Frank Schaeffer isn’t exactly your typical bleeding heart liberal. He is the son of Dr. Francis Schaeffer, one of the founders of the religious right movement, and he followed in his father’s footsteps, becoming a prominent speaker and writer on the evangelical political circuit. So when he warns of increasingly violent Christian right rhetoric escalating into actual violence, he well knows the sort of people he’s talking about.
“Since President Obama took office I’ve felt like the lonely — maybe crazy — proverbial canary in the coal mine,” Schaeffer said. “As a former right wing leader, who many years ago came to my senses and began to try to undo the harm the movement of religious extremism I helped build has done, I’ve been telling the media that we’re facing a dangerous time in our history. A fringe element of the far right Republican Party seems it believes it has a license to incite threatening behavior in the name of God.”
[…] “Sadly that line from the ‘Godfather’ sticks in my brain about the fact that anyone can be killed,” Schaeffer told Raw Story. “The scary thing is that there are a number of pastors on record as saying they are praying for the President’s death. Can you imagine what some gun-toting paranoid who hears that in a sermon is thinking and might do? And to them the fact that ‘the world’ likes this black man is reason enough to hate him. You wait. The reaction to Obama winning the Nobel Prize will be entirely negative from the far Religious Right. ‘See the world, all those socialists like him that just proves he’s a — fill in the blank — communist, secret Muslim, the Antichrist, whatever.'”
No doubt with so many on the right inciting violence, there will be violence, whether it’s an assassination attempt or another Oklahoma City, or just some of your run of the mill hate crimes. The willingness to raise arms against perceived domestic enemies is, after all, what some on Left Behind inspired far Christian right imagine when they talk about God and country.
[deleted; off topic.]
[Editor’s note: You’re free to parody me, but save the off-topic crap for the open threads. –Goldy]
I would never dream of inciting violence. My thoughts are purely defensive. If I had an XM307 25 mm autocannon, I would never shoot first, although I’d sure as hell return fire if I was shot at. Unfortunately, civilians can’t own those (and keeping them in ammo is beyond the means of middle class retirees like me), but don’t worry you violent wingfucks, if you decide to fuck with me I’ve got enough, and I’m not gonna tell you what it is, but trust me, it’s enough … so, if you batshit-insane traitors decide you want to start a civil war, go ahead and make my fucking day, it’s gonna be your funeral … but don’t worry, I’m a peace-loving liberal rabbit, and won’t shoot if you drop your weapons and raise your hands and surrender like good little nazis.
I wonder if we will look back at the 2010s as a disturbing time for conservative violence, like we looked back at the 1960s for “liberal” violence.
Are we going to have “Christian” Panthers and the “The Bible Underground” in our future?
As a veteran, it sickens me to note that being a “patriot” has become synonymous with talibangelical, obese, self entitled, and armed-to-the-teeth crackers.
Well, here’s an example of what level some of the political debate has reached on the right-wing level:
Source: http://golf.fanhouse.com/2009/.....?icid=main|main|dl1|link7|http%3A%2F%2Fgolf.fanhouse.com%2F2009%2F10%2F13%2Fswastika-barack-obamas-name-dug-into-golf-course-green%2F
There is a picture of the damaged green in the article.
Any blood which rightwing fundamentalists spill will be on the hands of Limbaugh, Beck, and the like. Hate speech has consequences, and these fucks are responsible for the hate they have generated within wingnuttia.
Who would Jesus shoot…..?!?
Yep, it’s going to get scary.
@3
So who on the left becomes the 2010 versions of Bull Connors and Richard Daley. Both were Democrats, btw.
@3
There was no shortage of right wing violence in the 60’s.
@4 You said it. Some of my fellow veterans are downright embarrassing. You wonder if the thinking parts of their brains got shot away.
This is all such crap. What we really have here is leftists trying to make political hay out of violence before it even happens … almost appearing as if they HOPE it happens so they CAN exploit it.
If Obama were attacked, that would be the worst thing in the world for conservatives, because Rahm Emanuel would do exactly what he says he does: he would use that crisis to push through as much radical leftist agenda as possible.
And that’s what this hand-wringing is all about. Obviously, people on the right are more likely to be armed. Sane people know that doesn’t make them more violent against other human beings, and that expressing your right to bear arms in the face of an Obama administration that has explicitly advocated restricting those rights does not imply anything except that you’re trying to protect your rights.
