Yeah sure, Dan had it up on Slog first, but it was too good to resist….
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
two thumbs up!
I have to say – the republican field does have experience. Unfortunately for them, it is mostly bad experiences.
Huckabee’s problem is that he lies about past mistakes.
“Oh – the parole board let that killer out..” when he lobbied the parole board.
“oh, everyone back then thought AIDS was dangerous and we should quarantine people..”, this was 1992 – the Surgeon general’s report came out in 1987 or 88.
The guy is a real loony too – check out his views on evolution and the bible. Dinosaurs lived with people and the world is only 6-7,000 years old.
And this is the “top” candidate now….hahahaha
This republican field is probably the weakest collection of politicians….every one of them has at least one fatal flaw. Not too mention they all came out strongly against Iranian nuclear weapons and are for the war in Iraq.
@2 WADR
I do not agree about Huckababy. He is a devout believer and pretty consistent in those beleifs. That, I guess, makes him a loser for Prexy of the US, BUT I wish more pols were as honest about their beliefs as this guy.
I would say much the same for McCain. Not that he is a believer in an extreme religion, but ..within the limtis of politics.. he has tried to live his beliefs.
I actually like Romney, but he is not willing to admit that he is a member of a church that is not Christian. I would have been a lot mor eimpressed if the fella ahd sais “Yep I am a M-O-R-M-O-N. This is the religon of my fathers and a rfeligon that gives ,me ………
Instead he catered to the Xtains.
RG is an eerie duppleganger of Giuliani .. sort of an angel-devil dichotomy. Yet, there are similarities in the willing to compormise religious beliefs. I do NOT think RG is a fundie or Romney is a fundy, but their obsequious bewhavior leaves me confused about what they do believe.
On our side, you are right. An amazing crew!
Hilary – Tax and Spend “I have Millions of programs but the US can’t afford them”
Barack – I want to talk to our enemies. Even though they kill their daughters when they don’t wear the burqa, they are really nice people.
Chris – We need a carbon tax now
Joe – Well we need a national defense but… social programs are better for us.
Bill – I like this guy even though his border stance is ennnnnhhhhh…
Dennis – Yeah baby!
You forgot fatAlBore: How do experts and activists battle Global Warming? They jet off to Bali for a two-week UN conference focussed on how best to tax and regulate the rest of us.
I want Huckabee to win the Republican nomination because whoever the dems nominate in the end will kick his wingnut ass in the general
@5: Are you a Christian?
@4: Muttbudder,
Rudy–pathological power seeking Hitler wanna’be. Nut Case.
St. John–unindicted crook (cf. Keating 5). Panderer. Nut Case.
Huckapoo–religious extremist. Ignorant rube. Liar. Nut Case.
Mitty–Serial panderer. So plastic, it’s hard to determine if there is enough ‘reality’ there to say if he, too, is a Nut Case. Probably is.
Tackycancraydoo–Racist. Nut Case.
Ron Paul–Wingnut libertarian. Racist. Loony. Far, far away, the nuttiest of the bunch.
I’d say the GOP has a real problem on its hands, but I’m sure you’re donating a lot of money to this losing cause. Too bad you can’t write it off.
Wait—forget about Barrack and Hilarious. They are a waste of your precious time. CYNTHIA MCKINNEY is running for president on the Green Party ticket! How can you rabid lefties not be salivating over a ticket like that? Vote for Cynthia!
Proud to be an Ass @ 8
“Mitty–Serial panderer. So plastic, it’s hard to determine if there is enough ‘reality’ there to say if he, too, is a Nut Case. Probably is.”
Mitt’s no nut case…he wears magic underwear to protect himself from that.
wait till the R’s draft Jeb Bush —- and Mitt is not a comical figure, under rate him at your peril
in the spoof the most they could say is that his is clean shaven and good looking and wears silky union suit underwear, in the West the underwear joke works, but that is because there are so many Mormons around …
and that is supposed to be some set of high negatives – hardly
Bush – Romney ….. the ticket to fear
Watch out.
Unsound endorsed (sort of) Willard this fine day.
His name is NOT “Mitt.”
His name is WILLARD.
I think this pretty much sums up the Democrat presidential field: “I was happy to find in my stack a new copy of Hillary Clinton’s famous bestseller, It Takes a Village, revised, updated, and reissued in a special anniversary edition to coincide with her presidential campaign, by which she seeks to take over the whole village.
“Like Castro, like Ceausescu, like many other politicians, Mrs. Clinton prefers to be photographed surrounded by schoolchildren, an image that suggests either a kid’s birthday party or a hostage situation, depending on your point of view. I got past the cover photo, with its army of youngsters and Mrs. Clinton’s mandible-cracking smile, to search through the actual text, in hopes of finding some mention of Barbara Feinman who, in addition to other professional accomplishments, wrote the book. A decade ago, when Village was first published, (Barbara) Feinman was much talked about for having gone unmentioned.
“Shortly before the book came out, Mrs. Clinton boasted of having ‘written a 320-page book in longhand over the last six months.’ This came as a surprise to her ghostwriter. Feinman had often worked late nights at the White House and even followed Mrs. Clinton on vacation in hope of picking up stray thoughts she could use to bulk up the manuscript, and she had been assured her role as ghost would be generously acknowledged. Yet when Village finally appeared there was no mention of Feinman either on the cover or in the Acknowledgments. News stories appeared detailing Feinman’s role, but White House spokesmen backed the first lady in her contention that the book was her work alone.”
Situation normal, and unchanged, in the revised standard version. (Via Andrew Sullivan.)
[Quoted by fair use fair trade free trade blah blah blah: http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....2C27260%5D
Mitt:
For abortion before he was against it.
For illegal immigrants before he was against them.
For big government before he was against it.
For whatever you wnat him to be for.
by the way – how do you change you “moral’ position on abortion? I guess he thinks it is murder now, but didn’t think so before?
also – a Mormon who doesn’t like to say the word Mormon.
Can’t wait for him to run against any Democrat with his waffle record. also, is he real of is he plastic? I don’t think plastic could pander as much as he does.
Can’t wait for him to lose Iowa after outspending the Huckster 100:1.
Maybe Krauthammer, maybe Goldberg, reminded me that that Mitt’s the third LDS candidate for president. Everybody remembers #1, of course, brainwashed George, but I and maybe you had forgotten about #2, Mo Udall in 1976.
What made Mo unmemorable was the lack of buzz about his faith or, as Stephanie Miller says, his sacred underpants.
The bottom-line lesson I take home from this is that its impolite to use religion against a candidate unless the candidate is a modern Republican. For us, it’s open season all year long.
Big Mo:
First – if actually read Jonah (the Iraq war is a success) Goldberg or Charles (the Iraq war has been going great for 5 years) Krauthammer without gagging – then you have a better intestinal system then I do – and you can tolerate toxic nonsense.
The reason no one mentioned mush about Moe Udall is that he was never a serious contender. Nothing much was said about Mitt, until he started to spend millions and pull into the lead.
Now that the National Review has endorsed him – to try and get any republican elected – the conservatives that are not religious idealogues will go for Mitt while the religious right will go for Huckabee.
In the end – one of these groups will be alienated and not vote.
Oh – and by the way there was a democrat who was asked about his religoin just a bit, maybe you recall JFK…or Lieberman or….
so please don’t posit ridiculous whining republican claims on here – like only republicans have to account for religion. Try telling that to the Democratic congressman from Minnesota (Keith Ellison).
typo:
If you actually read…
Big Mo (a.k.a. Roger Maggot Jr.),
“What made Mo unmemorable was the lack of buzz about his faith”
You mean, besides it causing him to lose the Michigan primary? In fact, Mo was a fallen Mormon—he wasn’t active in the church, and he was quite critical of the church (esp. its racist policies, some that have since been rescinded).
Oh…and he was a liberal Democrat. Liberals don’t really care all that much about a person’s particular religious bent.
‘The bottom-line lesson I take home from this is that its impolite to use religion against a candidate unless the candidate is a modern Republican.’
Indeed…but it is the right wingers who make a big deal out of a candidate’s religion (and have for a couple of decades now). The wingers decided to court the Christian fundamentalists, and now they have to live with it.
