. No one is trying to silence you or your church. You can say or believe whatever you want. But you can't complain when other people do the same.

His complaints about the persecution of his church's members are just as ridiculous. Sure, I agree that people shouldn't vandalize churches, or that people shouldn't be fired from their jobs for their political opinions. But, I also know that you aren't required to tell your employer how you vote, so there is most likely more to the story when you hear about the poor Mormons losing their jobs because of their views on Proposition 8. If you keep sounding off at work about how evil teh gays are all the time I'd fire you too. I don't know if that is necessarily the case here, but with the minimal information provided in this speech we can't really say one way or the other. And as for this bullshit,

Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California's adoption of Proposition 8, including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members by firings and boycotts of member businesses and by retaliation against donors.

what the fuck do you think should happen? Should the government come in and force the boycotters to use Mormon businesses? And what exactly constitutes "retaliation against donors?" Obviously, it's illegal to retaliate with crimes. Does me not kissing your ass count? Should the government come in and censor this post, maybe replacing it with something about how the Mormon church is all about smiles and pretty flowers? I can't really think of anything, barring illegal activities, that could constitute retaliation that it would be constitutional for the government to do anything about. This is all just rhetoric in your attempt to spread fear and hate: "O noes, those evil atheists and gays will retaliate against you. Retaliate I say!"

And, after all this, Oaks tries to say that this "persecution" is as bad as that suffered by the blacks during the civil rights era. Let me ask a few questions to illustrate the extreme absurdity of this. Are their Mormons being lynched right now? Are you being forced to the back of the bus or forced to use separate water fountains for something that you had no control over? No, not even close. Their is a huge fucking difference between discrimination based on something like skin color (or sexual orientation for that matter) and discrimination based on a political or religious view that you actually chose. People aren't being "persecuted" simply because the are Mormons, but because they made a poor choice to support a bigoted institution in campaigning for a discriminatory law. Sure, there may be articles that said things like "The Mormons are to blame for this," but that's because you're church (and therefore presumably you) took an official stance that homosexuals are second-class citizens and should be denied rights. And your pathetic claim that

The marriage union of a man and a woman has been the teaching of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice of marriage in Western culture for thousands of years. Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights.

does this also apply to the "ancient order of slavery" (given the Mormons views about blacks, perhaps you actually think it does)? Simply because something has "always been done this way," that doesn't mean that way is right. If that were true, maybe we should take away the voting rights of women, reinstitute slavery, and allow the death penalty for things like violating the Sabbath Day or being a rebellious son. Then again, that sounds a lot like the Mormon/Christian dream.

What it all comes down to, "Elder" Oaks, is accountability. You want to be able to not only hold bigoted beliefs without sufficient reason, you want to be able to force these beliefs on others without having to be held accountable for their reprehensible content. Actions have consequences, and if you don't like the consequences of taking an active role in depriving minorities of civil rights, DON'T FUCKING DO IT. It's that simple.

The Conservative Vision of America

2009-10-18T02:58:00.000-07:00

Have you ever wondered what America would be like if the Republicans had their way? Well, I can't tell you everything, but here's a start. John Derbyshire, a conservative author who writes for the National Review, thinks that women should not be allowed to vote. As if that isn't bad enough, the reason he gives to support his craziness is a perfect illustration of the way that the right think this country should be run:

The conservative case against [female suffrage] is that women lean hard to the left

There is no attempt at rational discourse here. He's against women voting because they don't agree with him. Well, in that case, why should we stop at women? Why don't we remove the right to vote for any group with which Derbyshire (or the right in general) disagrees? Or, we could turn the tables and refuse to let conservatives vote because they tend to "lean hard to the right?" Oh right. Because this is a democracy, where everyone is allowed to vote how they see fit. What's the point of voting if you only let people with certain views vote? All you would end up with is one political party in complete control of the government. I wonder how all those wackaloons yowling about "comrade Obama" would feel about this? Just remember that the Republicans want to remove the rights of those with which they disagree (apparently denying rights to minorities is no longer enough for them). This is their vision of a better America.

And, lest someone tries to claim that I am somehow misrepresenting Derbyshire's claims, here's an extract from his recent interview with Alan Colmes:

DERBYSHIRE: Among the hopes that I do not realistically nurse is the hope that female suffrage will be repealed. But I’ll say this – if it were to be, I wouldn’t lose a minute’s sleep.