It’s extremely distasteful and dishonest. If there is any blood spilled, it will not be “on the hands of Limbaugh, Beck, and the like” any more than Reagan’s blood was on the hands of the Democrats and liberals. And it’s not “hate speech” just because you dislike it, you moron “proud leftist:” the speech against Obama has been LESS hateful overall — by far — than the speech against Bush was. Did you ever once criticize people for hateful speech against Bush? Of course not.
That Shaeffer’s conclusion that the right thinks the Nobel prize says anything about Obama is telling … he really doesn’t understand the people he’s criticizing. I’ve heard no one say that him getting the Nobel “proves” anything about him, since it’s his actual words and deeds that prove things, not what other people say about him. All the Nobel proves is that the Nobel committee is as ridiculuous now as it’s been for many years (and even Obama admitted he didn’t deserve it).
@10 “What we really have here is leftists trying to make political hay out of violence before it even happens”
Too bad somebody didn’t do that before a rightwinger named Adolf Hitler killed 50 million people.
I know of no right-winger named Adolf Hitler who did that … I only know of a left-winger by the same name.
Nazism is about extreme nationalism it is a right wing concept.
@12
Please….
Fascism is part of the far right.
Good article from 1995
.
Mike Jones, ummmmm no. Communism under Stalin and Mao were also extreme nationalism, and were thoroughly left-wing. Don’t be so simple-minded.
And no, Michael, fascism is not right-wing. Corporatism (a feature of fascism) in particular is about as leftist as you can get without being Marxist: rather than exploiting class conflict, it embraces classism to try to promote other societal aims. People get confused because fascism was a response to and rejection of communism, and assume that because it was to the right of communism, it was therefore on the right of the spectrum as a whole. That is, of course, foolish.
Since we’re quoting Wikipedia, try this: “… writers on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult. There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right. A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.”
What’s really terribly sad, Michael, is that you think “liberal democracy” is somehow not what conservatives stand for. It absolutely is. By far, the most powerful anti-liberal-democracy ideology in the world’s history is communism, which is leftist.
However, regardless of how you characterize Hitler, it was the left-wingers who were appeasing Hitler, and the right-wingers who opposed him. So to imply Hitler is linked somehow to the right is nonsense, just like when some idiots on the right compare Obama to Hitler.
The only reason to bring up Hitler in contexts like this is to try to diminish your opponent’s arguments by attemping to link them to the atrocities of the Third Reich. It’s extremely dishonest.
Pudge… you’re funny.
Yes, in addition to being correct, I am also funny.
Correct, Pudgie?
Only an idiot like Pudge would call Hitler a left-winger and believe his own nonsense.
What tripe. Pudgie must have flunked history in the third grade too.
Yawn: shrug, point out anything I said that was incorrect, and then back it up.
@19 You’re assuming he made it that far.
@19
You see the idea that fascism is tied to the left wing is one of those things wingnuts believe to be true no matter what evidence they are shown to the contrary. Just like “intelligent design”, supply side economics, or the idea that global climate change is some sort of liberal conspiracy.
Pudge: “Yes, in addition to being correct, I am also funny.”
Ah, man, you should have your own stand-up gig. Who ever thought that self-delusion could be so entertaining?
Chris Stefan:
That’s easy to say when no evidence has been shown to the contrary. Go ahead, show it. I already showed features of fascism which are firmly on the left, especially corporatism. I don’t deny some features of fascism are from the right … in fact, I provided a quote saying fascism comes from both the left AND the right.
So you have to show “evidence” that corporatism, for example, is from the right. Good luck with that.
Funny how no one is even trying to attack my actual arguments.
There is literally no evidence that intelligent design is not true. The issue is whether it qualifies as science, not whether it is true. (That’s not to say all the arguments for ID cannot be proven false, but the theory itself cannot be.)
There is much more evidence that supply side economics works, than that it doesn’t. Sorry to burst your bubble there.
And no one claims global climate change — a constant for the history of the Earth — is a liberal conspiracy. What IS a liberal conspiracy, however, is using whatever is going on in the climate to push a socialist/environmentalist agenda.
We saw this with Ron Sims: there’s a warm winter, and he says, “see, we need more controls over private property and business activity.” Let’s not pretend this doesn’t happen, regardless of the truth or falsity of AGW theory.
@16
I don’t recall thinking or saying that. I do recall having a great deal of respect for classical conservatism, classical conservatives and voting for two Republican’s in the ’08 election.
