Amusing that every effort to encourage diversity is called "religious repression" by the Christian right yet their evangelism knows no bounds.

"...leaders back then dedicated out country to god and said that we would seek his will..."

No. No they didn't. This religious revisionist history bothers the hell out of me.

re: #2 JasonA

"our"

PIMF

What I don't get is why the GOP feels the need to "shore up" its evangelical credentials. They have the evangelical vote, and the Democrats have very little chance of taking it away from them. What the GOP don't have is votes amoung most other groups, and this is no way to get them.

Robert Spencer is following shrieking harpy Pamela Geller today and claiming that I am "aligned with Hezbollah" now.

re: #1 Locker

Amusing that every effort to encourage diversity is called "religious repression" by the Christian right yet their evangelism knows no bounds.

They're just doing what they have been commanded to do. Diversity is not part of the program, never was.

Why is the GOP pandering so hard to a shrinking demographic? The church is falling hard.

There's a special place in hell for those who use religion for political or monetary gain.

Here's a great resource for debunking the "Christian Nation" meme:

Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternative Version of American History

re: #5 Charles

Robert Spencer is following shrieking harpy Pamela Geller today and claiming that I am "aligned with Hezbollah" now.

What? How? What did I miss? (I miss a lot on weekends, since that's when I mostly busy with work).

re: #5 Charles

Robert Spencer is following shrieking harpy Pamela Geller today and claiming that I am "aligned with Hezbollah" now.

Because you once quoted someone who is?

Meh, another fraud, another person saying nothing in particular, but everything generally required to appeal to the base.

Slick, telegenic, appealing to a sense of mass victimization among the chosen constituency, bedeviled by a history replete with fringe associations, obvious failure to comprehend the A,B,C's of our constitutional republic, and clearly lacking in any qualifications for national office or leadership, such as this will never ascend to national prominence or power.

re: #6 Walter L. Newton

re: #6 Walter L. Newton

They're just doing what they have been commanded to do. Diversity is not part of the program, never was.

Yes the indoctrination normally begins at a very early age. Perhaps a person needs to be 18 before they can legally be subjected to these ideas. Just like porn.

re: #9 Sharmuta

Here's a great resource for debunking the "Christian Nation" meme:

Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternative Version of American History

David Barton Lies About Me

On October 25, 2008, I attended a presentation given by Christian nationalist historical revisionist David Barton, and gave him a copy of my book. On January 16, 2009, I became the subject of a segment on Barton's radio show, in which he lied about me, my book, and our encounter at his presentation. This video is about the lies Barton told about both me and American history on his radio show, as well as the lies he told in the presentation that I attended in October.

David Barton

re: #13 Locker

re: #6 Walter L. Newton

Yes the indoctrination normally begins at a very early age. Perhaps a person needs to be 18 before they can legally be subjected to these ideas. Just like porn.

Sure, like I never saw a naked girl with a donkey before I was 18?

re: #15 Walter L. Newton

Sure, like I never saw a naked girl with a donkey before I was 18?

Damn man your dad's sock drawer was definitely more "diverse" than mine...

re: #11 Racer X

Because you once quoted someone who is?

Elizabeth May is absolutely NOT "aligned with Hezbollah," and she is NOT a "Hezbollah supporter." These are simply lies.

Here's her statement about the rally in question at the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee, which was crashed by Hezbollah supporters who were asked to leave by the organizers.

[Link: www.cjpac.ca...]

re: #17 Charles

pam and bob are really desperate.

Are those the Flames of Hell over her right shoulder?

When I was a kid, I thought the furnace in our basement was connected to hell as a heat source. Kinda like geothermal, but scarier.

O Sarah you are making it harder for people to be good Christians in their private life.

re: #18 Sharmuta

Spencer is really grasping at straws. All the exclamation points and adjectives don't help make his argument true.

re: #17 Charles

Elizabeth May is absolutely NOT "aligned with Hezbollah," and she is NOT a "Hezbollah supporter." These are simply lies.

Here's her statement about the rally in question at the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee, which was crashed by Hezbollah supporters who were asked to leave by the organizers.

[Link: www.cjpac.ca...]

Facts are not required in order to smear LGF. In fact, facts are not applicable in order to smear LGF.

re: #19 wrenchwench

When I was a kid, I thought the furnace in our basement was connected to hell as a heat source. Kinda like geothermal, but scarier.

Grew up in Dunwich, Mass., did you?

She was, and is, the ultimate dog-whistle.

This is why Palin was selected by the John McCain campaign in the 2008 election — to mollify the religious right.

And the lesson? You can't mollify the religious right.

They still didn't show up at the polls. McCain wasn't "conservative enough".

You can't mollify the religious right. They expect and demand more and more and more because that is what God demands.

Also, Hezbollah means "party of God".

Sarah Palin, by her own words, is committed to creating the Party of God.

re: #19 wrenchwench

There is a partial answer to the energy problem.

re: #25 karmic_inquisitor

GOP = God's Own Party ?

re: #9 Sharmuta

Here's a great resource for debunking the "Christian Nation" meme:

Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternative Version of American History

Thanks for that, Sharmuta. I never understand why the 'Christian Nation' types spread those lies; it's essentially making a bet that those they tell the lies to will never discover the truth. Because once you do discover it, it must weaken your faith, if not in your faith itself, then in the leaders of your faith.

Totally OT:

For those of you who have been wondering about the connections between Exxon-Mobil and climate change denial:

This is a Rawstory article detailing connections between Exxon-Mobil and various front organizations, including the hilariously-but-infuratiatingly named "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)".

Rawstory

NIPCC

re: #21 jaunte

Spencer is really grasping at straws. All the exclamation points and adjectives don't help make his argument true.

Maybe he should try a few typos. It always works for pam. ///

re: #18 Sharmuta

pam and bob are really desperate full of shit.

/fixed

re: #29 Sharmuta

Maybe he should try a few typos. It always works for pam. ///

coudn't nurt!

The world's smallest snowman

/bored scientists

I used to think Palin had potential. But she's apparently little more than Huckabee in a bra. Kinda cute, but still only a marginal candidate. Too bad. She coulda been a contender.

Our Founding Fathers understood the importance of separation of church and state, religious freedom and tolerance, and Palin is seriously misreading and purposefully interprets events in a way that the Founders would not have done.

President Washington would never have gone for that interpretation.

Madison would not have gone with that interpretation.

Thomas Jefferson would not have gone with that interpretation.

re: #28 Obdicut

You're welcome. I was going through my bookmarks in my Discovery Institute folder the other night when I found that bookmark again. Since the historical revisionists and the creationists have so many similarities, I stuck them together. Science and history are different subjects, but these folks have the same MO- to promote radical Christian fundamentalism.

re: #33 The Curmudgeon

I used to think Palin had potential. But she's apparently little more than Huckabee in a bra. Kinda cute, but still only a marginal candidate. Too bad. She coulda been a contender.

Actually, Huckabee strikes me as the far superior intellect

I think it is a huge misunderstanding of the US Constitution to claim that people of Faith can not run for office, discuss their beliefs or encourage others to vote based on their values..whether those values derive from conventional church worship to progressive zealotry.

The Establishment clause only forbids the Government from Establishing any sort of Religious test to run for office or vote. This is a totally different issue.

It is a mistake to attempt to use the 1st amendment to try and silence people discussing their values. It is not relevant if those values are religiously progressive or conventional religious views...they are protected as is the person holding those views.

re: #5 Charles

Robert Spencer is following shrieking harpy Pamela Geller today and claiming that I am "aligned with Hezbollah" now.

and their evidence for this is ...

re: #25 karmic_inquisitor

Reagan and Bush 41 did mollify the religious right. The party once had a platform that ended at the edge of reason, not the edge of disaster as now.

Dear Sarah Palin:

Thank you for your opinion on this matter.

Please stay in Alaska.

Thanks,

Gus

re: #34 lawhawk

Our Founding Fathers understood the importance of separation of church and state, religious freedom and tolerance, and Palin is seriously misreading and purposefully interprets events in a way that the Founders would not have done.

President Washington would never have gone for that interpretation.

Madison would not have gone with that interpretation.

Thomas Jefferson would not have gone with that interpretation.

Exactly right.

re: #37 impostinat0r

So where exactly do you see anyone doing that?

re: #37 impostinat0r

I think it is a huge misunderstanding of the US Constitution to claim that people of Faith can not run for office, discuss their beliefs or encourage others to vote based on their values..whether those values derive from conventional church worship to progressive zealotry.

Who is claiming that, please?

It is a mistake to attempt to use the 1st amendment to try and silence people discussing their values. It is not relevant if those values are religiously progressive or conventional religious views...they are protected as is the person holding those views.

Who is trying to use the first amendment to silence people disucssing their values, please?

