In the comments, there’s been some discussion of Sarah’s Palin’s ignorant dissing of “fruit fly research,” which she apparently does not know has been a mainstay of genetic research for decades, including work on autism. PZMyers has the background and, of course, his trademark denunciation.
I’ll go a step further, further than Myers and other commentary I’ve read.
Palin’s dissing of “fruit fly” research was a deliberate dogwhistle to the creationists. Anyone who’s ever gotten into any kind of evo-creo debate has encountered the following: “So the evilutionists claim to have seen new species of fruit flies evolve? Big deal. They’re still just fruit flies.” It’s like a reference to the Dred Scott decision, vis a vis the abortion debate. Fruit flies are one of the creationists favorite “nyuk nyuk nyuk … you got nothing, ya egghead evilutionist” tag lines.
As for “Paris,” that’s just a little more Axis of Weasel icing on the creationist cake.
“Palin’s dissing of “fruit fly” research was a deliberate dogwhistle to the creationists.”Really? You have some kind of evidence of this other than pure speculation? You can’t have it both ways. If Palin is scientifically ignorant like most politicians, and doesn’t know anything about the significance of fruit-fly research — the most logical supposition — then it is highly unlikely that she picked that example to take a shot at evolution. Or are you trying to argue that someone on her staff did it for that purpose? That’s possible, but still total speculation.So basically what you are doing is building your own little conspiracy theory based on nothing more than one line in a speech, and what you’ve projected onto Palin.
Jeeze David C, why did I just know the first comment out of the gate would be yours, offering a strident “Sez who?” defense to Palin’s latest display of mind-numbing ignorance?If you Google “fruit fly” and “creationism” you’ll see plenty of links showing that this research is a thorn in the side of creationist theory. The first hit, Fruit Flies Speak Up is an absolute beaut, but there are plenty of others that make Stephen’s case.BTW, care to comment on Palin’s $150K wardrobe? I’m sure that isn’t “who she is” any more than that she had plans from the outset to donate her expensive duds to charity after the campaign.If you believe that there’s a big blue bridge between Camden and Philly I’d like to sell you.
Good catch, Stephen. I’d forgotten the stench on Conservapedia when fruit fly speciation was discussed. I’d like to ask David why he thinks she isn’t a fundamentalist godbot? We have her own words that she would like to teach the controversy about evolution, but the only people who believe there is a controversy are creationists. We have videos of her participating in witch-cleansings and Jew-baitings at her whackaloon church, which she has never denounced. Why shouldn’t we assume the worst at this point, given her obstinate refusal to meet the press and clarify her remarks. Like I said before in another thread, this was her first major policy speech. There are no throwaway comments in something like that. She says what she means and means what she says, or she is a shameless panderer and demagogue. I don’t know which frightens me more.
Yeah, imagine that, I’m not convinced by some conspiracy theory about Palin. And I’m actually asking for evidence. I know, that’s too much to expect. I should just accept it, no matter how silly it seems.”Palin’s latest display of mind-numbing ignorance?”Another ridiculous exaggeration. Yet another example of why most leftist criticism of Palin can’t be taken seriously. I’d be willing to bet that an overwhelming majority of Americans are unaware of the importance of fruit fly research. And I’d be willing to bet that includes most politicians.”If you Google “fruit fly” and “creationism” you’ll see plenty of links showing that this research is a thorn in the side of creationist theory. “No kidding. Thanks for entirely missing every point I made.I’ve been wondering why Palin wears glasses so much, instead of contacts. But I think I’ve figured it out. You see glasses draw attention to the eyes. And as we know, the human eye has been used as a prime example of “irreducible complexity” by intelligent design, i.e. creationist, proponents. Therefore it appears that Palin is wearing glasses to signal her support for creationism. I should submit that to some left-wing sites. They’d probably run with it.Does Occam’s razor go out the window regarding anything to do with Palin? Here’s a poll question for you:Should the government be spending millions on fruit fly research in Paris, yes or no? How many no’s do you think that question would get? 75%? 80%? In the absence of other evidence, and no, pure speculation doesn’t count, it would appear that the fruit fly line was used in part of a speech regarding government waste as an example that would resonate with the public.
“‘d like to ask David why he thinks she isn’t a fundamentalist godbot?”I find her religious views irrelevant, because there’s no evidence in her record that she’s ever taken actions while in government, that are outside the mainstream of Amercian politics.I could care less what crazy religious beliefs she holds. Religious people of all types hold fundamentally irrational beliefs, starting with the idea of God. Your basic argument seems to be that fundamentalist Christians should be excluded from U.S. political life. I find that to be anti-religious bigotry and nothing more. Until she does or says something that indicates that her religious beliefs should have the force of law, or that she wouldn’t govern in accordance with our laws because of religion, then I don’t have a problem with her in that regard.I’ll give you a counter example. One of the few times I voted Democratic was when I lived in Alabama and Roy Moore, (the ten commandments controversy guy), was running for chief justice of the state supreme court. It was clear by his words and actions that he thought his religious beliefs were superior to state law. That kind of religious person is dangerous and shouldn’t be in office. I haven’t seen anything like that from Palin.
david,There are plenty of ignorant people who have heard creationists make the “but they are still fruit fly” arguments. It requires no scientific knowledge to throw that one out there. I can picture Ken Ham talking to those Pentecostals about fruit flies.As for proof … my observation is not something that is proved. When Orson Wells showed a time-lapse scene of Mr. and Mrs. Kane at a breakfast table, that got larger and larger over the years, emphasizing the increase distance between the two, I would be hard-pressed to offer proof of such an observation.
No kidding. Thanks for entirely missing every point I made.Oh, pleeaze! You actually think you made “a point” by harping on the supposed “gotcha” contradiction between between her being an ignoramus about science and sounding a dog whistle to the creationists?!These are two sides of the same coin. We’re dealing with a fundamentalist nutjob who has a profound disrespect for basic scientific research because it is inconsistent with her religious beliefs.And Stephen is right. His point isn’t amenable to the kind of “proof” or “evidence” you require. Presumably, the only thing that would satisfy you would be a Palin polygraph test about her intent in “innocently” talking about fruit flies.To use one of your patented put-downs, I find it “amusing” that while the polls show the majority of Americans think Palin is not qualified to run for VP, much less be President, you still defend her.In post after post you’ve gone through every conceivable contortion defending this cynical and immediately idiotic choice of a running mate. The only thing you’ve omitted is that we should pick the little lady because she’s really, really hot, in a book-banning, naughty librarian kinda way. Tom, how could you be so noble!
