Regarding Donald Trump, I Called It A Year Ago

I called on his bluffs, his game, his inevitable defeat, all over a year ago when he had actually thrown his lot into the race. It's being disclosed these days, although not all over the mainstream media (talk about biased against Trump. NOT!) like you'd think it would be, that he's taking a lot of the money the Republican party has received in order to make himself richer. And he's also doing that to finance a new TV network that will consist of some of the veterans of Fox News. You know, because Fox News is in self-destruct mode over all of the scandals that have broken out as of late. Matt Lauer, given his total fucking joke of an "interview" (more like propaganda fluff-session amirite?), can shove his career up his lame ass for that softball interview on Wednesday.

I always knew that this guy was all-talk, all flip-flop, and nothing that he said he'd be. I always knew that because he knows that nutjobs pay attention to "controversial" content, such as the soundbites he spews on a daily basis, it's the reason he continues to do so even as his chances of winning the race tumbles. He always knew he wouldn't win. It's why his campaign is almost unarguably the most ridiculous, celebrity-politics-laden, shit-flinging circus ever witnessed in American history. And the fact that a handful of Americans, and people abroad, supported this guy is indicative of mental health issues in such people. Not that I am slamming the mentally ill, because they're good people. Oh and despite all his talks about having support from Blacks and the Latino & Hispanic crowds, the actual numbers paint an entirely opposite story of what he's trying to sell. Dubiously at that.

We have all heard or seen people justify their support with something like, "because he tells it like it is/because he's honest", and we have always laughed at those people. You know, because those people clearly are sleep-walking through life, or have such a low standard of politicians that they will buy any snake-oil sold to them, especially if that snake-oil is not the usual variety.

When he said that he would put up a wall, I called bullshit. You know why? It would cost billions. Then it turned out that he wanted those same Mexicans to pay for the construction of that wall. Enrico has since spanked his ass on this matter, saying before any formalities occurred in their meeting recently that he wasn't going to pay for it. You know Donald Trump felt bad that he had to lie to everyone about how it went down -- again. The other problem with building a wall is that if an immigrant wants to get into the USA, they will find a way. Penn & Teller: Bullshit! showed in one episode just how pointless a wall would be. Hint: they just dug underneath the wall. Donald even had the gall to compare his would-be wall, it this were a fantasy land anyway, to the great wall of fucking China! Billions down the drain indeed.

Then later on he said he'd deport over 11 million illegal immigrants. Never mind the headaches behind carrying out such an endeavor. It would bite the USA in the ass. I know a lot of mouth breathing, typically right-wing dropkicks eat up any anti-immigration rhetoric they hear but come on, people, this is the real world. You can't just up and deport over 11 million people without some sort of cataclysm happening. Be it social, political, or economical, something BAD would happen if this were to be carried out. BILLIONS would have to be spent. Time would be wasted. Lots of money being made based on the hard work most of these people do in the USA would be lost. And remember: these people are taking the jobs that no home-grown American actually wants to do. So why do they care? And that's why Donald Trump pretends to care about this issue. Because a bunch of troglodytes have no idea what they're talking about but they're so passionate about it that Donald Trump knows he can rely on them to bolster what little credibility he actually has.

This is where the "he wants to bang his daughter" thing all started.

And then there's the Muslim thing. People are scared, of course, even though they shouldn't be because that's what these terror-fucks want. Yet the way to respond to these attacks, which really aren't as commonplace as some would think (consider this: nearly EVERY DAY they attack people within the countries they occupy in the middle-east), is not to BAN MUSLIMS FROM TRAVELING TO THE USA. You don't punish the 1.5 billion PLUS Muslims for the actions of probably just a few thousand. You find a better way to deal with this problem. The first step is not to give these terror groups what they want. You know, ostracized, angry Muslims who have no qualms about attacking the west because the west is racist/bigoted towards them. THIS IS WHAT THE BAD GUYS WANT. And to call them terrorists in the first place emboldens them, because it lends them an air of relevance. Does nobody know that they are losing more members than they are gaining? They are desperate, and people like Donald Trump are playing right into their traps. They want more members, and they want us to be scared. We really shouldn't be. And we really shouldn't try to piss off more Muslims by violating their basic rights, including their first amendment rights.