I’m not equating Republican’s with fascism or nazism by pointing out they’re both on the right hand side of the political spectrum. Just as Democrats aren’t Maoists because both are part of the left.
@24 “There is literally no evidence that intelligent design is not true.”
Well….there’s you, isn’t there?
Political Compass has a pretty good breakdown of where world leader fit.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
When I took their quiz I was a little lower and to the left of Gandhi.
Pudge, PLEASE take a college-level class on modern political philosophy. When you call Stalin and Mao as being nationalist philosophies, clearly you don’t know what you are talking about.
Communism rejected nationalism in favor of a internationalist movement. Heck, the Communist anthem was the “Internationale”. Stalin only borrowed nationalist concepts during WWII in order to evoke patriotism for “Mother Russia” to fight the Germans, he just as quickly abandoned it afterwards.
I won’t even try to explain economic concepts of collectivisation, socialsm and compare them with Nazi-era capitalism. That’s just too far above your head right now for you to even start to understand the distinctions. For now, just remember that the Nazis supported Krupp, and Krupp supported the Nazis, and you will begin to get a hint.
Michael: your quote — apparently proving that fascism is on the right — was bolded by you to say that fascism was opposed to liberal democracies. But liberal democracy is not on the left. Not in this country, anyway.
A simplistic and boring breakdown that doesn’t really tell us anything significant. But even there, it shows that Hitler is much closer to Stalin (and most Democrats) than Friedman (where most American conservatives are).
@16 “Corporatism (a feature of fascism) in particular is about as leftist as you can get without being Marxist: rather than exploiting class conflict, it embraces classism to try to promote other societal aims.”
@24 “I already showed features of fascism which are firmly on the left, especially corporatism.”
Oh, horseshit. You haven’t showed anything. In America, when it comes to giving corporate bodies an influenial role in government decision-making, Republicans lead the way, Pudge. Worse, as you are, Republicans are secretive or liars about it. Cheney’s energy task force is an easy example. The drug bill another. Hell, corporate lobbyists write Republican legislation for them. Yours is a very weak attempt to disown wingnut corporatism, Pudge.
@24
Maybe that is because your arguments are stupid.
Pudgie@24
Oh Puh-lease. ID is neither true nor is it a theory in the sense the scientific community thinks of theories.
Nova did a thorough debunking of ID some time back in a 2 hour program: Judgement Day – Intelligent Design on Trial. The ID proponents took their case to court in Dover, Pennsylvania and lost big time. The video is available here
@29
It shows Hitler on the right. Which is all I’ve said all along.
In America and elsewhere Liberal Democracy exists in the center of the spectrum. Both Democrats and Republicans fit easily within it.
Please, put down the revisionist crap and take a political science class or two.
Steve:
Ummmm. “Corporatism” has nothing to do with business “corporations.”
Oops.
I knew someone here would fall for that … maybe you all did, which is why no one responded to it. It’s common, when left wingers try to prove that fascism is right-wing, they talk about “coporations.” But corporatism really is left-wing, and is only marginally related to business corporations.
A good example of corporatism in America is the National Labor Relations Board and laws guaranteeing the right to unionize (or the lack of right to NOT unionize). Regulation of groups and their relationships with each other. Giving special rights to Native Americans, ethnic groups, religious groups, homosexuals, journalists … whatever. That’s corporatism too. Also special rights for business corporations, that’s corporatism too, but only a very small part of it.
Corporatism is, simply put, separating people into groups and then regulating how they interact. It is an explicit response to communism’s view of class warfare: rather than pit the classes against each other, you regulate how they interact with each other.
People who take the fascist ideal of corporatism and say that Republicans are guilty of it because of their ties to business corporations are guilty first of ignorance in not knowing what the word means, second of the equivocation fallacy in using that word incorrectly, and third of a second kind of ignorance: pretending that the Democrats have any fewer ties to business than the Republicans do.
Ekim:
Nice of you to say, but no one can demonstrate that.
No, it didn’t. What it did was criticize certain arguments pushed by ID proponents, not ID itself, which simply states that creation was intelligently designed … an assertion that cannot be disproven.
Yes, in an extremely odd case that anyone who loves science should be angry with. The judge literally asserted the authority of the court to decide what is, and is not, science. That is anathema to all lovers of science.
The judge also incorrectly said that ID is merely creationism, showing he had a poor grasp of the subject.
Michael:
Yes. Which is false.