In case my previous comment was overly terse …What I cannot prove, from that scene in Citizen Kane, is that Orson Wells INTENDED the ever-larger tables to symbolize the distance between the Kanes.Unless Wells mentioned it later in his memoirs, his intent can only be determined subjectively, if reliably, by a common-sense observer.
I don’t think this was a heads up to the creationist crowd, Stephen. Simply because anything having to do with evolution seems to bug the hell out of them. Anyway, Palin doesn’t need to send secret signals to them, as they seem to adore her, and can be expected to turn out on election day.If it’s wacky theories you’re after, try this: after months of searching for racist codewords coughelitecough, you’ve become accustomed to finding them everywhere cougharrogantcough.
redhand,"Oh, pleeaze! You actually think you made "a point" by harping on the supposed "gotcha""No, that was only one minor point. You again missed the most important one, that her remark was one line in a speech that was probably inserted because it sounded like a good example of government waste. You've come up with nothing to counter that other than unfounded assertions and speculation."We're dealing with a fundamentalist nutjob "I guess I wasn't clear in my response to canuckistani. I reject your characterization and find it nothing more than anti-religious bigotry. I see no evidence that she's any sort of nut. She is in fact, someone who has apparently succeeded in various endeavors, and managed to become governor of a state at a fairly young age. Her accomplishments compare favorably with the underqualified candidate you are actually supporting for president, as opposed to vp. "who has a profound disrespect for basic scientific research because it is inconsistent with her religious beliefs."Now you are just making stuff up. You don't have the slightest idea of whether or not your assertion is true, yet you repeat it as if it is some sort of fact."you still defend her"I defend her against hysterical, over-the-top attacks based on bigotry, conjecture and conspiracy theories, or which are simply exaggerations. Those would comprise the vast majority of your attacks on her."defending this cynical and immediately idiotic choice of a running mate."There was nothing idiotic about it, and there's nothing wrong with being cynical. There were excellent political reasons for the choice. That sould be obvious, even to partisans on the other side."he only thing you've omitted is that we should pick the little lady "I've never advocated electing her for any particular reason, other than as the junior member of a lesser-of-two-evils package headed by McCain. I'm just reacting to what I see as ridiculous attacks based on prejudice. Stephen,I'm not asking for proof, just evidence beyond conspiratorial type speculation. I haven't seen any. I also haven't seen any reason we should dismiss the simplest, most obvious explanation for why that line was in the speech.As for creationists, I'm sure you are aware that there are different types. The most common type is a creationist because of religious beliefs. He doesn't know much about science, and he simply believes in creationism without thinking too much about the details. It's not something he cares much about. He may indeed have heard some creationist bs, but that's not why he's a creationist. It's because his faith tells him to be one. He doesn't need evidence, he has faith.Then there is the minority that has actually looked into the issue, and really believes the evidence is on their side. These people read all sorts of creationist garbage, tend to have superficial & incorrect views of evolution, think that their creationist views are actually supported by evidence, and that pretty much every scientist in the world is wrong. This is the type of person that will tell you that the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution, or that will attack fruit fly research, dating methods, or whatever.I have no problem with the first type of creationist. If you argue evolution with them, they won't really fight back. They'll usually admit that they don't know much about science, and that their beliefs are based on the bible. The bible and faith is their argument, not pseudo-science. I see zero evidence that Palin is any sort of militant proponent of creationism. There is nothing to indicate that it is anything more than a part of her religious beliefs.
her remark was one line in a speech that was probably inserted because it sounded like a good example of government waste.”Probably inserted”? Who’s speculating now? You actually insult the political acumen of the person you’re trying to defend. I think the smart money is on the fruit flies being a dog whistle rather than an extraordinary coincidence. Of course, we’ll never know, since open press conferences are taboo for this particular candidate.As for my own “religious bigotry,” please don’t confuse calculated leftist hysteria with my own insatiable curiosity in seeing just how far you’ll go in Palin’s defense. It’s my only consolation for the sad realization that I’ll never be able to sway you from any of the positions you take here about her. I don’t know why I even bother citing to others who find her advocacy of teaching creationism in public school troubling.
“”Probably inserted”? Who’s speculating now? You actually insult the political acumen of the person you’re trying to defend.”Do you think major politicians do their own research, especially during a presidential election? You think Palin was on the computer herself digging up examples of government waste?”I’ll never be able to sway you from any of the positions you take here about her.”Not by just making assertions and coming up with conspiracy theories.Has she agitated to teach creationism in Alaska? At worst she seems to have a vague “teach the controversy” position. I’m not in favor of that in science classes, but it’s a mainstream position with majority support in the U.S. It is also often the default position for people who don’t really care about the issue. There’s no evidence that it’s an important policy issue for Palin.The article you cited has a deliberating misleading headline that is not supported by its own citations. It’s an opinion piece supported by two vague references to what Palin actually said, one of which is a line in a debate.
david,I take your point, and agree there are two tendencies (at least) within those of a creationist view. I’m sure you’d agree these are not black and white distinctions, but “tendencies.”Without reading Palin’s mind, her use of a dogwhistle familiar to the second (more extreme type) is, in itself, some evidence of her tending toward that view.Again, it wouldn’t take much for a Pentecostal or a Jehovah’s Witness to have heard a few times of “those silly evilutionists, always trying to prove something with their fruit flies.”
Stephen,Yes, I’m overgeneralizing about creationists, and would agree that I see the two groups I described as tendencies, not hard and fast differences. It’s certainly possible (and likely) that she’s heard some creationist propaganda. It’s hard to avoid, especially if you hang out with fundamentalist Christians. I just don’t see anything from Palin that would put her in the more extreme creationist category. As far as I’m aware, she has never said anything attacking evolution. Her answers when asked about it seem to indicate that it’s an issue she wants to brush off or avoid, rather than something that matters to her from a policy standpoint.
Do you think major politicians do their own research, especially during a presidential election? You think Palin was on the computer herself digging up examples of government waste?Do you think it probable (or just “not proven”) that Palin is utterly ignorant of the fruit fly angle in the creationist debate? Or is this one of those safe areas where you’re not taking a position, and simply pontificating on the “leftist hysteria” you see around you? On a related topic, I trust you also feel Palin had absolutely no choice in selecting or deciding to wear any of the items in the not-my-clothes $150K wardrobe she’s using for her Cinderella White House run. Like Ted Stevens, the items just appeared for her use, and since she wasn’t billed for them she didn’t know who to pay.
Mr. Sherman, do you still have that wonderful “Preconquista” map? I’ve been looking all over for it. I told a friend about it, but haven’t been able to find it.It used to reside at:http://acepilots.com/mt/archives/000583.html
I found the series! Sorry to bother you, thanks for creating it.