And you know what is the worst thing? He has never actually detailed how he would do anything he says he's gonna do. He's all talk and no action, just the way he has been his whole failure of a life. He's the definitive image of how having money does not indicate success or class. He has no idea what he is doing, talks out his ass constantly, lives on controversy, and is probably dumber than Sarah Palin and believe me that is a FEAT for the GODS!

He's a blowhard. A two-faced racist. Dodged the draft through deferments but is willing to denigrate John McCain who actually did serve. Can't run his own businesses (hires 'yes men' to do it for them). Failed at running a casino. Lies about his own self-worth and the value of his businesses & properties. Owes billions of dollars. Has shady connections to the Russian government, and probably wishes he were Putin's doormat. Is perfectly willing to be a useful idiot for radical Islam. Tucks his tail between his legs any time someone (easily) debunks any of his inane ramblings and policies. Is a compulsive liar. He flip-flops more often than anybody I remember in political history. Probably wants to bang his own daughter. He's also a colossal hypocrite when it comes to, well, ANYTHING that comes out of his mouth. Hires illegal immigrants but doesn't pay them. Hires ghost-writers for his books (like a lot of blowhards do. What's up with that, eh?) yet brags about having "written books." Bragged about his I.Q score but noticeably lacks any signs of having such a score. Is as eloquent as a roided-up teenager who can't read worth a damn. Wears a hairpiece. And is probably an embarrassment to his father who is definitely rolling around in his grave right now.

Need I say more?

What a joke. And all of his supporters are jokes. Good luck with your TV network you fucking tool. Finally, to all of the most vocal supporters and goons that enable this hack, you wouldn't know credibility if it shot you in your idiot fucking faces.

TheAmazingAtheist Gets Triggered by Sandra Fluke, and Bullshits His Audience

Yeah and everyone else is an SJW, right?

So the following tweet, which is rather harmless and really shouldn't trigger people (well, sane, rational people who don't have their heads up their asses), has done triggered the fat atheist. You know, because rational people get triggered by such things:

 

And how does he respond? Why, he takes her tweet way out of context, cries about how apparently Sandra Fluke is attacking egalitarianism even though she really isn't, and like the man-child he is he tweaks her surname to insult her. I mean, it's right there:

 

Who are the real SJWs again? Who are the real PC fascists, again? Does it look like Sandra Fluke argued, at all, that men don't deserve 'new parent leave'? Sure, she doesn't mention them, but is that the same thing as arguing that they don't deserve it, too? Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that women who have children on the job, in the U.S.A, are actually likely to lose their jobs just because they recently had a child. Fortunately for men, they are likely to get a bonus for fathering children; women, on the other hand, tend to get wage penalties. Indeed, women tend to lose 4% of their earnings for each children they rear, whereas men, fortunately for them, tend to earn 6% more earnings for each children they father. Their hiring and promotional opportunities actually tend to improve when they rear children because they're seen as more competent than their female counterparts.

The following block discusses the lack of protection for new mothers who are forced to go on leave because of a pregnancy, and if they are away for a certain (and very short, all things considered) amount of time they can lose their job or pay rates. They can even lose some of their benefits, like sick pay.