Palin claim that god will "provide answers" and "protection." What happened to the conservative principle of self reliance? Why should we have to rely on divine intervention as a nation? What happened to "the lord helps those who help themselves?"

re: #12 Guanxi88

Meh, another fraud, another person saying nothing in particular, but everything generally required to appeal to the base.

Slick, telegenic, appealing to a sense of mass victimization among the chosen constituency, bedeviled by a history replete with fringe associations, obvious failure to comprehend the A,B,C's of our constitutional republic, and clearly lacking in any qualifications for national office or leadership, such as this will never ascend to national prominence or power.

Well said.

re: #38 _RememberTonyC

and their evidence for this is ...

Well, you see right here that we're being whipped into a Hezbollah-like frenzy of hate by post #5.

re: #5 Charles

Robert Spencer is following shrieking harpy Pamela Geller today and claiming that I am "aligned with Hezbollah" now.

Well, those obstacle courses they train on do look like quite a bit of fun.

But as much as you dislike Palin, she's cannily staying in the headlines and generating response - good and bad - particularly at a time when one of the other GOP contenders for 2012, Huckabee, is dealing with the fallout from the Clemmons cop murders and the clemency issue. She's keeping attention on her, and that's working to build her ground game as well. It's a strategy that looks towards the primary season - whether she runs or decides to be kingmaker. Lots of right wingers are flocking to her and she's telling them what they want to hear. Right now, she's doing what's best for Palin, and the criticisms aren't going to hit home. None of this appears to be sufficient to derail her popularity. It would take something a whole magnitude worse to do that.

Expect the hits to start piling up once things start setting up for the 2012 run - late 2010 and into 2011 before the first primaries.

re: #28 Obdicut

Thanks for that, Sharmuta. I never understand why the 'Christian Nation' types spread those lies; it's essentially making a bet that those they tell the lies to will never discover the truth. Because once you do discover it, it must weaken your faith, if not in your faith itself, then in the leaders of your faith.

Perversely, what drew the religious right to the Conservative movement in the first place was Conservatism's promise that they would never allow politicians to usurp the Constitution's guarantee of freedom to pursue one's own religion unfettered by the state. The promise flowed directly from Conservatism's promotion of non-intrusive government, and it attracted quite a few supporters with a religious bent for a variety of reasons.

The perversion arises when the religious right attempts to circumvent this philosophy with the imposition of a fundamentalist Christian theocracy, complete with laws derived directly from Biblical interpretation and replacement of the Constitution with the Ten Commandments. It subverts the very principles which drew them to the movement in the first place.

If she's not talking about Judaism, why is she wearing a Shabbos robe to conduct this interview? Enquiring minds want to know.

re: #37 impostinat0r

There is not actually a war on conservative religious values going on, it's simply an effort to prevent conservatives holding religious values from imposing them on other people.

re: #37 impostinat0r

The Establishment clause only forbids the Government from Establishing any sort of Religious test to run for office or vote. This is a totally different issue.

Actually- this isn't true. Article VI of the Constitution states there shall be no religious test for office.

Personally I'm sick of hearing politicians invoke God. It's like used-car salesmen prefacing everything they say with "to be honest"...

I'm a Catholic. But I could do without the ritual invocation of God's blessings on America by people like Sanford, Palin, Ensign and Imhofe. I could also do without it from Barack Obama.

The mayor of Baltimore, my old home town, was convicted this week of stealing gift cards meant for poor city residents for her own use. Her defense? She thought they were an ordinary bribe from a contractor doing business with the city. Seriously.

She refuses to resign and is poised to put the city through a retrial or endless appeals to save her job and her $83k-for-life pension.

In her non-apology the other day, she said she'd been talking with her advisers and "talking with God". I wonder how that little chat went.

"Sheila, you know how I feel about people who steal from the poor, right?"

"Thanks for your support, God, it's been great talking with you, gotta run."

"But Sheila..."

"Sorry, Lord, I've got a press statement."

The less I hear about God from a politician, the more I trust her.

re: #44 Killgore Trout

Palin claim that god will "provide answers" and "protection." What happened to the conservative principle of self reliance? Why should we have to rely on divine intervention as a nation? What happened to "the lord helps those who help themselves?"

Palin is a perpetual Memes Generator™.

re: #2 JasonA

"...leaders back then dedicated out country to god and said that we would seek his will..."

No. No they didn't. This religious revisionist history bothers the hell out of me.

Well, is she talking about the revolutionary generation, or about the Massachusetts Theocracy? It's not clear to me which 'back then' we're referring to, and that does make a difference.

re: #46 jaunte

Well, you see right here that we're being whipped into a Hezbollah-like frenzy of hate by post #5.

i'm practically foaming at the mouth ... not :)

re: #40 Gus 802

Dear Sarah Palin:

Thank you for your opinion on this matter.

Please stay in Alaska.

Thanks,

Gus

Dear Gus,

I'm never going back.

Love,

Sarah

re: #53 Cato the Elder

Just to check: Would you vote for someone who was a public atheist?

re: #4 Kruk

What I don't get is why the GOP feels the need to "shore up" its evangelical credentials. They have the evangelical vote, and the Democrats have very little chance of taking it away from them. What the GOP don't have is votes amoung most other groups, and this is no way to get them.

I think the problem is that the evangelicals won't vote, if they feel their agenda is not prioritized and honored. They won't go to the Democrats, they just stay home. Hence, luring them out has made or broken a number of elections, and it's gotten to be seen as a panacea by many Republicans.

re: #43 Obdicut

The part in the post that says "Has she ever heard of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution?" implies this misunderstanding. otherwise why did he ask?

re: #58 Obdicut

Just to check: Would you vote for someone who was a public atheist?

Yes.

"Ur indoctrination stinks!"

re: #5 Charles

Robert Spencer is following shrieking harpy Pamela Geller today and claiming that I am "aligned with Hezbollah" now.

Uh. OK. What time should I tell my husband to be home for the Iranian arms shipment? Can they give us, like, a four-hour window?

///OMG

re: #44 Killgore Trout

Palin claim that god will "provide answers" and "protection." What happened to the conservative principle of self reliance? Why should we have to rely on divine intervention as a nation? What happened to "the lord helps those who help themselves?"

For me, this concerns Visions. Palin is a religious fundamentalist- this means she has an unconstrained vision. She's not a "conservative" in my opinion, who would be a person of the constrained vision. These religious types are more closely aligned with the busy-bodies of the left, they just have radically different ways of thinking how we should run our lives.

One of the truly ridiculous things the far right keeps saying about the left and Palin is that the left wing media attacks her so viciously because they are "scared" of her. all of us have heard this numerous times. But I have never believed this for a moment. I don't think the left is afraid of her at all. In fact I think they consider her a joke and that is why they ridicule her so robustly. And if the far right sees this as "fear," they really have no idea of what fear is.

re: #20 OJoe

O Sarah you are making it harder for people to be good Christians in their private life.

You mean because they watch this clip, and have an urge to be uncharitable?

re: #61 Cato the Elder

Yes.

Cool, thanks. It's depressing, on polls, how many people say 'no' to that.

re: #60 impostinat0r

The part in the post that says "Has she ever heard of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution?" implies this misunderstanding. otherwise why did he ask?

Well, try asking Charles, rather than leaping to a very strange and illogical assumption.

re: #58 Obdicut

Just to check: Would you vote for someone who was a public atheist?

I would, please, can you point me to one that is not a leftist?

re: #48 lawhawk

Judging by book sales and speaking draw, she has this vociferous following that is only getting traction way over there on the far right. She is existing due to the absence of a good candidate. So far.

That far right segment keeps making the usual mistakes, the kind that make winning far more difficult. All those contradictory tweets. All those little mis-steps. All that hate baggage.

re: #50 SanFranciscoZionist

If she's not talking about Judaism, why is she wearing a Shabbos robe to conduct this interview? Enquiring minds want to know.

Shabbos robe? Oh please.

re: #25 karmic_inquisitor

And the lesson? You can't mollify the religious right.

They still didn't show up at the polls. McCain wasn't "conservative enough".

You can't mollify the religious right. They expect and demand more and more and more because that is what God demands.

Also, Hezbollah means "party of God".

Sarah Palin, by her own words, is committed to creating the Party of God.

Well, as I like to point out, 'al-Qaeda' does translate to 'the base'.

I think Jon Stewart doing Glenn Beck could make something interesting of that.

re: #68 Walter L. Newton

I would, please, can you point me to one that is not a leftist?

Can an atheist even pass a right side purity test? I thought it was an automatic disqualification. ;-)

re: #44 Killgore Trout

Palin claim that god will "provide answers" and "protection." What happened to the conservative principle of self reliance? Why should we have to rely on divine intervention as a nation? What happened to "the lord helps those who help themselves?"

