My blood boils when assholes try to tell me what to do. Over at Tom's place, he's got another douchebag basically saying that "we're doing it wrong".
Sometimes when I write or speak, I do so for entertainment. So if I feel like saying "people who believe in ghosts are tards" or "Jenny McCarthy is a magnanimous twat who knows nothing about medicine", I'm doing it because I feel like saying it, not because I'm trying to convince anyone that I'm right.
Barack Obama is a moron for running his mouth about the AZ immigration bill before reading it.
No, I don't feel like repeating what he said. Yes, I've read the bill. The whole little tiny thing. And yes, he said some asinine, non-factual things about it.
I'm not trying to prove anything; just make a statement. Something that the "skeptics" out there sometimes forget that other people do sometimes.
No, I'm not going to write a dissertation on why they suck; they just do. Agree with me or flame me.
There is no Bigfeet. Get over it morons.
No, I don't care if I'm hindering your skeptical "movement" by being mean. What's more, I don't give a rat's ass if it helps your movement either.
This is exactly why I had such a long hiatus from blogging the last year or two. This blog is for me to say what's on my mind, not support this new "movement" created by a bunch of pussy-footing pastoral wannabe tyrants. Maybe I feel like telling the world that Glen Beck is a tool, or that Rebecca Rosen's "powers" are useless even if they are real. Which, for the record, they are not.
Sylvia Browne is a fat bitch.
I don't think I'll have much trouble getting resounding agreement to that statement.
In the end, I consider myself a skeptic for the simple reason that I do not accept any claim or belief as true without some sort of empirical proof. Am I wrong for posting my opinion? I'd like the skeptics and Tru Bleevers out there both to understand one thing:
If someone makes a claim and has no evidence to back it up, I am free to make fun of them until they do so.