I have written before about the Discovery Institute’s infamous Wedge Strategy, and I have, of course, repeatedly mentioned Susan Hutchison’s close connections to Discovery. But an email from a reader raises a very interesting point:
Of course, running an undercover former board member in a suddenly “non-partisan” race fits the wedge strategy pretty tightly.
Indeed it does. Hmm.
All the more reason for Hutchison to answer the question of whether she supports Discovery’s stated goal: to overthrow traditional science “and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions”…?
No, she’s a “wedgie” candidate. Her panties are bunched up in her crack. That’s why she doesn’t say anything and wears that stupid smile.
Goldy–
Your New Age Atheist Convictions and those of most of your “candidates” don’t matter much to me.
It’s the track record and positions on specific issues that really count.
It’s about the role of local government and cost of that government that is the key issue.
Susan seems to be for smaller, less intrusive government where services are delivered cost effectively.
Why is that so threatening??
Are you only for candidates that want more rules, think the worst of people and want to endlessly raise taxes trying to milk the “wealthy”??
Seems like it.
My, aren’t you threatened by a good Christian woman Goldy.
You seem to struggle with good, family oriented women Goldy.
Perhaps your own family situation has soured you on folks who are successful in keeping the family together??
Think about it Goldy.
Your obsessive hatred of Christians is very tolerant or diverse, is it?!!
Hmph. I wonder what “Christian and theistic convictions” they’re talking about. I’m a Christian and certainly a theist–from the sum total of humans’ demonstrated “wisdom” I can’t imagine how we got to where we are without some kind of help–but the church I belong to (that one with the headquarters in Rome) has stated that creationism (of the “God-created-everything-6000-years-ago” variety) is heresy. The term I personally like for it is “bullshit”.
Now, if you’re asking me if I believe philsophically that there’s a higher power that’s responsible for things being as they are, and that the scientific study of the universe in all its ancient majesty goes hand in hand with that….that’s fine. But claiming that man and dinosaurs walked hand in hand and calling it “science” is another matter.
I would raise a harder issue here.
Is it religous bigotry to oppose a canduate for County Executive because her religious views are antithetical to my own?
Leaving aside the judgmental aspect of the word “bigot,” I think is entirely appropriate to question whether Hutchins9ons’s beliefs would affect decisions that do matter to me. Here are some examples:
1. Celebration Of Christmas. As a non Christian, I feel lots better when “we” celebrate this season in a way that acknowledges our diversity. I greatly appreciated Ron Sims action here.
2. Environment. The country plays a big role in determining how we, as an environmentally active community, make our beliefs felt. Do we want a creationist who argues for dovone intercession in global warm,ing as our executive?
3. “Visibility” The DI supports a number of people whse beliefs are abhorrent to me. Medved is a prime example. As Executive, Hutchinson would be able to feature these people in ways that would be normal for her but abhorrent for me.
4/ Leadership. The Executive is a stepping stone to other jobs. If her views are as exteme as Goldy suggests, then why would I w3ant to support a potential partisan candidate for governor?
Is this “bigotry?”
I’m tired of the whole “vote for me, I don’t respect you enough to tell you where I stand on anything.” candidates we keep getting from the Republicans.
@2
“Hatred”is a typical fundamentalist buzzword, asshole, for anyone opposed to the Xtian fudamentalist belief that they are required by God to advance His alleged agenda into public life by whatever means necessary. Mainstream churches have long abandoned that feckless enterprise, after much excessive bloodshed, but now it’s certainly been resurrected in Islamic Fundamentalism and Christian Fundamentalism.
You view yourself as holy, pure and without error in matters of religion and public life, the observant among us who are not infected with your fanaticism view you as devious lunatics.
@3 AF .. enjoyed your post!
You make a huge point. There is a huge difference between religious beliefs that do and do not impinge on proven reality.
In the era before science, the crime of heresy was invoked to deal with those whose beliefs were disruptive to the then accepted way the community dealt with nature.
Is Hutchinson far enough away form reality to be accused of heresy?
It seems to me that there are good reasons that something like heresy should apply to people who want to apply literalist interpretations of their religions to how we are ALL governed. As I see it, a bias against the heresies of the DI is not bigotry.
Let me offer an example. Francis Collins, the nominated Director of NOH, is, unfortunately, a committed Catholic. Though raised as a non believer, Francis converted because of an experience he had as a young doctor. The solace he saw in a person of faith, led him to his own faith. Francis argues, in his book, that this sort of solace is as real as any physical phenomenon.
