News > Politics > Asshole Fuckface Roundup #24

commentary
SATURDAY DECEMBER 8 2007 4:00 PM

Asshole Fuckface Roundup #24

Submitted by FearTheReaper

Edited by erin_broadley

Tags: Mike Huckabee, Evolution, CNN

Not many people know where the Roundup began. It occurred in Ireland, way back in 1649. The British were conquering Ireland when Commander Oliver Cromwell came across the stubborn town of Wexford. After 10 days, Cromwells troops entered the city walls and went on a murder frenzy. They killed 300 women gathered around a cross, they murdered priests and shot others civilians as they attempted to flee by swimming across the River Slaney. In all 1,500 civilians were massacred. They then burned Wexford. As the smoke drifted over to Cromwell, he said, Smell that? Smells like Asshole Fuckfacery. He had a little shit eating grin on his face, too. True story. Ever since that day, my family has been cursed with the job of bringing Asshole Fuckfaces forth to the populace each week. I scour the news in search of the worst of the worst and put them on the page for you to read and shake your righteous heads. So, put on your thickest overalls because this is going to be messy.

Why not start with a religious Asshole Fuckface?

Nathaniel Abraham hired at hold up. I was about to get into the story, but if your name is Nathaniel Abraham you are bringing a shitload of religious crazy into any room. You think he is okay with people calling him Nate? The magic eight ball says, Fuck No.

Anyway, Nate was hired at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in March of 2004 after receiving a master's degree in biology and a philosophy doctorate from St. John's University. He was brought in to aid in the research of how chemicals affect the mechanisms of fish from a comparative/evolutionary perspective. Then in October, Nate let it slip that he did not believe in evolution.

My supervisor appeared angry and asked me what I meant. My supervisor and I had a follow up meeting during which my supervisor informed me that if I do not believe in evolution, then he was paying me for only 7 to 10 percent of the work I was doing under the grant.

Golly, you think your boss was angry because you were being paid to work on something you dont believe him? Nate told his boss that he "was willing to discuss evolution as a theory." Oh, how kind of you, guy working in a place where evolution is being studied. How about if we are also willing to discuss the effect of a neck punch on religious nutjobs?

Nate was fired in November. Turns out his boss thought believing in evolution was sort of central to study evolution. Nate then took his case to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.

The commission dismissed his complaint earlier this year. The commission said Abraham was terminated because his request not to work on evolutionary aspects of the project would be challenging for Woods Hole because the research was based on evolutionary theories.

No shit. So, now Nate is suing. In a court. Right here in the US. But he is not suing because he is an Asshole Fuckface, but rather for religious discrimination. He would like $500,000. In the meantime, he is working at Liberty University, which was founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell.

This is exactly why God invented the neck punch.

Next up, the Asshole Fuckfaces in the Bush administration for not making
oversight a part of their little war.

Tons of stuff is missing in Iraq.

Tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, crates of machine guns and rocket propelled grenades are just a sampling of more than $1 billion in unaccounted for military equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces.

Oh, thats good. I mean, what could possibly go wrong there? Its not like we have thousands upon thousands of soldiers in Iraq, who actually dont want to die. What could go wrong with losing $1 billion worth of weapons and stuff?

The Inspector General only found an audit trail for $83 million out of $643 million in equipment contracts. The military does not know where 12,712 out of 13,508 weapons went. Those weapons include pistols, assault rifles, rocket propelled grenade launchers and machine guns. All of those things kill people. We have soldiers there and, again, I cannot emphasize this enough: They don't want to die. Letting the enemy get their hands on weapons does not help them with the living thing.

One Asshole Fuckfaces named Claude Bolton, has resigned from his post as assistant secretary for acquisition, logistics and technology. Now, if we could just put him in prison.

How about some video Asshole Fuckfacery?

Holy. Fucking. Shit. At least Bush was subtle and tried to show his God shit with a wink and a smile. This Asshole Fuckfacery is way over the top. Does my vote count as much as God's vote? I don't think that is covered in The Constitution thingy.