Pray as though everything depended on God, and act as though everything depended on yourself.

That's what my mom says, anyway.

re: #68 Walter L. Newton

I would, please, can you point me to one that is not a leftist?

No, I can't, Walter. I can barely name any who are 'leftists'. I can't think of anyone at all on the 'right' who identifies as an atheist, actually.

I mean, unless you consider Ayn Rand part of the 'right', and I'm not going to start insulting people like that.

re: #37 impostinat0r

The Establishment clause only forbids the Government from Establishing any sort of Religious test to run for office or vote. This is a totally different issue.

Let me think. OK, here's my response.

No.

If I was the praying type, I'd pray this crazy broad Palin never sets foot in public office again.

I knew she was a diehard fundie to begin with, back when everyone else thought she was wonderful. Every time she opens her yap, all she does is confirm what I first thought about her, and worse.

That said, it's a hollow victory finding out you're right about someone, when you though the worst of them. No upside whatsoever. I wish she'd proved me wrong, but she doesn't have it in her. Her kind of fundie/crazy is to the bone; at the DNA level.

re: #72 Locker

Can an atheist even pass a right side purity test? I thought it was an automatic disqualification. ;-)

I dunno. As a neoconservative, I've endured a fairly steady stream of accusations, from left and right, of being an atheistic manipulator of fundamentalist Christianity for about a decade now. Not saying I could run for office (nor should I hold office, for that matter; you do not want me in charge) but there's certainly a very strong strain of atheist/agnostic thought within the political right.

re: #67 Obdicut

Of course, I would not vote for someone because s/he was an atheist, anymore than I voted for Obama because he is some flavor of Christian.

re: #58 Obdicut

re: #61 Cato the Elder

All by itself I would agree. I would not appreciate a campaign promise to "put religion back in its place" though. I like my church and state separation *about* where it is. More separation than we have now is not required.

re: #72 Locker

Can an atheist even pass a right side purity test? I thought it was an automatic disqualification. ;-)

I'm an atheist and I consider myself a conservative. There are more than one flavor of conservative, although it benefits certain people to try to ignore that fact and only point to the problematic cases.

Hell, why not, can't sell shit without addressing shit.

re: #73 SanFranciscoZionist

Pray as though everything depended on God, and act as though everything depended on yourself.

Everything is in the power of heaven, except the fear of heaven.

re: #58 Obdicut

Just to check: Would you vote for someone who was a public atheist?

I dunno about Cato, but I would, on the condition that they were not offensive about other people's beliefs. Same rule that applies to everyone else.

re: #79 Rightwingconspirator

re: #61 Cato the Elder

All by itself I would agree. I would not appreciate a campaign promise to "put religion back in its place" though. I like my church and state separation *about* where it is. More separation than we have now is not required.

I completely disagree with you at the local level; there are far, far too many counties, small cities, and townships where religious values are openly mixed with political ones.

re: #74 Obdicut

No, I can't, Walter. I can barely name any who are 'leftists'. I can't think of anyone at all on the 'right' who identifies as an atheist, actually.

I mean, unless you consider Ayn Rand part of the 'right', and I'm not going to start insulting people like that.

Why not? There is actually a large group of right-wingers who are Randians and atheists. They are the same misunderstanders of Nietzsche who populated the "intellectual" ranks of the Nazis.

re: #81 Guanxi88

Everything is in the power of heaven, except the fear of heaven.

Heaven Can Wait

re: #70 Blueheron

Shabbos robe? Oh please.

Well, what IS that purple thing? Women in my neighborhood would call it a Shabbos robe, although they would be wearing a stylish turban over it.

re: #84 Cato the Elder

Why not? There is actually a large group of right-wingers who are Randians and atheists. They are the same misunderstanders of Nietzsche who populated the "intellectual" ranks of the Nazis.

Cato said it! And he said it out loud, too.

re: #84 Cato the Elder

Why not? There is actually a large group of right-wingers who are Randians and atheists. They are the same misunderstanders of Nietzsche who populated the "intellectual" ranks of the Nazis.

Cato, I am not a Randian, thank you for that slam.

I wonder what she would say to the many founders who were skeptical of religion. I have to say as a history major one of my pet peeves is people who act like the founders thought alike on every issue.

re: #74 Obdicut

No, I can't, Walter. I can barely name any who are 'leftists'. I can't think of anyone at all on the 'right' who identifies as an atheist, actually.

I mean, unless you consider Ayn Rand part of the 'right', and I'm not going to start insulting people like that.

((Obdi. Lots of lizards like Rand. Just a tip. SFZ out.))

re: #67 Obdicut

There is nothing illogical about clarifying what the Establishment clause does and does not do in light of his rhetorical question.
There was nothing in Ms Palins exchange that even slightly suggesting any misunderstanding of Constitutional issues so, Charles's question appeared void of understanding on the basic premises behind the 1st amendment.

I don't know the source of the video, but with the cuts, I think a Sarah Palin believer will just say the words are cherrypicked. Palinites are trying to apply a quantum theory of logic, where things are true and untrue at the same time and the act of asking a question distorts the answer.

re: #84 Cato the Elder

Why not? There is actually a large group of right-wingers who are Randians and atheists. They are the same misunderstanders of Nietzsche who populated the "intellectual" ranks of the Nazis.

I dunno, if someone is a Randite I think they fall off even as inadequate a scale as "left/right". I do agree with the Nietzsche connection, I just don't actually see Randites as belonging to the 'right', but to their own wildly disjointed version of reality.

There's also the problem with the state of 'atheism'. Is someone really an 'atheist' if they accepted a larger belief system, like Randism, in a relatively uncritical matter? I'd submit that there are two kinds of atheism: skeptical atheism, where you reject belief in god and the supernatural based on critical thinking, and cohort atheism, where you reject belief in god because you adhere to a way of thinking that requires that you reject your belief in god.

re: #88 Walter L. Newton

Cato, I am not a Randian, thank you for that slam.

Wha? I never...I didn't...I wasn't equating the two or talking about you at all.

Or are you yanking my toga again?

re: #84 Cato the Elder

Why not? There is actually a large group of right-wingers who are Randians and atheists. They are the same misunderstanders of Nietzsche who populated the "intellectual" ranks of the Nazis.

Geert Wilders being a modern version who is also an atheist.

I'm sorry. My Sarah Palin-freak-out-o-meter is already at 10 so without going Spinal Tap I am stuck. She is already at the point where I just wish someone could kill her off politically for the rest of her potential career so I can stop worrying about her.

Please? Just no fake memos.

re: #5 Charles

Robert Spencer is following shrieking harpy Pamela Geller today and claiming that I am "aligned with Hezbollah" now.

Does this mean that your Zionist checks might get cut off?

/

re: #90 SanFranciscoZionist

((Obdi. Lots of lizards like Rand. Just a tip. SFZ out.))

Really? Who?

[reaching for cluebat]

re: #91 impostinat0r

Well, make a damn argument then, instead of just laying assertions down.

re: #96 enoughalready
Be cool.

One of the guys who does the invocation sometimes at the local Repub. meetings refers to "this Christian nation." I don't know when the right time and place to object to that is. I was going to email the chairman, but he just had a stroke (expected to recover fully.)

re: #89 HappyWarrior

I wonder what she would say to the many founders who were skeptical of religion. I have to say as a history major one of my pet peeves is people who act like the founders thought alike on every issue.

Or as though 'people back then' didn't examine or question their faith, or the social norms of their day. "People thought X about God." "No one thought slavery was wrong." "Women accepted their role in society."

Uh, these are the people who were able to imagine fighting a war with their mother country and setting up a representative democracy on the edge of the world, and they pulled it off. They were, by definition, kind of out of the box thinkers.

re: #99 Obdicut

Well, make a damn argument then, instead of just laying assertions down.

Don't hold your breath.

re: #100 SteveMcG

Best piece of advice I've had all morning

re: #75 Gus 802

Think of it this way Gus.

I can say "Christians re-elect me because I am a Christian" all I want.

I can NOT pass a law that allows only Christians to vote or only allows people to vote Christian or only allows people to run for office who are Christian. These things would be against the Establishment clause.

Does that help at all?

re: #53 Cato the Elder

I love that when Clinton got caught in Cigar-gate he got spiritual advice from Jesse Jackson.

re: #101 wrenchwench

One of the guys who does the invocation sometimes at the local Repub. meetings refers to "this Christian nation." I don't know when the right time and place to object to that is. I was going to email the chairman, but he just had a stroke (expected to recover fully.)

Maybe someone should pray for him!
/(sorta)

re: #101 wrenchwench

One of the guys who does the invocation sometimes at the local Repub. meetings refers to "this Christian nation." I don't know when the right time and place to object to that is. I was going to email the chairman, but he just had a stroke (expected to recover fully.)