The Republicans have a bunch of candidates who are entirely unsuitable to that portion of the “base.” And the one candidate who is acceptable to the fundamentalists has the look and smell of a Southern Baptist (anti-evolution, young earth) wackjob to mainstream Americans.
When Mitt made his “I am a religious nutjob, just like you” speech, he wasn’t talking to the liberals…he was trying to sell himself to the Fundies in order to have a shot at winning the primary!
In other words, the religious bigotry resides in the Republican ranks—the rest of us think the whole religion thing is highly amusing.
“Like Castro, like Ceausescu, like many other politicians, Mrs. Clinton prefers to be photographed surrounded by schoolchildren…”
All is lost. If the Kooks have genius scribes brilliant enough to craft rhetorical tricks like that one, why the Democrats won’t stand a chance. We might as well concede.
Notice how subtly Ferguson places Clinton in the same frame with murderous dictators. Had it not been pointed out, many readers might not have even noticed. And yet they would come away with the vague impression that Senator Clinton, if elected President, might seize control of the government, arrest the Congress, suspend the Constitution, sweep aside personal freedoms, and begin the systematic slaughter of political opponents and undesirables.
Whoever the hell this Ferguson guy is, he’s scary smart.
“(T)hen you have a better intestinal system then I do …”
But we knew that already.
Yes, I sort of recall this ‘JFK’ you mention. And I also recall Al Smith in 1928. And Barry Goldwater, 1964, who was that peculiarly American confection, a Jewish Episcopalian. And I even remember born-again Joe Lieberman, my choice for the Lieberman part of a Huckabee-Lieberman ticket, or a Romney-Lieberman ticket, or a McCain-Lieberman ticket.
“Liberals don’t really care all that much about a person’s particular religious bent.”
This is self-parody, right?
Neo-fascist Democrats are obsessed with faith, and increasing regard it as disqualifying for the presidency. I explicated the evolution of the Religious Left on another thread (The Rev Algore and The Rev Kerry using a black Baptist pulpit as a cash machine; The Rev Shrill Hillary using the pulpit as a down-home Diebold machine … “I done come too farrrr …). My point was that when the fundy evangelicals voted as a bloc for Peanut Jimmy, nobody worried. Only when they realized their mistake and started voting Republican did open season on religion open up.
(You may be right about Mo/e being a fallen Saint. As confessed earlier, I’d forgotten about his feeble attempt at high office.)
Dear Jeff Guckert: Yes, Ferguson is guilty of committing writing. What shall we and Sharia do with him?
Maybe I’ve conflated Mo/e Udall with Mo Dowd.
Perfesser Darryl barfed, farted, spewed, catballed:
You mean, besides it causing him to lose the Michigan primary? In fact, Mo was a fallen Mormon—he wasn’t active in the church, and he was quite critical of the church (esp. its racist policies, some that have since been rescinded).
Mo reminds me a little bit like Scary Harry Land Deal Reid. He really lives his convictions too. Strike One.
Oh…and he was a liberal Democrat. Liberals don’t really care all that much about a person’s particular religious bent.
Really? I posted what Larry O’Donnell said to Hugh Hewitt about Mitt the Mormon vs Islam. Larry knew Mormons don’t fight back but Islam would KILL HIM! Strike Two.
Indeed…but it is the right wingers who make a big deal out of a candidate’s religion (and have for a couple of decades now). The wingers decided to court the Christian fundamentalists, and now they have to live with it.
Really? When the Supreme Court Judges Alito and Roberts were going through their confirmation hearings we learned all about their religion from the lefty MSM and other hateraid bloggers like you Perfesser Darryl. Strike Three.
The Republicans have a bunch of candidates who are entirely unsuitable to that portion of the “base.” And the one candidate who is acceptable to the fundamentalists has the look and smell of a Southern Baptist (anti-evolution, young earth) wackjob to mainstream Americans.
How do you know this Perfesser Darryl? Reading the left wing white sticky kool-aid web sites which provides the lotion and tonic for your mind? Strike Four.
When Mitt made his “I am a religious nutjob, just like you” speech, he wasn’t talking to the liberals…he was trying to sell himself to the Fundies in order to have a shot at winning the primary! Strike Five
You just proved my point Perfesser Darryl. Liberals use religion to categorize someone. Then we have the Larry O’Donnells’ oh I just remembered the Diane Sawyers too who opined on GMA that Mormonism isn’t a religion. Strike Six
In other words, the religious bigotry resides in the Republican ranks—the rest of us think the whole religion thing is highly amusing.
Ever heard of the Christian Hating ACLU and their T-Shirt, Bible in School, Prayer in School losing lawsuits? Strike Seven Eight and Nine.
Side out! Back to the dugout Perfesser Darryl!
Puddy
How does a guy get so full of himself as you are? You spew unintelligible nonsense and then chalk yourself up as “winner.” By the way, I am a longtime and avid member of the ACLU as well as a devout Christian. Your head probably bursts at such a concept.
Proud left you must be confused. The italicized catball unintelligible nonsense is from Perfesser Darryl.
I answered with verifiable facts to every one of his rants. In fact proud leftist I posted the links to each of my answers right here on HorsesASSHoles. You can take some time and look them up.
Puddy remembers!
No my head doesn’t burst at the concept you are a Christian and you love the ACLU. How can you support a group who tears down everything Christian and many of which were instituted when the founding fathers were alive?
Many houses exist divided. It just can’t stand in the final judgment. Hence I put forth Scary Harry Land Deal Reid!
So Proud Leftist what do you think about:
Southern Baptists
Episcopalians
Muslims
Mormons
Catholics
etc. etc. etc.?
Remember per Perfesser Darryl you don’t JUDGE people because you’s a leftist.
Remember Proud Leftist I first brought to you on this blog Richard C. Blum AKA Mr Dianne Feinstein.
Next I brought to you the words of the Democrat candidates.
I guess facts hurt your single celled liberal mind!
27 Agreed, Puddy…there are “many houses”. Not all of them are all that “divided”.
On the other hand, there are many of us faithful folk who think of much of what you refer to as “everything Christian” as anything but.
@3 Huckabee is honest about his religious beliefs — and nothing else. The guy is a serial liar. Check out his record and you’ll see. He wears his religion on his sleeve and lies about absolutely everything else. He especially lies about his role in springing a rapist from jail who used his newfound freedom to murder two more people.
PuddyDipShit,
“Really?”
Yep.
“I posted what Larry O’Donnell said to Hugh Hewitt about Mitt the Mormon vs Islam. “
Nobody gives a shit what you posted from whom. Most of us don’t waste our time slogging through your rambling, largely incoherent, drivel.
“Larry knew Mormons don’t fight back but Islam would KILL HIM!”
This statement smacks of profound ignorance of Islam.
“When the Supreme Court Judges Alito and Roberts were going through their confirmation hearings we learned all about their religion from the lefty MSM and other hateraid bloggers like you Perfesser Darryl.”
As far as I know, Alito and Roberts have never been candidates for PUSA. But your statement is quite funny…I’ve never blogged about either of their religion. In fact, I have no idea what denomination Roberts is. I assume Alito is probably Catholic solely based on his sir name.
But, PuddyAssWipe, as irrelivant as Alito and Robert’s is to my statement about Presidential candidates, I suspect you are confusing the Senate’s and the media’s interest in their political (and judicial) position on specific issues (i.e. abortion, death penalty), which may be shaped by their religious convictions, rather than an interest in their religion in and of itself.
In other words, the Senate and media would have wanted to know about their position on abortion, death penalty, etc. even if they were atheists, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, or Rastafarians.
“How do you know this Perfesser Darryl? Reading the left wing white sticky kool-aid web sites which provides the lotion and tonic for your mind? Strike Four.”
What the fuck are you babbling about?
“You just proved my point Perfesser Darryl.”
Perhaps…but it is not clear that you have made any “point” to be proved. You seem to be babbling.
“Liberals use religion to categorize someone.”
Indeed, as do conservatives, and almost every human in every human culture in the world. My previous comment does deny that people categorize people by religion.
My point was that liberals don’t care all that much about the person’s religion, itself. They typically don’t care if a politician is Jewish, Mormon, Christian, Atheist, devil worshipers, or whatever. They DO care if they are anti-science, against a woman’s right to choice an abortion, racist, sexist, hates non-Christians (or, equivalently, hates Christians), or ignores anthropogenically-induced global warming because the rapture is neigh (or, equivalently, because the Flying Spaghetti Monster is about to deliver us to the Big Colander in the Sky). Those policies are frequently shaped by a person’s religion. But it is the policy position, not the religion, that subjects a candidate to the scorn (or praise) of many liberals.