Last but not least, we end up will some media Asshole Fuckfacery.

Who knew CNN would pass Fox on the AFR? Not me. But this week they have done exactly that. Poor CNN was forced to postpone a speculative documentary called We Were Warned Iran Goes Nuclear. By the way, there is no such thing as a speculative documentary. It is called fiction, also known as a mockumentary. CNN was going to do their own version of "The Office," but it was going to be a drama.

The two-hour spec, which was slated for Dec. 12 under the "CNN Presents" banner, was "set partially in the future," featuring a what-if scenario as former government officials -- playing fictional cabinet members -- debate how to deal with the Iranian threat.

Oooo, scary. And don't forget, if you kids help create another war, your ratings go up and you make money!

So, why was CNN forced to postpone the documentary? Turns out Iran discontinued its nuclear weapons program four years ago. Fucking jerks. Doesnt Iran know a NEWS NETWORK was creating fake news? Sorry, its not fake news, its a speculative documentary.

That special was "based on a different set of rules and a different set of conditions," said CNN veep-senior exec producer Mark Nelson, noting that the surprising NIE report "changed everything."

By a different set of rules and a different set of conditions, he means reality. Maybe CNN could have spent the money they were tossing at creating fiction and used to track down NEWS.

But, dont worry. You will get to see the documentary at some point, because it has only been postponed. Hey, CNN, you should do a documentary about a president ignoring intelligence and lying to the American people in hopes of starting a war. Man, thats a good plot.

Congrats to all of this weeks Asshole Fuckfaces. You will each receive a young boy with the words Asshole Fuckface shaved into his hair.

FearTheReaper was unable to post this story at 9 am due to access problems yesterday. Just be thankful you got it at all.

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Comments

Wendy

SUICIDEGIRL

Israel

DEC 09, 2007 03:39 PM

BlastProcessing said:

Wendy said:
I don't really see how someone is an "Asshole Fuckface" for thanking, or even crediting, God with their successes. I never saw the rule that God has to stay out of a Presidential campaign. If his relationship with God and people's respect and admiration for that win him the nomination, well... that's too bad for you I guess.

Did you actually watch the video? He's flipping off logic and getting a hard-on over the fact that he has no explanation for why people like him. Call me old-fashioned, but I think I might prefer someone in the executive office who would actually take the time to study the issues at hand instead of blaming whatever circumstance hits his desk on an invisible old man in the sky.

I did watch it. You can prefer whomever you want in office. All I said was that crediting one's successes to God doesn't make one an "Asshole Fuckface." There are plenty of reasons to criticize Huckabee, I don't think that video showed much of anything other than that he's a religious man. And that in and of itself isn't harmful at all, and certainly not worthy of admonishment.

BlastProcessing

USA

OLD SKOOL

DEC 09, 2007 03:51 PM

Wendy said:

BlastProcessing said:

Wendy said:
I don't really see how someone is an "Asshole Fuckface" for thanking, or even crediting, God with their successes. I never saw the rule that God has to stay out of a Presidential campaign. If his relationship with God and people's respect and admiration for that win him the nomination, well... that's too bad for you I guess.

Did you actually watch the video? He's flipping off logic and getting a hard-on over the fact that he has no explanation for why people like him. Call me old-fashioned, but I think I might prefer someone in the executive office who would actually take the time to study the issues at hand instead of blaming whatever circumstance hits his desk on an invisible old man in the sky.

I did watch it. You can prefer whomever you want in office. All I said was that crediting one's successes to God doesn't make one an "Asshole Fuckface." There are plenty of reasons to criticize Huckabee, I don't think that video showed much of anything other than that he's a religious man. And that in and of itself isn't harmful at all, and certainly not worthy of admonishment.

Like hell it isn't. I want someone in office who, when asked a question whose proper answer demands a logical summary of a chain of cause-and-effect scenarios, can actually deliver that summary instead of simply copping out to whatever he believes will score him the most points with his audience. His insistence upon throwing up the God is Great flag at every opportunity calls into serious question his critical-thinking skills, and by extension his credibility and his ability to effectively lead.

