View Full Version: New World's Worst People

The Harkovast Forum > Random Nonsense > New World's Worst People

Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Title: New World's Worst People
Description: Because people asked for it....


Harkovast - March 7, 2012 11:48 PM (GMT)
I like to insult and offend a wide range of people (except the welsh), but when you are looking for hilariously unpleasant ass holes doing humiliatingly dreadful things... no body can out do the American right wing whackos.
Why is it? Perhaps because they dont actively kill people like the islamic militant assholes (people being murdered isn't funny). They instead just say stupid shit, so my wordy responses are more appropriate.
Perhaps it is because they set themselves up as the guardians of morality and decency and invariably prove themselves to have neither. Hypocrisy is like turbo charge juice in the gas tank when you want to write angry articles like this.
Maybe it is because they live in a civilised, educated, first world nation and so really have no excuse not to know better.

But whatever the cause of their entertainment value, they really are total pricks.
Case in point-

RUSH LIMBAUGH!

Rush is the original right wing ass hole on the radio.
None of the others, O'Reilly, Glenn Beck or any of the rest of those wankers would be where they are today without Rush setting the ball rolling.
His listeners mindlessly and unquestioningly agree with everything he says, and are known as "ditto heads" because of their unflincing uniformity in accepting whatever he says.
(In case you haven't heard me mention it before, I am not insulting them there. The name ditto heads is what they call THEMSELVES to describe how much they agree with Rush.)
Rush periodically lets slip racist, homophobic or sexist remarks of varying ugliness.
He has that paper thin veil over his more unpleasant views that you often find with right wing talking heads, which periodically breaks to let slip the true flood of filth that constitutes this man's opinions.
He was briefly a host doing match analysis about American Football on a sports show...until he said that a black quarter back was only on his team because of reverse racism.
In the past he has also shown his utter hypocrisy when he was found out to be filling out false prescriptions for pain killers to feed his drugs habit.
So a real post boy for right wingers out there.
As Family Guy observed, the two symbols of the republican party are an elephant and a fat white guy who is threatened by change.

Rush Limbaugh is not an elephant.

Whenever rush insults someones kids, or insults a race, or a gender or anything else, the shitto heads (you see, NOW I'm insulting them) always rally around their master. They pile on every excuse and qualifier to justify the truly repulsive behaviour and attitudes of their leader, viewing anyone who dares question him as an evil tool of the on going vague liberal conspiracy they believe has been secretly controlling American for as long as anyone can remember. (Seemingly it still controlled things when Bush was in power and controlled all three branches of government...but I digress.)

His influence is so great that when he said he wanted Obama's presidency to fail and republican's rightly said they disagreed with the comments and thought it was incendiary and ugly....they then apologised to him and made clear they had never meant to "diminish his voice or his leadership."
Yes, we had republican politicians (including the republican national committee chairman Michael Steele) grovelling for forgiveness from a fat, racist radio personality.
Never has the tail been so clearly wagging the dog.

But what, I pretend to hear you cry, has Rush done lately to bring him to Hark's attention?
Well if you live in America you will probably already have heard this story, but for the rest of you, here is what happened.

Sandra Fluke is a student at Catholic College Georgetown University. She appeared at the hearing about a new health care bill arguing that the bill should cover contraception for women.

Rush did not agree with this concept.
He expressed this disagreement by calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute".
Here is the quote-
"What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."

I just wanted you to see that I am not taking him out of context or saying he implied she was a slut...he just flat out said it.
He went on to say parents must be embarrassed or ashamed of her.

There was outrage that Rush would use such misogynistic language to demean a young woman with crude and offensive language.

But Rush simply responded in the way he had before- with arrogant confidence.
After all, this is a man who could have politicians practically crawl to him on their knees to ask forgiveness, so why should he worry?
The next day he went on to say that Fluke should post videos of herself online for him and his listeners to watch so they could be sure they were getting their moneys worth.
Rush knew what would happen, he had been here before.
The liberal left would cry and bemoan him, his ditto heads would close ranks to defend him and more moderate republicans would keep their heads down to avoid his scorn.

But this time...something went wrong.
It seemed calling a politically active female student "a slut" was a step too far for El Rushbo and he started to suffer with the people he loved most.
No, not his moron fans.
No, not the republican party or some right wing figure he looked up to.
And if you guess something stupid like "the founding fathers" then go to the back of the class.
Rush started to get heat from his sponsors.

Rush is right wing in the sense that he likes to make large amounts of money and anything that impedes that mission is clearly unchristian and unamerican.
So finding the sponsors for his show dropping out started to shake him.

And so Rush issued an apology.
I pained, straining, half apology, that was mainly focused on explaining how right and valid his point was before giving a couple of lines at the end that his choice of words were "not the best".