“Then we have the Larry O’Donnells’ oh I just remembered the Diane Sawyers too who opined on GMA that Mormonism isn’t a religion. Strike Six”
Don’t know who Larry O’Donnell is…never heard Diane Sawyer talk about Mormonism…never seen Good Morning America. Sorry.
“Ever heard of the Christian Hating ACLU and their T-Shirt, Bible in School, Prayer in School losing lawsuits?”
And this has what to do with my comment? The ACLU isn’t a presidential candidate. And the ACLU doesn’t vote.
Puddy…before you respond again, please re-read my original comment in its entirety, and work through it (and the comment that led to it). Better yet, get someone to explain it to you. You don’t seem to have grasped the meaning of my comment, and as a result your reply consists of a series of largely irrelivant non-sequiturs.
@6 I’m with you, good buddy. If Huckabee is the GOP nominee it’ll be the first time the Green and Libertarian candidates came in ahead of the Republican candidate.
@5 And how else does one get to Bali? In a dugout canoe?
@14 If Romney saw a helpless man being mugged on the street, he’d have to think about it for 15 years before deciding it was a moral wrong and he should help the guy.
PuddyDolt @ 27,
“How can [proud leftist] support a group who tears down everything Christian and many of which were instituted when the founding fathers were alive?”
You are looking at it backwards. The ACLU has a mission to protect specific parts of the Constitution. They do so without regard to the popularity or political correctness of doing so.
In other words, it is irrelevant to them whether it is a Christian institution or a Devil Worshiping institution. They are blind to whether their mission helps neo-Nazis, soccer moms or anti-Bush protesters. They simply stick to their mission of protecting specific parts of the Constitution.
“Many houses exist divided. It just can’t stand in the final judgment. Hence I put forth Scary Harry Land Deal Reid!”
Say what?
Unlike that other Mass guv who couldn’t decide if he’d protect his wife.
@15 You’re a dolt! Udall was born into a Mormon family, but was himself a non-practicing Mormon. He was beaten in the primaries by a candidate who made much of being a Sunday School teacher and practicing Southern Baptist (and still does). And as for why religion is more of an issue with Republican candidates, that’s because only Republicans choose to ignore the First Amendment separation clause.
@18 Oh, I don’t know if religion is amusing … if you make fun of the Great Mother Rabbit Spirit, She’s liable to kick your butt with Her powerful hind feet!!
@19 Why not, I do it, too. Now he can brag that he’s as clever as Roger Rabbit. That should get him a hearty round of applause in any wingnut gathering he attends.
@19 (continued) Personally, I think “Roger Maggot Jr.” takes his inspiration from me. And why not? I’m an excellent propagandist, so it’s only natural for ambitious wingnut dolts with literary aspirations to emulate my works.
By ’emulate’ you surely mean defacate. Which you do ad nauseum.
By ‘inspiration’ you surely mean revulsion.
By ‘propagandist’ you mean propagandist.
By ‘clever’ you mean propagandist.
Suggest you learn about the Establishment Clause. Start with Peter Irons’ recent book, then report back for more instruction.
You must be referring to Chimpface Gregoire. How many times a day do you genuflect at the shrine? With your ass in the air? (An appropriate posture for a progressive poufter.)
Is is true that Roger Rabbit is Dori Monson?
Perfesser Darryl: I will reply concisely and succinctly.
Everything I posted which you tried to diss was in liberal MSM posted URLs.
I’m not sorry if you can’t decipher the words of liberals. I guss theat NEA based education isn’t helping you too much.
My “liberal decoder ring” works just fine. Look hard and you can find one too. Then maybe, just maybe you should look in the mirror and SEE THE PROBLEM. YOURSELF! I am so glad I didn’t have a jackass like you preaching the bile you post here. I am also glad neither of my sons attend your classes in an “institution of higher learning”. They have been taught to decipher liberal BULLSHITTIUM!
BTW when I say just like you it’s a metaphor. Can you dig it?
@44:
Pay nary a mind to Roger Rodent; he is merely a disgruntled gov’t cheese recipient that doesn’t work. Harldy worth your time.
Isn’t it funny how the trolls use doublespeak so well? And then they say we’re the authoritarian fascists? Right is wrong, and left is right? Right? Next you morons will try to convince me that it’s summer in Tahoe today….
tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick
Pudster,
“Perfesser Darryl: I will reply concisely and succinctly.”
Wouldn’t your answer be more concise without adding the redundant “succinctly?”
“Everything I posted which you tried to diss was in liberal MSM posted URLs.”
I have no idea what this is really supposed to mean.
“I’m not sorry if you can’t decipher the words of liberals.”
I’m not sure what this means, either, since I only read your post (or are you now claiming to be a liberal?!?!?).
“I guss theat NEA based education isn’t helping you too much.”
I’m not really sure what “NEA-based education” means, either. I’ve examined hundreds of undergraduate and graduate student curricula and have never come across this concept or phrase.
“My “liberal decoder ring” works just fine.”
That’s nice. But, I suspect your problem is not with a plastic trinket from a cereal box…It more of a malfunction in the cerebral box that afflicts you.
“Look hard and you can find one too. Then maybe, just maybe you should look in the mirror and SEE THE PROBLEM. YOURSELF!”
See what problem?
“I am so glad I didn’t have a jackass like you preaching the bile you post here. I am also glad neither of my sons attend your classes in an “institution of higher learning”. They have been taught to decipher liberal BULLSHITTIUM!”
My own speculation is that you have no clue about what transpires in my classrooms. (I could be wrong, Pud, but your prattle seems rather uninformed and off-base.)
“BTW when I say just like you it’s a metaphor. Can you dig it?”
No…it wasn’t a metaphor. A metaphor requires dissimilarity between the target and the vehicle, such that attributes of the vehicle are conferred onto the target.
You simply botched a simple comparison in a sentence that is so grammatically flawed as to be nearly nonsensical:
“When the Supreme Court Judges Alito and Roberts were going through their confirmation hearings we learned all about their religion from the lefty MSM and other hateraid bloggers like you Perfesser Darryl.”
Errors:
So here is how you might consider re-word your statement to remove errors and ambiguities:
“Professor Holman, when Justices Alito and Roberts were undergoing confirmation hearings, the lefty MSM and hateraid-dispensing bloggers of your ilk were quick to raise the topic of the nominee’s religious affiliations and convictions.”
That would have been clear and unambiguous…even if still irrelevant to the point I originally made.
Of course they did: they are miserable fucking prick America hatliting demcrap assholes:
The nine members who voted against the Christmas Resolution were all Democrats: Ackerman (NY), Clarke (NY), DeGette (CO), Hastings (FL), Lee (CA), McDermott (WA), Scott (VA), Stark (CA) and Woolsey (CA). The 10 who answered “present” without entering a vote were also Democrats except one: Conyers (MI), Frank (MA), Holt (NJ), Payne (NJ), Pence (Republican from IN), Schakowsky (PA), Schwartz (PA), Wasserman-Schultz (FL), Welch (VT) and Yarmuth (KY).
Hateraid is from Snoop Dog like Gaterade but it’s drunk by liberals on blogs.
Perfesser is just for you. Southern slang.
I stated to you on this blog I write ebonic. This is a breeding ground for idiots so I have to communicate in the least common denominator language.
Lefty MSM people have been known to blog and were told to stop. Ohhhh, you said you don’t get out much.
Perfesser Darryl – Who controls the education apparatus in the US today? NEA
Perfesser Darryl:
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: I don’t think he [Mitt Romney] believes everything in the Book of Mormon. I think he’s lying about that. It’s an insane document produced by a madman who was a criminal and a rapist. […]
HUGH HEWITT: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?
O’DONNELL: Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the…that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do.
HEWITT: Well, that’s candid.
O’DONNELL: Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They’re not going to ever…
HEWITT: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they’ll just send you a strudel.
O’DONNELL: They’ll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I’m not going to say a word about them.
HEWITT: They’ll send you a strudel. The Mormons will bake you a cake and be nice to you.