I get tired of getting dissed by anti-religious bigots as “creationist” when I’m Catholic… and brother Mendel developed genetics in the first place! The Church finds no conflict between evolution and God being the ultimate source of creation. Yet I get accused of being a creationist on just about as much evidence as I see in this thread.So, naturally, in kind, I will assume that Gov. Palin is primarily despised and scorned for being overtly Christian.Go ahead! There’s a lot of us to hate. We’re safe to hate. We’re not as likely to issue a fatwa or cut your throat or anything. We’ll probably just try to be polite, turn a cheek or issue a mild complaint. Makes us favorite targets for those with a lot of bile to spill….be forewarned any bringing up of centuries-old-wrongs will involve invoking the 100-million+ citizens expunged by stridently atheist socialist regimes a relatively short time ago….or we can skip that conversation. And you can start talking about a more substantive reason to deride Gov. Palin than the fact that she was publicly opposing earmarks in general.Or we can talk about whatever crazy, scary thing Senator Biden said today? Hard to keep up with him. I can hardly wait ’til his penchant for loose talk starts international incidents every week once he’s vice president! How exciting that will be!The blindly dogmatic are often gored by their own sacred cows.
As a non-practicing Catholic, I find it strange that you would omit any reference, even in passing, to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and the Church’s rejection of his attempt to reconcile evolution and faith.One of the reasons to celebrate the Catholic tradition is that at least the effort was made….or we can skip that conversation. And you can start talking about a more substantive reason to deride Gov. Palin than the fact that she was publicly opposing earmarks in general.Are you trying to be ironic? What Governor of Alaska wouldn’t be against “earmarks in general” when she can use rejected bridge-to-nowhere funds to build the approach roads to it, and then still claim she’s against “government waste?”
"Do you think it probable (or just "not proven") that Palin is utterly ignorant of the fruit fly angle in the creationist debate?"I think it's possible, not necessarily probable. Again, I've seen nothing to indicate that she's at all interested in creationism vs. evolution. If I had to guess I would bet that she is pretty ignorant about the entire subject, and has nothing more than the most superficial knowledge of it. The clothes thing is a non-issue and there is no corruption involved, so your attempt to compare it to Ted Stevens is pretty lame. If the RNC wants to spend excessive amounts on wardrobes for candidates, that's their option. It seems like a huge amount to me, but I'm not sure what 150,000 buys you in women's clothing & accessories. I don't know anything about fashion."I will assume that Gov. Palin is primarily despised and scorned for being overtly Christian."That's a pretty safe assumption if you are talking about the left. Although the very fact that she's female & a Republican is enough to inspire their hatred. All women are supposed to be leftists, otherwise they are seen as traitors to their gender. Ask feminists."Or we can talk about whatever crazy, scary thing Senator Biden said today?"Come on now. Biden's idiotic remarks don't matter at all. Even though he's acted like a moron on the campaign trail, trying to scare voters about his own running mate, he's just fine as a vp choice. But Palin is unqualified and dangerous. Palin being a fundamentalist Christian, well that's intolerable. Obama attending a radical church for twenty years, no problem. Bringing up all of his radical associations, that's a distraction, guilt by association, and of course racist. Digging through every aspect of Palin's past, coming up with conspiracy theories about her, believing anything every random political opponent ever said about her — that's good journalism and appropriate vetting.
Con- As long as you aren’t trying to shove your religion down the throats of kids through the state school system, or force people of other religions to live by laws drafted to conform to your particular doctrine, I have no problem with whatever nonsense you want to believe or teach your own children. I will even admit to a grudging respect for the Catholic Church for maintaining the Vatican Observatory, a reputable scientific institution. Many of us lefty atheist types are well educated about religion, and can tell the difference between goofy and harmless Unitarians and scary Dominionists and all the shades in between. You’ll have to excuse me if I’m appalled by the sight of Sarah Palin hobnobbing with witchfinders and Jew-baiters, tossing around pro-creationism red-meat, trying to censor adult libraries and chickening out at calling abortion-clinic bombers “terrorists”. Some of us have dealt with Fundamentalist loons before, and we can see the signs, even if we don’t get to see her secret membership card.I think it’s very unlikely that Palin understand the details of the fruit fly smear – the creationists I know just have a list of irrefutable talking points that they will repeat ad-nauseum, and won’t listen to any arguments because they never understood any of the arguments on either side anyway.
We have videos of her participating in witch-cleansingsYou know, most people I know say this with just mockery.I think its worse than just an “ignorant” belief in superstition. Belief in things like “witches” and/or “Satan” as an active power on this earth, are anti-ethical teachings in that they discourage introspection encourage people to blame problems on outside agencies.The “Witch” that Muthee expelled from that Kenyan town had been blamed for car accidents. How much you want to bet that the people were simply driving too fast on poorly-lit and poor quality dirt roads? Did Muthee – who is supposed to be a pastor – tell his flock to drive slowly and more carefully? Did he admonish them to change their own behaviors? No – he blamed the problems on a woman and drove her out of town.The “Spiritual Warrior” movement is the same thing. They see social problems as caused by malicious satanic agents who need to be confronted by prayer from the faithful. Real Religion teaches people to to take responsibility for their own actions and reform themselves, not blame their problems on witches.
It seems like a huge amount to me, but I'm not sure what 150,000 buys you in women's clothing & accessories. I don't know anything about fashion.It’s great when you can plead ignorance to avoid confronting embarrassing facts.
“As long as you aren’t trying to shove your religion down the throats of kids through the state school system, or force people of other religions to live by laws drafted to conform to your particular doctrine, I have no problem with whatever nonsense you want to believe or teach your own children.”I agree with that too. And you should have no problem with Palin in that regard, since she hasn’t done any of those things.”the sight of Sarah Palin hobnobbing with witchfinders and Jew-baiters, tossing around pro-creationism red-meat, trying to censor adult libraries and chickening out at calling abortion-clinic bombers “terrorists”.”This from the same person who dismisses any similar attacks on Obama as guilt by association. How about a little consistency?”Some of us have dealt with Fundamentalist loons before, and we can see the signs, even if we don’t get to see her secret membership card.”That would be called making assumptions based on anti-religious bigotry.”I think it’s very unlikely that Palin understand the details of the fruit fly smear”Well, we agree on that much.”and won’t listen to any arguments because they never understood any of the arguments on either side anyway.”And that too. I’ve stopped arguing with creationists. I just refer them to talkorigins.org, and tell them to get back to me after they’ve read everything on that site.