The question in Collin’s case is whether his devout religion could affect his judgments about how NIH moneys are used? Going from the solace available by religion to factual beliefs is a dangerous path. As a Catholic, Collins accepts the doctrines of his Church. If Collins is able to suspend his knowledge of biology to believe in trans-substantiation and resurrection, then isn’t there real reason to worry that this sort of non scientific judgment will affect how he rules on stem cell biology or the creation of artificial life?
While I know Francis well enough to be certain that he will be an effective and pragmatic NIH administrator, his heretical (for a scientist) beliefs have another bad effect. They undermine his credibility in the science “is this bigotry?”
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says in relevent part:
All this hyper-zealous questioning of Susan Hutchison’s religious beliefs (or any candidate’s for that matter – remember JFK in 1960?) smacks of intolerance and bigotry.
But then again, David Geldingstein has never paid too much attention to the Constitution.
The Piper
Although I’m now Catholic, I was raised as a Christian Scientist. Their belief system regards faith and medicine as being like oil and water, and in the general case they claim you have to do either one or the other.
Despite this, Mary Baker Eddy, their founder, wrote that in particular situations, like broken bones or arterial bleeding, matters were “best dealt with by the fingers of a surgeon”.
My parents sought help from Christian Science when my father was dying from leukemia. They unsuccessfully sought a miraculous healing, but the faith and understanding they’d gained, and the caring and support of other members of that church, were a great comfort to my father in the end, and to my mother, my brother and me after he was gone.
@8 I have to ask, Piper…had you read Stephen’s comments in #4 and #7 before you posted?
It may be out of bounds to attempt to disqualify a candidate simply on the grounds of said candidate’s religion, but it’s one hell of a stretch to claim that the Constituion prohibits criticism of a candidate on the basis of what actions he or she might be inclined to take while in office.
You’re not going to try to use this reasoning to suggest that George W. Bush’s professed faith makes him immune to the charge that some of the actions his which Congress is finally investigating violated the Constitution….are you?
Aside from that, we’re not talking about prohibiting anyone from running for office. Each and every one of us, when casting our vote, can decide who to vote for, based on religion or any other bloody thing.
X’ad
How would you know this X’ad? Aren’t you one of dem atheist HA Libtardos?
@8 Hey ex-lawyer, that’s only the eligibility requirement to hold office; it doesn’t say we have to vote for someone who’s running because she wants to cram her religion down other people’s throats. I can see why you didn’t make it in law and went into “human resources consulting.”
Btw piper, exactly what do you do as a “human resources consultant,” help employers bust unions or fight unemployment compensation claims?
@8
Article VI does NOT say that a person’s religigious beliefs can not and should not be used in a campaign.
Moreover, since 1789, a lot has changed in our knowledge of the world. A good deal that was “religion” is now science. When a religious person has unscientific beliefs, those beleifs undermine the real decisions our society needs to make.
As one example, The reality of evolution id tightly tied to pubic health and environmental decision making. If Ms. H does not believe in evolution, then she should not be an acceptable candidate.
Also, there are religions that teach the inferiority of other religions. So, the concept of public welfare is likely, in those regions, tied to the “reality” of reward in the next world. In a multicultural society, I would suggest such beliefs are an anathema.
One last example, the fight over assisted suicide. A devout Christian may be unable to make decisions about how to facilitate this law. Could such a person have responsibility for the County healthcare budget?
Is this bigotry?
@13…SJ…
The Constitution is still the Constitution, and it bars a religious test.
Create all the rabbit trails you wish, but declaring someone’s religious POV bars them from office is bigotry.
Under your theory, no person of faith – ANY faith – is qualified to hold office. Holy crap!
The Piper
To be a wingnut one must be incapable of admitting when you’re wrong.
@15…Steve…
Per your definition, you are a wingnut.
The Piper
After much study and prayerful contemplation, I have concluded that Republicans suck and are stupidheads.
@11…or are you a fool who makes stupid assumptions based on your own ignorance?
@18: Where did Puddy do dat? Puddy axked X’ad a question. You have problems with da question? Most libtardos on HA are atheists. Just axk your good friends.
Create a poll Farty Art. Axk da question!
@16 “Steve… Per your definition, you are a wingnut.”