My first reading of this suggested that you e-mailed him about it, and he had a stroke as a result, and I was thinking 'darn, this is a man who is too tightly wound'.

Glad it was the other. Hope he recovers fully and you are able to discuss your concerns with him.

re: #86 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, what IS that purple thing? Women in my neighborhood would call it a Shabbos robe, although they would be wearing a stylish turban over it.

a purple shmatta?

re: #91 impostinat0r

I doubt very, very much that Ms. Palin would be thrilled to learn of an America ruled by a godly Muslim leader. I doubt even more that she intended anything even remotely resembling such a circumstance.

In fact, I have no doubt whatsoever that her intention was to endorse someone who rules America in God's name, 'God' being the god of the Christian fundamentalists - the ones who believe, for example, that Catholics are tools of Satan and that the majority of the Protestant sects are, if not damned, certainly headed that way.

Fuck that. And anything that looks like that.

re: #109 _RememberTonyC

a purple shmatta?

I was mostly wondering whether she had killed of a muppet to warm her neck during the cold alaskan winter.

re: #103 Charles

See my reply to gus..it is as direct of examples as I can give.

re: #93 Obdicut

[...] I do agree with the Nietzsche connection [...]

I'm not sure you understand the Nietzsche connection. I'm saying that Rand was a poor man's Nietzsche whom Nietzsche would have despised, just as he despised proto-Nazis like Richard Wagner and his own sister (whose control over his works after he fell silent gave us "The Will to Power" and the Nietzsche-image that has been misused by every fascist bitch and bastard ever since).

[...] I just don't actually see Randites as belonging to the 'right', but to their own wildly disjointed version of reality.

Tell that to Alan Greenspan.

re: #86 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, what IS that purple thing? Women in my neighborhood would call it a Shabbos robe, although they would be wearing a stylish turban over it.

A sweater? lol

re: #66 SanFranciscoZionist

Well that too.

re: #90 SanFranciscoZionist

((Obdi. Lots of lizards like Rand. Just a tip. SFZ out.))

Oh lordy. I'm sorry, I can be polite about many things, but Randism isn't one of them.

Anyone who can be inspired by the story of a sociopath who kidnapped and tortured a twelve-year old girl is just insane.

re: #109 _RememberTonyC

a purple shmatta?

Bernie Bernbaum, the Shmatta kid. He knows I like a sure thing. Bernie is selling tips on how I bet. He ain't satisfied with the vig, he ain't satisfied with the honest dollar he makes taking my bets. And so some of the pay-off that should be riding on my hip is riding on somebody else's. The Shmatta is stealing from me, I can't have it.

Sometimes a purple sweater is a purple sweater.

re: #110 SixDegrees

The company she keeps says it all, even if she gaffed half as much. It reads like a Looney Tunes roster.

re: #94 Cato the Elder

Wha? I never...I didn't...I wasn't equating the two or talking about you at all.

Or are you yanking my toga again?

I'm sorry, I thought you were trying to equate me to the issue. I actually have never even read any Rand or see any of the movies.

Elizabeth May is a leftist douchebag and her Canadian Green Party are a bunch of the same. She and her party are not known as being pro-Israel. She had to throw one of her members under the bus for antisemitic comments during the last election.
However, I would not call her an antisemite or pro-Islamofascist.

re: #120 Walter L. Newton

I'm sorry, I thought you were trying to equate me to the issue. I actually have never even read any Rand or see any of the movies.

Walter, Walter, how's your tooth?

I would never equate you with anything but you.

re: #86 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, what IS that purple thing? Women in my neighborhood would call it a Shabbos robe, although they would be wearing a stylish turban over it.

Maybe she's a Gogol Bordello fan.

re: #111 enoughalready

I was mostly wondering whether she had killed of a muppet to warm her neck during the cold alaskan winter.

re: #117 Guanxi88

Bernie Bernbaum, the Shmatta kid. He knows I like a sure thing. Bernie is selling tips on how I bet. He ain't satisfied with the vig, he ain't satisfied with the honest dollar he makes taking my bets. And so some of the pay-off that should be riding on my hip is riding on somebody else's. The Shmatta is stealing from me, I can't have it.

is bernie a shmatta or a goniff?

re: #110 SixDegrees
Muslims have the right to run for Office also. Just go back and read Charles extensive about Keith Ellison.
You may not like it but the 1st amendment can not forbid it.

re: #110 SixDegrees

I doubt very, very much that Ms. Palin would be thrilled to learn of an America ruled by a godly Muslim leader. I doubt even more that she intended anything even remotely resembling such a circumstance.

In fact, I have no doubt whatsoever that her intention was to endorse someone who rules America in God's name, 'God' being the god of the Christian fundamentalists - the ones who believe, for example, that Catholics are tools of Satan and that the majority of the Protestant sects are, if not damned, certainly headed that way.

Fuck that. And anything that looks like that.

That's the problem, innit? Imagine Baroness Warsi as a Republican President. (I know she's not qualified, just imagine.)

Is Senator Palin (which God forbid, but just imagine) going to be thrilled that the President prays five times daily in the Oval Office, and fasts through Ramadan in the belief that be humbling herself before God she may gain favor for the nation she leads?

Food for thought. BTW, Baroness Warsi would make a hot President, although I am not endorsing British nobility trying to run this country again.

re: #120 Walter L. Newton

I'm sorry, I thought you were trying to equate me to the issue. I actually have never even read any Rand or see any of the movies.

Good for you. I wish I could have those hours of my life back that I spent reading her horrendous "novels".

re: #96 enoughalready

I'm sorry. My Sarah Palin-freak-out-o-meter is already at 10 so without going Spinal Tap I am stuck. She is already at the point where I just wish someone could kill her off politically for the rest of her potential career so I can stop worrying about her.

Please? Just no fake memos.

I believe her career as an actual politician are over. The instant she begins an actual run, the matter of her quitting the governor's office when the going got tough will be hung around her neck like the stone that it is.

She seems to be content in her role as professional gadfly. It pays well, and allows her to keep unpleasant questions, public accountability and, above all, the press at arm's length, carefully screened out of her appearances and out of her sight.

Lately, she seems to be veering off into hard-core LaLa Land, which will further marginalize her.

re: #102 SanFranciscoZionist

Or as though 'people back then' didn't examine or question their faith, or the social norms of their day. "People thought X about God." "No one thought slavery was wrong." "Women accepted their role in society."

Uh, these are the people who were able to imagine fighting a war with their mother country and setting up a representative democracy on the edge of the world, and they pulled it off. They were, by definition, kind of out of the box thinkers.

Yep, it's kinda disturbing to think that a guy with Jefferson's views on God would be vilified by the Christian Right today.

re: #5 Charles

Robert Spencer is following shrieking harpy Pamela Geller today and claiming that I am "aligned with Hezbollah" now.

LittleGreenFootballs spelled backwards reads "Allahu Achbar". I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

re: #111 enoughalready

I was mostly wondering whether she had killed of a muppet to warm her neck during the cold alaskan winter.

Shot it from a plane. Poor little Mahna Mahna never had a chance.

re: #124 _RememberTonyC

is bernie a shmatta or a goniff?

He can be both. Everybody calls him the Shmatta, though he's also a goniff and certainly a faygele. Goniff is strongest in him, though.

re: #114 Blueheron

A sweater? lol

Oh. Maybe it isn't full-length. Does she stand up during the interview?

re: #122 Cato the Elder

Walter, Walter, how's your tooth?

I would never equate you with anything but you.

Tooth better. I'm suppose to go back Monday for the fist fitting of the partials. Hope so, I'm getting tired of these two holes where my best chewing teeth use to be.

But, we may get major snow Sunday and Monday, so I may have to cancel that appointment.

I'm bringing a change of clothes to the theatre tonight, in case I have to spent the bight. We have a show tonight and then a matinee tomorrow at 2:00pm and it's may start snowing around midnight tonight, so I may want to stay downhill.

Well, off to the theatre now, got to get the place ready for tonight's performance.

See you all.

re: #127 enoughalready

Good for you. I wish I could have those hours of my life back that I spent reading her horrendous "novels".

I read "Anthem" and didn't like it. Not bad futuristic totalitarian stuff, I guess, until the ending, and then the ending made me so mad I threw the book.

I haven't had the nerve to try to read the major ones, because they're so long, and if I threw them, someone could get hurt.

re: #130 Stuart Leviton

LittleGreenFootballs spelled backwards reads "Allahu Achbar". I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

"God is a mouse?" That's both blasphemy, and sort of quirky.

re: #135 SanFranciscoZionist

I read "Anthem" and didn't like it. Not bad futuristic totalitarian stuff, I guess, until the ending, and then the ending made me so mad I threw the book.

