Top 10 Conservative Idiots #272 [Archive] - The Diamond David Lee Roth Army

View Full Version : Top 10 Conservative Idiots #272

FORD

12-18-2006, 02:45 PM

<img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/272.jpg" border="0"> The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 272 December 18, 2006 Let's Hear It For The Soy Edition Welcome to the final Top 10 of 2006! Before we get started this week I'd like to direct your attention to Democratic Underground's year-end Charity Donation Drive. We're raising funds for America's Second Harvest, the largest charitable domestic hunger-relief organization in the country. Please take a look at <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2939804" target="_blank">this thread</a> and consider making a donation. Okay... on with the show! This week Jim Rutz (1) tells us all about the Soy Agenda, George W. Bush (2) has a secret plan for Iraq, and the good ship Donald Rumsfeld (3) sails over the horizon. Meanwhile, Answers In Genesis (5) ride Jesus horses, Michael Crichton (7) has child porn fantasies, and Bill O'Reilly waxes philosophical about cupcakes. Enjoy - and for all of you who missed it the past couple of weeks, the <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/key.html" target="_blank">key</a> is back! <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/01.gif" border="0"> Jim Rutz <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/batshit_crazy.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/homophobia.gif" border="0"> Think that the situation in Iraq is bad? Worried about Iran and North Korea? How about global climate change? Well holster those fears, people, because there's something much, much worse that you should be worrying about. That's right. I'm talking about soy beans. "A devil food is turning our kids into homosexuals," shrieked Jim Rutz in a World Net Daily <a href="http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327" target="_blank">exclusive commentary</a> last week. <div class="excerpt">I have nothing against an occasional soy snack. Soy is nutritious and contains lots of good things. Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens. Estrogens are female hormones. If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your "female side," physically and mentally. In fetal development, the default is being female. All humans (even in old age) tend toward femininity. The main thing that keeps men from diverging into the female pattern is testosterone, and testosterone is suppressed by an excess of estrogen. If you're a grownup, you're already developed, and you're able to fight off some of the damaging effects of soy. Babies aren't so fortunate. Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby's endocrine system just can't cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal. Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.</div> It's odd, but throughout his article Rutz mentions "research," "research in 2000," "recent research," and "scientific evidence," but he never actually once mentions a source for any of this "research," or provides a link to any of the "scientific evidence." I actually found out where Rutz got his information from: <a href="http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/03summary.htm" target="_blank">right here</a> at the "Soy Information Service." Best of luck figuring out who they are. Mind you, even the Soy Information Service doesn't say anything about soy turning kids gay. I guess Rutz made that part up all by himself. <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/02.gif" border="0"> George W. Bush <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/dumb.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/warmongering.gif" border="0"> Before the November elections, Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MO) took part in a debate with Democratic senator-elect Jon Tester and announced that George W. Bush had a <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/18/terror/main2104001.shtml" target="_blank">secret plan</a> to win in Iraq. <div class="excerpt">In a tense exchange with Tester, who has taken a slim lead in recent polls, Burns hammered the Democratic challenger for his call on the president to develop a plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq. "He wants everyone to know our plan. That's not smart," Burns said. "He said our president (doesn't) have a plan. I think he's got one, but he's not going to tell everybody in the world," Burns added. "If you want to go out and spar for a fight, are you going to tell your enemy what your plan is? I don't think so." Burns later said: "There is a plan. We're not going to tell you, Jon." </div> It turns out that Bush's plan is so secret, even he doesn't know what it is. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/world/middleeast/12prexy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin" target="_blank">According to</a> the New York Times last week: <div class="excerpt">President Bush on Monday began an Iraq war listening tour that will last much of this week, as he and his war cabinet work urgently toward a new strategy he can present to the public before Christmas.