(October 7, 2015 at 12:23 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:(October 7, 2015 at 8:53 am)Faith No More Wrote: Bill O'Reilly too.
To be fair I'm pretty certain Bill O'Reilly is a genius method actor that makes millions off of saying deliberately stupid and contentious shit to draw attention and ratings from both fruitloops, reactionaries and people who just enjoy watching train wrecks.
Can't argue with his results.
I've thought the same about Ann Coulter for years. She was a former Law Clerk for a Supreme Court Justice, meaning that she fully grasps how the law works, and yet I've seen her make some of the most insane, populism-baiting claims about how the law and the Constitution work that no one who graduated law school could possible misunderstand.
When I saw her speak in Lawrence, KS, in 2005, she was speaking to an audience almost entirely composed of ultra-conservatives from nearby Johnson County (3rd wealthiest county in the USA, and one of the most GOP/conservative places in ultra-conservative Kansas), and she made several comments on the "problems" of the gay marriage debate that flew in the face of the Court's reasoning in the Loving v. State of Virginia (1967) decision, so I asked her about it during the Q&A session that followed. Rather than address my parallel, she instead made a snide comment about me being a law student (I was not a student, nor had I ever studied law, at that time), and did not acknowledge that she had herself been a Clerk, despite the fact that I started my question with that point.
No way it's not an act, or as you put it, "genius method actor that makes millions off saying deliberately stupid and contentious shit to draw attention and ratings from both fruitloops, reactionaries and people who just enjoy watching train wrecks".
Can't argue with results. As a brilliant poster on the The Thinking Atheist forums once put it, "There's gold in them thar rubes."
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