O’DONNELL: I agree.
HEWITT: Lawrence O’Donnell, I appreciate your candor.
Now Perfesser Darryl, do I need to post the Diane Sawyer comments too so you can see them?
For you I can retrieve every post on liberal lunacy you so stupidly try to ignore.
PudWax™ is hooked on ebonics, just like “Professor” Longhair.
PErfesser Darryl: More liberal MSM loonacy!
HOWARD FINEMAN: I was in South Carolina, I saw that rally down there in the football stadium and it was electric. It was-
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Did you have a helicopter at your disposal this weekend? You were everywhere.
FINEMAN: No, no I was just there. That’s the only place I was.
MATTHEWS: Alright.
FINEMAN: And I though it was historic. This is the city, this was the city in which Strom Thurmond rose as a Dixiecrat-
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
FINEMAN: -in the old days. The center of segregation.
MATTHEWS: He hanged a few people down there too, didn’t he?
FINEMAN: Okay, the center of segregation.
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
FINEMAN: Here you had 25, 30,000 people in football stadium. I’d say about 80 percent of them African-Americans wanting to know is he the real deal. You know, should we commit to him.
http://hlrp.blogspot.com/2007/.....-full.html
Got My Mojo Working Muddy Waters full version newport jazz
And Loosie (TM) your problem 24/7 is?
Sure is amazing when Loosie (TM) appears 24/7.
A perfect example of liberal run education is right in our backyard. Yes, the Seattle school district is as liberal as they come. Only a liberal can spend 10k per pupil only to have 40% of the parents pass it up and send their kids to a private school.
Puddybud @ 50
“Hateraid is from Snoop Dog like Gaterade but it’s drunk by liberals on blogs.”
Yes…that the slang term I mentioned. However you misused it as a slang term. One can dispense a beverage, one can spill a beverage, one can drink a beverage. One cannot blog a beverage. Hence the need to transform the noun into a proper adjectival phrase (“hateraid-drinking bloggers” for example),
“I stated to you on this blog I write ebonic.”
Sorry, but your writing patterns do not resemble Ebonics. Your discourse resembles someone who is incapable of evaluating evidence and forming a coherent argument. Lack of logic is not a characteristic of Ebonics.
“This is a breeding ground for idiots so I have to communicate in the least common denominator language.”
Ever notice that you seem to be talking to yourself a lot?
“Lefty MSM people have been known to blog and were told to stop.”
Nevertheless, your logic is faulty. That some “Lefty MSM people have been known to blog” does not make your statement containing “lefty MSM and other…bloggers” correct.
“Ohhhh, you said you don’t get out much.”
Is this just another PuddyWorld™ brain fart? Or is this somehow relevant to the topics at hand?
Puddybud @ 51,
“Perfesser Darryl – Who controls the education apparatus in the US today? NEA”
That would be a stretch even if you restricted the statement to art schools only.
Perfesser Darryl: I will not conform to “your standards”.
What do you know about ebonics except what you read? I am from the ghetto you are a burb person. You been down Rainier Valley?
Puddy,
Now Perfesser Darryl, do I need to post the Diane Sawyer comments too so you can see them?
I don’t care either way. I’m more interested in learning why you think Ms. Sawyer’s or Mr. Hewitt’s or Mr. O’Donnell’s statements in any way relate to my original comment.
In other words, how does posting random wacky dialog argue either way about partisan differences in evaluating presidential candidates according to their religiosity and religious affiliation?
PuddyDunce @ 61,
“I am from the ghetto you are a burb person.”
Eventually I made it to the Burbs…but from 0.5 years of age to 8 years of age I lived in inner-city Chicago.
I can state with great certainty that your “dialog” on HA does not resemble Ebonics. It bears some resemblance to ADHD, but not Ebonics.
Puddybud @ 54,
“PErfesser Darryl: More liberal MSM loonacy!”
So? What about it?
Earlier Perfesser I told you the earlier answers were from the liberal MSM. Now you ask “so what about it?”
Proves to you everything I said is true! Need more?
ADHD: Never had that diagnosis. Good guess!
Goldy sure has some interesting “Ads by Google” on here. The two current ads that I see right now on the upper-right corner:
Ann Coulter’s Column Free
Get Ann Coulter’s weekly column delivered to you Free via email.
http://www.HumanEvents.com
Mike Huckabee in 2008
Faith. Family. Freedom. Conservatives are choosing Huckabee
http://www.mikehuckabee.com
Puddy,
“Proves to you everything I said is true!”
No..it doesn’t. It is not even clear that the statements are relevant.
Again I ask, how does posting random wacky dialog argue either way about partisan differences in evaluating presidential candidates according to their religiosity and religious affiliation?
Republicans Hate Kids
Bush vetoed the children’s health bill again. He says we need to find ways to put poor kids on health insurance. Seems to me we’ve already tried that.
erratum
find ways to put poor kids on private health insurance
Each and every one of the presidential candidates (of all parties) should be asked whether he (she) would sign or veto that bill.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071224/alterman
What’s Really Wrong With the MSM?
ERIC ALTERMAN |
They’ve lost our trust by providing conservatives a platform for deliberate deceptions, silencing reporters for revealing the truth and excusing their own self-serving behavior.
1.Its members consistently defer to conservative Republican Presidents with a history of deliberate deception, allowing them to define their terms.
2.Its members invite Republican Congressmen, known to be not merely unreliable but delusional, to lie about Democratic Congressmen.
3.Its members invite conservative Republican individuals known to be insane, unbalanced and unconcerned with the truth to lie about Democratic presidential candidates on the front page of their newspapers and when confronted respond that it is not their job to determine the truth.
4.Its corporations fire, and then buy the silence of, their own reporters in order to hide the truth, when it involves the draft records of certain conservative Republican Presidents.
5.Its members are so in thrall to the powerful conservative Republican figures they cover that they make up excuses for their self-serving behavior.
6.Its members ignore the substance of politics and instead focus obsessively on atmospherics, leaving voters clueless about the politicians for whom they are expected to vote.
Perfesser you said “Liberals don’t really care all that much about a person’s particular religious bent.”
I showed you what you said above is not the case and you say:”…posting random wacky dialog argue…” This is what your side says. Accept it as it’s your world and what we fight against every day!
This is your side on the MSM every day Perfesser Darryl.
Loosie (TM): A liberal writing about the MSM. Really funny…
I counter the MSM votes 9:1 liberal.
More than just one or two Perfesser Darryl:
” GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s turn to Republicans. Mitt Romney did give his big speech on faith in America this week. He said very clearly that he would not be taking any, he would not be influenced by the leaders in his church. But then he made a turn in his speech and listen to this:
MITT ROMNEY: The notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely as a private affair with no place in public life. It’s as if they’re intent on establishing a new religion. The religion of secularism. They’re wrong.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Sam, we’ve all been talking about the echoes of John F. Kennedy. That was actually a repudiation of John F. Kennedy who, in 1960, said that the separation of church and state is absolute and that religion is a private matter.
SAM DONALDSON: That’s right and that’s far we’ve come. He talks about the public square. Now, he would say, “I’m don’t mean a Christian theocracy in the White House.” But it’s getting much, much closer. When I first came to this town, chaplains began the sessions of the Senate and the House with a prayer.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Still do.
DONALDSON: People talked about the pledge of allegiance. Still do. And that was just fine. But now, religion has crept into public policy. On the floor of the Senate or the House, you hear God evoked for a tax cut or making it permanent. [All laugh] I think God is too busy to worry about those things. But Mitt Romney’s speech, I think, was very, very frightening to people, who think the encroachment into government, into the White House, or into the Congress, on religious matters, making decisions on public policy– It’s wrong.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Look at the impact he’s having right now. The cover of “Newsweek” this morning calling him “Holy Huckabee, the unlikely rise of a preacher politician.” That is the cover for their new poll showing him 22 points ahead of Mitt Romney in Iowa. 39 for Huckabee. 17 for Romney. Fred Thompson, all the rest, down into, into single digits. And, George, I’ve talked to the Romney campaign. Now, they don’t believe it’s a 22 point lead for Mike Huckabee. They do believe that Huckabee’s ahead right now and he’s on his way, unless he can be brought down and there’s plenty to bring him down with, to win this caucus on January 3rd.