So? You were implying that because Hitler was against liberal democracy, that this proved he was on the right, which is nonsense.
That you’ve ONLY taken a class or two is apparently the problem here. You actually think that idiotic “political compass” has any serious meaning, for example.
@17 Not really. “Pathetic” is a better word than “funny” in this context.
Nothing that pudge says here has any bearing on reality. I suggest we ignore this clown.
@12 “I know of no right-winger named Adolf Hitler who did that … I only know of a left-winger by the same name.”
I submit that most or all of what you “know” is bullshit. In fact, you are a know-nothing.
As a veteran, it sickens me to note that being a “patriot” has become synonymous with talibangelical, obese, self entitled, and armed-to-the-teeth crackers.
What do you expect when the conservatives questioned the patriotism of every American that questioned anything they did or said.
@16 “And no, Michael, fascism is not right-wing.”
Oh, but yes it is, and your silly assertion that it’s not doesn’t change the fact of the matter.
@16 It has always seemed to me that Republicans have some ideology and practices in common with Hitler. Nixon, for example, used government authority to persecute and harass his political opponents. Nixon and Bush, among others, engaged in surreptitious domestic spying against law-abiding citizens, in a manner somewhat reminiscent of a Hitlerian police state. Hitler was a warmonger and torturer; so is Bush. It is always rightwingers who want to muzzle dissent and free speech with sedition laws, and who deride the ACLU for defending free speech rights. It is rightwingers who talk about putting people in concentration camps for opposing government actions, especially those consisting of military aggression against other countries and peoples. You have aligned yourself with a rightwing ideology that has more in common with Hitler’s view of government and use of authority than you may realize or are willing to admit.
Steve says: “corporate bodies”
Pudge says: “Ummmm. “Corporatism” has nothing to do with business “corporations.”
Oops.”
What is it about “corporate bodies” that escapes you, Pudge?
“I knew someone here would fall for that …”
I hope for your sake that you’re being purposely dense, Pudge.
@25 “I’m not equating Republican’s with fascism or nazism”
Well I am because they have fascist goals and behave like nazis.
@28 Yep, Krupp was a socialist who believed in workers owning the factory …
[hysterical rabbit laughter in background]
It is obvious that Pudgie is going for the Golden Goat. Marvelous Marvie and ButtPutty are completely out of the running.
I’d like to see Pudge tell these kind folk to their face that they’re all just a bunch of George Soros lovin’ leftist moonbats, always siding with blacks, and intent on forcing the glbt agenda on innocent little wingnut children.
http://www.americannaziparty.com/
@34 “Giving special rights to Native Americans, ethnic groups, religious groups, homosexuals, journalists”
Special rights? Native Americans don’t have special rights. In fact, for a long time, they had less rights than you did — they weren’t recognized as U.S. citizens, didn’t have the right to vote, couldn’t choose where to live, had their children taken from them and sent to government boarding schools, etc. Today’s Native Americans now have full citizenship, but they have no special rights you don’t have. Take, for example, the 50% of the salmon allocated to the tribes by the Boldt decision. That’s a property right. They exchanged land for fish. The law doesn’t let you take their property away from them, just as it doesn’t let strangers move into your house. That’s not a “special” right, it’s the same property right you have.
What “special rights” do religious groups have? Are you talking about the Amish? What “special” rights do they have, that you don’t? They have the same property rights you do. They’re not exempt from taxes. They’re subject to the same laws.
What “special” rights do homosexuals have? Are you talking about hate crimes? Does an enhanced penalty for beating or killing a person because of their sexual orientation confer some sort of “special right” on the victim of the assault or murder? What right is that?
What “special rights” do journalists have? Are you talking about laws protecting journalists from disclosing sources? That’s not a personal right of the journalist. Such laws — where they exist, and they certainly don’t exist everywhere — are for the public’s benefit, not the journalist’s benefit. A journalist being able to get information from confidential sources on matters of public interest — especially matters have to do with official misconduct — is important to the public welfare. The journalist doesn’t get any personal benefit from it.
You are simply repeating the false rightwing mantra that certain groups enjoy “special rights” that ordinary citizens don’t. This myth is part and parcel of the rightwing cult of victimhood. It’s a component of a faith system similar to flat-earth beliefs. It has no bearing on reality.
@35 “Yes, in an extremely odd case that anyone who loves science should be angry with. The judge literally asserted the authority of the court to decide what is, and is not, science. That is anathema to all lovers of science.”