“It’s great when you can plead ignorance to avoid confronting embarrassing facts.”I don’t see anything embarrassing about it. It’s a complete non-issue to me. I don’t care what the RNC spends money on for campaign expenses. I’d probably have different priorities, but they didn’t ask my opinion. I’m sure all campaigns waste a lot of money on things that I’d find excessive or unnecessary. That’s one of the many reasons that I would never donate money to a politician or political organization.”Real Religion teaches people to to take responsibility for their own actions and reform themselves, not blame their problems on witches.”That’s ethics not religion. Religion all too often attributes things to supernatural causes. If you have to believe in an almighty supernatural being, it isn’t much of a stretch to believe in other supernatural things.
Redhand,Chardin was trying to secularize the Church, according to his letters. I have a lot of his own quotes on this. He didn’t believe in God other than as a mental concept. He used Piltdown man to demolish Catholic belief because he thought that evolution was incompatible with it. He was a predecessor to Christian-flavored atheists such as Bishop Spong.The Church issued no binding declaration on evolution.You might view these articles for a fuller discussion:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Churchand the Church has many high placed and vocal critics of intelligent design:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_CoyneMy point was that Palin’s condemnation was in the context of condemning earmarks not that she’s anti-science….and you can’t expect a Governor to return road money to the Feds. I’m not sure I’d even want someone that idealistic in office.Umm… a lot of those $150K of clothes were returned because they didn’t fit. A staffer, Nichole Wallace, unwisely bought them.Mr. Sherman, thanks for your response. Aren’t you a teensy bit worried about the coming redistributionist policies under a President Obama, especially in light of his frank 2001 conversations? This “Politburo Diktat” blog title seems weirdly prescient.bhcanuckistani, thanks.Mr. Olsen, I’ve seen that video too. From what I can tell Sarah Palin was being polite to a visiting preacher, just as Presidents rarely make an issue of weird blessings given them during foreign visits. It’s simply politeness.
Mr. Olsen: One other thing, isn’t that the church that Gov. Palin left in 2002?As opposed to the hate-spewing, racially-supremacist church that Senator Obama stayed a member of until this year?
…and you can’t expect a Governor to return road money to the Feds. I’m not sure I’d even want someone that idealistic in office.We are talking about the same person who boasted, “I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere,” right?My expectations for idealism in politicians aren’t high, but a little less hypocrisy would help. Whether we’re talking about bridges to nowhere, or merely the approach roads to them, the record is clear that she was for it before she was against it .Umm… a lot of those $150K of clothes were returned because they didn’t fit. A staffer, Nichole Wallace, unwisely bought them.Umm, might it have been “unwise” to wear what they bought at all, unless you were going to declare it as income in advance, rather than disclaim ownership after you’d been found out?The excuses you “righties” have offered on the clothes debacle are wonderful in their befuddlement, whether it’s DavidC’s precious ignorance about the cost of “womens’ fashions” or your “the shoe didn’t fit” defense.What I think happened was that she nearly got away with over $100K in tax-free clothes, as in “income means all income from whatever source derived.”
That’s ethics not religion. Religion all too often attributes things to supernatural causes. If you have to believe in an almighty supernatural being, it isn’t much of a stretch to believe in other supernatural things.But religion rarely blames problems on witches, except when politically convenient. Some religions, for example Judaism, officially proclaim that there’s no supernatural force in the world except God. I believe mainline Islam and Christianity believe the same – before the Spanish Inquisition, the Catholic Church not only denied the existence of witches, but also excommunicated anyone who said otherwise.The exceptions, at least within Judaism and Christianity, are always motivated by politics or money. Israel is full of charismatic rabbis who sell oil they claim to have blessed. And both Catholics and Protestants used witchhunts as a way of enforcing ideological purity in the post-Reformation era.
“My expectations for idealism in politicians aren’t high, but a little less hypocrisy would help”Yeah, this from someone who’s supporting a candidate who blatantly lied about using public financing, and quickly discarded that position when it became apparent he could raise a lot more money without it.”the clothes debacle”What debacle?”What I think happened was that she nearly got away with over $100K in tax-free clothes”I’m am completely shocked to find that you want to put the worst possible spin on something involving Palin.
What debacleWell, that hysterical leftist Fred Barnes rhetorically commented today that “it’s been an embarrassment to the campaign and to Sarah Palin” without, of course, blaming her for it. Has it ever occurred to you that your desire to score points is blinding you to what’s happening? As far as the income point is concerned, the road to perdition for politicians is failing to see that their perks aren’t freebies, and that they can be called to account for them. Cf. Ted Stevens.However, I do give Sarah credit for being a fast learner, even if she was a little slow off the mark throwing Ted under the bus.
The whole clothes thing is trivial. Fred Barnes is free to disagree.
Redhand, do you think Sen. Biden actually KNOWS how many letters are in the word “jobs”? Or that FDR could not have gotten on TV in 1929? Or (from the debate) that article 2 of the constitution discusses the executive branch, not section 1? (That from a supposed constitutional scholar).I heard Sen. Biden today lowered the confiscatory tax limits down to $150K. At that rate they’ll be set to rob us all before inauguration.To quote the great senator from Delaware, “GIRD YOUR LOINS!”Was it a series of strokes that reduced him to this, or has he always been this way?Say, what’s the name of that denomination that Sen. Obama belonged to, is it the First Church of Hating Caucasians?In what way is Senator Obama not a complete sockpuppet of Chicago machine politics? When did he ever oppose their corruption? Are you a cheerleader of Chicago corruption Redhand? I lived under it once, never again…but you want to get after the McCain campaign for spending on a wardrobe less than Barbara Streisand blows on a dress? How much did the Obama campaign spend on those expensive designer suits? Oh, they didn’t report that? “It’s great when you can plead ignorance to avoid confronting embarrassing facts.”Or you can focus on inconsequential facts to shut out ones that will turn this country into a macrocosm of Chicago… where the dead always get the last vote.
Palin is ignorant about genetics?And Biden showed an equal level of ignorance of American history, when he glibbly told us about President FDR making a television appearance to calm the public during the 1929 Stock Crash. ;-)Can we also term thatBiden’s display of mind-numbing ignorance?