Fluke didn't accept this feeble apology (which was on the level of "I am sorry you got upset about it.") and the advertisers continued to flee. After all, who wants their product associated with this kind of sexist, bullying, ignorance?
At the time of printing this forty (yes FORTY) sponsors have jumped ship.

Rush has now fallen back to his regular mode, relying on race baiting and illogical arguments that other people do worse things and so that makes it okay, pointing to black gangster rappers who get away with saying degrading things about women all the time. Remember, if someone else is a pig, that makes you being a pig okay! That is how it works!
He also implied it was all a left wing conspiracy and plot to undermine him.
Yes, Rush. The left is forcing you be an ignorant, sexist twat.

I suspect Rush will whether the storm and stay on the air (his is probably a bit more resilient than Glenn Beck was under similar circumstances.) But I think its been refreshing to seen the odious pile of human filth that is Rush feel some repercussions for his vile views.

During his "apology", Rush said that he didn't mean to personally attack Mrs Fluke.

So, in that spirit, here is a link to a song I found online about Rush Limbaugh.
Remember as you listen to it, its not meant as a personal attack....

Feel free to sing along.

Renard - March 8, 2012 02:15 AM (GMT)
Yeah... I hate a lot of things, but that man is near the top of my list.

I hope he accidentally gets shot in the knee by some fascist headcase, the only casualty of a failed one-man campaign against the Liberal New World Order (as reveled by the wise Rush Limbaugh).

That's really the only way I can think of the man coming to harm without becoming some sort of martyr for his own "cause".

That or getting busted with a bunch of crack .


Either way, I don't think that there was any way he could have properly defended his statements after the shitstorm he kicked up. I just find it funny that he didn't budge on his stance even when Republicans called him a rat (and in fact took things even farther), but began a sort of half-hearted backpedaling when he saw that his sponsors didn't like being associated with that sort of vile stuff.

The American Constitution protects the right to freedom of speech, but it always strikes me (sad? infuriating? confusing? I'm really not sure how exactly I feel about it) when people take that and run with it, pushing to see just how much they can get away with insulting and threatening others before the courts are allowed to reign them in.

I enjoy having freedom of speech, but that freedom shouldn't allow people to impose upon others. No Americans would be in favor of putting limits or guidelines on their freedoms, but who can really blame them for that? It can prove to be difficult trying to balance protecting the right to freedom of speech and protecting people from being unduly insulted and harassed.

All the same, I'm not sure if some of the truly vitriolic things these pundits say would be entirely legal to air here, some of it might actually fall under the laws regarding hate crimes in my country.

Canuovea - March 8, 2012 02:21 AM (GMT)
Yet more clues as to where you live, Renard.

Also... well...

Some people have been saying that Fluke may have a case for Libel and Slander or something.

Harkovast - March 8, 2012 02:25 AM (GMT)
We can only hope, canuovea, we can only hope.

Frostwolf18 - March 8, 2012 02:39 AM (GMT)
freedom of speech does not mean that you can't get backlash for what the hell you say.

it is things like these that make me annoyed to be in america, oh i love america, but if i ever go to the other side of the world, i am gonna be met with either shit smiles, get laughed at, or get yelled at, probably get called a fat lazy slob (i am lazy and chubby, but i am not like the worst people)

looking at America, you see things that alot of the world has not accepted or is slowly starting to accept, but we have just, fucking stupid people in all the wrong places, i don't mean as the voters (though there are plenty of those, i still believe some people vote for a guy for a reason like "He's a follower of mah religion" or "He agrees with my view, i'll vote for him even though he hasn't said how he will fix it") but in the seats of power themselves.

a wise man once said "A politician is a person who can talk for hours, and not say anything" when i was little i didn't understand this, now that i see the debates going on now, i have to say "Are we stupid?" no seriously "Are we?" they barely ever answer the damn questions, bring out their personal views more so than what is best for the country (not sure if that is a point) oh and they slander their opponents.

when i was a kid i was told not to mock others, i should have replied "But the important people do it all the time to get your attention long enough so you think you may like this person to vote for so that he/she (female is possible, but i am starting to doubt it) may become the next person to make the big ass mistakes that you will be bitching about in the future. you're not solving your problems, you're just changing the name you start cursing." sadly i wasn't clever as a kid.

i only hope to god, that he never even tries to run for president, and if he somehow does, have someone kill him before he does anything, he will fuck us up.

actually, you know what, i am going to try and write a speech for my graduation, and possibly have someone else read it if need be, to ask the class in how we will work with this world when we become of age to be allowed those seats of power. with all the knowledge we have seen in our lives, how will we try and change the world, or will we try and become worse

Tiberius - March 8, 2012 04:24 AM (GMT)
what is it with people and rebooting serieses?
the last Spiderman movie wasn't that long ago, and already they're rebooting it.