COLMES: We’d be a better country if women didn’t vote?

DERBYSHIRE: Probably. Don’t you think so?

COLMES: No, I do not think so whatsoever.

DERBYSHIRE: Come on Alan. Come clean here [laughing].

COLMES: We would be a better country? John Derbyshire making the statement, we would be a better country if women did not vote.

DERBYSHIRE: Yeah, probably.

He admits, plain as day, that he thinks this country would be better if women were not allowed to vote. I feel sorry for his wife and daughter.

Status of the Blog

2009-10-18T02:43:00.000-07:00

So, I haven't made a post here since January. This was partly because I started a new semester with a heavy classload in January and I didn't want to use what free time I had on CJ. Much has transpired since then, including getting a new job and moving, and, to be honest, after a few months of neglecting the blog it was really easy to just not come back to it. It was also partly due to the fact that CJ seems to have become less interesting recently. Sure, there are still a plethora of terrible arguments, fallacies, and grammatical errors on his blog, but (at least to me) it all became rather monotonous. Instead of posts of epic stupidity, we get mundane rambling about how liberals/Obama are stupid, evil, etc. I think the idea that not everyone in the country has the same fucked-up ideals that he does was quite shocking to CJ, and the stress of this revelation has taken it's toll on his already weak faculties. Anyway, I have the time to write now, and I figured instead of starting a new blog, I could just resurrect this one with an expanded scope. So, henceforth this blog shall not focus solely on CJ's abundant stupidity. Instead, I will include all of the nutjobs of CJ's caliber (it seems there are quite a few), and whatever personal rantings I feel like writing. But, let us NEVAR 4GET the almighty CJ, without whom we would not have the lulz previously documented. In his honor, I will try to make at least one post weekly that carries on the original mission of the blog.

New Year, Same Asshole

2009-01-16T16:05:00.000-08:00

Well, it's been a while. I was busy doing productive things and there was a lull in the CJ lulz. But, he's just as stupid as ever, as evidenced by this latest conversation between CJ and the forces of lulz. Despite the month and a half break, Mike kept tabs on the stupidity over at The Illustrated Conservative, and he found this gem of a post, where CJ quotes some other douchebag claiming that Obama's presidency has failed before it began. Knowing CJ's reputation for clear and rigorous thinking, we thought that surely he would never make such a claim without something to back it up. Hence, Mike's post

As always, you bring the lulz like a champ. I'd like you to do me the same favor a Bush-loving coworker of mine recently did: give clear predictions of the kinds of things Obama will screw up 1 year, 2 years, and 4 years out. If you're so sure about the coming doom, you can probably paint a pretty descriptive picture of it, right? What should I expect from this failed-before-he-takes-office flunky?

CJ's response was completely true to form; the first sentence was a slaughtering of the English language.

Sure, but let's see what your Bush were predications 8 years ago - date stamped and notarized for authenticity. Let's compare your predictions to the link below.

And since you were so adamant about Sarah Palin's lack of qualifications to be Vice President, explain to me how Leon Panetta is qualified to be CIA chief? I have visions of Panetta cramming for the job by reading all the Tom Clancy spy books he can get his hands on. Perhaps he's reviewing Mad magazine's "Spy vs. Spy" too.

He first agrees to provide predictions (that's what the word 'sure' means, CJ) and then gives us the first of many red herrings: Leon Panetta. Then, his flunky, Voyska PVO, chimes in with some stupid remark about Al Franken and Caroline Kennedy (another red herring), and then runs away when he realizes that Mike isn't someone he can intimidate into silence. It must be frustrating when you can't make rational arguments to support your position.

By this point, we all know what's going to happen: CJ is going to keep changing the subject, throwing out fallacies, and complaining that we aren't responding to all of his bullshit. Mike and I jumped on this very quickly. Our friend Gunner, realizing the horribly flawed arguments being put forth by CJ and his butt-buddy, generates some big win early on by tweaking the Xzibit meme:

Yo dawg. We herd you like conservatives so we put a conservative in your conservative so you can fail while you fail.