Can we also term thatBiden’s display of mind-numbing ignorance?Sure we can, if we think the situations are equivalent. Does Biden belong to a sect that deliberately and consciously devalues the value of history education, and tries to substitute it’s own bogus version of history into the school system? Does Biden’s running mate sneer at the use of earmark money for the creation of museums and other educational venues? Does Biden belong to a party that sneers at eggheads, intellectuals and pointy-headed elitists, preferring the “wisdom” of uneducated Real Americans? Look, when politicians are speaking off the cuff, sensible people overlook gaffes (except for pointing and laughing). They only become a problem when the gaffes are repeated even after correction, or when the gaffes are actually deliberate talking points *written into a speech* designed to throw red meat to the base. If I thought Joe Biden was deliberately trying to appeal to ignorant voters who were certain that FDR appeared on TV, in spite of what those egghead professors say, then yes, it would be a similar situation. Instead, I think it was just a flub, like when McCain couldn’t remember the 5th SofS to endorse him.
bhcanuckistani,”Does Biden belong to a sect that deliberately and consciously devalues the value of history education, and tries to substitute it’s own bogus version of history into the school system?”Yes he certainly does! Ever hear of historical revisionism? And the alternative history garbage that passes for trendy public school history? Many textbooks won’t mention that Martin Luther King was a reverend… but that was central to his movement.It’s like the Soviet Union, where by and large churches didn’t appear on their maps.B, education is supposed to primarily be a state or local matter, that’s why some people oppose earmarking inter-state highway funds for vital educational venues like the Woodstock Museum, Hillary’s pet project.It’s our money B! The government isn’t supposed to burn it on trivialities like the Woodstock museum!”When politicians are speaking off the cuff, sensible people overlook gaffes”Liberals are insensible then. They tout a few gaffes that Gov. Sarah Palin makes and hide the daily jaw-droppers from Sen. Biden.Are they just gaffes when they happen with amazing regularity? Isn’t it indicative of a deeper problem?Was it really a gaffe when he said that a President Obama would be tested and disappoint us?”GIRD YOUR LOINS!”
B, I forgot to mention,”Does Biden belong to a party that sneers at eggheads, intellectuals and pointy-headed elitists, preferring the “wisdom” of uneducated Real Americans?”No, he belongs to a party that sneers at anyone who “clings” to their God. Sneer away! You don’t want our votes, great. Truly the Democrats loathe the common man nowadays.Biden himself is a super-genius. Just ask him, he’ll tell you! I refer you to his blowup during his 1988 press conference when he touted fake academic credentials.
Was it a series of strokes that reduced him to this, or has he always been this way?No fair stealing my lines. A few posts ago I suggested that perhaps mini-strokes were the source of McSame-as-it-ever-was’s many frightening senior moments on the screen, and chronic inability to get basic facts correct. Say, what’s the name of that denomination that Sen. Obama belonged to, is it the First Church of Hating Caucasians?Ah, how delightful: the spectre of the closet “angry black man” comes back to haunt the dreams of good white conservatives.Actually, I thought Obama did a pretty deft job throwing The Rev. Wright under the bus. The SOB deserved it.In what way is Senator Obama not a complete sockpuppet of Chicago machine politics? When did he ever oppose their corruption? Are you a cheerleader of Chicago corruption Redhand? I lived under it once, never again.You do realize, I trust, that this is just a “whose ox is gored” argument.For me, as a white Irish-American, the fact that we might have a bit of 21st Century Tammany Hall in Blackface is no problemo if Obama wins.Not because I’m in favor or corruption, mind you, but simply as a matter of fairness, given that some level of corruption will always be with us. The way I look at it, the crony capitalism, influence peddling and profit of the Republicans and the Bush Administration in the last eight years has been so obscene that it’s time to give somebody else a turn at the public teat.I have no doubt that every Democratic dollar will not be wisely spent, but I’d rather have the Dems in charge after seeing what Gingrich’s “Contract with America” morphed into under Bush.{Sarcasm button released]
The clothes thing is trivial?Then it is 375 times LESS trivial, than Edwards $400 haircut, which was mentioned (I believe) 27,453 times by Fox News, right wing bloggers, Rush Limbaugh, etc.Without doing the math, I think there’s an awful lot of room left for the Palin-mockers to use this.
The Edwards haircut was trivial too. There’s all kinds of stuff that happens during campaigns that’s trivial that the other side tries to play up if they think it can be used.”Without doing the math, I think there’s an awful lot of room left for the Palin-mockers to use this.”I guess bashing her for something minor that actually happened is better than just spreading lies about her.
I guess bashing her for something minor that actually happened is better than just spreading lies about her.David, your “not proven” and every-conceivable-benefit-of-the-doubt standards defending Caribou Barbi have always struck me as totally over the top. It’s like you’re trying to channel Bill Kristol. There are times when I think you blur the line between “lies” regarding the lady and richly deserved mockery.That said, one doesn’t have to spread “lies” about her to appreciate what a fabulous target she is for mockery.I give her no pass at all for extreme right wing politics, demagoguery, all-too-apparent ignorance in things she should know for the VP job, and know-nothing persona in general. From my standpoint, she’s one of the most unsavory and outlandish political creatures to stride on the national stage ever. She reminds me of the winking female robot in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis.As the McCain campaign falls apart, I take real schadenfreude in the in-fighting: Palin A “Whack Job,” Top McCain Adviser Says.
The clothing thing is trivial, in the sense that it isn’t public money being pissed away. It’s not trivial in the sense that the way these clowns run their campaign is a good indicator of how they will run their administration – lots of corruption, drama, sniping and backbiting. Between this and the flying-the-kids-on-the-public-tab thing, it makes me think that along with all her other flaws, Palin has issues telling what money is hers to spend and what money isn’t. But what the hell, Evita Peron was good for Argentina, right?
Palin A “Whack Job,” Top McCain Adviser Says. Holy crap, I’ve been spreading Republican talking points? I feel like I’ve been played.
“Then it is 375 times LESS trivial, than Edwards $400 haircut…”And since the Obama campaign spent something like 5.4 million dollars just on the faux Greek temple he built to himself, that issue is 540 times more serious than Palin’s clothes.”The clothing thing is trivial, in the sense that it isn’t public money being pissed away. It’s not trivial in the sense that the way these clowns run their campaign is a good indicator of how they will run their administration -“The Barackopolis and the fawning cult of personality around the One tells me that we can look forward to his smiling face looking down on us from a multitude of statues and posters like in the old Soviet days. His ego cannot be satisfied with anything but worship.”But what the hell, Evita Peron was good for Argentina, right?”And Stalin was great for the Soviet Union, right? Say, Obama’s term paper at Columbia… the one he doesn’t date release (though they released Michelle’s)… isn’t that supposedly a big wet kiss for Stalin?In his infomercial yesterday, didn’t he propose spending as much on an internal federal police force as we spend on our military?And what about that Orwellian Department of Peace his campaign has proposed?I wonder what our Constitution will look like after he gets rid of all those limiting rights that he expressed such unhappiness about in 2001? Packing the court will help him to realize his dream.This Politburo Diktat thing soon won’t be a bit of post-modern humor… it’ll be a fitting place to observe our new, all-encompassing socialist, much-less-free system.”Tammany Hall in Blackface is no problemo if Obama wins.”We never elected a U.S. President from Tammany Hall. People knew better. Corruption can ruin a country; Mexico should be a first world country and it is barely second.