The Last "worst people thread" isn't even a year old, and you've rebooted it. And before that the first one wasn't even a year old before it got rebooted.
There is less and less creativity around. What ever happened to originality? All we get now is reboots, remakes, and rehashes.
You are the worst.


(F.Y.I. I don't actually think you're the worst, I just really wanted to poke fun at you for doing a reboot so soon, when the other one is still on the forum.)

Renard - March 8, 2012 07:19 PM (GMT)
I forgot we still had that floating around.

This one is better because it's new and shiny. Change for the sake of change!

Harkovast - March 8, 2012 09:24 PM (GMT)
Hahah, Tiberius, you got me!
Have 100 Harko points.

I just couldn't be bothered to go find the old one so I just went for fresh start.


More Rush News-
He has issued another apology, this time more sincere sounding...but byt this point who gives a fuck?
Initially he didn't apologise, he actually said even more.
Then when he realised he was in real trouble and gave a pained, grudging non-apology.
Only when this fell flat did he offer another, more heart felt apology.
Anyone who believes this shows real remorse can buy a bridge from me in Brooklyn.
He did absolutely everything BUT apologise for as long as he could.
Had advertisers not pulled out there is no chance he would have taken back what he said.
And even while apologising he (and his minions) continue to throw about claims of left wing conspiracies and double standards to try to deflect flak from his horrendous, sexist values.

News flash, ditto heads-
If you had to be forced to make an apology...you are not really sorry.

Renard - March 8, 2012 11:29 PM (GMT)
How is it a Liberal Conspiracy that people are genuinely insulted that someone would call a woman a slut and prostitute, and demand that she post videos of herself having sex, simply for arguing in favor a proposed piece of legislation?

It's one thing to say that you disagree with them and to state your reasons for that (even if it comes down to a moral or religious objection), but it's something else entirely to make personal attacks (and there is no way to argue that what he said was anything but a personal attack). When you start making personal attacks it means that you either can't come up with a proper argument against them, or that you aren't creative enough to come up with an argument that doesn't revolve around defamatory and outrageously offensive statements.

Canuovea - March 9, 2012 02:03 AM (GMT)
I might sound a bit like Tiberius here...

But there can be a bias. Rush isn't the only one to have used words like that before, or to have personally attacked individuals.

You know, "Worst Person in the World" thing? Isn't that on a "liberal" channel with a "liberal" host? And calling someone the worst person in the world this week, or whatever it is, is a pretty personal attack.

And these people haven't been called out as much.

Though that might be because Rush crossed the line a whole lot farther than others. Still, he isn't the only one who has crossed that line. I mean, some nasty things were said about Sarah Palin, and even Hillary Clinton, by the "left".

This doesn't excuse Rush, far from it, but we need to recognize that there are people who also deserve scorn over this.

Harkovast - March 9, 2012 03:08 AM (GMT)
Renard-
Rush preaches to the choir. Ditto heads by deffinition agree with what ever he says uncritically and unquestioningly. As long as his argument is presented confidently they will just accept it.
"He says shes a slut? Then she obviously is and deserved it. Oh Rush is so clever and witty!"
it doesn't matter if his points make no sense, are childishly stupid or little more than insults, the fact he is making the point is enough to persuade his acolytes to nod like the plastic dogs people put in the backs of cars.


Canouvea-
What marks rush out is that he is not just insulting a woman, because its perfectly valid to insult women sometimes, just as sometimes its valid to insult men (like Rush) but that he is going after a relatively unknown woman and branding her with sexist insults. This is a man who (for better or worse...mainly worse) a lot of people look too as their moral guide and leader, who is making it quite clear that he thinks the way to deal with a woman you don't agree with is to degrade her with sleazy insults and reference to her sex life.
When he got called on it he went further and only made any attempt to make amends when it started to affect his sponsorship, making him spineless and two faced as well as a sexist pig.

I think criticism of Palin tended to be more valid pointing out things like she didn't know what the bush doctrine was, claimed to read magazines but could not name one of them, claimed being able to see Russia from Alaska was foreign policy experience and didn't know what the vice president of the USA's job involved (the job she was running for.) See what I did there? I am perfectly capable of insulting Sarah Palin for her idiocy and laughably stupid views, without having to resort to sexist comments about her love life. If I can do it, so can Rush...or he would be able to if he was not a worthless sack of crap.

I am not aware of another public figure behaving in such a piggish way so openly and being proud of their moronic behaviour. I have nothing but contempt for anyone who has, but that has no bearing on Rush Limabughs behaviour.
That defence is akin to saying "well someone else did a murder and got away with it a few years back...so how come I have to go to prison?"

But if you can bring me example of sexist behaviour elsewhere I will be sure to lay into them as well. Give me some specifics to investigate and I will be glad to spout some hate. Sexism is one of my bug bears and I will not willingly tolerate it.