My first post follows:

CJ - "Sure, but let's see what your Bush were predications[sic] 8 years ago"

I know this is going to be impossible for you to understand, but 8 years ago when Bush was about to take office Mike wasn't excreting blog posts about how Bush's presidency was failed before he took office. You very clearly are. Once again, the mighty prophet CJ is unable to back up his claims.

In b4 CJ changes the subject a hundred times and starts deleting comments.

Completely unfazed, CJ launches his next fallacious attack: falling back on the claim that we're all nerds who play Warcraft. This led to huge lulz from Noah:

I just want everyone to know that I am, indeed, a virgin that plays world of warcraft 40 hours per week. I constantly masturbate to hentai porn.

I know this... because CJ knows this. I am also an ignorant misogynist that is now going to renounce everything I believe, including the ability to reason according to universally accepted principles of logic, in order to learn from the almighty CJ.

His talking points are so profound and written with such verve that I not only have come to realize that George W Bush was an amazing president, but that everyone who thinks otherwise is SOO dumb LOL. Also Barack Obama is a LOOZER and anyone who voted for him hates america and loves terrorism.

I am so glad that I have found something such as The Illustrated Conservative to help me down the long road of recovery from wrongness (lol i made that word up!! it's already working!).

While Noah's post is l33t, Mike become winnar of the thread with this post:

Your blog is just entertaining enough that I check it on a regular basis and the others generally hear about it and come watch the show. It's better than anything on prime-time TV, although not nearly as funny as that awesome show on CSPAN, "book tv". It's also not as awesome as this site:

http://www.raptureready .com/

But if you two collaborated on a new site that offered both blogs and public forums by neo-con evangelicals FOR neo-con evangelicals, I'm sure you could blow away anything else on the interwebs with your twin cannons of lulz. It could even sport a super-Jesus-loving and politically-charged title like, "The Illustrated Rapture-Ready Conservative," with a selacious subtitle like, "Fighting fags, hippies, and communist leftists everyday and every-which-way!"

Needless to say, CJ was overwhelmed and succumbed to his juvenile need to start deleting posts. All of Gunner's posts were gone (a significant amount of the awesomeness of teh internetz was lost that day), as well as one of mine and one of Noah's. I don't have the text of Noah's post (which from his description was a lulzy mocking of CJ's posts), but mine, in essence, said this: I'd much rather have the problem of cutting and pasting links through his shitty comment system than have the thinking and writing skills of a monkey that has been punched in the head one too many times. I also responded to his call to get back on subject by reminding him that we were still waiting for reasons that he thought Obama's presidency had already failed. I guess he really has absolutely no evidence for his claims and has no interest in staying on topic, because he deleted my post.

If CJ and Rapture Ready ever considered working together, the results would look something like this.

Roundup Part II

2008-11-16T13:40:00.000-08:00

I must admit CJ has some gems this week. My favorite was this post's title, "What do 'Mandatory' Mean?" Let's take a look at some others.

But does this technology should put environmentalists in a bit of a quandary?

Good luck figuring out how you're supposed to answer that question.

You'll wish you payed attention in science class.

No, I won't, because I did pay attention in science class. I love when CJ shows his own ineptitude. And I believe the word you were looking for is 'paid.' Better luck next time.

This eventually crash and burn would be amusing to watch if it weren't so G-damn scary.

This is one of those tricky typos that will pass right through a spell-check unflagged (not like CJ's uses spell-check anyway) but is easily spotted by any human with a brain.

They (liberals) are a gullible bunch. Obama thought there were 57 states and Kansas tornadoes killed 10,000 people. The response? Palin's detractors are conveniently mute.

How does this show that liberals are gullible? You might be able to consider them gullible if the liberal response was "No he didn't, cause the Democrats said he didn't," but that's not what happened. Looks like CJ needs to learn what gullible means.

And the stupid continues...

2008-11-16T13:19:00.000-08:00

CJ keeps rambling on about Obama and Ayers. Yes, Ayers did horrible things, 40 years ago. He has since become a respected professor and works for education reform, among other things. Plus, I don't really see a problem with the two quotes that CJ posted to try to show how Obama lied to us:

(Ayers) is "a guy who lives in my neighborhood... He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis."- Obama/Clinton Debate

"We had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I’d made a small donation to his earliest political campaign" - Bill Ayers

I have lots of family friends that I don't exchange ideas with on a regular basis, yet if you asked them, they would say that I was a family friend. Big fucking deal, CJ; this shows nothing. But, that's not all. In the comments section of that post CJ says:

I was repeatedly told by liberal sympathizers in post after post that Obama did not attend a fund raiser at Ayers' house, didn't know Ayers as a neighbor, and wasn't a family friend...You and your red friends just don't want to talk about because you've been proven wrong.