GEORGE WILL: Well, 40-some percent of the Republican caucus goers are born-gain evangelical Christians.
DONALDSON: In Iowa.
WILL: They are going to vote for a man, evidently, who in 1998, in Iowa, in 1998 said, Mr. Huckabee said, he went into politics to take back this nation for Christ. Well, that is not a really sound general election position.
DONALDSON: He’s running as the Christian leader. He says so in his ads. And that’s just a step from saying, “I’m running as the Christian president.” Well, fine if he’s going to be a personal Christian. Jimmy Carter was, others have been. But it’s clear that, talk about a Christian theocracy in this country, many evangelical Christians believe, although they might abandon those exact words, that’s what we should have, that government should favor people who have the right and understand what God wants us to do. And that, of course, runs against not just Thomas Jefferson, but all of the history of our Founding Father’s attempts to write a Constitution which prescribes that.
Where has Mitt Romney said anything like this? Pure liberal spin!
Larry O’Donnell again Perfesser Darryl:
This was the worst political speech of my lifetime. Because this man stood there and said to you “this is the faith of my fathers.” And you, and none of these commentators who liked this speech realized that the faith of his fathers is a racist faith. As of 1978 it was an officially racist faith, and for political convenience in 1978 it switched. And it said “OK, black people can be in this church.” He believes, if he believes the faith of his fathers, that black people are black because in heaven they turned away from God, in this demented, Scientology-like notion of what was going on in heaven before the creation of the earth.
How Republicans Would Balance The Budget
“JOHNSTON, Iowa (Dec. 12) – Republican presidential rivals called for deep cuts in federal spending Wednesday … and agreed the reductions they seek need not require painful sacrifice by millions of Americans who rely on government services.”
Quoted under fair use; for the rest of the article and/or copyright info see http://news.aol.com/elections/.....1209990001
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Now let’s see what their ideas of “deep cuts” that don’t cause “painful sacrifice” are.
Romney: Eliminate programs that “don’t work.” He didn’t say which programs don’t work, or whether there are any.
Giuliani: “Across-the-board cuts of up to 15 percent, including reduced federal spending on health care.” Sure, why not? If the working poor don’t have health care, why should the poor or the elderly have health care? Put workers first!
Thompson: Cut Social Security and Medicare benefits so we can spend more on the military. He calls this “do[ing] some things that won’t hurt anybody badly.” Uh-huh. That’s typical conservative compassion for ya: To hell with the millions of elderly Americans whose only income is Social Security and who depend on Medicare; let’s invest in technology to kill people.
If one of these assholes gets to the White House, it’ll go a long way toward proving there’s either no God, or He doesn’t give a damn what happens on this rock.
Diane Sawyer #1 Perfesser Darryl:
” DIANE SAWYER: As we said, it’s now just a little more than five weeks to the first vote in Iowa. Here it comes for real. What are you going to do for the afterburners now? What are the candidates going to do? Well, we decided to bring in one of the field marshals of American politics, author of “Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in our Nation’s History,” which by the way is out on DVD starting today. Republican Newt Gingrich, good morning to you.”
NEWT GINGRICH: Good to be with you.
SAWYER: So, let’s take a look at what this is. Let’s start on the Democratic side. You can be very dispassionate, analytical here. The latest Democratic preference poll in Iowa has Senator Obama at 30 percent, Senator Clinton at 26 percent. And it seems they’re going to call in the charisma brigade here because Senator Clinton’s bringing in former President Clinton today and Oprah Winfrey is going to go in on December 8th and 9th. She’s going in to Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire, for Obama. My question is, who’s going to win this showdown? How much are they going to help?
ABC GRAPHIC: Religion & Politics: Gingrich on God’s Role
GINGRICH: Well, I mean, I’m a Republican so I don’t know that my, my analysis counts much for Democrats. But my guess is that Senator Obama’s going to win Iowa and that he’s going to win it by a surprising margin and that it will happen for a couple reasons. One is that, I think Oprah Winfrey is a remarkable figure. And I think that she brings a — not just a celebrity status, but there are millions of people who trust her judgment.
SAWYER: You think this is going to tip it?
GINGRICH: I think it’s a significant asset to him and he’s not married to her. I think there’s a double edged sword when President Clinton shows up, because he also reminds you, do you really want two presidents in the White House? And do you really want Mrs. Clinton to have to rely on President Clinton to have to win the– I mean, there A lot of different emotions building here. But I also think– This is going to be the night of the Orange Bowl. And it’s the third of January. And you’ve got to say to yourself, you don’t just go vote. I’m willing to go and spend three hours in a local precinct to help pick somebody. And I have a hunch that the emotional energy that Senator Obama’s building is more powerful than the emotional energy Senator Clinton’s building. I have great respect for her and they have a tremendous machine. But it just seems to me that right now in Iowa at least Senator Obama’s beginning to building a real head of steam.
SAWYER: All right, you heard it called here first. Now, let’s turn to the Republicans if we can. Because, as we know, former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, 28 percent. Former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, now 24 percent. As we know, Governor Romney is, is, is a Mormon, and Governor Huckabee is a former Baptist minister. Is it true that he is now in the final days playing his card, which is the religion card? This is a new ad out. Take a look at this.
Play Mike Huckabee Add
MIKE HUCKABEE: Faith doesn’t just influence me, it really defines me. [Onscreen graphic: Christian Leader] I don’t have to wake up every day, wondering, what do I need to believe? Let us never sacrifice our principles for anybody’s politics. Not now, not ever. I believe life begins at conception. We believe in some things. We stand by those things. We live or die by those things.
Huckabee Ad ends
SAWYER: He put up there on the screen, Christian, Christian leader. Not spiritual leader, Christian leader. In this nation of many faiths, is this going to be backfire on him?
GINGRICH: No, I don’t — remember what he’s trying to do right now. He’s trying to come out of nowhere with no money, and he’s trying to emerge as a genuine contender. And so, he is sending a very strong and powerful message to people who share his beliefs. And it’s really two messages. One message is that he is, he is a former– He is a Baptist minister and he has a background as Christian. You know, he’s not running in New York State.
SAWYER: But it’s– But it’s one thing to say share his belief and it’s another thing to talk about American politics and all of the people who are going to vote. You know, Peggy Noonan wrote a column over the weekend and here’s what she said: “In 1968, we were, as now, a religious country. But when we talked to the polls, we thought were about to hire a president, not a Bible study teacher.” And she’s quite clear here. She says, “We have come to a pass where we push candidates against the wall and do a kind of theological frisk on him,” pointing out Ronald Reagan wore his faith very lightly. Have we crossed a line here and just too heavy-handed about specific denominations?”
GINGRICH: Well, I mean, you’re in a country where the courts have been ruling against any religious observance in public for the last 40 years with greater and greater intensity. A country where are willing to say you shouldn’t say the word Christmas.
SAWYER: But do you approve of that “Christian leader” on his ad?
GINGRICH: Look, Huckabee has got to run his own campaign. But Huckabee is clearly not at all embarrassed to say that he’s a Christian. Now, you know, when Joe Lieberman ran, he wasn’t at all embarrassed to say that he was a deeply committed person of Jewish faith.
SAWYER: All right. I’ve got only a second or two left. Want to point out to everybody that your DVD, by the way, gives you a kind of tour of Washington in which you examine spirituality in Washington through the monuments —
GINGRICH: Well, we start with the Declaration of Independence, which says your rights and my rights come from God and point out that we’re the only country in the world that says that.
SAWYER: All right, well, you’re going to come back and explore this more because it’s a really interesting question about our times and God and spirituality versus specific denominations.
GINGRICH: Glad to be with you.
SAWYER: Good to see you. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving. Happy Christmas to come.”
You libs love to try and frame a Republican religious beliefs.
Diane Sawyer #2 Perfesser Darryl:
” DIANE SAWYER: And it’s crackling out there on the campaign trail, the race to ’08. As we said, Oprah Winfrey with Barack Obama this weekend on the trail. And of course, there’s all the reaction now to presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s big speech yesterday where he tried to ease concerns, particularly among evangelicals, about his Mormon faith. Did he succeed? ABC’s Dan Harris has been looking into that.
MITT ROMNEY: Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I thought the speech was fantastic.
HARRIS: Positive reviews from fellow Mormons at the University of Utah.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He will not be running the country by his church and he’s just bringing it out in the open and he’s not trying to hide anything.