But, but, but I thought I was a bigot. After all, I once wrote the word “faggot” on a blog.
@19 “Axk da question”
As long as we’re barking out orders, write in English, you ignorant slut.
Ms. Hutchinson’s candidacy represents the continuing dumbing down of American politics, our own potential, local Palin, if you will. The Republican party has made it’s mark over the past several decades by propping up vapid celebrities with an anti-government streak – Reagan, Schwartzenegger. et al., or creating them – Palin, Gingrich, et al., with results that can charitably be described as disastrous.
We have seen the result of allowing people who view government as the problem to run government. They won’t. Because if anything is successful, it destroys the rationale for them being in office. So they create an endless feedback loop wherein they defund government because it is ‘ineffective’, then defund it again because it even less effective then when they began ad nauseam.
The Charter Amendment 8 which removed partisan identification for the King County Executive was funded by prominent Republicans precisely because they were not able to win an honest battle of ideas in King County. Realizing the futility of trying to convince a mostly centrist to liberal electorate to become the next Texas, they decided instead to try to hide their affiliations. This is why Rossi coyly identified himself as the “GOP” candidate on last years ballot, rather than proudly displaying a good, old fashioned capital “R” after his name – He hoped enough low information voters would flip the lever for him in a cycle when the Republican party was severely damaged to throw what he hoped would be another razor thin margin.
The common thread connecting most of the anti-government crowd is an outright hostility toward the bedrock of American democracy – secular government. Hutchinson has shown she is squarely opposed to the separation of church and state, in her public statements and in her affiliation with the creationist Discovery Institute, which proudly lists as it’s primary goal the destruction of materialist, fact based science.
@12…RR…
Boy, rabbit, you don’t stay tuned do you? I’ve been out of the search business for over a year. But when I was doing it, I did executive search for clients in the paper and nonwovens industries. I place engineers, technical professionals, manufacturing managers, scientists, sales/marketing types and others.
In other words, I did more to find people jobs, and very good jobs, using the tools of the private sector than any gub’mint cheese program.
And as for the persecution against people of faith – again, ANY faith – that takes place daily among the HA Happy Hooligans, it’s pretty apparent that anyone with a strong faith-based belief system is de facto unqualified for anything other than a public flogging.
How sad…
The Piper
@22…Worf…
With all your conspiracy theories it’s a wonder you sleep at night. Have you put your mattress on the floor in order to preclude anyone hiding under the bed who might jump out and get you?
The bedrock of American democracy isn’t secular government. With a silly premise like the one you posited it’s a wonder you ever got out of junior high school. Or did you?
The bedrock of American democracy is the freedom, liberty, and sovereignty of the people. Or at least that’s what the Founders believed.
The Piper
@14
The Constitution says nothing about whether voters should or should not consider religion in making a choice.
Hisotrically, religion has been a major issue in American politics. Al Smith, Kennedy, Palin, Romney .. did you really NOT see how important religion was in those elections?
And if you think Obama’s religion was irrelevant to 2008, you must have been living on another planet during the campaign.
As for Ms. H, I would not vote againbst her because she believes in the virgin birth, transubstantiation, the deveil, or a Creator UNLESS it seemed to me that those beliefs would affect how she would do her job.
Funny thing, the religious right calls persecution when anyone questions the acceptability of their religions, yet an every Reprican wants us to believe that his belief in Jesus will make him a better President. I have a similar belief .. I think a rational atheist would be the best President.
@14…SJ…
In all the campaigns you mention, the issue of a person’s religion or faith was brought up disparagingly to demean the candidate. Whether it was the Catholicism of Al Smith or JFK, Mitt Romney’s LDS faith, or Sarah Palin’s evangelical Christianity, the characterizaitons were smears, never compliments.
According to your dogmatic approach, one cannot be in a scientific position in government if one believes in transubstantiation, which I don’t. But what I believe, or what you believe, is irrelevent. Each American is entitled to the absolute freedom of conscience.
And the term “rational atheist” is an oxymoron.
The Piper
@23 “In other words, I did more to find people jobs, and very good jobs, using the tools of the private sector than any gub’mint cheese program.”
LMFAO!! A self-congratulatory headhunter. What an total asswipe.
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
Why is it so hard for the loony lefty to just come out of the closet and admit that they hate people of faith? For heaven’s sake(haha), they have danced around it for over 30 years.
@24 “The bedrock of American democracy isn’t secular government.”