I never once made any of those claims, and I don't remember anyone else making them either. The only conversations we had were here and here. I would love for CJ to show us just where we said what he says we did. But I fear that this is just another instance of what Mike pointed out: CJ making up arguments and attributing them to us.

And if you want to look at Obama's associates, perhaps you'd like to explain why McCain was "palling around" with John Hagee?

CJ Calls Out Teh L33tXors

2008-11-15T21:34:00.000-08:00

In a recent post, MSNBC Retracts False Palin Story: Updated, CJ names a few of our group members and, recycling my initial comments about Palin, claims we're "intellectually weak". The basis for this claim is that we (allegedly) swallowed the bait on some hoax uncovered by MSNBC: apparently there were some reports that a man named Eisenstadt claimed responsibility for recently-reported, anonymous statements that Palin doesn't know where Africa is, etc. It turns out that this Eisenstadt person is a fictional character. (Of course this doesn't really matter anyway; we identified Palin's wanton dumbfuckery a month ago, amirite?)

As it turns out, none of us ever showed approval of Eisenstadt's reported claims: in fact, I don't think that any of us even knew about the story until we read CJ's post claiming we believed it. Now how's that for illustrated fiction?

The icing on this cake is that CJ's repeated attacks against us now include completely fabricated attributions of beliefs. No longer does CJ simply mix up our ideologies or associate our attacks against Palin with tacit approval of Democrats. No, he's moved beyond mistaking our claims and adopted the far more efficient argumentative tactic of making them up for us. This guy has built a veritable straw-man factory: he cranks that bitch up, churns out false arguments we would never proffer, and slaps our names on them. Of course, this is all very consistent with standard neo-con practice, and like most neo-con tactics, is consistently hilarious. I can't wait to visit The Illustrated Conservative and learn about more of my beliefs: perhaps in the future it'll be claimed that I believe in UFO's or that I hear Jesus' voice (whoops, isn't that a genuine neo-con belief? lulz).

Screw sitcoms: pound-for-pound, the best comedy available are the ramblings of my favorite troglodyte neo-conservative. It's just too damned bad he's too retarded to offer an RSS feed: I'd like my neo-con bullshit value meal to go :).

CJ and Racism

2008-11-11T21:57:00.000-08:00

CJ has this image in the sidebar on his blog. Apparently, Obama is elite and thinks he's smarter than we are. First of all, we should want somebody who is elite to run this country. Republicans love to call people "elitists" as if it's an insult. We need experts and the elite in every field. Would you like to have your heart surgery performed by a professional surgeon or Joe "I didn't go to that elitist medical school" the Doctor? Why settle for (or desire) mediocrity when we can strive for greatness, and since when is intelligence a bad thing?

I think it's time for a little history lesson: When deciding on a title to use for the President of the United States, George Washington "liked 'His High Mightiness,' and in his public documents frequently referred to himself in the third person as though he were royalty." There were reasons for this other than Washington's ego, but can you imagine the Republican reaction if Obama had done anything like that?

At the end of the day, we all know that when CJ and the other conservative pundits call Obama 'elitist' or 'snob,' it's really just code for 'uppity negro.' Who does he think he is anyway?

CJ and Misogyny

2008-11-11T20:53:00.000-08:00

One of CJ's favorite things to say about anyone who thinks that Sarah Palin is not qualified to be Vice-President is that they are misogynists. He tried to do this several times to us so that he wouldn't have to face reality or address any of the arguments that we made (see here). I think that I have discovered the real reason he falls back on that ad hominem attack so often: projection. Yes, good ol' boy CJ actually appears to be quite misogynistic himself; deep down, though, he knows that it's wrong. That could explain why he blindly supported Sarah Palin. "No one will think I'm sexist if I like Palin."