I haven't had the nerve to try to read the major ones, because they're so long, and if I threw them, someone could get hurt.

Cato, among others, pegs her as a right-Nietzschean of the vulgar kind. Think Oswald Spengler, but without the pretense of scholarly or intellectual framework.

re: #132 Guanxi88

He can be both. Everybody calls him the Shmatta, though he's also a goniff and certainly a faygele. Goniff is strongest in him, though.

sounds like he is also a schmuck

re: #132 Guanxi88

He can be both. Everybody calls him the Shmatta, though he's also a goniff and certainly a faygele. Goniff is strongest in him, though.

He's also pretty shofel.

re: #138 _RememberTonyC

sounds like he is also a schmuck

One of turturro's best performances. You really HATE Bernie.

re: #140 Guanxi88

One of turturro's best performances. You really HATE Bernie.

Which is funny, because everyone in that movie is completely morally bankrupt. There's no real reason to hate Bernie more than anyone else. The only reason is that Tom has charisma, and Bernie doesn't.

re: #141 Obdicut

Which is funny, because everyone in that movie is completely morally bankrupt. There's no real reason to hate Bernie more than anyone else. The only reason is that Tom has charisma, and Bernie doesn't.

Which movie are we talking about?

re: #105 impostinat0r

You're interpretation of the Establishment Clause is deficient. This specific matter has less to do with the Establishment Clause and more to do with the common sense application of seeing a dimwitted populist proselytizing and fantasizing publicly about a theocratic state and her gross misinterpretation of the American experience.

re: #142 Cato the Elder

Which movie are we talking about?

Millers Crossing, one of the best of all time.

re: #32 Racer X

I'll reply with the world's tallest snow{wo}man:

Bethel Snow Woman (tallest in the world) - a set on Flickr [Link: bit.ly...]

re: #135 SanFranciscoZionist

I read "Anthem" and didn't like it. Not bad futuristic totalitarian stuff, I guess, until the ending, and then the ending made me so mad I threw the book.

I haven't had the nerve to try to read the major ones, because they're so long, and if I threw them, someone could get hurt.

I have a pretty severe case of bibliophilia. I never throw away books. Almost. There are no Ayn Rand books in my house.

Now, there are other writers with a futuristic (read SF) bent that have somewhat murky political views (Heinlein is an interesting example and Chip Delany is leaning in all sorts of ways) but at least they can WRITE. Ayn Rand can produce text but most of it is just plain bad. No. Bad doesn't even begin to cover it, not even if we write it in 500 ft high flaming letters placed on top of the Empire State Building with 2 000 tone deaf Elvis impersonators performing "In the ghetto" dancing below. Errr. Or something.

re: #139 Cato the Elder

He's also pretty shofel.

Shofel Ofal To Buffa Loffo?

re: #91 impostinat0r

There is nothing illogical about clarifying what the Establishment clause does and does not do in light of his rhetorical question.
There was nothing in Ms Palins exchange that even slightly suggesting any misunderstanding of Constitutional issues so, Charles's question appeared void of understanding on the basic premises behind the 1st amendment.

The issue was mainly one of the oft repeated lie of this being founded as a "Christian Nation" which it definately was not. She then calls for "godly leaders" and seems to be saying this country would be better off as a theocracy. That is the issue, not whether she has the first amendment right to state her views, of course she does. Just as we have the right to find her views to be historically revisionist untruths and repugnant if you believe in the values this country actually was founded under.

re: #137 Guanxi88

Cato, among others, pegs her as a right-Nietzschean of the vulgar kind. Think Oswald Spengler, but without the pretense of scholarly or intellectual framework.

Also, her prose is an execrable, unreadable pastiche of 19th-century realism and mid-twentieth soft porn, with Saturday Evening Post dialog, where people say things like, "If my genius son doesn't win the architecture prize, his mother will know the reason why!" [quoting from memory]

Even as a leering teenager, I could never bear flipping through her turgid prose long enough to get to the "racy" bits.

But there are plenty who do, and many never recover. A good number of date-rapists have been inspired by Ayn Rand.

re: #32 Racer X

The world's smallest snowman

/bored scientists

WAAAYYY too much time on their hands! but cute!

re: #144 Obdicut

Millers Crossing, one of the best of all time.

I saw it when it came out and didn't understand a thing.

re: #14 Sharmuta

David Barton

David Barton was one of the speakers at an Answers in Genesis meeting I attended here in Virginia in late 2001 (at the behest of a close friend). Ken Ham was another speaker.

One of the main ideas pushed was that this nation was founded by Christians, on Christian principles, and that the Bible was often used as the only text in public schools (because books in general were somewhat scarce), and was commonly used as a guide for legislation.

Another theme was race. Multiple speakers maintained that there is no such thing, on the basis of modern genetics and various other arguments. It was also argued by at least one speaker that Thomas Jefferson was quite innocent of miscegenation --because it was likely his brother, not TJ. My pointing out this irony/hypocrisy to my companion was quite futile.

re: #149 Cato the Elder

Also, her prose is an execrable, unreadable pastiche of 19th-century realism and mid-twentieth soft porn, with Saturday Evening Post dialog, where people say things like, "If my genius son doesn't win the architecture prize, his mother will know the reason why!" [quoting from memory]

A million updings to you sir!

re: #152 abolitionist

David Barton was one of the speakers at an Answers in Genesis meeting I attended here in Virginia in late 2001 (at the behest of a close friend). Ken Ham was another speaker.

One of the main ideas pushed was that this nation was founded by Christians, on Christian principles, and that the Bible was often used as the only text in public schools (because books in general were somewhat scarce), and was commonly used as a guide for legislation.

Another theme was race. Multiple speakers maintained that there is no such thing, on the basis of modern genetics and various other arguments. It was also argued by at least one speaker that Thomas Jefferson was quite innocent of miscegenation --because it was likely his brother, not TJ. My pointing out this irony/hypocrisy to my companion was quite futile.

If there's no such thing as race, why does Jefferson need to be innocent of 'miscegenation'? And what evidence has he got?

re: #37 impostinat0r

17 posts in almost two-and-a-half years...you're certainly an engaged fount on knowledge.

/misrepresent some more, jackass

re: #152 abolitionist

That's because Barton is a part of the Christian Identity movement.

See this LGF article for more.

re: #148 ausador

Well I certainly didn't come away thinking she wanted to change the US into a Theocracy at all. That is a huge leap. Sarah Palin appears to be a Constitutional Constructionist from what I have heard so far...but that was not my point so I digress.
I was addressing a very specific part of Charles's post where he rhetorically questions Palins understanding of the Establishment clause as if we all know she is somehow violating it.
I was merely illustrating that this may be an erroneous interpretation of the 1st amendment.

re: #155 talon_262
Yea i was washing my car...

re: #65 _RememberTonyC

Yup! You're exactly right here. I know mostly lefties and it's true we mostly think of Palin as a joke. She's also the recipient of a huge amount of wonder as we just can't understand the way some people seem to idolize her. I have to admit that has had me really puzzled.

But scared? That's really a stretch. The lefties I know would celebrate if the right actually did nominate her, but most of us are sensible enough to know that even if many on the right have seemed to go crazy there are still enough people on the right that won't allow this to happen.

re: #159 Kewalo

You may not be scared but I think Obama and company are terrified of her.
My suggestion?
Be scared...be very scared...
Sarah Palin is comin' to town.

re: #154 SanFranciscoZionist

If there's no such thing as race, why does Jefferson need to be innocent of 'miscegenation'? And what evidence has he got?

That was the point entirely missed by my friend. As to evidence, there was discussion of the extensive DNA testing done in recent years on Jefferson's descendants, and those of his slaves, but that such evidence could not reliably distinguish between relatedness to TJ vs his brother.

re: #160 impostinat0r

Give your name and your comments:

You smell like a sock.

re: #162 Obdicut
that's just connonmouth

*cottonmouth..

re: #160 impostinat0r

So you want a landslide victory for Obama in 2012? Because that is what will happen if Palin is the republican nominee, she will get maybe 25 million votes if she is lucky and Obama will probably get at least 60 million.

Sigh...you people really do live in your own little dream world where wishful thinking counts for more than reality don't you?

Oh...I smell Like a sock as in a socket or proxy? (i'm a litle slow)
If that is how you guys are going to deal with a little friendly debate? I must be some l33 haxxor now so you will delete my account next?

Very clever

re: #166 impostinat0r

Oh...I smell Like a sock as in a socket or proxy? (i'm a litle slow)
If that is how you guys are going to deal with a little friendly debate? I must be some l33 haxxor now so you will delete my account next?

Very clever

Weak logic and lack of any substantial argument is not cause for deletion here. Sorry to pile onto your little martyr parade there though.

re: #158 impostinat0r

Yea i was washing my car...

