Erik Rush, the black Worldnutdaily columnist who bizarrely thinks that America suffers from an excess of “negrophilia,” has a column about how ignorant many Americans are. Exhibit A should be himself, as he makes very clear in his first example of this alleged ignorance:
For example, it does not take any advanced training in economics to make the determination that the Obama administration is as fiscally irresponsible as it could possibly be. This is not a wild accusation; the 1974 Budget Act requires Congress to pass a budget each year. Considering just this one instance, it ought to be fairly easy for the informed American of reasonable intellect to infer that there is something dreadfully amiss with a government that has not passed a budget in four years, yet has increased the national debt by trillions of dollars and allows its president to authorize billions in additional spending on an almost weekly basis…
If this hypothetical informed American of reasonable intellect were to take advantage of the unbiased raw data available, he would quickly come to the conclusion that my charge of unprecedented fiscal irresponsibility is indeed accurate.
Unless, of course, that hypothetical informed American knew what Rush clearly does not, that the budgets are passed by Congress, not the executive branch.
Another case in point: The widely-publicized debate within the Boy Scouts of America’s leadership as to whether or not they will maintain their ban on admitting homosexuals into their organization. As reported in WND, on Nov. 28, 2012, former Scoutmaster David Watkins of Virginia was arrested for sodomizing a boy in his troop. One would think this a no-brainer; they need to continue to keep gays out of the BSA.
Let’s take this reasoning out for a walk and see where it goes. The overwhelming majority of child molestation is heterosexual and it is usually committed by either family (about 30%) or friends (about 60%). So: “One would think this is a no-brainer; they need to continue to keep straight men away from their nieces and the female daughters of their friends and neighbors.”
Then, there’s the ongoing discussion and legislation relative to homosexual “marriage.” Like black Klansmen and male sorority sisters, “gay marriage” simply doesn’t exist. Oh, we have monogamous homosexual couples playing house, and certain states issuing marriage licenses to them, but there’s no marriage there. This is because marriage is not a civil union; it’s an ordained one.
Really? So no atheist is actually married either? I am greatly amused when a quarterwit like Rush accuses others of “intellectual indolence” while spouting transparent nonsense like this.
20 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
shallit
February 11, 2013 at 12:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The Christian Right has moved from decrying gay marriage to now pretending that it doesn’t exist. Is that progress?
Pierce R. Butler
February 11, 2013 at 12:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
… knew what Rush clearly does not, that the budgets are passed by Congress…
But ER hisveryownself just wrote:
The cog ditz is very strong in this one.
slc1
February 11, 2013 at 12:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Of course, fucktard Rush seems to have forgotten the budget deficits during the Bush Administration or that the Clinton Administration bequeathed a budget surplus to the Bush Administration, which then pissed it away on tax cuts for the rich and an idiotic war in Iraq.
Doug Little
February 11, 2013 at 12:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think the term you are looking for is fuckwit.
gshelley
February 11, 2013 at 12:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Even if marriage was an ordained relationship, why does he think his religion’s view on who should get married should trump those of any religion that disagrees?
Bronze Dog
February 11, 2013 at 12:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The convenience of religion. Souls exist so that the church can deny them to foreigners or whoever they don’t like this week, so they can treat them as inferior. Marriage exists so they can deny it to lovers and families they don’t like, so they can treat them as inferior.
Of course, one big question and others that follow from that question: Which church/religion/denomination is the one making these declarations and limitations? How did that sectarian group earn such favoritism from what’s supposed to be a secular government? What if I, as a non-member of that religion, want to be free from having their religious laws from being imposed on my life? If marriage is a religious institution, why is the government involved in it? Why can’t competing churches grant same-sex marriages under freedom of religion? What about secular institutions granting marriage to the irreligious?
kerrietiedemann
February 11, 2013 at 1:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
i know this isn’t the point, but male sorority sisters do exist. For example, I’ve met sisters of TBS, both male and female: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_Beta_Sigma
Ace of Sevens
February 11, 2013 at 1:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Isn’t he a black Confederate? Or at least a wannabe?
marcus
February 11, 2013 at 1:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Like black Klansmen… doesn’t exist”
I think they just might have an opening for you Erik!
d.c.wilson
February 11, 2013 at 1:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No black klansmen?
I guess he never saw this one
Sastra
February 11, 2013 at 1:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’ve come across this argument, though it was only made as a defense when the analogy was pointed out (“if gay people can’t get married because God isn’t at the ceremony, does that mean that atheists shouldn’t be allowed to legally marry either?”) As far as I know there is no concerted political effort against atheist-marriage.
A religious friend, however, did tell me that this is only because there is always a chance that an atheist could convert. There is no chance that a man or woman will magically turn into the other sex. So atheists ought to be grateful that they’re given the benefit of the doubt.
What a wicked thing is religion, that it would make a friend think such a thing.
roundguy
February 11, 2013 at 2:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
My wife will be really interested to find out we aren’t really married.
Woo hoo—bachelor night!
dan4
February 11, 2013 at 9:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
All of Rush Limbaugh’s rants are ignorant (sorry, couldn’t resist, since I believe the last three of Ed’s posts dealing with Erik Rush had a commentator who had obviously only read the headline with the word “Rush” in it criticize Limbaugh)!
martinc
February 11, 2013 at 9:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
marcus @ 9:
I bet he’d pass the written part of the entrance tests with flying colors, if that’s the appropriate phrase.
Winterwind
February 12, 2013 at 4:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This has nothing to do with his offensive views, but his writing gives me a headache. How does someone get away with such clunky, convoluted sentences? Apparently readers of the WND think an article is more trustworthy if the writer keeps sticking smart phrases like “person of reasonable intellect” and “unbiased raw data” and even words like “indeed” and “infer” where they aren’t really necessary.
had3
February 12, 2013 at 6:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@11 , religious miracles of raising the dead occur, but the miracle of one party to a gay marriage changing gender can’t? That seems like an awfully limited miracle producing religion to me.
stace
February 12, 2013 at 8:37 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
religious miracles of raising the dead occur, but the miracle of one party to a gay marriage changing gender can’t? That seems like an awfully limited miracle producing religion to me.
The miracle making is selective that way, God doesn’t make mistakes as any fundie will quickly inform you (so how do we get two-headed calves?), so no point in switching genders in God’s creations.
eric
February 12, 2013 at 9:47 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ultimately where it goes is: lock up all men between the ages of about 16 and 36. Because that’s who does the vast, vast majority of violent crimes. Here is some relevant data. Peruse the table, and you’ll notice that men commit most major crimes at between 4-10 times the rate of women. The exceptions seem to be larceny/theft and property crimes, which are more evenly split.
That is something I find a bit ironic about conservative suggestions for profiling and “keeping x out” of various activities. We do in fact HAVE a good correlation between violent crime and a specific sub-set of our population. But that correlation points to a very socially powerful/favored sub-set and one that also correlates with conservativism, so conservatives don’t suggest applying any limit on rights to the group that, rartionally, would deserve it most.
Personally I don’t think the correlation argument is a valid reason for limiting anyone’s rights or membership. But I do see the irony in Erik Rush using it.
Andre Carvalho
February 12, 2013 at 5:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed, could you provide the link to the data of pedophilia being done by heterosexuals? It would be very useful in future discussions with bigots that claim that pedophylia = homossexualism
thebookofdave
February 13, 2013 at 6:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This part is true, if a bit obvious. Professional economists know better than to stake their reputation on such outrageously false claims. Erik could have spared himself some embarassment by stopping at this line.