But, this isn't The Illustrated Conservative, so I'm not just going to make the claim without anything to back it up. As you read this, keep in mind that CJ accused Mike of misogyny simply for claiming that Palin wasn't qualified. In a post titled Oprah With All Knowing Iridescent Teats, CJ babbled:

What does it say about the women (and light fisted men for that matter) who fawn over Oprah's decision to endorse Obambi? I understand she is a beloved talk show figure and can make a book a bestseller with a wave of her sometimes pudgy hand. But come on ladies, either you are the strong, independent thinkers you want men to believe you are. Or you are mindless cows blindly following Oprah's cult of personality. Which is it? Because sometimes it looks like Oprah is your Jim Jones.

Ladies, your unrepentant hero worship of all things Oprah is often truly disturbing. After all, she is a just a talk show host. Not a demigod with all knowing, iridescent teats. She was very good in "The Color Purple"... but overall, you can color me unimpressed. Oprah has become nothing more than a proxy for male leadership, something her fans sadly lack. Her minions look to her to tell them what to do with their dull lives and how to soothe their self-inflicted wounds. (BTW, I would say the same about the fans of that pop-idiot Dr. Phil.)

Hey, can I get special credit for the newly coined term "iridescent teats"?

Not only do we get to see CJ's legendary wit, we are also privy to his hypocrisy. First, he makes essentially the same claim about Oprah that Mike made about Palin: that she's not that bright. I actually agree with CJ on this point. I despise Oprah and all of the nonsensical woo that she espouses. But I never claimed that not liking one woman for good reason makes one sexist. CJ did. Second, and by far the most important, CJ says that women use Oprah as "a proxy for male leadership, something her fans sadly lack." Apparently women are not allowed to think for themselves and decide who they will like or respect, and CJ thinks that all women need male leadership. That's pretty much the definition of misogyny. O noes, there are all these poor women running around without men telling them what to do? What is this country coming to?

And yes CJ, we'll give you special credit for coining the term "iridescent teats," because Shatner knows that no rational person would want it.

Breathtaking Inanity

2008-11-07T01:45:00.000-08:00

I just came across this on CJ's site and almost couldn't believe what I read. That's a pretty big statement considering that we're talking about CJ. Apparently someone trolled his site. It looks like they spammed him with racial slurs; he deleted all of the posts but one so people could see it, which is fine. The part that made my head spin was what he had to say about it:

What you see above are the hate filled ravings of a liberal and Obama supporter. Is this what Obama was talking about when he blathers on about "change" or '"hope?" I suppose so. Forget about civil debate. Forget about personal honor. Forget about freedom of speech because these creeps will not tolerate dissent. If elected, they plan to shut down Talk Radio and any other media outlet that opposes them, including bloggers.

Right, so someone spamming the n-word is automatically an Obama supporter. Does that make sense to anyone? And then somehow that morphs into Obama silencing critics? CJ, you are the one that has problems with free speech, not Obama. Then, achmed asks a perfectly rational question:

is this conclusion based on information contained in deleted posts, or is it your standard fare of assuming everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal and supports obama? all i see is a troll, not a political affiliation.

To which CJ replied:

I have never in my blogging experience heard from a group of people, Red John, Noah, you - so in denial about so many things. Truly stunning. Why in the world would someone spew such hate filled political venom if they didn't disagree with my politics? Your comment makes absolutely no sense given this imbecile's voluminous list of verbal atrocities.

First of all, as to why, welcome to the fucking Internet. There are trolls. Lots of them. Sometimes they just do stuff like that. Second, and perhaps most important, how is spamming the n-word and other slurs "hate filled political venom?" Hate filled, maybe. Done to get a reaction, most definitely. But political? If all of the posts were like that one, then there was zero politcal content. I'm going to have to go with achmed on this one. There are apparently only two types of people in this world: those who agree with CJ and "liberal, Marxist Obama supporters." What a pathetically naive worldview.

Friday Typo Roundup

2008-11-07T01:12:00.000-08:00

At least once a week I'll do a typo roundup of all the stupid things CJ's written. Surely he won't mind since his writing skills are so much better than mine. Since this is the first roundup, I have quite a bit to choose from and will go back to some of the older ones from the conversations I've posted here so far. I can't think of a better one to start with than the one where he's trying to insult the writing skills of others.