There is a segment on a show with Kieth Olberman called worst person in the world.
I was not thinking of that when I started these threads, I was actually just wanting to express what a bad person molotov mitchell was to a wipe audience. We dont actually get Olberman's show over here so I have only seen it occasionally on YouTube...and its pretty shit. He's just kinda boring, sitting at a desk looking stiff and telling me that republicans are jerks all the time.
Kieth Olberman is not the worst person...but he is a pretty shitty TV presenter.

Canuovea - March 9, 2012 03:33 AM (GMT)
Hark, I don't agree with everything this woman says... but:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012...ollow-suit.html

And a follow up.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012...i-misogyny.html

Yes, some of what she quotes is... not all that outraging, I mean, some of it meant that people insulted a woman... but is calling Sarah Palin something like "empty headed" really all that "sexist?" Not really. Some of the other stuff? Definitely pretty bad.

And she isn't defending Limbaugh either, I should make that clear.

Oh, and here is something that makes Limbaugh look even stupider:

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccal...im-and-hip-hop/

Harkovast - March 9, 2012 11:36 PM (GMT)
Some of those are sexist, but as you say some are just insults.
The vast majority dont seem nearly as bad or as sustained as Limbaughs behaviour.
Also the reason no one is outraged about a lot of those people is that no one has heard of them.
I don't know who Ed Schultz is, and Matt Taibi may be a darling of the left but I would know him if I bumped into him.
As I mentioned before, no one gives a fuck what Kieth Olberman has to say. He WISHES he was significant enough to actually cause outrage.
As I think my lists were originally called "worlds worst human", a title I should stick to to avoid Olberman comparisons, since he has never inspired anyone in his entire life, let alone me.
Whats more, a lot of those people had to issue grovelling apologises and were pernalised by their employers (Ed Shultz was, I just read). So the cries of double standard dont hold up to me.

RUSH UPDATE!
In 2006 Rush Limbaugh was returning from a trip to the dominican republic when he was detained at the air port for 3 hours because he had some viagra in his suit case for which he did not has a perscription.
(This is true, I am not making any of this up, that actually happened)
The dominican republic is a third world country with little to offer visitors...except visitors interested in doing sex tourism, in which is has a booming illegal trade.
This also helps fund people traficing to send those forced into the sex industry to europe to earn more money for hte gangs that control this lucrative business.
Why would a recently divorced man be returning from sex tourism hot spot with viagra left over in his case?
Fluke is not the slut...Rush is!

Another interesting point is that Rush is either lying on purpose or terminally stupid in his argument. Lets put aside the fact that he is trying to dismiss a woman's opinion by using sexist language to demean her (the equivilant of saying "Why should we listen to this black guy? He's just a typical angry nigger!") Let's give rush a free pass and pretend he chose his words better as he claims now he wishes he had.

What was his argument?
That Fluke wanted Tax funded contraception.
This was a lie.
She wanted insurance companies to be forced to cover it, and not able to reject it on religious grounds.
Rush was, as usual, defending big business (the insurance industry), not tax payers.

Rush also claimed that she was a slut because she was having so much sex because she needed all this birth control and tax payers had to fund it.
This is not how birth control pills work.
Female birth control pills are not something you pop just before sex (unlike another type of sex pill Rush might be familiar with.) They are a course you take continiously.
A woman having no sex at all but who was sensible enough to take precaution in case she wanted to in the future, and a woman who was going at it every night would use exactly the same amount of birth control.
For a man who claims to be against abortion and against high taxes it seems odd that he does not understand how female contraception works, is apparently against helping women to avoid getting unwanted pregnancies in the first place and againt the obvious savings the government would make by encouraging women to take precautions rather than having to pay for costly procedures later (namely the abortions Rush claims to oppose.)

The more you learn about Rush, the more you see he is a fraud, an idiot, a liar, a scum bag and (as the song said) a fat, pathetic putz.

But if gangster rappers are juvenile, sexist, violent morons who spout expletives and hate then that makes it okay for the rest of us to act that way....right?
I am off to embezzle millions of pounds now from the company I work for. Enron did it...so it must be okay for me to do it.

And yes, this does mean that Rush Limbaugh cant get it up.

(Canouvea, have 50 harko points for challenging my views and proving that Harko fans are not ditto heads.)

Canuovea - March 10, 2012 12:16 AM (GMT)
I'm just pointing out that there has been stupid shit said by both sides.

And yes, I recall hearing about Rush's little trip. Fortunately for him, but unfortunately for humanity, "slut" is a specifically female term. Amazing what even vocabulary can tell us about society, isn't it?

I think you're outline of Rush's "argument" isn't exactly accurate. Or at least the situation isn't accurate.