Intelligent design is a legal strategy invented to circumvent the Supreme Court’s rulings against promoting a particular religion in public schools. Even the people who invented it don’t claim it’s “science.” The judge knows a legal strategem when he sees one, and there’s nothing “odd” about him following the rulings of the Supreme Court, which are the law of the land. That’s what judges are expected and required to do, and they can be removed from the bench if they don’t (see, e.g., disrobed and disbarred Alabama chief justice Roy Moore).
@36 “Michael:
It shows Hitler on the right. Which is all I’ve said all along.
Yes. Which is false.”
Nope. Preen and caw all you want, but you’re full of birdshit.
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” Benito Mussolini
You can bend the truth all you want, Pudge, but here it is from the horses mouth.
Steve: ha. Even if you’re denying your error, I hope you still realize that corporatism is not what you thought it was, and that it is, indeed, a very leftwing idea.
Pudge is a dumbshit.
THIS is what WE are talking about.
What the fuck are YOU talking about?
Yep, no need to worry about violence from these folks.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/
Roger Rabbit:
False, of course. I’m not as old you apparently think I am.
Let’s just go straight to the big one: the right to ignore many state laws against gambling, zoning, smoking, billboards, and many other things.
To not pay taxes.
In fact, they are. Not all taxes, sure. But many.
In this state, of course, homosexuals have the right to not be discriminated against for “expressions” of their homosexuality. Not even ethnic groups have that right.
No. While this does violate due process rights of the accused, it has nothing to do with the rights of the victim.
Yes, I am talking about that, and no, you’re wrong, it is a personal right.
Oh, how cute that you believe that. In fact, they exist to protect the job of the journalist … and, of course, the actions of the politicians that the journalists are covering up. Protection for anonymous sources is all about protecting the journalist’s sources, not protecting my right to know.
I defy you to give a single example of a story that wouldn’t have happened without legal protection of sources. Pick any one.
I actually know this issue pretty well, having a degree in journalism and studying the topic for years … so choose wisely.
And EVEN IF you were right (which you aren’t) that it benefits the public (which it doesn’t), the fact is that in most jurisdictions (and these laws exist in almost all states), it is a right conferred not to FUNCTION but to PEOPLE. So a journalist, whether reporting or not, has a blanket right to not give information to the authorities in certain types of cases; and a non-journalist, even if writing about it for his “blog,” does not have such protection.
(Some states are moving away from this, and that’s good, but protection of sources is still damaging, and does absolutely nothing of benefit to the public.)
… which is true, as you’ve helped me demonstrate.
@10
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....us_and_ame
It’s already happening.
So where did “pudge” get HIS J.D.?
How long has “pudge” been practicing law?
OH! He doesn’t practice law? He’s just pulling this shit out of his ass?
Figures.
RR:
False. Is it too much trouble for you to have the least bit of understanding about a topic before you talk about it?
It is a philosophy that is very old and common and shared by many faiths, including Muslims and Christians and Jews. It is USED as a legal strategy by SOME PEOPLE.
Did you ask them? They are all dead these thousands of years …
The Supreme Court never told any court to rule on whether something is, or is not, science. Please try to understand this basic fact.
The court had every reason to rule whether this specific implementation of ID constituted an infringement of the establishment clause. It has no business whatsoever ruling on whether ID itself is not science.
Let’s imagine that some school board wanted to push their Gaian earth-worshipping views, and so they wrapped it up in Global Warming Science. Would that mean Global Warming Science is Gaian, that it is religion, that it is merely a legal backdoor? Would a judge be justified in saying that Global Warming isn’t science, based on this particular Gaian implementation of it?
That’s what happened in the Dover case; that’s what many scientists ignorantly cheered.
Ru:
Actually, no, it’s not. “YOU” were talking about fascism. I mentioned a feature of fascism, which is corporatism, which is a leftwing idea.
Try to keep up.
(BTW, another feature of corporatism is heavy reliance on pieces of paper like degrees and so on, as a means to separate people into groups, so thanks for helping to make my point.
I never claimed to be a lawyer; but it is, of course, a common logical fallacy to attack my lack of one as though it has any bearing on my arguments. Logic dictates that it does not.)
Michael: and someone else killed a pro-life activist for HIS views. And a soldier was murdered IN THE U.S. because of HIS affiliation with the military. And a conservative black man was beaten up for HIS views against Obamacare.
Yes, it is already happening.