Judging by the caliber of yours and Mike's writing not winning any genius awards any time soon.

Oh the irony. This isn't even a sentence.

Furthermore, I've also demonstrated that despite have diplomas from top tier schools one can still be morons.

Yes CJ, one can still be morons. Because it's a fact that 1=x, where x is any number greater than 1.

liberals were their idiocy on their sleeves

And conservatives display their idiocy in their writing.

How else can cast spells on the fly?

I love it when people are trying to mock other people and end up making themselves look like dumbasses. Maybe that's why I like The Illustrated Conservative so much. It happens all the time there. CJ has the mistaken idea that we all play Everquest and was trying to mock us for it. In terms of lulz, this is almost on par with "how do i shot web?"

Mike, you talk too much. Did anybody inform you that you over way explain yourself? That's what insecure people do.

CJ, you fuck up too much. That's what stupid people do.

Political Klingons

2008-11-07T00:00:00.000-08:00

Partway through this discussion, CJ wrote this post, in which he made a specific claim about me. I've already addressed the claims that he made about me in that post here, but before that I attempted to respond to him on his site. He had already started deleting posts in the other thread, but I thought that since he made specific claims about me, surely I could respond. But, as we came to see is par for the course, CJ promptly deleted my response. Censorship at its finest. But, despite this post starting off with epic fail, huge lulz were soon to come. Noah comes into the conversation and points out that censoring comments usually doesn't lead to constructive dialogue, and CJ calls him a 'political klingon.' WTF is a politcal klingon? I honestly have no idea what he was trying to convey with that remark. Maybe he thought that he was somehow implying that we were nerds because of the Star Trek reference. It's pretty hard to figure out what he was thinking since 1) he ususally doesn't, and 2) when he does he doesn't think like normal people do. Anyway, Noah was able to use the political klingon for great justice while refuting CJ's inane arguments.

Noah subsequently went on to pwn CJ yet again. This time CJ was on an "Obama is a Marxist" spree. He posted quotes like this one as proof:

"In search of some inspiration, I went to hear Kwame Toure, formerly Stokely Carmichael of Black Panther fame, speak at Columbia. At the entrance to the auditorium, two women, one black, one Asian, were selling Marxist literature." - Obama, Dreams from My Father

Really. O noez!! Someone was selling Marxist literature near Obama at some point in his life. The rest were just as stupid, and all refuted by Noah. This led CJ to start throwing around "retarded virgin" again. After that, both me and my friend Wendell posted in the conversation, only to have CJ replace my post with Latin and change the links for our homepages to the Wikipedia page for micropenis. I honestly don't even know if that's a real page, but if it is, one wonders exactly what CJ was doing there. Then he edited a few of our posts to make it look like we were talking about having small dicks. Who the fuck does shit like that? I'll tell you who: neo-con pundits who have zero critical thinking skills. His obsessions with virgins points strongly to the theory that CJ is one. And not just any virgin. CJ is a self-loathing virgin who is bitter because woman don't like his patriarchal views. I think now is a good time to post a comment from Perry, which was deleted from CJ's site:

I think you guys need to lay off CJ, he really cares and you can't use that against him. So what if he can't write very well or form an argument with this thing you call 'logic'. He is a good man, can't you feel his prayers as they journey through him the conduit, to the vessel that is god, and eventually into your souls thereby protecting you from your liberal hell.

We have been looking at this discussion all wrong. We are asking the wrong questions. I think the question that we should be looking into is not how smart Sarah Palin is , but how many throbbing cocks of pleasure it takes for SOMEONE to not really care about 'logic'? I'm thinking SOMEONE gets double teamed regularly and doesn't have the time to form coherent thoughts to express outside of himself, frankly who needs that gay shit when you got cocks. Amirite.

Being a dumb douche ain't the worst thing in the world. Not knowing you're a dumb douche, well that is. I think we can all think of SOMEONE who is guilty of that.

On a more recent topic have you guys heard of these Sham-Wow things? I swear they defy all known scientific theory. Just so fucking amazing. I don't even need paper towels in my house anymore. That's saving me like 6 bucks a month. That's a dozen apple pies from Mcdonalds. Can you say 'Ballin', cause that's how i'm living now that i got me some Sham-Wow.