redhand,"David, your "not proven" and every-conceivable-benefit-of-the-doubt standards defending Caribou Barbi have always struck me as totally over the top."Far from over the top, it's more like basic skepticism of minimally sourced or outright made up claims — particularly when advanced by people who are obviously extremely biased against her. There's certainly no double standard involved. I haven't been advancing any conspiracy theories about Obama."From my standpoint, she's one of the most unsavory and outlandish political creatures to stride on the national stage ever"Thanks for giving me a prime example of why I can't take your arguments against Palin too seriously. If you actually hold such an extreme view of her — based in my opinion, on virtually nothing — then I have to suspect that most of your attacks on her come from bias & prejudice, rather than evidence.I can understand you not liking her political positions, disliking her attacks on Obama, or even disliking her personality. But to automatically assume bad motives for everything she does, and try to paint her as some paragon of evil is just not rational to me. I've given you a hard time for BDS, and although I disagree with your extreme views of the Bush administration, I can at least understand where you are coming from. Bush has been president for eight years, and has done many things that have provoked outrage, across the political spectrum, depending on the issue. I get that you really believe Bush has damaged the country. Palin is a new face on the national scene. She has done nothing nationally. Her record is not that of some sort of wild-eyed extremist. I see no justification for the rage & hatred toward her on the left, other than assumptions based on anti-religious bigotry toward Christian fundamentalists, and sexism based on the fact that she's some sort of gender traitor by being a conservative Republican.
ummm, since blogs can be read by anyone, let me be the FIRST to point out that I, for one, welcome our new socialist overlords and will gladly point out to the Department of Love those miscreants who express insufficient enthusiasm for the One, may he live forever.
The Barackopolis and the fawning cult of personality around the One tells me that we can look forward to his smiling face looking down on us from a multitude of statues and posters like in the old Soviet days. His ego cannot be satisfied with anything but worship.Con, I like you. I really do. (back away slowly, don’t look away from his eyes) but, uh, you might want to get a paper bag and take a few deep breaths into it. You’re staring down the barrel of a Clinton, or at worst, a Carter-style administration. No Reeducation camps, no Stalin-style cult of personality, no Communism. Lefties just don’t worship the guy like that. I was over at Atlas Shrugs earlier today, and I’m starting to get scared at how unhinged people are getting here. Obama is the son of Malcolm X? Is she crazy, or is this some kind of joke?Ok, I’m thinking further here. What exactly do you mean when you say that Obama’s ego demands worship? What is he guilty of that convinces you he has an ego problem? Running for President? Campaigning in a state with an “O” on its flag? Appearing on a stage with columns? Attracting bigger crowds than Palin? Whenever I’ve heard him speak, I’m always struck by his humility. So where’s the ego? Could it be the arrogance – the uppityness – of running for President and being (whisper) black (/whisper)? Because I’m damned if I can see anything else that speaks of an ego problem.
Golly bhcanuckistani, I like you too :).I was actually being somewhat humorous, but the people who worship the One (as Oprah calls him) are darn serious.”Many even see in Obama a messiah-like figure, a great soul, and some affectionately call him Mahatma Obama.”– Dinesh Sharma”We just like to say his name. We are considering taking it as a mantra.”– Chicago Sun-Times”A Lightworker — An Attuned Being with Powerful Luminosity and High-Vibration Integrity who will actually help usher in a New Way of Being”– Mark Morford”What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history”– Jesse Jackson, Jr.”This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”– Barack Obama”Does it not feel as if some special hand is guiding Obama on his journey, I mean, as he has said, the utter improbability of it all?”– Daily Kos”He communicates God-like energy…”– Steve Davis (Charleston, SC)”Not just an ordinary human being but indeed an Advanced Soul”– Commentator @ Chicago Sun Times”I’ll do whatever he says to do. I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear.”– Halle Berry”A quantum leap in American consciousness”– Deepak Chopra”He is not operating on the same plane as ordinary politicians. . . . the agent of transformation in an age of revolution, as a figure uniquely qualified to open the door to the 21st century.”– Gary Hart”Barack Obama is our collective representation of our purest hopes, our highest visions and our deepest knowings . . . He’s our product out of the all-knowing quantum field of intelligence.”– Eve Konstantine”This is bigger than Kennedy. . . . This is the New Testament.” | “I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often. No, seriously. It’s a dramatic event.” — Chris Matthews”[Obama is ] creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom . . . [He is] the man for this time.”– Toni Morrison”Obama’s finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don’t even really inspire. They elevate. . . . He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh . . . Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves.”– Ezra Klein”Obama has the capacity to summon heroic forces from the spiritual depths of ordinary citizens and to unleash therefrom a symphonic chorus of unique creative acts whose common purpose is to tame the soul and alleviate the great challenges facing mankind.”– Gerald Campbell”We’re here to evolve to a higher plane . . . he is an evolved leader . . . [he] has an ear for eloquence and a Tongue dipped in the Unvarnished Truth.”– Oprah Winfrey“I would characterize the Senate race as being a race where Obama was, let’s say, blessed and highly favored. That’s not routine. There’s something else going on. I think that Obama, his election to the Senate, was divinely ordered. . . . I know that that was God’s plan.”– Bill Rush Source: http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/This guy’s promised to lower the oceans! Somebody should tell him the seas have been lowering for the last several years… global warming just isn’t working out.We’ll wish this guy’s presidency were like Carter’s.
It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile. -John Hindraker at Powerline.comI am willing to concede that the political hyperbole gets a bit thick everywhere, and Obama, like any politician, has his True Believers. But that most of the Obama supporters I know are looking for calm, centrist competence rather than the Revolution. He is going to have to work with Congress and the Senate, after all, and there are not many neo-Marxist revolutionaries even in the Democratic Party. But I will also stipulate that Obama would be a tremendously inspirational figure to black Americans*, especially when one considers that they were being beaten and killed for trying to register to vote within my lifetime – and I’m not that old.*Or to any supporters of the civil rights movement, including myself, who made racial harmony posters in grade school.