HARRIS: But political watchers believe Romney was really directing his talk at evangelicals, 42 percent of whom say they are uncomfortable with a Mormon president. So, was it smart for Romney to only mention Mormonism once and to refuse to defend some of the controversial doctrines of his faith?
ROMNEY: No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith.
MATTHEW DOWD (ABC News political contributor): If the speech was designed to address the issue of Mormonism and the perception of Mormonism, it doesn’t address any of those and so I still think there’s still going to be questions about that in the aftermath.
RICHARD LAND (Southern Baptist Convention): If he had tried to defend Mormonism, he would have been picking a fight with evangelical that he doesn’t need to pick. It’s a fight that he couldn’t win.
HARRIS: Evangelicals in the key state of Iowa, where the former Baptist minister Mike Huckabee has pulled in front of Romney, seem to appreciate Romney’s emphasis on the role of religion in American public life.
ROMNEY: Freedom requires religion. Just as religion requires freedom.
HARRIS: But what about non-believers?
JAMIE JOHNSON (Iowa News Talk Radio/Faith & Freedom Network): If the evangelicals understand Mitt Romney not as a Mormon, so much as a moralist, I think they can feel more comfortable with voting for him.
HARRIS: Did Romney go too far in blurring the line between church and state?
TED SORENSEN (Fmr. Kennedy advisor & speechwriter): Romney fudged that a little bit because he was trying to impress those members of the religious right who don’t favor complete separation of church and state and Romney wants more religion involved in statecraft.
HARRIS: The speech is getting a mixed bag of reaction. But the Romney camp seems to have faith that at least it has put this issue to rest. For “Good Morning America,” Dan Harris, ABC News.
SAWYER: And for the bottom line, we turn to ABC’s chief Washington correspondent, host of “This Week,” George Stephanopoulos, in Washington. Good morning, George. So —
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Good morning, Diane.
SAWYER: As we know, the polls show how close it is, Huckabee and Romney in Iowa. Did this speech change anything?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, it’s certainly important. No one speech can completely change the dynamic here. Mike Huckabee is rising because of his support among evangelical Christians. Of course, that’s who Romney was targeting yesterday. I think he said three things that are very important to evangelical Christians. Number one, he wouldn’t take orders from the leaders of the Mormon church. Number two, and probably most important, he had a declaration of Christian faith. He said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind. That was critically important. And number three, he did say that he doesn’t believes that the separation of church and state, as John Kennedy believed, is absolute. He believes that religion has a place in our public life. Mitt Romney got a lot of praise from Christian leaders yesterday. It’s too early to say whether that’s going to translate into real support on the ground.
SAWYER: What about the other statement we heard Dan mention? “Freedom requires religion.” Is there going to be a question whether humanists or even atheists, agnostics deserve freedom?”
STEPHANOPOULOS: I think that’s a fight that Romney is willing to pick. There’s no question this could end up being the most controversial statement in a general election for Mitt Romney. But he believes– This is what he believes. And I just spoke to the campaign a few minutes before going on the air and they say he absolutely stands by this statement, it is what Mitt Romney believes, and I think this is exactly what a lot of evangelical Christians want to hear. If it causes him trouble later on down the road in the general election, he’ll deal with that later.
SAWYER: One more symbol we should point out, by the way, George Herbert Walker Bush, former President Bush, was the man who introduced him yesterday.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Very significant. And he had lots of praise for Mitt Romney’s family. He introduced the family, for Mitt Romney’s father who of course ran for president in 1968. Now, President Bush did go out of his way to say other candidates will come as well. But it was a subtle endorsement, I think, of Mitt Romney.
SAWYER: All right, let’s switch for a minute to Oprah Winfrey. Barack Obama heading out on the campaign trail this weekend. What, two events in Iowa, one in South Carolina, one in New Hampshire. Tell us what she is going to do and what do you think is going to happen?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, she’s going to electrify the campaign trail. There’s no question about it. Look at what’s happening in South Carolina. The Barack Obama campaign has had to move from an 18,000 seat arena to an 80,000 seat stadium. Now, they’re a little worried now of raising expectations too high. They expect about 25,000 people to show up. But it is going to be a big event. I also spoke with the Clinton campaign. They are going to go on, do all of their business in Iowa. They’re also considering sending Bill Clinton to South Carolina a day ahead of Oprah Winfrey to try and counter her effect.
SAWYER: Oh, my goodness. Got to stay tuned this weekend.”
How dare she frame the argument. Liberals do care about another’s religion.
re 74: You cannot see any point of view but your own. That is a weakness. After 7 years of being Bushwhacked, it is my estimation that more people see things the way I do than the way you do.
Torture Works
by digby
A commenter points me to this account of a successful “enhanced interrogation;”
. . . On Wednesday, June 28, 1628, was examined without torture Johannes Junius, Burgomaster at Bamberg, on the charge of witch-craft: how and in what fashion he had fallen into that vice. Is fifty-five years old, and was born at Niederwaysich in the Wetterau. Says he is wholly innocent, knows nothing of the crime has never in his life renounced God: says that he is wronged hefore God and the world, would like to hear of a single human being who has seen him at such gatherings [as the witch-sabbaths].
Confrontation of Dr. Georg Adam Haan. Tells him to his face be will stake his life on it [er wolle darauf leben und sterben], that he saw him, Junius, a year and a half ago at a witch-gathering in the electoral council-room where they ate and drank. Accused denies the same wholly.
Confronted with Hopffens Elsse. Tells him likewise that he was on Haupts-moor at a witch-dance; but first the holy wafer was desecrated. Junius denies. Hereupon he was told that his accomplices had confessed against him and was given time for thought.
On Friday, June 30, 1628, the aforesaid Junius was again without torture exhorted to confess, but again confessed nothing, whereupon, . . . since he would confess nothing, he was put to the torture, and first the [Page 24] Thumb-screws were applied. Says he has never denied God his Saviour nor suffered himself to be otherwise baptized; [1] will again stake his life on it; feels no pain in the thumb-screws.
Leg-screws. Will confess absolutely nothing [and] knows nothing about it. He has never renounced God; will never do such a thing; has never been guilty of this vice; feels likewise no pain.
Is stripped and examined; on his right side is found a bluish mark, like a clover leaf, is thrice pricked therein, but feels no pain and no blood flows out.
Strappado. He has never renounced God; God will not forsake him; if he were such a wretch he would not let himself be so tortured; God must show some token of his innocence. He knows nothing about witchcraft. . . .
On July 5, the above named Junius is without torture, but with urgent persuasions, exhorted to confess, and at last begins and confesses.
[…]
Burr’s note: So ended the trial of Junius, and he was accordingly burned at the stake. But it so happens that there is also preserved in Bamberg a letter, in quivering hand, secretly written by him to his daughter while in the midst of his trial (July 24, 1628):
Many hundred thousand good-nights, dearly beloved daughter Veronica. Innocent have I come into prison, innocent have I been tortured, innocent must I die. For whoever comes into the witch prison must become a witch or be tortured until he invents something out of his head and–God pity him–bethinks him of something. I will tell you how it has gone with me. When I was the first time put to the torture, Dr. Braun, Dr. Kotzendorffer, and two strange doctors were there. Then Dr. Braun asks me, “Kinsman, how come you here?” I answer, “Through falsehood, through misfortune.” “Hear, you,” he says, “you are a witch; will you confess it voluntarily? If not, we’ll bring in witnesses and the executioner for you.” I said “I am no witch, I have a pure conscience in the matter; if there are a thousand witnesses, I am not anxious, but I’ll gladly hear the witnesses.” Now the chancellor’s son was set before me . . . and afterward Hoppfen Elss. She had seen me dance on Haupts-moor. . . . I answered: “I have never renounced God, and will never do it–God graciously keep me from it. I’ll rather bear whatever I must.” And then came also–God in highest Heaven have mercy–the executioner, and put the thumb-screws on me, both hands bound together, so that the blood ran out at the nails and everywhere, so that for four weeks I could not use my hands, as you can see from the writing. . . . Thereafter they first stripped me, bound my hands behind me, and drew me up in the torture. [2] Then I thought heaven and earth were at an end; eight times did they draw me up and let me fall again, so that I suffered terrible agony. . . .