</div> Unfortunately this whole "coming up with a plan" thing appears to be a lot more difficult than Our Great Leader originally thought it would be. <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/170157,CST-NWS-iraq13.article" target="_blank">According to</a> the Chicago Sun-Times a few days later: <div class="excerpt">President Bush won't announce a new Iraq strategy until early next year, aides said Tuesday, as his staff finishes a long-awaited review. Bush, who had hoped to deliver a major Iraq speech by Christmas, is pressing for more details that affect military strategy, national security, diplomatic concerns, internal Iraqi politics, and Middle East relations, according to spokesman Tony Snow. "He decided, frankly, that it's not ready yet," Snow said.</div> So there you have it folks: the Decider has decided, and he's decided that he needs to kill some more time before making a proper decision. And if you're wondering why it's taken three and a half years, 350 billion dollars, almost 3,000 dead American soldiers, countless thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, and the outbreak of a civil war before he got some people together to look into this, well, er, that's all just part of the secret plan. On the bright side, Our Great Leader has found the time to host <a href="http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/19330/" target="_blank">24 parties</a> over the holiday period. Priorities, people, priorities! <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/03.gif" border="0"> Donald Rumsfeld <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/warmongering.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/loser.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/photo.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/spin.gif" border="0"> Last week marked an occasion for joyous celebration all over America, and indeed the world: Donald Rumsfeld's last day as Secretary of Defense. The Pentagon gave Don a big send-off last week, hosted by none other than Our Great Leader. So let's take a quick look at Rumsfeld's, ahem, accomplishments, and see how George W. Bush and friends like to knock down the walls of reality with their <a href="http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061216/LOCAL17/612160487/-1/ZONES04" target="_blank">giant propaganda catapult</a>. <div class="excerpt">Far from apologizing for the Iraq war that was the undoing of Rumsfeld - as well as Republican control of Congress and Bush's approval ratings - speakers heralded both the war and the secretary's leadership.</div> Really? You mean they continued to say things that are the complete opposite from reality while acting like a bunch of arrogant assholes? How very unusual. <div class="excerpt">"On his watch, the United States military helped the Iraqi people establish a constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East, a watershed event in the story of freedom," said Bush, who hugged Rumsfeld. "This man knows how to lead, and he did. And the country is better off for it."</div> That's strange - I think I already mentioned that the U.S. is now trapped in a huge quagmire which has cost upwards of 350 billion dollars and killed almost 3,000 American soldiers as well as countless thousands of Iraqi civilians. George must have forgotten that part (or, more likely, nobody's told him about it). <div class="excerpt">Cheney, close to Rumsfeld in a nearly 40-year friendship, was even more effusive. "I've never worked harder for a boss, and I've never learned more from one either," said the vice president, hired by Rumsfeld in 1969 into the Nixon White House. "I believe the record speaks for itself: Don Rumsfeld is the finest secretary of defense this nation has ever had."</div> Hey, nice one, Dick. You know, I can do that too... "I believe the record speaks for itself: Plan 9 From Outer Space is the greatest movie ever made." "I believe the record speaks for itself: Ryan Leaf was the most talented quarterback to ever play in the NFL." "I believe the record speaks for itself: Achy Breaky Heart is easily the best song ever written." <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/04.gif" border="0"> Bruce Tinsley <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/arrest.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/booze.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/car.gif" border="0"> Bruce who? You know. Bruce Tinsley. This guy: <center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/272_tinsley.jpg" border="0"></center> Still not ringing any bells? Let me help you out. Bruce Tinsley is the guy who writes the terribly unfunny comservative comic strip "Mallard Fillmore" which, somewhat unbelievably, appears in almost 400 American newspapers. If you're wondering why he doesn't look too happy in the photo above, it's because Mr. Tinsley was <a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003495949" target="_blank">arrested</a> last week in Columbus, Indiana, on drunk driving charges - his second such arrest in four months. The photo was taken by Bartholomew County's finest when Tinsley's blood-alcohol level was allegedly 0.14 (nearly twice the legal limit in Indiana). So it's another fine mess that some drunk-ass conservative moralizer has gotten himself into. What a surprise. Mind you, I have discovered that slapping Mr. Tinsley's mugshot at the end of Mallard Fillmore makes it a lot more entertaining. <center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/272_fillmore5.jpg" border="0"></center> <center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/272_fillmore1.jpg" border="0"></center> <center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/272_fillmore2.jpg" border="0"></center>