Redhand,”No fair stealing my lines. A few posts ago I suggested that perhaps mini-strokes were the source of McSame-as-it-ever-was’s many frightening senior moments on the screen, and chronic inability to get basic facts correct.”That’s the best defence you have for Biden? I guess McCain did a much better job of selecting a vice-president. The proof of that is that Biden has been withdrawn from the trail, and Palin is still blazing trails.I don’t know what you’re talking about regarding McCain, he seems plenty sharp to me. I do know that Obama is a gaffe machine when he’s off script:Barack Obama: Gaffe machineVideo: Barack Obama’s greatest hits!He makes Dan Quayle seem eloquent. What is up with Obama’s flubs? Can’t blame it on age… hmm…
bhcanuckistani,”there are not many neo-Marxist revolutionaries even in the Democratic Party.”You’ve never lived in Bezerkely have you? Or visited the Revolutionary Communist Bookstore there. I used to hang out at the Starry Plough, an Irish Marxist pub. Marxists are still much in evidence there.”But I will also stipulate that Obama would be a tremendously inspirational figure to black Americans*, especially when one considers that they were being beaten and killed for trying to register to vote within my lifetime – and I’m not that old.”Admitted… but voting for him just because of the color of his skin instead of the content of his character is diametrically opposed to Rev. King’s vision.Where he white, he wouldn’t even be considered. He has two years less elected experience than Gov. Palin. Illinois state legislators are part-time to boot.His positions shift day by day, and he has poor tastes in friends. How many people has he thrown under the bus altogether?
My comments about black voters was more to excuse the rhetorical excesses of some of his followers.. this really is a life-changing event for many of them. And it’s not like blacks are leaving the R party en masse to support their brother based on race alone. And if a major racial watershed is inspiring many of them to exercise their previously unused voting right, I have no issue with that.As for Marxists in Berkeley, yeah, sure, they are there.. I’ve met them. But to mischaracterize the entire Democratic Party on the strength of some ultra-left nuts and flakes verges on the dishonest. It would be just as fair to show up at a Klan Rally and judge all Republicans by that standard.
I don’t know what you’re talking about regarding McCain, he seems plenty sharp to me.Like when he has repeatedly referred to “Czechoslovakia” (a country that no longer exists) numerous times in the past year; mentioned the “Iraq-Pakistan border” recently; warned that Al-Q was being supported by Iran [false, the two are actually ideological and religious enemies]; and recently addressed a group of Americans at a campaign rally as “my fellow prisoners”?Borderline dementia if you ask me, and scary as hell, especially given his VP choice.
Palin is a new face on the national scene. She has done nothing nationally.My point exactly on the competence and knowledge issues. She’s not qualified for the job.to automatically assume bad motives for everything she does, and try to paint her as some paragon of evil is just not rational to me.I do see her as a grasping, ethically challenged say-absolutely-anything pol.(1) There’s an established finding from the bi-partisan state legislative “Troopergate” investigation that she violated state ethics laws in a personal vendetta against a state employee. This is not “pretty trivial” in my book; it shows a serious defect in character and judgment for a public official.(2) bhcanuckistani probably puts the clothing malfunction in the best context: Between this and the flying-the-kids-on-the-public-tab thing, it makes me think that along with all her other flaws, Palin has issues telling what money is hers to spend and what money isn’t.I find this “troubling” too.(3) Last but not least, her corn-pone Marge Gundersen impersonation sucks.You’ll notice that in neither this list nor my prior one did I mention “religion.” I have nothing against people of faith, except when they inject God into public politics, and try to acquire power with “HIS” help. That, I think, is despicable. I also don’t want their religious beliefs directly impacting public policy decisions. We’ve seen wretched excess in that area from Bush, and I don’t want to risk any more of it. I think there is a real risk of it if Palin gets into national office.Sorry if you think this brands me an “anti-religious bigot.” I think of it more as a “Church and State” thing, as in they’re supposed to be separate under our Constitution.FWIW, I’ve authored a WWII military history with a significant religious subtheme, and edited the self-published, religious-inspirational memoir of one of my best friends, an 85-yr. old Baptist preacher’s widow in Dodge City, KS, smack dap in the center of the “Bible Belt.”
Redhand, here’s a great image:Art by Ilya GalzunovI came across this the other day. It’s the destruction of a cathedral by the foot soldiers of Lenin. I thought to myself, “Who do I know that would really get this?”… and here you are. I’m not implying anything, in all honesty. I’m not being snarky. Click on the image to get larger versions. The detail is amazing.
“My point exactly on the competence and knowledge issues. She’s not qualified for the job.”Different issue. I have no problems with arguments against her qualifications, although I think they are extremely weak coming from people supporting Obama for president.”This is not “pretty trivial” in my book; it shows a serious defect in character and judgment for a public official.”I think you are reading way too much into this little incident based on your preconceived notions about her. You despised Palin and thought she was guilty before the report even came out, and basically from the minute she was nominated, before you knew hardly anything about her.”I have nothing against people of faith, except when they inject God into public politics, and try to acquire power with “HIS” help. That, I think, is despicable.”I agree, but I haven’t seen Palin doing that.”I also don’t want their religious beliefs directly impacting public policy decisions.”I agree also.”We’ve seen wretched excess in that area from Bush”I think that’s complete nonsense, based on misinterpretations of a few references to God made by Bush.”Sorry if you think this brands me an “anti-religious bigot.””Judging Palin based on assumptions that her religious beliefs will control her governing, rather than on her record, is anti-religious bigotry. And when I use anti-religious bigotry in reference to attacks on Palin, I’m not accusing you of hating all religious people, but of negatively stereotyping her because of her brand of religious beliefs.
You despised Palin and thought she was guilty before the report even came out, and basically from the minute she was nominated, before you knew hardly anything about her.Scorn is a better word than despise. But the point is that nothing I have learned about this person from the moment her selection was announced gives me the slightest confidence that she is qualified to run for VP.A majority of the American voting public agrees with me, and it is reportedly contributing to McCain’s decline in the polls. (Can’t find the link right now.)I unashamedly think that her character assassination attacks on Obama are despicable, viz. the “paling around with terrorists” stuff, etc. If such tactics are your cup of tea (or Kool Aide) don’t let me stop you from imbibing. Then again, the entire McCain Campaign has been despicable in this area, and one doesn’t have to think Obama a saint to see it.On the “God” point, I do react viscerally when candidates publicly tout His support in electoral politics. Such sentiments make as much sense to me as the old German Army’s “Gott mit Uns” belt buckles. In fact, I linked to some of her statements right on this blog. Sorry you’ve “haven’t seen” it.With respect to the Bush Administration’s politicization of science, if you’ve only seen “a few references to God,” and think it’s “complete nonsense” because of that, I can only say that’s because you’re unwilling to look at the record. Creationism vs. evolution as “science” is only the tip of the [melting] iceberg.If you think Palin wouldn’t adopt the same “approach” to science in a new Republican Administration, well, God Bless Ya.
I thought to myself, “Who do I know that would really get this?”… and here you are. I’m not implying anything, in all honesty. I’m not being snarky.Well, I hope not. Before reading the narrative describing the painting I thought that it depicted the destruction of Kazan Cathedral in Moscow by order of Stalin in 1936.I have, incidentally, seen the insides of a few Orthodox Russian Churches up here in North Jersey where I live since my wife is originally from Russia.Perhaps my sentimental favorite in churches is Santa Sabina in Rome, but I really like the early Christian Churches in Ravenna, too.Alas, I digress.