“Even if you’re denying your error”
Good grief, Pudge, what error? I talk about “corporate bodies” and you erroneously claim that I’m talking “corporations”. You seem to have the denial dial cranked all the way to eleven these days. Sigh! Just another wingnut who’s utterly incapable of admitting when they’re wrong, even over the smallest thing.
Quimface Norquist: yes, corporate power, where “corporate” means “unions, businesses, ethnic groups, religions,” and so on. You are committing the equivocation fallacy … probably due to ignorance, though it’s hard to tell.
“Yes, it is already happening.”
Progressive commie-fascists are coming to slit your throat in the middle of the night. Be very afraid, Pudge.
Steve:
The one where you falsely interpreted “corporate” to refer to corporation. In your words: “Cheney’s energy task force is an easy example. The drug bill another. Hell, corporate lobbyists write Republican legislation for them.”
Riiiight, I am in error … just because you a. gave several examples, ALL of which were about corporations, and b. you said “Republicans lead the way” in it even though it is entirely obvious that Democrats are at least as heavily influenced by unions, trial lawyers, corporations, and so on as the Republicans.
Again: feel free to deny what you said, as long as you understand it NOW.
Hey, I like your new sig!
Steve:
Riiiiiight. So you can show an example of rightwing violence and that contributes to the discussion, but when I give examples of leftwing violence, that’s dismissed?
I can think of nothing that so obviously shows your lack of reason. Thank you.
Violence is something the left seems to need therapy with. Come on out to the gun range at Index and I’ll show you how to shoot a pistol to protect yourself from all these Christians who are OUT TO GET YOU! I will say this, most Christians are out to get you INTO CHURCH ON SUNDAY AND ON YOUR KNEES PRAYING.
“The one where you falsely interpreted “corporate” to refer to corporation.”
Go ahead and ignore that I wrote of “corporate bodies” and used “corporations” only as an example of Republican corporatism. It will no doubt help you achieve the total state of denial you seek.
“Riiiight, I am in error … just because you a. gave several examples”
That’s right, Ding-a-ling, you are in error. I said “Corporate bodies”. Can you understand without your head exploding? What a dunce you are.
Not to get into a puddy style thread-crapping contest, but methinks it’s you should get the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth.
You don’t get the point, and apparently your too thick to try to apprehend anything but your own pre-concieved ideas.
Good luck to you…you’re gonna need it.
re 60: So, if ‘corporatism’ is a left wing idea, then so are corporations — which you seem to be wholeheartedly in favor of.
Socialist.
@67
We don’t believe (at least I don’t) that there are “all these Christians” out to get us/me. There are plenty of Christians in the center and on the left too, btw.
@69 “You don’t get the point, and apparently your too thick to try to apprehend anything but your own pre-concieved ideas.”
The thickest skull of any HA troll. It’s pointless to try to converse with him.
Thicker than the pudster? That would be REALLY REALLY thick!! LOLOL
I, for one, would like to thank Pudge for posting here where he knows his beliefs will not be recieved well. I do not agree with him on many things but I do appreciate his not coming here and behaving like a spoiled child by name calling and being rude. So thank you Pudge and thanks also to everyone who responded back civilly and acted like grown ups. This was a pleasant read.
@71…common sense posts like that will not get you very many responses.
Pudgie@35 puked
Nobody can prove that Intelligent Design is true, even if you assume that ID is a theory* and not some religious belief.
One of the many things the Nova program established was hoe well the Theory of Evolution tied in with the biological sciences and was a fundamental part in the advancement of these sciences. And that ID contributes nothing.
@75 re 71: It only takes one.
@65 Sorry, pudge, but English is a language in which many words have multiple meanings, and the word “corporatist” in vernacular usage has come to refer to “having to do with corporations” and more specifically “having to do with corporate influence.” It may not be dictionary-kosher, but there it is.
We were so honored to have a have a hard-core right wing folk-singing tea-bagger in our midst..
And so bored with that teabagger’s stilted views.
Oh my that’s a hoot!
http://bit.ly/1SL8Ul
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVwfdaYuy1k
There was never any hate speech from liberals against Bush. People who referred to him as a warmonger, torturer, liar, and thief were simply reporting facts.
It’s pretty funny that Michael Ledeen a old Reagan loving neo-con who had some ties to real Italian fascists found it odd that Jonah Goldberg try to shoehorn fascism into an exclusively left wing phenomenon.
pudge @ 12
What was Mussolini’s political alignment, left or right?