The professional binds begin, in many cases, before conception. Women who are even thinking about trying to get pregnant often feel tethered to whatever job they’re in at the time. A move to a new job—a better-paying or more prestigious job, a job with more manageable hours or a more dynamic boss—can mean losing vested benefits like built-up sick days, vacation days, or family leave, and with them, any promise of being able to take time off after a baby. The Family and Medical Leave Act, currently the only federal leave protection available to American workers who have babies, does not require that an employer pay a new mother for a single day of leave; it merely protects her job for twelve weeks of unpaid leave, and then, only if she has worked at her company for at least a year. So, in many states, if you take a new job and then, two months later, discover that you’re pregnant, and nine months later give birth, your employer has no obligation to hold your job for you; he can simply decide that he’d prefer to avoid the hassle and expense of finding a temporary replacement and let you go. During childbearing years, changing jobs—even for a fundamentally better gig—can be a very bad idea.

But don't tell TJ anything like this, because that'll hurt his bullshit agenda. You can criticize any and all groupthinks, TJ, but do it with integrity next time, you shithole.

Opportunistic Racism, Failed Anti-Theism

UPDATE: This is pretty late to the party I feel, and that can be attributed to the fact that I've largely forgotten about this blog. I've been quite distracted from literary pursuits for a while.

First of all, view the subject of this post here: Cult of Dusty: Black Christians = Uncle Toms. Or you can just watch it above (added with edit).

Cult of Dusty is one of those vitriolic opinion channels, or vloggers (he calls himself a comedian when necessary), run by an anti-theist at that, masquerading as an "entertainment" channel. At least, the aforementioned descriptor is the defense Dusty wields when he gets smacked hard for the profoundly idiotic things he will say & do in his videos.

Convenience is the way of the vitriolic, because if he were an honest man, he'd have remembered the Abolitionist Movement, which, for the uninitiated, aimed to abolish the widespread slavery of Africans. They were passionate about their goal to end enslavement of others, and considering that Martin Luther King's legacy has celebrated a half-century milestone this year, Dusty implicitly called Martin Luther King Jr., a man of faith, a fucking Uncle Tom. A race traitor. Consider this, given everything stated previously; the Abolitionists & Martin Luther King Jr. were Christians, very much so, and they stood up against slavery.

Don't forget the very progressive (for his time) founding father by the name of John Adams. He railed against slavery entirely, unlike one or two of the founding fathers every anti-theist likes to name (Washington & Jefferson).

There's a lot of things wrong with his methodology and I'll break down a few that are noticeable:

1) He takes the bible too literally
 For such a devout, outspoken anti-theist, he sure does a poor job of not lending credence to the religions he speaks out against. When you base entire arguments off of what holy books say, that means you're taking such works literally. By doing this, you're placing yourself on the flip-side of the same coin on which you'd find fundamentalist religious people. Inadvertently or not, you're giving power to the passages and ideas found within religious texts by taking them at their word, or in other words, literally. After all, aren't they works of embezzled fiction, according to the logic of anti-theists? If they are bullshit, as many anti-theists would tell you, then why would they use holy books and the writings within as major focal points for their arguments against religion?

Logic. What?

2) He's fucking racist, even though he implies he is not
By stating that Black Christians are Uncle Toms because of their faith (Christianity in this case), utilizing the rather piss-poor argument of quoting (and taking out of context in doing so) a number of passages in Leviticus and whatnot he's being racist. Keep in mind that none of the passages he quotes in his video explicitly describe black people, let alone white people enslaving blacks. He's basically arguing that black people are beholden, by some measure or whatever the fuck it is, to other black people. This is especially jarring considering that there have been anti-slavery figureheads who argued that black people are no different from white people. After all, the most significant difference (and also the most noticeable) between the two is the amount of melanin in the skin.

Dusty conveniently neglects to mention that (in spite of bringing up Samuel Jackson's character in the film Django Unchained, but that really seems to be the best that he can muster) a number of Africans sold out their brethren to slave owners. So much for the mantra, from Martin Luther King Jr., that people should be judged by their character rather than their skin colour. Perhaps he didn't get that memo?