[…]
And so I made my confession, as follows; but it was all a lie.
Now follows, dear child, what I confessed in order to escape the great anguish and bitter torture, which it was impossible for me longer to bear.
Burr’s note:Here follows his confession, substantially as it is given in the minutes of his trial. But he adds:
Then I had to tell what people I had seen [at the witch-sabbath]. I said that I bad not recognized them. “You old rascal, I must set the executioner at you. Say–was not the Chancellor there?” So I said yes. “Who besides?” I had not recognized anybody. So he said: “Take one street after another; begin at the market, go out on one street and back on the next.” I had to name several persons there. Then came the long street. [3] I knew nobody. Had to name eight persons there. Then the Zinkenwert–one person more. Then over the upper bridge to the Georgthor, on both sides. Knew nobody again. [Page 28] Did I know nobody in the castle–whoever it might be, I should speak without fear. And thus continuously they asked me on all the streets, though I could not and would not say more. So they gave me to the executioner, told him to strip me, shave me all over, and put me to the torture. “The rascal knows one on the market-place, is with him daily, and yet won’t name him.” By that they meant Dietmeyer: so I had to name him too.
Then I had to tell what crimes I had committed. I said nothing.
. . “Draw the rascal up!” So I said that I was to kill my children, but I had killed a horse instead. It did not help. I had also taken a sacred wafer, and had desecrated it. When I had said this, they left me in peace.
Now, dear child, here you have all my confession, for which I must die. And they are sheer lies and made-up things, so help me God. For all this I was forced to say through fear of the torture which was threatened beyond what I had already endured. For they never leave off with the torture till one confesses something; be he never so good, he must be a witch. Nobody escapes, though he were an earl. . . .
Dear child, keep this letter secret so that people do not find it, else I shall be tortured most piteously and the jailers will be beheaded. So strictly is it forbidden. . . . Dear child, pay this man a dollar. . . . I have taken several days to write this: my hands are both lame. I am in a sad plight. . . .
Good night, for your father Johannes Junius will never see you more. July 24, 1628.
Burr’s note:And on the margin of the letter he adds:
Dear child, six have confessed against me at once: the Chancellor, his son, Neudecker, Zaner, Hoffmaisters Ursel, and Hoppfen Els–all false, through compulsion, as they have all told me, and begged my forgiveness in God’s name before they were executed. . . . They know nothing but good of me. They were forced to say it, just as I myself was. . . .
It is odd that ‘faith’ is considered so important. But it always has to be faith in some non-logical imaginary being.
I have faith in science and reason. Cogita ergo sum.
Pefesser Darryl: David Shuster. Yes just a few nut cases in the MSM.
OE SCARBOROUGH: This is the same New York Times editorial page that ran columns after George W. Bush was elected in 2004 saying evangelicals were closer to Osama Bin Laden than our allies in Europe. That of course came from Garry Wills. Then Maureen Dowd said that evangelicals were going to take us back to the Dark Ages. I think there is some hostility, on the New York Times editorial page, toward evangelicals.
DAVID SHUSTER: They still get it right on occasion.
BRZEZINSKI: “oh, man!”
SCARBOROUGH: Once in a while, but Alabama beats Auburn once in a while, too.
SHUSTER: We all must believe in football, and I suppose if we all go to Pensacola [Joe’s hometown], we’ll have a sidetrip where we’ll go to a revival and then go to Guantanamo Bay and torture some people just for fun.
BRZEZINSKI: “Exactly, to make sure that they don’t get caught doing something illegal.”
“If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you.
This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.”
– Pudd’nhead Wilson (Mark Twain)
Why wasn’t this updated here:
“Australian Prime Minister Flip-flops on Climate Change Pledge”
http://www.news.com.au/heralds.....62,00.html
Perfesser Darryl: I said your are a product of NEA based education.
Dr. Benjamin Bloom – the father of Outcome-Based Education wrote that “the purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students”.
And the perfesser sure does that here. In the Bible it says “Can a Leopard change his spots?”. We know what the perfesser thinks.
Last week waiting for a flight I met this nice woman and
the conversation was going quite well (we were both single)
finally she admitted to being an orthodontist upon which
I admitted to being catholic. Does anyone think this is
why she won’t go out with me?
re 87: She probably thinks you are an anti-dentite. (Kudos to Seinfeld)
re 86:
“the purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students”.
That’s the purpose of indoctrination, not education.
Exactly Loosie (TM) what the NEA espouses.
PuddyBud,
“Perfesser you said “Liberals don’t really care all that much about a person’s particular religious bent.”
Indeed. But how does pulling up a handful of anecdotes contradict the statement?
BTW: If you read my entire statement to which you have responded, you will get a fuller context of the discussion.
“I showed you what you said above is not the case…”
Hogwash! All you showed is a few counter examples. I mean, there are tens of millions of liberals in the U.S. Your pathetic counterexamples don’t even come close to making a dent in my claim.
“This is what your side says.”
Big fucking deal! Individuals on “my side” say all kinds of things that I consider wacky (you wingnuts, however, have wackyness down to an art). I mean, if one liberal says “torturing is okay,” that statement would not falsify the general statement that liberals believe torture is immoral and illegal. Except, perhaps, in PuddyWorld™!
“Accept it as it’s your world and what we fight against every day!”
WTF???
PuddyDope @ 86
“Perfesser Darryl: I said your are a product of NEA based education.”
Nope…not me. I’m no artist, and I’ve never gotten funding from them, or even applied for a grant from them.
‘Dr. Benjamin Bloom – the father of Outcome-Based Education wrote that “the purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students”.’
And…this is relevant how????
“And the perfesser sure does that here.”?
What the fuck are you babbling about? (Psssst…this isn’t a school.)
‘In the Bible it says “Can a Leopard change his spots?”.’
What does leopard changing spots have to do with the discussion?
“We know what the perfesser thinks.”
And…um…you know what I think about what?
Sorry, Puddy, you are seemingly deeply involved in your own private conversation (again).
Loosie (TM): Here is what the NEA says. You can insert Perfesser Darryl and the similarities are striking:
Here are some resolutions adopted by the representative assembly of the professional association responsible for educating your kids:
* To participate in a national boycott of Wal-Mart (Two resolutions);
* To fight efforts to privatize Social Security (nine separate resolutions);
* To add the words “other” and “multi-ethnic” in addition to “unknown” in the category of ethnicity on all forms;
* To commemorate the “historic merger of the National Education Association and the American Teachers Association, which occurred in 1966”;
* To expose health problems associated with “fragrance chemicals”;
* To designate areas of NEA meetings as “fragrance-free zones”;
* To make health care an organizational priority;
* To expand efforts to elect pro-public education candidates to Congress in 2006;
* To promote the designation of April as National Donate Month to promote organ and tissue donation;
* To push for a commemorative stamp honoring public education;
* To push for more collective bargaining;
* To study the feasibility of a boycott of Gallo wine (A separate resolution banned the serving of Gallo wine at any NEA functions.);
* To develop a strategic program to help NEA Republican members advance a pro-public education agenda with the party;
* To defend affirmative action and oppose the Michigan Civil Rights Amendment;
* To oppose the annual observance of “Take Your Child to Work Day” during the regular school year;
* To oppose all forms of privatization;
* To respond aggressively to any inappropriate use of the words “retarded” or “gay” in the media;
* To support education programs for prisoners and former prisoners;
* To push for an “exit strategy to end the U.S. military occupation of Iraq”;
* To oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement;
* To teach children about the “significant history of labor unions”;
* To develop a comprehensive strategy of support for homosexuality;
* To explore alternatives to using latex balloons and gloves at NEA functions. – [I wonder what that would be]
Perfesser Darryl: Your parsing technique is almost unique. You and Lee like to use it to make yourself look good. So go ahead and have a field day parsing these paragraphs.
The way the liberal MSM media frames, “the oncoming recession” and “war in Iraq” is the same way they frame Mitt’s Mormon religion. I deliver liberal MSM people on the news stations who deliver real anti-religious commentary and you call it a few anecdotal comments. Wrong! This is the way the liberals in the MSM think. They think similar to you in politics. They vote 9:1 for democrats. Yet you try and dismiss them when I place evidence contrary to your position. Sorry your argument is specious and worthless. Can you dig it?