I like the Biblical touch.

"Yea! for I was washing my car!"

The word you're groping for is spelled "yeah".

re: #83 Obdicut

Sorry I stepped away for a bit and got caught up in a chore here.. I can only speak to the local areas I know, my comment was in the federal legislative/constitutional sense. I would not doubt what you say happens. There is a range of separation at the local level. Some communities put religion further at a distance too, some unfairly. I think my area has some of that. I'm sure it helps to be Mormon in some Utah towns, as it helps to be Buddhist in China Town.

re: #161 abolitionist

That was the point entirely missed by my friend. As to evidence, there was discussion of the extensive DNA testing done in recent years on Jefferson's descendants, and those of his slaves, but that such evidence could not reliably distinguish between relatedness to TJ vs his brother.

True, there would be no way to know. However, nothing excludes Jefferson from the running as father of Sally Heming's children, and the relationship was reference in the press of the day. I suspect the smart money is on the late President Jefferson.

re: #165 ausador

I would definitely vote for Palin. But then I would vote for most Republicans. Democrats have proven time and time against that they can not be trusted with National Security issues. I may not agree with Palin on some issues (in fact I'm pro choice)..but I trust her on national Security and that my friend is THE issue.

re: #141 Obdicut

Which is funny, because everyone in that movie is completely morally bankrupt. There's no real reason to hate Bernie more than anyone else. The only reason is that Tom has charisma, and Bernie doesn't.

The thing that makes Bernie so horrific, compared to everyone else, is that he has no loyalties to anyone but himself. Look what he does to Tom, blackmailing him for not killing him; look at how he snuffs Mink, his former lover and confederate in crime, and deposits his body as a stand-in for himself. He bad-mouths his sister, the only person in the film who genuinely loves him.

You hate Bernie because, unlike all the others, he is his own highest good. He's despicable, even to himself.

re: #171 impostinat0r

I would definitely vote for Palin. But then I would vote for most Republicans. Democrats have proven time and time against that they can not be trusted with National Security issues. I may not agree with Palin on some issues (in fact I'm pro choice)..but I trust her on national Security and that my friend is THE issue.

Why would you trust Palin on national security, if I may ask?

re: #173 SanFranciscoZionist

Why would you trust Palin on national security, if I may ask?

Not ONE INCH of Alaskan soil fell to Russian or Canadian forces during her tenure.

re: #171 impostinat0r

I would definitely vote for Palin. But then I would vote for most Republicans. Democrats have proven time and time against that they can not be trusted with National Security issues. I may not agree with Palin on some issues (in fact I'm pro choice)..but I trust her on national Security and that my friend is THE issue.

You trust someone who thinks Africa is a country with her finger on the button?

As for Republicans and national security (note: no need for capital letters, we are not writing in German), Bush did a bang-up job ignoring warnings about 9/11 and finishing the job in Afghanistan before taking on Iraq based on lies, didn't he? We need that kind of leadership again. Especially if teh stoopid is Charistiyan stoopid.

re: #174 Guanxi88

Not ONE INCH of Alaskan soil fell to Russian or Canadian forces during her tenure.

She needs to hire you!

re: #172 Guanxi88

Meh. I think he's a mirror of Tom. Tom's loyalties are to himself as well. His actions appear to Leo as though they're for him, but they're not. Leo, actually, is the most morally centered person in the film-- hell, he means it when he says he forgives Tom. He can't kill Bernie in the woods not out of mercy, but because he's 'not like them', because he feels himself above the life he actually leads.

re: #176 bratwurst

She needs to hire you!

I'm available, I work cheap, and everybody's money spends. I'll shoot her a CV and some samples of my work.

re: #178 Guanxi88

I'm available, I work cheap, and everybody's money spends. I'll shoot her a CV and some samples of my work.

Me, too!

re: #168 Cato the Elder

Thanks brother Elder but before you teach you need to know:
[Link: www.merriam-webster.com...]

Main Entry: 1yea
Pronunciation: ˈyā
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English ye, ya, from Old English gēa; akin to Old High German jā yes
Date: before 12th century
1 : yes —used in oral voting
2 : more than this : not only so but —used to introduce a more explicit or emphatic phrase

As you can see you are just flat out wrong as to its origin. The Dictionary describes that under "Etymology".
But thanks for correcting me...
If you had actually been right because we all know how important correct spelling can be while chatting.

re: #160 impostinat0r

Sorry, no one on the left with half a brain is scared of Palin and the president isn't a stupid man. And while I know this is a common meme about Palin, it simply isn't true.

re: #174 Guanxi88

Not ONE INCH of Alaskan soil fell to Russian or Canadian forces during her tenure.

She didn't manage to stop the Caribou from flaunting the U.S./Canadian border though, she should have come down hard on those migrant caribou!

re: #136 SanFranciscoZionist

"God is a mouse?" That's both blasphemy, and sort of quirky.

I got that one from the Mayor of Chelm. Take care bubeleh.

re: #146 enoughalready

Ayn Rand can produce text but most of it is just plain bad. No. Bad doesn't even begin to cover it, not even if we write it in 500 ft high flaming letters placed on top of the Empire State Building with 2 000 tone deaf Elvis impersonators performing "In the ghetto" dancing below. Errr. Or something.

heh. My favourite Rand critique:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

re: #171 impostinat0r

I would definitely vote for Palin. (...) I trust her on national Security and that my friend is THE issue.

If I were to make a list based on "trust on National Security", Sarah Palin would take last place (almost but not quite beating a small boiled turnip).

re: #181 Kewalo

Sorry, no one on the left with half a brain is scared of Palin and the president isn't a stupid man. And while I know this is a common meme about Palin, it simply isn't true.

Speaking for myself I would say it's not that we're afraid of Sarah Palin but afraid for our country if this schlemiel were to take the White House.

re: #177 Obdicut

Meh. I think he's a mirror of Tom. Tom's loyalties are to himself as well. His actions appear to Leo as though they're for him, but they're not. Leo, actually, is the most morally centered person in the film-- hell, he means it when he says he forgives Tom. He can't kill Bernie in the woods not out of mercy, but because he's 'not like them', because he feels himself above the life he actually leads.

Maybe something to that. Bernie as an inversion of Tom, the embodiment of the worst elements in himself. This may explain his reluctance to kill him in the woods, and certainly explains why their meetings all take place in Tom's apartment, at night.

re: #184 iceweasel

The other, of course, involves orcs.

And Ents.

re: #173 SanFranciscoZionist

Why would you trust Palin on national security, if I may ask?

Well what exactly is the point of having all those nukes laying around if we aren't going to use some of them? (Just helping the end times along a little doncha know. *wink*)

re: #180 impostinat0r

Thanks brother Elder but before you teach you need to know:
[Link: www.merriam-webster.com...]

Main Entry: 1yea
Pronunciation: ˈyā
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English ye, ya, from Old English gēa; akin to Old High German jā yes
Date: before 12th century
1 : yes —used in oral voting
2 : more than this : not only so but —used to introduce a more explicit or emphatic phrase

As you can see you are just flat out wrong as to its origin. The Dictionary describes that under "Etymology".
But thanks for correcting me...
If you had actually been right because we all know how important correct spelling can be while chatting.

You just proved that you do not know how to read a dictionary.

"Yea" (pr. yay) means yes as used in oral voting. You were looking for the word "yeah" (pr. "yiah") which is common slang for "yes".

Unless you say "yea" (pr. yay) when someone asks you did you have a nice breakfast.

In which case I apologize, you poltroon.

re: #187 Guanxi88

Maybe something to that. Bernie as an inversion of Tom, the embodiment of the worst elements in himself. This may explain his reluctance to kill him in the woods, and certainly explains why their meetings all take place in Tom's apartment, at night.

Yeah-- and why Bernie can't actually leave, and Tom has to kill him.

The question for me is: Is Tom improved after killing Bernie? I think he's a little more honest with himself.

'What heart?'

re: #191 Obdicut

Yeah-- and why Bernie can't actually leave, and Tom has to kill him.

The question for me is: Is Tom improved after killing Bernie? I think he's a little more honest with himself.

'What heart?'

The two coldest, truest words in the whole film. Perhaps he HAD to leave after killing Bernie, if only because that act was a symbolic suicide, marking his exit from that environment.

re: #192 Guanxi88

The two coldest, truest words in the whole film. Perhaps he HAD to leave after killing Bernie, if only because that act was a symbolic suicide, marking his exit from that environment.

Have you seen the Third Man?

re: #193 Obdicut

Have you seen the Third Man?

Of course, a classic, and far better, in my opinion, than the novel, which is almost never the case. Orson Welles at his best there.

re: #194 Guanxi88

Of course, a classic, and far better, in my opinion, than the novel, which is almost never the case. Orson Welles at his best there.