FORD

12-18-2006, 02:46 PM

<img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/05.gif" border="0"> Answers In Genesis <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/religious_nut.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/batshit_crazy.gif" border="0"> You know, I was always brought up to believe that being a Christian didn't mean you had to throw your brain out of the window - and I'll always stick by that belief, despite the best efforts of folks like "Answers In Genesis" to convince me otherwise. Answers In Genesis are opening a <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/walkthrough/" target="_blank">Creation Museum</a> near Cincinnati, and of course that's exactly what it sounds like. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6216788.stm" target="_blank">From the BBC</a>: <div class="excerpt">The museum's aim is to bring Genesis - the first book of the Bible - to life for all ages, and promote the belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Everybody who works at the museum has to sign on to the belief that the living Earth was created in six 24-hour days - rejecting the convention most scientists view as fact, that life evolved slowly over millions of years. To hammer that point home, two smiling children clad in tasteful animal skins, work and play alongside a pair of baby Tyrannosaurus Rex. "You go to some of the major museums and dinosaurs are their teaching icon," said Mr Looy. "We're going to turn that on its head, and use dinosaurs to show that the Bible presents the true history of the world. We have people, and dinosaurs, together." </div> Well, well. I guess Ray Harryhausen was right all along. <center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/272_dinosaur.jpg" border="0"></center> So I know what you're thinking: how on earth can they get away with this? The answer is quite simple: <div class="excerpt">Answers in Genesis prides itself on having many qualified scientists on staff, including Dr Georgia Purdom, a molecular geneticist by training, from one of Ohio's main universities. She is concerned that many Christians do not accept the literal truth of the creation: "It's foundational. If you can't believe Genesis, then why believe any other part of the Bible? "You can't pick and choose, you can't say this part is right, and this part is wrong," she said, halfway through supervising an online tutorial in her office. </div> Makes perfect sense. Which brings me to <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/menstruation.html" target="_blank">this section</a> from Leviticus: <div class="excerpt">And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.</div> So, just out of curiosity Dr. Purdom, do you do that every time you get your monthly "issue?" Because I wouldn't want to think that you're taking some parts of the Bible literally but not others. I mean, "you can't pick and choose," right? And if that's the case, does the local pet store know what you're doing with those turtles? <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/06.gif" border="0"> The Bush Administration <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/warmongering.gif" border="0"> <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061207/ap_on_re_us/un_weapons_trade_treaty_1" target="_blank">According to</a> the Associated Press, global trade in illegal small arms is worth around $1 billion per year, and these weapons "cause 60 percent to 90 percent of all deaths in conflicts every year." That's why the United Nations General Assembly almost unanimously approved a resolution last week that "could lead to the first international treaty on controlling the trade in assault rifles, machine guns and other small arms." I say "almost unanimously" because the actual vote was 153-1 (with 24 abstentions). So guess which country was the only country in the world to vote against curbing the international illegal arms trade? Go on - you'll never guess. Okay, it was the United States. Yay - we're number one! Seriously though, the excuse for voting against the resolution given by Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, was that "For us, that standard would be so far below what we are already required to do under U.S. law that we had to vote against it in order to maintain our higher standards." Of course, the decision had nothing to do with the NRA, which according to the AP "has strongly opposed U.N. efforts at crafting a treaty to curb private ownership of small arms. The group has said such a treaty might embolden regimes that violate human rights to disarm their citizens and make popular uprisings against oppression impossible." Well... I suppose that's one way of looking at it. <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/07.gif" border="0"> Michael Crichton <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/ego.gif" border="0"> Michael Crichton received a fair amount of criticism for his 2004 novel State of Fear, which denies the existence of global warming and turns environmentalists into terrorists. (John Stossel <a href="http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=316580&page=1" target="_blank">loved it</a>.) But one critic got a little more than he bargained for. In March 2006, Michael Crowley wrote a cover story for the New Republic which took on Crichton's dismissal of the opinions of the vast majority of climate scientists. Apparently Crichton wasn't too happy about Crowley's piece, so he gave him a small cameo in his most recent novel, Next. <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002156.php" target="_blank">Here it is</a>: <div class="excerpt">Alex Burnet was in the middle of the most difficult trial of her career, a rape case involving the sexual assault of a two-year-old boy in Malibu. The defendant, thirty-year-old Mick Crowley, was a Washington-based political columnist who was visiting his sister-in-law when he experienced an overwhelming urge to have anal sex with her young son, still in diapers. Crowley was a wealthy, spoiled Yale graduate and heir to a pharmaceutical fortune. ... It turned out Crowley's taste in love objects was well known in Washington, but <his lawyer>--as was his custom--tried the case vigorously in the press months before the trial, repeatedly characterizing Alex and the child's mother as "fantasizing feminist fundamentalists" who had made up the whole thing from "their sick, twisted imaginations." This, despite a well-documented hospital examination of the child. (Crowley's penis was small, but he had still caused significant tears to the toddler's rectum.)