First off, he isn't protecting insurance companies. Those guys are more than happy to include birth control... because it actually saves them money in the long run!

Secondly, it isn't so much about tax funded contraception as it is about insurance generally. If you contribute to insurance you are technically paying for someone else's medicine, cars, house, whatever. It is collective. So yes, you do pay for someone's birth control if you pay insurance. Also, in a sense, you are paying for your own medicine, whatever, as well... so you are paying.

Thirdly, as I said, it isn't the insurance companies complaining. It is employers. Under the new bill thing, employers have to provide insurance. Now this may be unconstitutional. But the specific issue of contraceptives makes things interesting.

Some employers are complaining about being forced to pay for contraceptives via insurance. These tend to be the Catholic organizations at the moment, you know, like several hospitals and all that. Of course, it isn't as if they are even employing 100% Catholics... and plenty of Catholic women choose to use birth control. Fluke is at a Catholic university, which didn't cover birth control as part of its student insurance, which in turn caused problems for one of her friends. (Though the university has supported her against Limbaugh, I should point out).

Of course, the reason that these Catholic employers are throwing such a hissy fit is that birth control of any kind is bad according to the Church and is technically a sin. Yes yes, cue "every sperm is sacred" from Monty Python. They are arguing that forcing them to offer insurance that covers birth control is infringing on their religious freedom under the constitution. This is bullshit, of course, it would be unconstitutional if they were forcing individuals to buy birth control. Big difference. But as I said, forcing anyone to offer/buy health insurance may be unconstitutional, it gets confusing.

So into this wanders Ms. Fluke and Mr Limbaugh. I'm not entirely sure Limbaugh understands the situation as I showed it, though. He is lamenting the fact that birth control is actually covered by insurance... and the arguments that it should be. Nevermind the fact that another pill Mr. Limbaugh is more familiar with that also has to do with sex is also covered by insurance. Fact is, he seems sadly misinformed, but there is a larger framework here that is a tad more complex.

Renard - March 10, 2012 12:21 AM (GMT)
You're just throwing Harkopoints at everyone these days, aren't you? Obviously I'm not incredible enough by the virtue of my existence to merit an unending cascade of points.

So I'm going to look at taking a quick trip to the UK so I can brand "READ HARKOVAST" on the PM's forehead.


Tourism in Dominican isn't known mostly for sex tourism, the mainstream tourism industry is very important to their economy (employing 15% of the working population). But the fact that he was divorced and coming home from the Caribbean with a bag full of Viagra does raise red flags.


I think the thing that gets Limbaugh going the most here is that he doesn't like The Enemy coming up with ideas, especially ones that might offend members of the American Right. Once that happens it doesn't really matter if he fully understands the arguments and background of the whole situation, he just has to scream "Blue murder! The Democrats will sell out our religion, way of life, and economy to the commies, faggots, and towel-heads!"

Canuovea - March 10, 2012 12:38 AM (GMT)
You mean like this?

user posted image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

PS: Sorry if you like the guy, I don't know much about him. But he'd make a great advertising banner! Plenty of media attention.

Harkovast - March 10, 2012 01:16 AM (GMT)
Renard...sorry man. I want to give you points here but while you talked the talk, canouvea is walking the walk!
100 points for Canouvea.

Canuovea - March 10, 2012 01:25 AM (GMT)
You do realize, Hark, that Renard might take that as a challenge...

Harkovast - March 10, 2012 01:31 AM (GMT)
I want to apologise in advance to David Cameron and make it clear that we here at Harkovast do not endorse branding public figures as a means of webcomic promotion!

Renard - March 10, 2012 01:32 AM (GMT)
I'll carve it into the backs of virgins, a lucky number, thirty-eight score and seventeen in total!

I'll slit Canouvea's nostrils, cut out his liver, and nail his head to the floor! Any other challengers, I'll tear them a new arse in the back of their skulls and stuff it with crushed peppers!

I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds!

Harkovast - March 10, 2012 01:36 AM (GMT)
Renard you can have 10 points to calm down and take some deep breaths.

Renard - March 10, 2012 01:38 AM (GMT)
Fine.

Canuovea - March 10, 2012 01:44 AM (GMT)
Careful Renard. Last time I checked both cutting and slitting required a bladed weapon.

Renard - March 10, 2012 01:47 AM (GMT)
I'm a firearms/military enthusiast, I have several bayonets the length of my forearm and an old black stiletto sharp enough to shave with.

Don't think that I'd threaten to carve advertisements into virgins and disfigure you if I didn't have the means to do so.

Canuovea - March 10, 2012 02:03 AM (GMT)
Oh, I just find it odd that you would threaten me, of all people on this forum, with bladed weaponry. You'd have better luck with guns.