"I unashamedly think that her character assassination attacks on Obama are despicable"I don't. I think it's just politics, a basic technique of stretching the truth about an opponent to paint him in the worst way possible. I find nothing despicable about it."Then again, the entire McCain Campaign has been despicable in this area, and one doesn't have to think Obama a saint to see it.:The McCain campaign's attacks on Obama have been mild & restrained, and really only took off late in the game, when it was clear that he was falling further behind and had to do something. People whining about the negative campaigning seem to have no clue about what an actual negative campaign against Obama would have looked like. I find all the spurious charges of racism by Obama supporters far more despicable than anything done by the McCain campaign."I linked to some of her statements right on this blog"None of which indicate anything other than that she sometimes refers to God, God's will, God's plan, etc., as do many religious people."With respect to the Bush Administration's politicization of science"Politicization is a different issue, and one that doesn't require a religious agenda. Most of the stuff in that article you link, aside from being highly debatable, does not involve religous beliefs. In fact that article even gave an example of the administration siding with science vs. ID."If you think Palin wouldn't adopt the same "approach" to science in a new Republican Administration, well, God Bless Ya."We have no basis on which to judge what Palin's approach to science would be. And as far as I know, the vp has nothing to do with science. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are making assumptions based on nothing other than prejudice against her.
DavidC:No point in continuing the discussion. I think you're just as off the wall about Palin as you think I am. That's as good a place as any to end this discussion, at least prior to the election next Tuesday. I'm looking forward to voting for Obama & Biden.
Church-wrecking? Not only am I a militant atheist, but my ancestors were militant Presbyterians who were quick to take a hammer to an organ, a rock to a stained glass window, an axe to an idolatrous crucifix or a torch to a wasteful, distracting, ostentatious, pagan, Popish vestment. There’s more to iconoclasm than Stalin. Just so you know.And now back to Sarah “The First Amendment says you can’t criticize me” Palin.
And now back to Sarah “The First Amendment says you can’t criticize me” Palin.I’m sure that some of the other commenters here will come up with a perfectly logical explanation why her saying this whacked-out sh*t during the campaign provides no evidence whatsoever for her approach to 1st Amendment issues as VP, not to mention that she’ll have no constitutional duties with respect to the 1st Amendment (oath of office aside).Your criticism of her is on a purely trivial point, and shows deep seated religious bigotry to boot!
redhand,Ok, we can agree to disagree. And I’m not going to defend her first amendment comment, since obviously she is completely misinterpreting it. I’ve only defended her against criticism I see as baseless or exaggerated.
bhcanuckistani,”Church-wrecking? Not only am I a militant atheist…”I’m sure you are, b, but I happen to be a proud citizen of the United States, and as such I’m a big believer in God-given human rights. Neo-marxists are on the same amoral (nee evil) socialist plane as neo-nazis. And they’ve often met the same bad end at the hands of the people they wronged.Got a joke for you that a friend of mine who escaped from Romania told me:Ceausescu was being driven through the streets of Bucharest, and noticed a lot of people standing in line. He told his driver, “See what this is about”. The driver pulled over, got out, asked, came back, and said, “They’re standing in line for meat”. Ceausescu said, “Oh, drive on”.They went a few more blocks and came across a line twice as long as the first. Ceausescu said, “All these lines! See what this is about.” The driver pulled over, got out, asked, came back, and said, “They’re standing in line for bread”. Ceausescu said, “Oh, drive on”.They went a few more blocks and came across a line four times as long as the other lines put together. Ceausescu said, “I cannot believe all these lines! See what this is about.” The driver pulled over, got out, asked, came back, and said, “They’re standing in line for toilet paper”.Ceausescu said, “What? WHAT! Do we have none of these things?!?”. The driver replied calmly, “Oh no sir, we have all of these things”.,,”THEY don’t”….and that is why Ceausescu was first up against the wall when the revolution came.To quote the Beatles, “But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow…”So good luck with that Stalinist-sympathizing militant atheism iconoclasm, B. I’m glad you’re in Canada, because if you came down here to destroy any churches, you would be choosing poorly.
b,”And now back to Sarah “The First Amendment says you can’t criticize me” Palin.”How about that “you can’t criticise me because of the color of my skin” Obama? As Dennis Miller says, it’s not the color of your skin, my friend, it’s the thinnness.
So good luck with that Stalinist-sympathizing militant atheism iconoclasm, B. I’m glad you’re in Canada, because if you came down here to destroy any churches, you would be choosing poorly.Where did they get this guy?Seriously, C., you need help. The first somewhat left of center Democratic Administration and Congress looms on the horizon and you’re babbling incoherently about human rights, church burnings and a Stalinist takeover.
The point I was making, clearly missed, was a lot more Christian churches were destroyed by Christians than Stalin or I ever managed. So good luck with that Stalinist-sympathizing militant atheism iconoclasm, B. I’m glad you’re in Canada, because if you came down here to destroy any churches, you would be choosing poorly.Are… are you threatening me? Warning me off because you’re afraid I’m coming down there on my neo-Marxist church-burning crusade? Well, I did vote Liberal in the last Canadian election, and they support universal health care and gay marriage, so I guess you have me pegged on the Stalin-sympathizing*.But if you take a look at your recent American history, I think you’ll find that it isn’t the atheists who have been burning and bombing your churches. That honour, sir, belongs to the extreme right wing in your own country – good old Christianists and racists.***sarcasm**not sarcasm
How about that “you can’t criticise me because of the color of my skin” Obama?Sarah Palin:“If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,” Palin told host Chris Plante, “then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”Sarah Palin believes the First Amendment shields her from criticism by the press. Can you find a specific example where Obama states that he cannot be criticized because of the colour of his skin? Where Obama himself says it, not some 5th string blogger or actress.
“The clothes thing is trivial?Then it is 375 times LESS trivial, than Edwards $400 haircut, which was mentioned (I believe) 27,453 times by Fox News, right wing bloggers, Rush Limbaugh, etc”Point to Stephen yeas it is 375 less trivial than Edwards haircutbut 150 to 700 is the ratio to Obama’s expenditure on a party in Berlin 😉
Sarah Palin:“If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,” Palin told host Chris Plante, “then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”Q. What kind of clown masquerading as a “national politician” is able to suggest publicly that the 1st Amendment was intended to safeguard politicians from the Press and not the other way around?”A. Only Sarah Palin: Most ignorant (and stupidest) national candidate ever…I am genuinely horrified that someone so abysmally unfit to run for national office could make it on the ticket of one of the mainstream parties. Thanks loads John McCain.