Wendy

SUICIDEGIRL

Israel

DEC 09, 2007 04:02 PM

BlastProcessing said:

Wendy said:

BlastProcessing said:

Wendy said:
I don't really see how someone is an "Asshole Fuckface" for thanking, or even crediting, God with their successes. I never saw the rule that God has to stay out of a Presidential campaign. If his relationship with God and people's respect and admiration for that win him the nomination, well... that's too bad for you I guess.

Did you actually watch the video? He's flipping off logic and getting a hard-on over the fact that he has no explanation for why people like him. Call me old-fashioned, but I think I might prefer someone in the executive office who would actually take the time to study the issues at hand instead of blaming whatever circumstance hits his desk on an invisible old man in the sky.

I did watch it. You can prefer whomever you want in office. All I said was that crediting one's successes to God doesn't make one an "Asshole Fuckface." There are plenty of reasons to criticize Huckabee, I don't think that video showed much of anything other than that he's a religious man. And that in and of itself isn't harmful at all, and certainly not worthy of admonishment.

Like hell it isn't. I want someone in office who, when asked a question whose proper answer demands a logical summary of a chain of cause-and-effect scenarios, can actually deliver that summary instead of simply copping out to whatever he believes will score him the most points with his audience.

good luck with that one.

Anyway, we could go back and forth on this forever. As I already said, I think that there are plenty of reasons to criticize him, but I don't think that giving God credit for a success is all that bad. If he believes that God helped him get to where he is, more power to him. I don't think that necessarily means that the man is incapable of logical thinking.

I guess I don't really have a problem with a presidential candidate, or President, for that matter, having a close relationship with God and believing that God helps him to get to where he is. Whether or not he uses this to attempt to change policy is another story, but the belief alone that God is helping (which is what he's being criticized for in this instance) doesn't warrant such criticism.

guitargeek

Shawnee, OK

November 2003

DEC 09, 2007 04:54 PM

Yes, it does. Fervid belief in the supernatural should disqualify a candidate (notice I said "should"). Alas, the world is dominated by insane religious fuckbags.

When, oh when will our species evolve beyond the need for imaginary friends?

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost

October 2006

DEC 09, 2007 05:03 PM

Wendy said:

BlastProcessing said:

Wendy said:

BlastProcessing said:

Wendy said:
I don't really see how someone is an "Asshole Fuckface" for thanking, or even crediting, God with their successes. I never saw the rule that God has to stay out of a Presidential campaign. If his relationship with God and people's respect and admiration for that win him the nomination, well... that's too bad for you I guess.

Did you actually watch the video? He's flipping off logic and getting a hard-on over the fact that he has no explanation for why people like him. Call me old-fashioned, but I think I might prefer someone in the executive office who would actually take the time to study the issues at hand instead of blaming whatever circumstance hits his desk on an invisible old man in the sky.

I did watch it. You can prefer whomever you want in office. All I said was that crediting one's successes to God doesn't make one an "Asshole Fuckface." There are plenty of reasons to criticize Huckabee, I don't think that video showed much of anything other than that he's a religious man. And that in and of itself isn't harmful at all, and certainly not worthy of admonishment.

Like hell it isn't. I want someone in office who, when asked a question whose proper answer demands a logical summary of a chain of cause-and-effect scenarios, can actually deliver that summary instead of simply copping out to whatever he believes will score him the most points with his audience.

good luck with that one.

Anyway, we could go back and forth on this forever. As I already said, I think that there are plenty of reasons to criticize him, but I don't think that giving God credit for a success is all that bad. If he believes that God helped him get to where he is, more power to him. I don't think that necessarily means that the man is incapable of logical thinking.

I guess I don't really have a problem with a presidential candidate, or President, for that matter, having a close relationship with God and believing that God helps him to get to where he is. Whether or not he uses this to attempt to change policy is another story, but the belief alone that God is helping (which is what he's being criticized for in this instance) doesn't warrant such criticism.