Renard - March 10, 2012 02:05 AM (GMT)
Bayonets are big knives that you can stick on the end of a rifle.

Canuovea - March 10, 2012 02:12 AM (GMT)
...I know what a bayonet is.

Did you know that the Geneva convention, or something like it, outlawed slashing bayonets? I don't know why anyone would bother to use one, personally, they just seem... well... they turn your gun into an axe, which is silly. I mean, not only is an axe a terribly inefficient weapon, but swinging your gun about like that can't be good for the gun.

Now, turning your rifle into a spear makes much more sense!

I've been held at knife point before and it didn't phase me. I'm not particularly intimidated by bayonets as I have a much more versatile weapon with me. For some reason, knives don't particularly scare me.

Harkovast - March 10, 2012 02:18 AM (GMT)
Renard take deep breaths! Remember your ten points!

Renard - March 10, 2012 03:08 AM (GMT)
You're missing the point, the bayonet is on the end of a loaded firearm.

Slashing bayonets weren't banned (all bladed bayonets can be used to deliver a slashing attack), triangular and cross-sectional spike bayonets were banned because the wounds inflicted were difficult to close, so they were deemed inhumane.

That doesn't mean that some places stopped issuing them. I know that many Chinese SKS and AKM copies had cruciform spike bayonets up until they started replacing those rifles in the '80s, and the British had at least one version of spike bayonet during WW2 that had a cruciform design, but they destroyed most of them because they violated the Geneva Convention.

Canuovea - March 10, 2012 04:28 AM (GMT)
Really?

Turns out I got it the wrong way round, memory does that.

Harder to close, you say? Small swords (and I can't wait to get my hands on one of those) are cross section and the fencing epee is triangular. I think the small sword is the most dangerous of the duelling swords, but I'm somewhat biased.

Harkovast - March 15, 2012 02:14 AM (GMT)
I dunno if Rush is really a deep cover liberal, trying to scupper the republican election chances with insider sabotage...but he referred to a women's rights orgnisation as "nags" the other day.

Seriously... is he trolling the Conservative Right?

Renard - March 15, 2012 03:21 AM (GMT)
I seriously doubt that he's actively trying to scuttle the Republican Party.

This is a man who would probably like it if anyone who voted Democrat was gassed, or at least that Democrat supporters receive compulsory sterilization, in line with the latest knowledge about political eugenics (because the Democrats would have handed over the Great USA to faggy Europeans or the Japs long ago).

If he has any hate for the Republicans, it's probably that they aren't right-wing enough. He hates liberals for supporting economic controls and regulations, and for what he sees as their constant attacks on the rights of (white Christian) people in the interests of terrorists, criminals, and perverts (see: anyone who "looks Arab", Hispanics, Blacks, homosexuals, and feminists).

His attacks aren't meant to be some sort of over-the-top dig at American conservatives, he's voicing what he honestly believes to be a valid, well informed, and well intentioned opinion (although he sometimes seems to get "opinion" confused with "facts"). I'd imagine that if you asked him in person what he's doing, he'd probably tell you that he's helping fight a crusade against the liberals, opening people's eyes to the threat that they pose to the American way of life.

He's just an awful, bigoted, ignorant windbag of a man, and while there are thousands of others like him, he's one of the privileged few with broadcast capabilities.

Harkovast - March 15, 2012 09:25 PM (GMT)
Of course you are right Renard (have 10 Harko-points), but my faith in the human race keeps making me doubt if he can be for real!

Renard - March 15, 2012 10:07 PM (GMT)
And my cynicism allows me to accept that the human race is full of people who believe that racial hatred, sexism, homophobia, and ill-informed elitism are just and righteous weapons to be used in the patriotic crusade against liberalism and human rights.

There are warlords in Africa who encourage mass rape, mutilation and crippling of civilians (usually cutting off arms), and employ children as slaves and soldiers.

The slave trade is alive and well on every continent.

What's so hard to believe about one vitriol spewing American pundit?

Canuovea - March 15, 2012 10:09 PM (GMT)
True and all.

That doesn't mean he isn't undermining the Republican Party.

I love the use of double negatives in the afternoon. Looks like confusion.

Harkovast - March 21, 2012 07:49 PM (GMT)
The Amazing Atheist

Finding a decent target of my contempt amongst the more politically liberal has never been easy for me.
Micheal Moore is a sack of self righteous shit...but he hasn't done anything for ages that anyone gave a shit about. Also he is annoying in more of a "general douche" way rather than a specific moment that stands out for me to attack.

Bill Maher made some insulting comments about Sarah Palin that right wingers point to in order to excuse Rush LImbaughs behaviour...but they didn't get anywhere near the level of Limbaugh and mostly focused on her being a moron...which she is.

Slim pickings for a bitter bastard like me.