3) He largely ignores the Abolitionist Movement, spearheaded by Christians
He says this, and it's the only passing remark he makes about it at all: "Believe it or not, there were actually a few people back then that said, "Hey! This is a bad idea we should not enslave our fellow human beings." That's it. Talk about being disingenuous! Consider that William Wilberforce, a by-the-books Christian, wrote this in one of his journals as a young man:

"God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation Manners.” 1


Also read the following:

After studying slavery, particularly the “Middle Passage”, Wilberforce jumped into action. “So enormous, so dreadful, so irremediable did the Trade’s wickedness appear,” as Wilberforce told Parliament, “that my own mind was completely made up for abolition. Let the consequences be what they would, I from this time determined that I would never rest until I had effected its abolition.” 1

What about Abbey Kelley Foster, a woman with a Quaker heritage, who was a strong proponent in the rise of the abolition movement? She had helped to begin and had served as a key speaker at the  National Women's Rights Convention in Worcester, Massachusetts in 1850 2.  While fervent in her anti-slavery stance, she was not one to censor her opponents, and thus she resigned from the more suppressive tenets of her movement in order to allow both sides to be heard. After she was ostracized from said movement, she went on to help establish the American Anti-Slavery Society. From then on out, "Abbey Kelleyism" became a new type of anti-slavery movement, describing a radical opposing stance on said issue.

Lucretia Mott, also having strong ties to Quakerism, was not only a strong supporter of women's rights (this was long, long before Women's Suffrage was passed in U.S. law, just so you know), would over a period of time deliver sermons about the abolitionist movement, women's rights, and other hot button issues of the time. She had once said of the "duty (that) was impressed upon me at the time I consecrated myself to that Gospel which anoints 'to preach deliverance to the captive, to set at liberty them that are bruised ..." 3. She helped the Free Produce Society boycott goods made by slaves, was an active & serving member of the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, and helped lead slaves to free territory (such as Canada).

These noted few examples of exemplary opponents of slavery in an era rife with slave trading and ownership were Christians, spoke highly of the role of religion in removing this baneful treatment of fellow humans, and put into place a movement that would lead to radical change and even the Civil War.

But if you watch Dusty's video without your critical thinking switch on, you'd be none the wiser. His convenience at ignoring the Christians who actively fought against the slave trade is quite profound. Not to mention, he is either entirely ignorant of, or conveniently brushed aside the culturally significant I Have a Dream speech by Martin Luther King Jr., which contained the passage:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. 4

'Nuff said.

REFERENCES:

1: http://www.wilberforcecentral.org/wfc/Wilberforce/index.htm
2: http://www.wwhp.org/Resources/Biographies/KelleyFoster/1850.html
3: Greene, Dana (April 1981). "Quaker Feminism: The Case of Lucretia Mott". Pennsylvania History 48 (2): 149.
4: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/17/i-have-a-dream-speech-text_n_809993.html

I'm Being Silenced! Force Freedom of Speech (on Private Enterprise)!

Read the subject of this post here: http://amazingatheist.tumblr.com/post/58763857547/youtube-is-100-within-its-rights-to-remove-your

I've written about TJ a few times so far and each time I thought I've seen the worst of him, it seems that he tops himself a little later on, so I then feel the need to comment on him again.

The gist of the situation behind the linked Tumblr post is that a number of TJ's YouTube videos were flagged for removal. Now, no one knows the full story yet, perhaps neither does he, but it's safe to say even at this point that he is indeed being censored. The party responsible is unknown, but that's not really important. What is important is how he is reacting to the issue.

It's fine that he's notifying his more active followers to keep themselves posted on his other social media outlets, but in saying the following...

Let’s consider that for a moment. Should your phone company control what you say on the phone? Should your ISP control what you say online? Then why should YouTube get to control what you post on YouTube? 

If YouTube was a small, exclusive site, I think your argument would have merit. But YouTube is large enough now, culturally important enough now, that we must extend First Amendment protections to YouTube videos.

 ...he does himself no favors. To compare companies which provide actual services to that of websites, albeit with very high traffic (YouTube is ranked #3 by the Alexa Ranking System globally & in the U.S.), is fucking ridiculous. Memorandum to TJ: their site is their god damn private property, and they can set the terms of service for using their site(s) any way they damn well please.