The problem isn't that he's incapable of logical thought, it's that he completely refuses to do it. This type of attitude has no place in American government, at any level.

Hunkpapa

United Kingdom

June 2004

DEC 09, 2007 05:13 PM

Wendy said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

I guess I don't really have a problem with a presidential candidate, or President, for that matter, having a close relationship with God and believing that God helps him to get to where he is. Whether or not he uses this to attempt to change policy is another story, but the belief alone that God is helping (which is what he's being criticized for in this instance) doesn't warrant such criticism.

i thought that it wasn't so much that he said God was helping him, but more that there was no other reason why he was doing well in the polls.

"there's only one explanation for it"

"that's the only way that our campaign can be doing what it's doing"

if God is so firmly behind Huckabee, are the other Republican candidates going to bother with the Iowa caucus?

wereduck

I'm lost

July 2007

DEC 09, 2007 05:19 PM

guitargeek said:
When, oh when will our species evolve beyond the need for imaginary friends?

If it can be proven beyond all doubt that there isn't a divine being, maybe.

Frankly, there isn't definitive proof either way, and the structure of religion, which is faith in the absence of proof (much like how our judicial system is supposed to declare innocence in the absence of proof of guilt), is such that it is up to non-believers to prove it. By proof, I mean actual, scientific evidence that says that there is no such thing, not the standard hypothetical "If God exists, then why does he let blah blah blah happen" that is often used in arguments against the existence of God. And, to get this out of the way, the theory of evolution is not proof of God's non-existence, because evolution doesn't explain what happened in the beginning, but how we have gotten to where we are (which makes the religious far-right's denial and criticism of it all the more nutty.). It is a mechanism, not a cause.

Of course, even in the event of absolute proof, there will be some who will deny it. It is human nature, after all.

Chainlink

Key West, FL

August 2005

DEC 09, 2007 05:27 PM

we3_pirate said:

guitargeek said:
When, oh when will our species evolve beyond the need for imaginary friends?

If it can be proven beyond all doubt that there isn't a divine being, maybe.

Frankly, there isn't definitive proof either way, and the structure of religion, which is faith in the absence of proof (much like how our judicial system is supposed to declare innocence in the absence of proof of guilt), is such that it is up to non-believers to prove it. By proof, I mean actual, scientific evidence that says that there is no such thing, not the standard hypothetical "If God exists, then why does he let blah blah blah happen" that is often used in arguments against the existence of God. And, to get this out of the way, the theory of evolution is not proof of God's non-existence, because evolution doesn't explain what happened in the beginning, but how we have gotten to where we are (which makes the religious far-right's denial and criticism of it all the more nutty.). It is a mechanism, not a cause.

Of course, even in the event of absolute proof, there will be some who will deny it. It is human nature, after all.

You could have just said you can't prove a negative.

Generally the burden of proof is on the claimant anyway.
Religion doesn't seem to do a very good job of providing even evidence that a God truly exists, let alone proof.
Religion has it that belief in God is based upon faith, not evidence or proof. So it's apples and oranges right from the starting line.

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost

October 2006

DEC 09, 2007 05:45 PM

we3_pirate said:

guitargeek said:
When, oh when will our species evolve beyond the need for imaginary friends?

If it can be proven beyond all doubt that there isn't a divine being, maybe.

Frankly, there isn't definitive proof either way, and the structure of religion, which is faith in the absence of proof (much like how our judicial system is supposed to declare innocence in the absence of proof of guilt), is such that it is up to non-believers to prove it. By proof, I mean actual, scientific evidence that says that there is no such thing, not the standard hypothetical "If God exists, then why does he let blah blah blah happen" that is often used in arguments against the existence of God. And, to get this out of the way, the theory of evolution is not proof of God's non-existence, because evolution doesn't explain what happened in the beginning, but how we have gotten to where we are (which makes the religious far-right's denial and criticism of it all the more nutty.). It is a mechanism, not a cause.

Of course, even in the event of absolute proof, there will be some who will deny it. It is human nature, after all.