</div> Classy stuff! <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/08.gif" border="0"> Terry Trippany <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/dumb.gif" border="0"> In a <a href="http://newsbusters.org/node/9630" target="_blank">recent post</a> on the Media Research Center's "Newsbusters" website (which is sort of the right-wing equivalent of Media Matters, only without any style or substance) Terry Trippany revealed "the hidden secret behind journalism 101, AP style." <div class="excerpt">The Pentagon announced that all four major branches of the military met or exceeded their recruiting goals for the month on November. Normally the media glosses over these stories and relegates them to the rarely read deep recesses of the B section. That is unless the news can be used to embed a story within a story - the sort that poisons the main message with a carefully crafted sub-context that is related to any one of a number of liberal agenda items that are being tossed about in the latest news cycle.</div> So how did the evildoers at the AP "poison the main message" in order to further their "liberal agenda?" It's quite simple. Trippany's complaint is that the AP story about recruitment goals also contained some general information about Americans' opinions of the Iraq war. Shocking, eh? Who would have thought that the public's view of the Iraq war could possibly be relevant to the military's recruitment numbers? In order to expose this dreadful liberal bias, Trippany separates the story into two parts - the sentences about the military's recruitment goals, and the sentences about the public's view of the Iraq war. Then he puts them back together again and suggests that the results are "enlightening." Er, okay. I mean, I would think that people might be interested to know that the military has met its recruitment goals despite the war's waning popularity, but apparently this is simply despicable journalism intended to undermine Our Great Leader and his Really Great War. Basically Trippany's grand conclusion is that "liberal media bias" can be cured by simply stripping news stories of any and all facts which may paint the Bush administration in an unfavorable light. If you think that this is an odd endorsement from a site whose <a href="http://newsbusters.org/node/91%20" target="_blank">alleged mission</a> is to "bring balance and responsibility to the news media," join the club. But I don't really know why Trippany is complaining, to be honest. If he wants to see news stories that have been sanitized in order to prop up the Bush administration, all he has to do is turn on Fox News. <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/09.gif" border="0"> Primary Source Student Magazine <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/racism.gif" border="0"> Last week the editors of Primary Source Student Magazine, a conservative student publication at Tufts University, decided to publish a spoof Christmas carol intended to gently rib affirmative action. All in good fun, you know. Not meant to offend anyone. <a href="http://twilightandreason.wordpress.com/2006/12/15/two-great-words-that-work-well-together/" target="_blank">Here are the lyrics</a>: <div class="excerpt">O Come All Ye Black Folk Boisterous, yet desirable O come ye, O come ye to our university Come and we will admit you, Born in to oppression; O come, let us accept them, O come, let us accept them, O come, let us accept them, Fifty-Two black freshmen. O sing, gospel choirs, We will accept your children, No matter what your grades are F's D's or G's Give them privileged status; We will welcome all. O come, let us accept them, O come, let us accept them, O come, let us accept them, Fifty-Two black freshmen. All come! Blacks, we need you, Born into the ghetto. O Jesus! We need you now to fill our racial quotas. Descendents of Africa, with brown skin arriving: O come, let us accept them, O come, let us accept them, O come, let us accept them, Fifty-two black freshmen</div> A-ha ha! That is just so clever and hilarious! Or, alternatively, it's incredibly racist and offensive. Apparently the editors of Primary Source Student Magazine have some difficulty telling the difference between the two. <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/12/11/tufts_editor_apologizes_for_satire_aimed_at_affirm ative_action/" target="_blank">According to</a> the Boston Globe, the Primary Source's news editor said he was sorry and that "Our purpose was not to be hurtful or offend individuals." Now see if you can spot the apology in their official apology: <div class="excerpt">The Primary Source regrets that the purpose of the carol was not clearly communicated. The carol was intended as a satirical criticism of affirmative action and was, in fact, intended as an anti-racist statement.</div> See? It's anti-racist. So I guess that's all cleared up. <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/10.gif" border="0"> Bill O'Reilly <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/batshit_crazy.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/homophobia.gif" border="0"> And finally, on "The O'Reilly Factor" last week, our old friend Bill announced his opposition to same-sex parenting. (I know, surprising, huh?) Despite the fact that "the American Psychological Association (APA), the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), and the Child Welfare League of America, among others, have all noted that credible scientific data shows that children suffer no harm from being reared by same-sex parents," <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200612150001" target="_blank">according to</a> Media Matters, Bill is going with his gut on this one. In order to prove that same-sex parenting is a bad idea, O'Reilly came up with this brilliant piece of logic: <div class="excerpt">You know, why wouldn't - why wouldn't nature then make it that anybody could get pregnant by eating a cupcake?</div> Good question. Why wouldn't nature make it so that anybody could get pregnant by eating a cupcake? For that matter, why wouldn't nature make it so that anybody could fly by sprinkling sugar in their socks? And come to think of it, why wouldn't nature make it so that anybody could pull out their eyeballs and use them to see round corners? And, er, what does any of this have to do with a same-sex couple rearing a child? I say stick with your gut, Bill. It's pretty apparent that your brain is taking a long vacation. This is the last Top 10 Conservative Idiots of 2006 - we'll be back in the New Year. Look for Idiots 273 on January 8, 2007.</html>

ODShowtime

12-18-2006, 07:28 PM

Really? You mean they continued to say things that are the complete opposite from reality while acting like a bunch of arrogant assholes?

Some may think this is a rude statement, but it's really what happens in Washington on a daily basis. And then it filters down into places like here; the exact same behavior.