But fortunately, I've found an appalling fuck wit that is just ideal for my wrath...and his videos are anti-religion and anti right wing whackos!

The Amazing Atheist (Real Name- Terroja Lee Kincaid) is a git you might remember from my old rant against a sexist extremist feminist moron that was widely referred to as Deve around here.

She had laid out a list of conditions under which we can judge a man to be a "rape supporter", with criteria that basically made every hetrosexual man on earth a rape supporter by definition!

The Amazing Atheist posted an ranting response in which he debunked her stupid list of idiocy.
His videos often make valid points against religion and various right wing tossers...if you can get past what an intensely irritating dip shit he is.
His rants are full of screaming, insults and unsubstantiated attacks.
Even when I agree with him on his general point...often he just lowers the tone of debate so much that I end up wishing I didn't.

But as we should know by now, just being an ass is not enough to get you on my list here.

The reason he is on the list here....is because he is a rape supporter.

Huh? What's this? Am I agreeing with Deve?
Well the sun even shines on a dogs butt some days, and in this case, by incredible coincidence....she was right.

Now how can I say something so shocking about Amazing Atheist?

I will let him speak for himself.
Here are some quotes from him when he got into a debate about the issues around rape on an internet forum-

"I will make you a rape victim if you donít fuck off."

When someone he was arguing with said they had been the victim of rape-

"Yeah. Well, you deserved it. So, fuck you. I hope it happens again soon. Iím tired of being treated like shit by you mean little cunts and then you using your rape as an excuse. Fuck you. I think we should give the guy who raped you a medal. I hope you fucking drown in rape semen, you ugly, mean-spirited cow. Actually, I donít believe you were ever raped! What man would be tasteless enough to stick his dick into a human cesspool like you? Nice gif of a turd going into my mouth. Is that kind of like the way that rapists dick went in your pussy? Or did he use your asshole? Or was it both? Maybe you should think about it really hard for the next few hours. Relive it as much as possible. You know? Try to recall: was it my pussy or my ass?"

He followed that up with-

"BTW, you have to admit, when I told you that I hope you drown in rape semen, you got a little wet, didnít you? Itís okay. Weíre friends now. You can share."

Brilliant points, expertly made, this guy is the best debater since Mel Gibson.

When people started complaining he went and made a video bitching about how unfairly he was getting treated.

Amazing Atheist is a big believer, it turns out, that society is rigged into a big conspiracy against men.
He frequents sites with other men where they bitch about how evil women are for ruining how awesome society used to be by wanting crazy things like equal treatment or the ability to decide who they have sex with. They put this crap under the heading of "men's rights" and whine about how terrible their lot is.
But don't worry, Amazing Atheist is here to fight the power!

Here is a section from an online book he wrote, about his reaction to a chat room that was described as being for "rape survivors"

"Rape isnít fatal. So imagine my indignation when I saw a chatroom called ďRape SurvivorsĒ. Is this supposed to impress me? Someone fucked you when you didnít want to be fucked and youíre amazed that you survived? Unless he used a chainsaw instead of his dick, whatís the big deal? . . . The word survivor applies to people who are alive after being stabbed 73 times with an ice pick or mauled by rabid wolverines, not to a woman who gets dick when she doesnít want it. Just because you got raped, you have to rape the English language? You vindictive bitch! Also, donít you ever get tired of being the victim? How many failed relationships are you going to blame on a single violation of your personal space?"

Yeah! Whats the big deal? You just got raped! Get over it! You tell em AA! Those rape victims need to be taken down a peg!

He also tells a hillarious anecdote about a female friend rejecting a guy because his penis was too small.
"I told her "Your lucky it wasn't me. I'd have busted your fucking nose and raped you."

Hahaha, what wit and charm this guy displays!

To defend himself against accusations that he is supporting rape he explained
the following-
"Hereís an M. Night Shymalan style twist for you, PZ. Something that shatters your narrative of me as a would-be rapist just looking for the right bush to hide in. Iím a submissive. As in, I like to be dominated. Spanked. Humiliated. As in, the exact opposite of what youíre portaying me as."

Yes....that was his defence.
Now the thought of this fucker having sex in any context is bad enough, we now know he likes to be the gimp.
What he does in his own time is completely up to him...but why did he feel the need to share this knowledge?
Is he claiming that getting spanked during sex means men cant be sexist?
Visiting a dominatrix means you can say rape is okay?
As long as you are submissive in the bed room you can call women cunts as much as you want?
At this point he manages to achieve a perfect balance of 100% embarassing and 100% stupid as this argument is totally irrelevant to the criticism of his disgusting attitudes.
Strange to see someone who derides religion for using illogical and unsupported arguments suddenly forget the basic structure of logic and debate when he gets put on the spot.