Um.....you know, using scientific method, it's totally impossible to disprove the existence of something, right? Why should we have to disprove anything? I can prove that matter and energy are simply different manifestations of the same phenomenon through repeatable and predictable experimentation. How could you possibly use this method to prove or disprove the theory of supernatural beings? By their very nature, they are "super" meaning above or beyond, nature, or existence as we know it. And before you trot out the tired old "How come you haven't figured out everything like how the universe was created, yet?" gobbledygook, we'd probably know a lot more of how everything works by now if not for several thousand years of religious suppression and persecution of science and it's followers.

Edited to say: chainlink said it more concisely....

wereduck

I'm lost

July 2007

DEC 09, 2007 05:58 PM

varukasalt said:

we3_pirate said:

guitargeek said:
When, oh when will our species evolve beyond the need for imaginary friends?

If it can be proven beyond all doubt that there isn't a divine being, maybe.

Frankly, there isn't definitive proof either way, and the structure of religion, which is faith in the absence of proof (much like how our judicial system is supposed to declare innocence in the absence of proof of guilt), is such that it is up to non-believers to prove it. By proof, I mean actual, scientific evidence that says that there is no such thing, not the standard hypothetical "If God exists, then why does he let blah blah blah happen" that is often used in arguments against the existence of God. And, to get this out of the way, the theory of evolution is not proof of God's non-existence, because evolution doesn't explain what happened in the beginning, but how we have gotten to where we are (which makes the religious far-right's denial and criticism of it all the more nutty.). It is a mechanism, not a cause.

Of course, even in the event of absolute proof, there will be some who will deny it. It is human nature, after all.

Um.....you know, using scientific method, it's totally impossible to disprove the existence of something, right? Why should we have to disprove anything? i can prove that matter and energy are simply different manifestations of the same phenomenon through repeatable and predictable experimentation. How could you possibly use this method to prove or disprove the theory of supernatural beings? By their very nature, they are "super" meaning above or beyond, nature, or existence as we know it. And before you trot out the tired old "How come you haven't figured out everything like how the universe was created, yet?" gobbledygook, we'd probably know a lot more of how everything works by now if not for several thousand years of religious suppression and persecution of science and it's followers.

Edited to say: chainlink said it more concisely....

You kind of made my point. Science can't prove or disprove the supernatural.

As for why you should have to disprove anything: you don't. But, if you (the editorial you, not the actual you) are going to say that it is an absolute fact that God doesn't exist, then you would need evidence, correct? And the statement I was replying to was inferring just such a thing.

I don't plan on trotting out any gobbledygook, as I firmly believe in the Big Bang Theory and evolution, I was just speaking against the mindset that it is "evolved" to not believe in God(s), and that to have faith is somehow "ignorant".

smithers_jones

I'm lost

November 2003

DEC 09, 2007 06:03 PM

Huckabee's explanation certainly speaks to some who engages in irrational and anti-empirical analysis, which is an unsettling quality in any chief executive. Such a position requires the ability to accurately analyze the success or failure of policies, which is difficult when your analysis rests on what is ultimately unknowable and cannot be proven or disproven.

wereduck

I'm lost

July 2007

DEC 09, 2007 06:05 PM

Chainlink said:

we3_pirate said:

guitargeek said:
When, oh when will our species evolve beyond the need for imaginary friends?

If it can be proven beyond all doubt that there isn't a divine being, maybe.

Frankly, there isn't definitive proof either way, and the structure of religion, which is faith in the absence of proof (much like how our judicial system is supposed to declare innocence in the absence of proof of guilt), is such that it is up to non-believers to prove it. By proof, I mean actual, scientific evidence that says that there is no such thing, not the standard hypothetical "If God exists, then why does he let blah blah blah happen" that is often used in arguments against the existence of God. And, to get this out of the way, the theory of evolution is not proof of God's non-existence, because evolution doesn't explain what happened in the beginning, but how we have gotten to where we are (which makes the religious far-right's denial and criticism of it all the more nutty.). It is a mechanism, not a cause.