Seriously CJ. Just how many "throbbing cocks of pleasure" does it take?

How It All Began

2008-11-06T21:42:00.000-08:00

Last month, CJ over at The Illustrated Conservative posted this:

You say you want "Joe-6-Pack" revolution? You say you want a candidate who can relate to the issues your family faces? How about a candidate that buys her diapers at Walmart?

"This is one reason why the Drive-Bys and the Democrats despise Sarah Palin, and one of the reasons that they are deathly afraid of her. She is connecting with people on a human level, on an issue that liberals despise, the survival of Down syndrome children. The press and the Democrats feel powerless to destroy her. She is connecting with people on the issue of life, and that just sends the American left for Fruit Loops." - Rush Limbaugh

Palin Surprises Local Shoppers with Visit
"Gallipolis Wal-Mart shoppers were at first surprised and then excited on Sunday to find a national political figure in their midst who was, just as they were, picking up a few things she needed. Accompanied by her youngest son Trig, security, staffers and a small pool of news media, Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin stepped off the “Straight Talk Express” bus to enter the store around 1:30 p.m., where she purchased a bag of Parents’ Choice brand disposable diapers and a toy." - The Daily Sentinel
Adorable and smart.

Ignoring the lulz that come from quoting Rush Limbaugh, CJ made the claim that Sarah Palin is "Adorable and smart." Usually when one make's a judgment on another's intelligence, they have some sort of reason or evidence on which the judgment is based. Since my friends and I don't reach the same conclusion on Palin's intelligence level as CJ does, we decided to ask him what evidence he had for the claim that Palin is smart and why she is qualified to be the Vice-President of the United States. Mike posted this comment on CJ's blog:

"Adorable and smart."

Smart compared to whom, you? The fact that Gov. Palin is regarded as a legitimate VP choice by such a large number of Americans is an indication of the intellectual downfall of our society. She has yet to show much evidence of rational thought, and she seems to not bother herself with little things like Supreme Court decisions . And yet people like you are stoked that she visits Walmarts because it shows that she's "down-to-earth" and understands the lives of average Americans. Shouldn't we expect more than this from people aspiring to high office in our country? Don't we *need* the brightest and most experienced leading us through the difficulties that plague our society?

Of course, it's not difficult to understand WHY Palin is so inept: she lacks both education and experience. She has a mediocre degree from a third-tier University. It certainly shows.

So I suppose it behooves me to ask you exactly what you mean when you call Sarah Palin "smart". What can that possible mean? And on what grounds can Palin be considered fit to be VP given her intellectual weaknesses?

CJ responds, but this is where things quickly start to go downhill:

Versus a presidential candidate who is too stupid to distance themselves from ex-terrorists, too stupid to denounce a racist preacher without being pushed to do so, to stupid to see that ACORN is nothing but an organization committed to massive election fraud. And most importantly, a candidate too damn stupid to understand simple economics, that you don't give mortgages to people who don't have the means to repay them. In fact, thanks to all the banking geniuses in the Democrat party, especially Frank & Dodd, our financial system is in the toilet and millions of Americans will suffer because of their ineptitude.

But wait, let's look a Joe Biden... that hair plugged, mental midget is so gaffe prone that this post could go on for hours, so chew on this, "Biden gaffes leave Democrats with mixed emotions" - Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/news/natio...mixed_emotions/

Are these the "smarts" you think this country is desperately search of? Obama and Biden are nothing but examples of what stupid people think are smart. Which, of course, says what about you? So, unless you want to discuss Biden's claim that FDR watched TV as the 1929 stock market crashed, your argument is pretty specious.

http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/0...-of-television/

CJ's response here is ridiculous. All Mike did is ask for some sort of evidence that would show that Palin is smart and the kind of person that we should want running this country. CJ responds by saying, in essence, "But Obama and Biden are dumb." Who in their right mind would consider that to be an answer to Mike's post? Remember, Mike never mentioned Obama or Biden. When this was pointed out to CJ, he posted some more insane nonsense:

No. You attacked her as a knowing nothing incompetent from a "third-tier University". Let me remind you that millions of Americans have gone to "third-tier University" and have gone on to do great things. In fact, Harry Truman went to a "third-tier University", Kansas City Law School and Jimmy Carter went to Georgia Southwestern State University. Ronald Reagan went Eureka College in Illinois. So that dispenses with your arrogant theory that you have to go to Harvard to led this country.