He also argues that men should be allowed to stare at women as much as they want if they find them attractive. If you like a woman's tits and want to stare at them...you should! Why not? It's not like there is a victim there or anyone who might not like it. The man will enjoy it....so clearly its win/win for all concerned.
If a woman objects, she is probably just an evil feminist (strange how AA and Rush's views, that once might have seemed so different, on this topic seem to merge.)

I find it remarkable that a guy who lays out these kind of views could be so self absorbed as to be unable to see that he is part of the problem.
It is these kind of sexist, woman hating views, ( trivialising sexual violence as something people should just shut up about and get over etc) are part of the reason that rape, sexism and misogyny continue to plague our world.
The Amazing Atheist is amazing only in that I am amazed someone can be this far up his own ass.
By some great cosmic irony, he really is the kind of sexist, woman hating, rape supporting pig that Deve was decrying.
He didn't offer any kind of apology for any of this. His only response was to double down an whine about how unfairly he (and by extension all right thinking males) get treated.
The two of them should really hook up.
They are made for each other.

Canuovea - March 21, 2012 08:57 PM (GMT)
Well, the funny thing?

I watched AA's little "rebuttal" to Deve... And... no, he didn't rebut anything well at all. That is one of the reasons that I decided to get back into it and read what Deve was saying more thoroughly. By the way, Deve's logic was that if you support the patriarchy in any way, then you support rape. This means, by some applied understanding of logic and consequences, that she is also a rape supporter. Rape supporter in the way that if you pay US taxes you are a supporter of the War in Iraq. Essentially, Deve wasn't thinking so much on an individual level as on a systemic level.

AA managed to miss this completely. No. Instead he managed to just rant and rave without understanding the point. Sure, the point was inflammatory, but if you can't look at things logically... don't bother trying to rebut that thing.

But basically this fellow it the equivalent of a Glenn Beck or Rushy. Not O'Reilly, who at least makes a pretence of calmness.

He also seems to lack an understanding of empathy. Never mind having it himself. In some ways, that was what Deve was accusing men, generally, of lacking.

I suppose him being a "sub" would make him less likely to be a rapist. In some ways. It doesn't make him less likely to be an asshole. Which he is.

Harkovast - March 21, 2012 09:31 PM (GMT)
Canouvea I have learned to take your judgements on who is a total piece of shit very seriously.

Though lets face it...no one could have predicted that this guy is quite as big a piece of shit as he actually turned out to be!
I mean seriously...wow!

Canuovea - March 21, 2012 10:11 PM (GMT)
I've watched a few of AA's videos. They've come up.

Sometimes he has decent points. But the tendency towards ridicule is there pretty much constantly.

I suppose I know what some Conservatives feel like sometimes. Say they watch Glenn Beck, and Beck says something about the need for less government. They agree and think that Glenn Beck has a point. BUT a lot of them think that the obnoxious, nasty, way the point is made is too much.

And to be fair, I've gotten caught up in some of what AA has said. I believe it was he who I heard make an excellent point about atheist morality. You know, personal responsibility stuff. And sometimes you just tune out the negative part of it and think "Hey, this guy has a point! He's right!" And that can just keep going, if you forget to evaluate each and every thing someone says because "well, they've been right before". That is the problem with these talking authority figures. Though the problem isn't so much them, but us and how we see them.

That all being said, AA may have good points some times. So did Hitler (not to compare them directly), I mean, Hitler thought smoking was terrible. He was right.

Here's the thing, I'd say AA is "right" a decent percentage of the time. But that is because I have a similar view of things. He just doesn't say his points nicely, and tends towards ridicule and condescension. Condescension, as in "isn't it obvious I'm right? And these people are just stupid." And damn, if you agree with his point, it is very tempting to make that leap towards the condescension. So very dangerous.

As for his reaction to Deve... he fell into the mistake of equating "rape supporter" with "rapist" surprisingly quickly. In the middle of his rant. Yes, I know "rape supporter" is longer to say than "rapist", but the meaning is different for Deve. Kinda important.

And, Hark, thank you for the compliment.

Renard - March 21, 2012 10:38 PM (GMT)
That level of misogyny is a bit unsettling. I can't say as I've ever heard too many people get into a debate with a rape victim and finish it off by essentially calling them a whore (except in parts of the Mid East). Obviously this fellow doesn't like to debate so much as insult his opponents until they leave, and if he takes things too far and insults people then he thinks he's being bullied.

Isn't this guy from the UK? I'll be in country around Christmas time, so maybe I'll see about having my way with him, see what he thinks about it.

As for that part about being allowed to stare at women openly, I'm in favor of that, but only as long as women learn judo from age 5. It's a win/win situation then as well; the man gets to stare at her chest for a second, and she gets to vent her anger by tossing him around like a rag doll.




* Hosted for free by InvisionFree