Of course, even in the event of absolute proof, there will be some who will deny it. It is human nature, after all.

You could have just said you can't prove a negative.

Generally the burden of proof is on the claimant anyway.
Religion doesn't seem to do a very good job of providing even evidence that a God truly exists, let alone proof.
Religion has it that belief in God is based upon faith, not evidence or proof. So it's apples and oranges right from the starting line.

Thank you. You've summed up what I was saying better than I did. I tend to ramble.

I'll agree with the burden of proof statement. In this case, though, neither side can be certain, like with Shroedinger's cat.

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost

October 2006

DEC 09, 2007 06:09 PM

Rafi

Santa Monica, CA

January 2003

DEC 09, 2007 06:27 PM

Wendy said:

BlastProcessing said:

Wendy said:

BlastProcessing said:

Wendy said:
I don't really see how someone is an "Asshole Fuckface" for thanking, or even crediting, God with their successes. I never saw the rule that God has to stay out of a Presidential campaign. If his relationship with God and people's respect and admiration for that win him the nomination, well... that's too bad for you I guess.

Did you actually watch the video? He's flipping off logic and getting a hard-on over the fact that he has no explanation for why people like him. Call me old-fashioned, but I think I might prefer someone in the executive office who would actually take the time to study the issues at hand instead of blaming whatever circumstance hits his desk on an invisible old man in the sky.

I did watch it. You can prefer whomever you want in office. All I said was that crediting one's successes to God doesn't make one an "Asshole Fuckface." There are plenty of reasons to criticize Huckabee, I don't think that video showed much of anything other than that he's a religious man. And that in and of itself isn't harmful at all, and certainly not worthy of admonishment.

Like hell it isn't. I want someone in office who, when asked a question whose proper answer demands a logical summary of a chain of cause-and-effect scenarios, can actually deliver that summary instead of simply copping out to whatever he believes will score him the most points with his audience.

good luck with that one.

Anyway, we could go back and forth on this forever. As I already said, I think that there are plenty of reasons to criticize him, but I don't think that giving God credit for a success is all that bad. If he believes that God helped him get to where he is, more power to him. I don't think that necessarily means that the man is incapable of logical thinking.

I guess I don't really have a problem with a presidential candidate, or President, for that matter, having a close relationship with God and believing that God helps him to get to where he is. Whether or not he uses this to attempt to change policy is another story, but the belief alone that God is helping (which is what he's being criticized for in this instance) doesn't warrant such criticism.

What you don't seem to get is that every single aspect of the way Huckabee thanks God here (eschewing absolutely ANY explanatory factor whatsoever besides the supernatural, wearing his faith ostentatiously on his sleeve, and obnoxiously chiding any who might disagree with his ideas about religion) make it quite clear that "Whether or not he uses this to attempt to change policy" is most assuredly not "another story." Plenty, if not all, of the presidential contenders invoke God at some point or another, but none of them do so in anywhere near as grandiose and sanctimonious a manner as Huckabee.

wereduck

I'm lost

July 2007

DEC 09, 2007 06:31 PM

varukasalt said:

What, exaclty, is circular about me saying that there is no way to be certain either way? I'm not saying, "Because there is no definitive proof God does not exist, he must exist." That's circular reasoning. Stating an obvious fact ("no definitive proof either way") and leaving it at that is not circular reasoning.

Judging by the passive-aggressive replies, I'm guessing you think I'm some Huckabee-loving nutjob just because I came to the defense of a belief system. Am I correct?

If I am, let me alleviate your fears:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

featured interviews

Kristen Stewart

Adventureland

by Fred Topel

Lady Gaga

The Fame

by Tamara Palmer

Star Trek:Zachary Quinto & Leonard Nimoy

Exploring the new Spock

by Nicole Powers

Marilyn Manson

The High End of Low

by Nicole Powers

Kathy Griffin

My Life on the D List

by Nicole Powers

Brody Dalle

Spinnerette

by Tamara Palmer