As to your snide and somewhat sexist attitude, "what grounds can Palin be considered fit to be VP given her intellectual weaknesses?" I can tell you that all by her lonesome she ran circles around "Sir Gaffes A-Lot," Sen. Joe Biden during their debate. So much so he spent the night fabricating falsehoods in response to her challenges. So I've demonstrated that she's smarter than that a sitting Democrat Senator.

Furthermore, I've also demonstrated that despite have diplomas from top tier schools one can still be morons. More evidence; two of the architects of the current credit crisis, Sen. Barney Frank went to Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Sen. Chris Dodd went to Providence College, University of Louisville. More? Rep. Charlie Rangel, tax cheat, went to New York University, St. John's University.

So here's the point, I reject your theory that you have to have a degree from a well-known university to lead. History is replete with examples of great things done by those who had less than a high school education. Even a simple plumber got the best of a presidential candidate.

Gov. Palin's experience & list of successes are well documented, go visit Wikipedia. How do I know she's not an idiot? It's obvious she's smarter than than most of Democrats. She didn't run Alaska into the ground and she has a higher approval rating than any Democrat congressman or Senator.

This post introduced one of CJ's favorite ways to try to silence us: accusing us of being sexist because we don't think Palin, who happens to be a woman, is smart. Somehow, this doesn't apply to him and make him a racist when he makes the exact same claims that we made about Palin about Obama. Also, as anyone with a brain can see, no one said "Sarah Palin is not smart nor is she qualified to be VP because she's a woman," which is what would have to happen in order for us to be sexist or misogynistic. This post also marked the beginning of CJ ignoring what we wrote and just spouting the same nonsense and rhetoric over and over again.

Many lulz were had in this conversation, especially when CJ the typo king wrote this about Mike and Noah: "Judging by the caliber of yours (Noah's) and Mike's writing not winning any genius awards any time soon." As Mike was quick to point out, CJ is criticizing other people's writing skills in a line that isn't even a sentence. The conversation continued pretty much the same way, with CJ running in circles to dodge the question of Palin's intelligence and throwing out ad hominem attacks like a mofo. Virgins and misogynists were his favorite names to call us, as if being a virgin had something to do with the topic. Eventually he just started deleting the comments because he couldn't argue against them. Noah, in a post which was deleted, summed up the conversation perfectly:

The problem here is that CJ thinks that this:

"I have posted HOW many comments trying to explain to the liberal hard of learning that the Obama/Biden ticket would be a disaster for this country."

Is a valid response to the question: What makes Palin qualified for VP, and What makes her so smart?

Here is the form of the current argument:

Q: Why is your house orange?
CJ: You are stupid for thinking that my house should be blue or green.

Q: But.... that's not answering the question.
CJ: Obviously blue and green are terrible choices. Moreover, you are racist for hating orange.

The lack of critical thinking displayed by CJ is astounding, but not really surprising since he thinks Palin is qualified to be VP and follows Fox News religiously.

He has since written not one, but two, blog posts about us where he did mature things like lie about our views:
CJ - "I did get them to admit one thing, Joe Biden is a racist, "where did I imply that Joe Biden wasn't racist..." - Red John. Depsite [sic] that stunning admission, they will not call for his resignation or his removal Obama's ticket. [sic]"

How the fuck do you get that from this:
Red John - ""No, at this point I still haven't said one way or the other. All of the evidence that I have right now that he is racist is hearsay from an unreliable source. If you would care to provide sources for these statements I will gladly look into it and let you know what conclusion I draw." So, please provide me with sources for these comments. I'm not going to believe that he's a racist simply because you say so. But, if you were to do something intellectually honest and provides sources, I would look into it and if it turned out that Biden is as racist as you would have us believe then yes, I would demand he be removed from the ticket, or at the very least recant the remarks. Unfortunately, I don't think my efforts would result in anything, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't try."

Since CJ loves to censor comments from people who disagree with him, I have created an outlet here for us to comment on CJ and the idiocy on display at his blog. Now, all of his logical fallacies and "excellent" writing skills will be exposed here, for the lulz.