When I say you are a product of NEA education, you put in pixels what they espouse on their web site. You are an outcome based individual. Your thoughts prove it. When I asked the Biblical question can a leopard change his spots its a metaphor. It’s germane to this discussion. I see simple metaphors are lost on you. You are a product of the liberal education you received. Can you dig it?
Next you live by comparisons. That’s your debate technique. It’s the standard but but but… your side does this, your side does that. Who cares? You said a stupid comment I proved you wrong with liberal MSM comments. Can you dig it?
@93 Sounds good to me. What’s your point?
Edwards/Obama in 2008!
Republicans made religion an issue. When their beliefs are subsequently questioned and examined, it’s their own fucking fault.
Puddybud
You are an idiot. Some people are allergic to latex. The will break out if they wear a glove made of latex (think food service workers, you fucking perv) or handle a latex balloon (think volunteers decorating a room, you fucking perv).
Puddybud.
Link to your sources. Your quotes are not credibled unless you do.
Daddy Love: I linked my comments before. Da Perfesser said he didn’t read the links so I placed the comments directly on HorsesASS.
Regarding the latex comment – It was the political correct crowd that demanded the use of latex. How do doctors, dentists, nurses, dental hygienists, paramedics, and other medical practitioners get around the latex issue? Every time I go for my health check-up I see three size glove boxes in the exam rooms. Now the politically correct crowd is worried over it’s effects. Maybe they should have asked the question before demanding their use?
Daddy Love: You mean a lexis-nexis search for links which you can’t read is fine? Get your own subscription.
No Daddy Love: Your side made religion an issue. Again look at Diane, Larry, David and others who on national TV mock Mitt and his religion. When Hilary came out of the closet and said she was a “woman of faith”, there were many lefty MSM comments about how this will raise her stature among the evangelicals from Eleanor Swift, George Steponallofus, Juan Williams, etc., all lefties. I don’t need to list them all. Sorry Daddy Love your leaky bucket doesn’t hold water too well.
Addictions are dangerous things. Seek help.
http://www.horsesass.org/?p=3593#comment-701589
Thanks ATJ: You should see your psychiatrist. You have nothing to say… except you forget the link where PacMan said to come back and do battle as you libs are not worthy.
Poor Puddy:
Nothin’ better to do than hang out on a progressive site and make a fool of himself. He loves to THINK he “wins” arguments but he ignores what others write – so really he is just arguing with himself. He is really an embarassment to right wingers. I don’t mind exchanging opinions with most right winger – but when have you seen puddy admit that he is wrong? Never – because by his own feeble definition he must be right all the time.
I have even agreed with him on a few things – but most of the time all we get is gratuitous “liberals think X – so they are wrong”.
He is a someone with his mind made up already on everything because – by definition – he has to be intelligent and liberals must be stupid. that is his whole purpose here – to salve his sorry ego.
Of course, in reality, he comes off as a fool, changes the topic when he is clearly outmanned intellectually and thinks that profuse posting makes him right.
Battle on poor troll – maybe you should start your own site and see how many people actually go to it.I would check it out just to see what you are trying to foist on people…
I do notice that you forget to defend our president – the one who tortures, makes us an embarassment worldwide, ignores the constitution, invades countries preemptively that are not a threat, destroys the justice dept., vetos childrens health, promotes incompetents like Brownie, Rumsfeld, Harriet Miers, and Gonzalez. You must be one of the 30% that still supports a man who can’t even pronounce nuclear.
Perhaps Lambchop has forgotten that he admitted to being addicted to posting here.
Get help.
Puddy,
“The way the liberal MSM media frames, “the oncoming recession” and “war in Iraq” is the same way they frame Mitt’s Mormon religion.”
You mean…with words and sentences and paragraphs? Or were you trying to say something more profound here?
“I deliver liberal MSM people on the news stations who deliver real anti-religious commentary and you call it a few anecdotal comments. Wrong!”
You, apparently, still have no idea what I was saying in my original comment. I didn’t claim that liberals don’t make anti-religious comments. I was talking about the importance of religious affiliation to picking political candidates. My claim was that liberals, by and large, aren’t concerned with it. And I stated that one particular faction on the right (fundamentalists) do make a big deal out of such things.
So you constructed some straw man argument that was not relevant to my original comment. Pud…you should have taken my earlier advice and got someone to explain my original comment to you….
“When I say you are a product of NEA education, you put in pixels what they espouse on their web site. You are an outcome based individual. Your thoughts prove it. When I asked the Biblical question can a leopard change his spots its a metaphor. It’s germane to this discussion. I see simple metaphors are lost on you. You are a product of the liberal education you received. Can you dig it?”
No…I really don’t understand what you are getting at here (and rather than making up some straw-man argument, I’ll just fess up to not understanding what you are getting at). For what it is worth, from 3rd grade on I was in the same city and school system that Stefan Sharkansky was in. Furthermore, we both did our undergraduate degrees in the same University (and we overlapped in college). So, my education through my Bachelors degree is very similar to Stefans. Would you make the same claim about him?
“Next you live by comparisons. That’s your debate technique. It’s the standard but but but… your side does this, your side does that. Who cares? You said a stupid comment I proved you wrong with liberal MSM comments. Can you dig it?”
Naaaaa…you simply misunderstood my original comment.
96: Religion became an issue in the election of 1800, 54 years before Republicans began. Republicans and the Democrat Klan made religion an issue in 1928 against Roman Catholic Al Smith. Republicans mostly got past their concerns about an international Papist conspiracy; the Democrat Klan didn’t.
About Mo Udall, I am a dolt. When he was identified as a Mormon in Monday’s Times, I should have remembered that he wasn’t a Mormon. He was a lapsed Jack Mormon.
81: For you heathen Democrats, a bit of recent history sez …
“Torture” works: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thebl.....only-.html
That’s from the always reliable left-wing ABC News, so it must be true. The Democrat/McCain canard that torture or “torture” never yields useful information is disproved. When KSM got damp, he sang. (Reminder: Seattle’s Columbia Tower was on KSM’s shortlist for a 9-11 hit.)
Congress has never conceded that waterboarding is torture. In fact, prominent members of Congress were fully briefed in 2002 about the limited and controlled use of this enhanced technique. Those members of Congress were Bob Graham, Democrat; Jane Harmon, Democrat; John Rockefeller, Democrat; Granny Nancy Pelosi, Democrat. Their concern at the time was that waterboarding wasn’t enhanced enough. They wanted more emphatic techniques, such as those used by Edward Kennedy, Democrat, in an Oldsmobile.
Here’s the story from the always reliably leftist Washington Post, so it must be true: http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....id=topnews
re 93: I support all those measurers, and anyone who does not is retarded, gay, or both!
re 107: The Mormons are like Mohammeddans in that once you have become a Mormon, you can’t quit.
They won’t let you.
It’s a cult — like the Moonies.
According to Huckabeelly Hound, the bullet that flew from his Weatherby .300 rifle (the Jesus endorsed hunting rifle)into the heart of the antelope he was shooting at was guided not by himself (God’s humble servant,Huckabeelly Hound, the doofus Arkansas rube)but by the infallible hand of the Almighty.
Huckabeelly Hound then took his Jesus endorsed Gerber fold-away hunting knife, cut out its heart and liver, and ate them on the spot while they were still bloody and warm — all for the glorification of our Lord and Savior — the Angel Moroni.
Nevercorrectnotright: I have stated I was wrong four times on this blog.
Search the ‘Wipes!
#109 headless lucy says:
Wow, you’re also a homophobe!
So tell us… Why do you believe calling someone gay is an insult?
Marvin: I thought it meant happy.
Speaking of liberals and religion: Barack Obama opens his speech at his South Carolina Oprah rally with “Giving all praise and honor to God. Look at the day that the Lord has made.”
So how will liberals compartmentalize their anti-God, anti-Jesus and anti-religious feelings if a person with true faith in God, one who atriculates he prays, one who articulates they look for God’s guidance is elected from the Donk aisle side?
Hey headless, why not tell everyone why you are a homophobe?
So anyone that doesn’t believe like you is gay or a retard?
Why do you think calling someone gay is an insult?
#109 headless lucy says:
> I support all those measurers, and anyone who does
> not is retarded, gay, or both!
http://www.horsesass.org/?p=3951#comment-719175