Remember the last scene of the Third Man, and the last Scene of Millers Crossing?

re: #195 Obdicut

Remember the last scene of the Third Man, and the last Scene of Millers Crossing?

I hadn't thought of it, but it's there. A second funeral for a dead man, attended by his killer. Well spotted.

re: #196 Guanxi88

I hadn't thought of it, but it's there. A second funeral for a dead man, attended by his killer. Well spotted.

And not only that, then the woman leaves, and the man who's hopeless in love with her follows behind, as autumn leaves fall and skirt across the road.

I think Tom's still trapped there.

re: #197 Obdicut

And not only that, then the woman leaves, and the man who's hopeless in love with her follows behind, as autumn leaves fall and skirt across the road.

I think Tom's still trapped there.

Even better. You're a film critic and student of narrative, by calling if not by profession.

re: #198 Guanxi88

Even better. You're a film critic and student of narrative, by calling if not by profession.

Credit for that one actually goes to my father, who's much more insightful on movies than I am. I can understand what he says, but he always sees it before I do. I just try to spread his insights.

I'm encouraging him to write a book of film criticism-- he's an academic, so he knows his way around the publishing world, and I think a lot of his insights are brilliant. He's also retiring under bitter circumstances-- long story, but he needs a project or he's going to fall into a depression. I think it'd be perfect.

I've been getting such a kick from the posts about Rand. I first read her books in my 20's and I was thrilled, she was so insightful and so right on. Then life took a hold and it was 20 yrs until I picked them up again and was stunned! How had she changed so much in those years? LOL

And then another 20 yrs and I find out that not only were there people that followed her philosophy of "selfishness" but that Alan Greenspan was a fan and follower. I made a special point to watch his testimony in congress and even saved some of the testimony. It comes as no surprise to me that we had a meltdown when people were telling themselves that greed was good and we didn't need regulations because the people running things were above doing anything so venal as stealing. What a fucking crock.

I just wish all those idiots would go Galt, because they are still trying to fool us. It infuriates me.

re: #199 Obdicut

Credit for that one actually goes to my father, who's much more insightful on movies than I am. I can understand what he says, but he always sees it before I do. I just try to spread his insights.

I'm encouraging him to write a book of film criticism-- he's an academic, so he knows his way around the publishing world, and I think a lot of his insights are brilliant. He's also retiring under bitter circumstances-- long story, but he needs a project or he's going to fall into a depression. I think it'd be perfect.

Get him on it double-quick.

The world needs good solid work like that, and an academic without a project is a catastrophe in the making. A very good friend of mine, who was my teacher, fell into a deep depression right after his forced retirement. It took him going through three 20-something girlfriends and near-ruin before he got back to work again. Saved his sanity and probably his life.

re: #186 Gus 802

That I can agree with wholeheartedly.

re: #201 Guanxi88

If you read Sapolsky's Monkeyluv, he actually provides the biological basis for that; you go from being a dominant male in an environment to a ... nothing, after retirement. That messes with your cortisol; the same reason why getting laid off can be so devastating.

re: #171 impostinat0r

I would definitely vote for Palin. But then I would vote for most Republicans. Democrats have proven time and time against that they can not be trusted with National Security issues.

Yeah! Like World War II, for example. Good thing we had a Republican in office or we'd all be speaking Japanese right now.

Oh, wait.

re: #190 Cato the Elder

You are now reduced to arguing with the Dictionary.
But if that was not clear enough for you here are 2 others also:

[Link: dictionary.reference.com...]
yea  /yeɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [yey] Show IPA ,
Use yea in a Sentence
See web results for yea
See images of yea
–adverb 1. yes (used in affirmation or assent).
2. indeed: Yea, and he did come.
3. not only this but even: a good, yea, a noble man.

–noun 4. an affirmation; an affirmative reply or vote.
5. a person who votes in the affirmative.

Origin:
bef. 900; ME ye, ya, OE gēa; c. D, G, ON, Goth ja

and lastly
[Link: www.encyclopedia.com...]
yea / yā/
• adv. archaic or formal yes: she has the right to say yea or nay.
∎ used for emphasis, esp. to introduce a stronger or more accurate word than one just used: he was full, yea, crammed with anxieties.

• n. archaic or formal an affirmative answer: the assembly would give the final yea or nay.
∎ (in the U.S. Congress) an affirmative vote.

yea2
• adv. variant spelling of yay2

Why embarress yourself by arguing with dictionaries on the most basic meaning of some of the most basic terms in our language?

re: #204 Charles

Yeah! Like World War II, for example. Good thing we had a Republican in office or we'd all be speaking Japanese right now.

Oh, wait.

"Well, do you want to know what you'd be without us, the good old U.S. of A. to protect you? The smallest fucking province in the Russian Empire, that what! So don't call me stupid lady, just thank me!"

"Well thank you for popping in and protecting us."

"If it wasn't for us, you'd all be speaking German! Singing Deutschland, Deutschland, uber alles...YEAH!"

This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I just love Kevin Kline in that movie.

re: #205 impostinat0r

Why embarress yourself

Indeed.

Dear Jesus,

I think you are cool, but a lot of the people who claim you are not.
Could you please do something about the stupid ones that annoy me?
KTHXBY

re: #204 Charles

With all due respect Charles. This is not the Democratic party of yours and my grandparents.
There is a reason that Chris Mathews views Obama and our Officer Candidates as enemies.
Truman never left US Service people lingering in combat while openly telling the American Public that domestic partisan politics is more important and requires our immediate attention.

Just a word about Palin's latest proclamations, Katherine Harris did the same thing in Florida few years back. You might remember her as the make-up wearing, Sec of State of FL during the 2000 election debacle who stopped the vote count. Although looking like a Republican hopeful, her political career went down the tubes due to a number of things; her inadequacy as both a senator and a congresswoman, but mostly for her outrageous religious views.

Katherine's screeds:

That lie we have been told, the separation of church and state... that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers.

And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women and if people aren’t involved in helping godly men in getting elected then we’re going to have a nation of secular laws.

That’s not what our founding fathers intended and that’s certainly isn’t what God intended. … we need to take back this country. …

If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure... then you are going to legislate sin.

Whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don’t know better, we are leading them astray and it’s wrong.

The Democrats would be ever so happy for Palin to follow down this road, believe me.

calling for divine leadership of america?

spacejesus for president

re: #209 impostinat0r

With all due respect Charles. This is not the Democratic party of yours and my grandparents.
There is a reason that Chris Mathews views Obama and our Officer Candidates as enemies.
Truman never left US Service people lingering in combat while openly telling the American Public that domestic partisan politics is more important and requires our immediate attention.

I like the phrase 'lingering in combat'. I kind of suspect that it is not a good idea to linger in combat. You want to move decisively.

re: #209 impostinat0r

Truman never left US Service people lingering in combat while openly telling the American Public that domestic partisan politics is more important and requires our immediate attention.

Yeah I really hate Obama for leaveing only 30,000 troops in Afghanistan for the last seven years with almost no air support and too few helicopters for operations. Then how he took three months to decide to implement the surge in Iraq when it looked like we were in trouble there and our troops were dieing by the dozens every week.

Oh wait...that wasn't him?
/

That is a great talking point ya got there, too bad it is a complete lie, Obama already more than doubled our troops in Afghanistan to 71,000 and now is adding another 30,000. I have a some gripes about Obama, quite a few actually, but I do try to stick to reality at least.

re: #171 impostinat0r

I would definitely vote for Palin. But then I would vote for most Republicans. Democrats have proven time and time against that they can not be trusted with National Security issues. I may not agree with Palin on some issues (in fact I'm pro choice)..but I trust her on national Security and that my friend is THE issue.

I wouldn't trust sarah palin to run a banana stand

re: #8 Racer X

right next to child mollesters and people who talk in theatres...

re: #215 wozzablog

right next to child mollesters and people who talk in theatres...

"Oh, I'm going to the special hell!"

re: #213 ausador

Yeah I really hate Obama for leaveing only 30,000 troops in Afghanistan for the last seven years with almost no air support and too few helicopters for operations. Then how he took three months to decide to implement the surge in Iraq when it looked like we were in trouble there and our troops were dieing by the dozens every week.

Oh wait...that wasn't him?
/

That is a great talking point ya got there, too bad it is a complete lie, Obama already more than doubled our troops in Afghanistan to 71,000 and now is adding another 30,000. I have a some gripes about Obama, quite a few actually, but I do try to stick to reality at least.

Accurate!