Here is what he responded to. Keep in mind that it contains a bit of vitriol directed at him, but compared to what he's received from many other sources, it's pretty tame:

Youtube is 100% within its rights to remove your videos. They are a company. You are allowed to hold whatever (fucking stupid) opinions you wish, but they are IN NO WAY obligated to give you a platform from which to spout said (fucking stupid) opinions. Yes, I am "for real". I know you wish women didn't exist, but sadly for your sorry fat ass, they do.

Too bad for the big guy that the poster of the above (verbatim) paragraph is 100% correct regarding Youtube's rights on controlling content that populates what is their property. When TJ said that "if YouTube was a small, exlusive site, I think your argument would have merit", he threw in a non-sequitur; the size & reach of an entity in a market, except for utilities, does not serve as a barometer on whether said entity should be regulated in any way by the government. Instead, the function of a company is a category upon which to consider regulations of a private organization. Owned by Google (whose service I am using now, obviously), a private corporation, they are explicitly excluded from freedom of speech rights as declared by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The government has no ability to set limits, or even lift them completely, in the private sector.

And it should stay that way.

I assume that you, reader, have gleaned the aforementioned amendment within a valid copy of the document from which it can be found. In that case, I don't need to quote it to support my argument that TJ is either somehow ignorant of said amendment (the old-world English as used in said document may have threw him for a loop), or is outright cherry-picking it in order to advocate for the abolition of the barrier set in place by that same document. Given his nature as a money-hungry, fraudulent, shady motherfucker since, as an actual example, he's still wrapped in a controversy regarding his $17,000+ video embedding site (which went down within two months of launching, and has yet to return to full operating order as of this writing), I feel that he falls into the latter case.

An argument that pushes government mandates on freedom of speech rights within the private realm, be it the home of the Average Joe (provided it isn't owned by government assets and thus, being publicly-owned property), a small business, a web business, or anything along those lines, is an unsound argument. First of all, it violates the Constitution itself. Second, because YouTube (and Google, henceforth) are accessed by users throughout the world and their assets are not exclusively rooted in the United States (in spite of being founded in Menlo Park, California), it would be a burden to legally impose Free Speech laws on YouTube alone because it would have to be applied distinctly according to the rights (or lack thereof) of each country which grants access to the site. Google's monetary assets are extremely high, and they could challenge such wasteful theoretical scenarios with the best legal teams their money could buy.

TheAmazingAtheist, an admitted Social Libertarian (mind you that within the same context, Social Liberal is virtually synonymous with that position), who held starkly Libertarian views on economics, essentially wishes for the government (his government, mind you) to re-write the Constitution so as to mandate freedom of speech laws on the private sector, particularly YouTube/Google. Keep in mind that this is not out of principle, but rather out of necessity, for him. He doesn't care about the experience of others, but that of his own, since the guy is laughably dependent on his earnings through Google AdSense via YouTube partnership. He's also a shameless beggar who comes up with sob stories or snake oil sales schemes to bilk money out of his more naive subscribers. His channel is, due to a large number of his uploaded videos being flagged down, likely going to be on the chopping block and he is understandably in panic mode.

But arguing for the intervention of the Government to protect his right to a platform and to speak freely on what is the property of a private corporation is not only desperately reaching, it's sadly hilarious. I hope he realizes just how idiotic his response was to the user who posted that comment on his Tumblr, because if that were enacted in the U.S., then it would set a bad precedent of yet conceived proportions. I feel bad for the guy because he's a weak-willed individual with seemingly few principles, if any at all, and will say or do anything to avoid having to get a fucking job like most people do. After all, people who work earn their money, but he has to beg for it. He's 28 fucking years old and he asks for handouts in ways no different than teenagers, but the difference between he and teenagers is that he manages to sell himself doing it.