Here's a troop level graph.

re: #214 SpaceJesus

It took President Obama until last week to admit finally that Sarah Palin was correct all along on GITMO.
I think she has a much better grasp than our current CIC.

re: #213 ausador

Then why are US troops "the enemy" according to Obamatrons like Chris Mathews?
Never did a single person in the Bush administration tell the American public to put Partisan politics before our military. While our troops in in harms way no less and WHILE the commander on the ground is telling him we will actually lose if he fails to act...this is totally unprecedented.
This kind of callousness to our troops coupled with Obama administrations efforts to criminalize the war and charge US personnel with anything he can IF he can smear Bush with it..is having a huge adverse impact on his ability to lead US forces credibly.

re: #219 impostinat0r

Chris Matthews is not the president, or even a part of his administration.
This is a flaw in your argument.

re: #220 jaunte

Obamas most vocal supporter in the media...Mr tingly-leg Mathews himself openly considers Obama and the US Military enemies.
This is definitely not a flaw in something!
It is illustrative of the fact that the animosity and distrust of the Military and Obama goes far beyond being a "great right wing conspiracy"...let alone mine here in this forum.
You're flawed in your comprehension if you did not grasp that.

re: #205 impostinat0r

Why embarress yourself by arguing with dictionaries on the most basic meaning of some of the most basic terms in our language?

It is thou that hath em-bare-assed thyself, thou cross-gartered ninny.

re: #221 impostinat0r

You are granting Matthews far more power and influence than he actually has.

re: #222 Cato the Elder
yea...ok

Oh wait I mispelled ok. I guess that means Sarah Palin sucks.

re: #221 impostinat0r

Matthews said west point was "enemy terrirtory" ( a stupid turn of phrase, but the one we now have to address)...

because:

The military traditionally vote GOP and the President is a Democrat.

The President has taken flack from some military types about not taking Mchrystals proposals hook line and sinker.

Thats it - thats what there is to be read into it.

If you see anything else i suggest you stop worshipping at the altar of Malkinesque critique.

re: #224 impostinat0r

yea...ok

Oh wait I mispelled ok. I guess that means Sarah Palin sucks.

No. You misspelled "yeah". Again.

re: #225 wozzablog

yea, he said that. You only have to clip his statement and remove the actual context and then that's exactly what he said.
pathetic...

re: #226 Cato the Elder

Pleaze halp me with my ingles. Es mi segunda lengua y e olvidado mas que tu jamas has sabido.

Is sarah Palin unconstituional now? ya?

:))

re: #227 impostinat0r

uh-huh.

Just re-watched the clip - again.

He doesn't contextualise the phrase - other than that the Presidents reception wasn't exactly rapturous and was borderline apathetic. He's using shorthand to emphasise what i said above - Obama went against the General and by extsension the Military, he hints at an ensuing lack of enthusiasm from the crowd... he chose a dumb way of expressing it - but thats what its about.

re: #229 impostinat0r

You know what they say about making assumptions, don't you?

re: #229 impostinat0r

*whistles nonchalently.*

Palin's political ideology is truly a windfall for the Democratic Party, and an eyesore to the image of the GOP. One day Republican leadership will change for the better, and little by little, Palin is unwittingly edging them in that direction. Ever. So. Slowly.

re: #229 impostinat0r

That's all I'm going to put up with from you. Get off my website.

I'm a little late to this discussion but here is my opinion for the bottom of the thread. I have no problem with people of any faith running for office. I would bet that the vast majority of our elected officials have some kind of "faith" that they internalize. What I do have a problem with is politicians wearing it on their sleeve. Faith is a deeply personal choice and should be kept to oneself unless another person wants to hear about it or you are in the company of like minded people. To proclaim your faith, especially in a political scenaio, is simply pandering and it is a huge mistake. I don't doubt that maybe some of the founding fathers were "Christians" but they were smart enough to realize that even though they may (and I stress may) have believed that Christianity was the truth, it had absolutely no place in politics and no place in governing of any people. I'm a Christian and the absolute last thing I want in this country is a Christian Theocracy. No it isn't because I'm falling away from the faith, it is because any theocracy governed my men is doomed to failure. Humans wrongly interpret "God's will" all the time. What happens when the Christian theocracy is ousted and a Muslim or Hindu one is elected? Christians have a very hard time answering this question because they think that a "Christian theocracy" will usher in utopia. Not so. Men are flawed and any attempt to rule through a religion will also be flawed. This is why religion doesn't belong in politics and it doesn't belong in the science classroom. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either being dishonest or hasn't thought through the issue.

/steps down from soapbox

re: #234 Charles

That's all I'm going to put up with from you. Get off my website.

Aww, but I was still playing with it...

/

Anyone who rejoins your demolishing their argument but saying "Yea [sic] thats right, but..." and then restates the exact same argument again is pretty much hopeless. Sorry but ideological talking points over substance just were not going to cut it here impostinat0r.

And as usual, the "good Christian" moron followed up by sending an obscenity-laced hate mail, and got the IP block.

re: #237 Charles

And as usual, the "good Christian" moron followed up by sending an obscenity-laced hate mail, and got the IP block.

There's a virus goin' round.

Maddening, these illiterates. They just keep on illiterating.

The use of the fireplace is just callous. It's such a simple prop. You almost don't even notice it. Subconscious warfare. Or maybe I'm in an overly analytical mood regarding the absurd.

re: #235 Jetpilot1101

I'm a little late to this discussion but here is my opinion for the bottom of the thread. I have no problem with people of any faith running for office. I would bet that the vast majority of our elected officials have some kind of "faith" that they internalize. What I do have a problem with is politicians wearing it on their sleeve. Faith is a deeply personal choice and should be kept to oneself unless another person wants to hear about it or you are in the company of like minded people. To proclaim your faith, especially in a political scenaio, is simply pandering and it is a huge mistake. I don't doubt that maybe some of the founding fathers were "Christians" but they were smart enough to realize that even though they may (and I stress may) have believed that Christianity was the truth, it had absolutely no place in politics and no place in governing of any people. I'm a Christian and the absolute last thing I want in this country is a Christian Theocracy. No it isn't because I'm falling away from the faith, it is because any theocracy governed my men is doomed to failure. Humans wrongly interpret "God's will" all the time. What happens when the Christian theocracy is ousted and a Muslim or Hindu one is elected? Christians have a very hard time answering this question because they think that a "Christian theocracy" will usher in utopia. Not so. Men are flawed and any attempt to rule through a religion will also be flawed. This is why religion doesn't belong in politics and it doesn't belong in the science classroom. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either being dishonest or hasn't thought through the issue.

/steps down from soapbox

Upding for you :)

Sarah, Honey. Imaginary friends are not for grown ups. Science will provide us with the answers; talking to the desert god of Iron-Age Palestine will only get you into trouble.

Also late to the discussion, and with nothing really to add, except that this situation has a parallel in America's Finest news source (naturally): Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

Goodbye cruel world!

Say what you want about Sarah Palin, but I'll bet her Whitehouse will have a social secretary that knows her job.

She ran for the Governor of Alaska without party support - conducted a grass roots campaign and got 51% of the vote.

After being battered by a frightened left for months her popularity in Alaska was still 54% in May (from a high of 86%).

Obama couldn't keep his rating above 50% even with the concerted effort of the national press to airbrush his incompetence.

Watch out for her in 2012 - she's a title IX girl with an axe to grind.

re: #243 jimmycolorado

LOL

re: #34 lawhawk

Our Founding Fathers understood the importance of separation of church and state, religious freedom and tolerance, and Palin is seriously misreading and purposefully interprets events in a way that the Founders would not have done.

President Washington would never have gone for that interpretation.

Madison would not have gone with that interpretation.

Thomas Jefferson would not have gone with that interpretation.

Stop confusing people with facts.

re: #246 macirish

Say what you want about Sarah Palin, but I'll bet her Whitehouse will have a social secretary that knows her job.

She ran for the Governor of Alaska without party support - conducted a grass roots campaign and got 51% of the vote.

After being battered by a frightened left for months her popularity in Alaska was still 54% in May (from a high of 86%).

Obama couldn't keep his rating above 50% even with the concerted effort of the national press to airbrush his incompetence.

Watch out for her in 2012 - she's a title IX girl with an axe to grind.

Are you high?

re: #206 SanFranciscoZionist

A Fish Called Wanda is always awesome. :D

re: #246 macirish

Say what you want about Sarah Palin, but I'll bet her Whitehouse will have a social secretary that knows her job.

She ran for the Governor of Alaska without party support - conducted a grass roots campaign and got 51% of the vote.

After being battered by a frightened left for months her popularity in Alaska was still 54% in May (from a high of 86%).

Obama couldn't keep his rating above 50% even with the concerted effort of the national press to airbrush his incompetence.

Watch out for her in 2012 - she's a title IX girl with an axe to grind.

Thank you for illustrating why I never got into mescaline.

re: #251 darthstar

Thank you for illustrating why I never got into mescaline.

I just did a spit take!