Well, it certainly ain’t church-sanctioned government. The founders certainly had their fill of a state religion joined at the hip with a monarchy.
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
@29 “Why is it so hard for the loony lefty to just come out of the closet and admit that they hate people of faith?”
Uhhhh…maybe because it ain’t necessarily so?
Granted, there are those (probably more on the left) who are vocally critical of religion. Maybe that has something to do with all the right-wing fanatics doing dumb, evil stuff in the name of “God”.
@30…AF…
If so, then why did so many individual states have state-supported churchs? Remember, the Bill of Rights originally applied ONLY to the federal government.
To many in those times, the issue wasn’t secular versus religious, but rather which denomination would be favored – the notion of a secular state wasn’t under consideration in the late 1700’s. Covenanters (Presbyterians), Unitarians, Quakers, Catholics, and others simply didn’t want a Church of America modeled after the Church of England. They didn’t mind it so much in their individual states, however.
Go check out this Library of Congress article to find out.
Who you have to thank for the notion of separation of church and state aren’t secularists but Baptists who always seemed to be on the short end of the stick in those days.
Get your basic American history correct.
The Piper
Rowdy Roddy blithers:
Speaking of disparaging to demean…
@32 As a Christian myself, I take the left’s criticisms as such. No personal offense taken here, though I do sometimes wish such criticism was more finely tuned and not such a broadbrush criticism of Christianity and religion. After all, not every Christian is a deranged wingnut hater.
@33: Piper
You argue using some facts but failing to understand the bigger picture:
1. Just because there cannot be a religious test for office does not mean that a politicians belief system cannot be questioned.
A politician that believes that dinosaurs and humans danced together and ignores the science needs to be held accountable for their lack of knowledge.
2. Just because it took a while for the Supreme court to figure out the rules for separation of church and state doesn’t mean the original intent of the founders was for a state religion. Jefferson explicitly rejected a national religious holiday when he became President and called for separation of church and state.
The original clause in the bill of rights was from the Virginia state constitution. Not all states had similar religious statutes, but that is what we as a NATION (the United States) decided to do.
From Wikipedia
Haywood @29,
I don’t hate people of faith. I just don’t automatically respect them. And I certainly resent any efforts by them to impose their faith on me.
Everybody here knows that I’ve been a bit of a fanboy for Ron Sims, the son of preacher, and a lay preacher himself, and nobody who knows him would doubt that Ron’s faith is any less strong than Hutchison’s. But Ron never attempted to impose his faith in the public realm, as is clearly the aim of Discovery.
Farty Art@32: And those same leftists will call out to God in a heartbeat when in a pinch to get them out of their dilemma.
So who are you gonna call out to in a dilemma? Ghostbusters?
Steve spewed:
Here’s a clue, you goatfucking faggot cunt. Our calling you a faggot cunt is not to belittle gays and women. It is to belittle you, you worthless goatfucking faggot cunt piece of shit.
05/05/2009 AT 8:46 PM
http://horsesass.org/?p=15786&.....ent-916253
This was written by someone that calls himself a Christian.
How much of a wingnut must someone be to write bigoted hate like this and then have the audacity to call himself a Christian.
@36…CnR…
Careful citing any Wiki site…
Jefferson was but one of the Founders, not the exclusive authority…
The Bill of Rights didn’t begin to be applied to the states until well after the Civil War and then only because of an incremental application by SCOTUS due to the provisions of the 14th Amendment. cf Everson v Board of Education, 1947.
BTW…Jefferson wasn’t involved in drafting the Constitution or its amendents since he was acting as Minister to France at the time.
Consider also that when people of strong faith are either under discussion or involved in the discussion around here, the general tone is to deride and mock them as some sort of sub-human specie. How’s that tolerance working out for you? cf @37…Gelding…who only seems to respect people of faith with whom he agrees politically or who are so inocuous in their faith as to be ineffectual.
For whom would all of you HA Happy Hooligans have voted in the presidential elections of 1896, 1900, and 1908? The Republican or The Great Commoner William Jennings Bryan, the Free Silver, the peace-activist Democrat who then went on to prosecute the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Bryan would have had a field day with Gelding.
The Piper
@38 Puddy….if you’d paid any attention to the other comments I posted in this thread, you’d know that I’m not one of those “same leftists”…or are you hoping that everyone else was too dumb or inattentive to read them?
@40 Piper, could you possibly be so kind as to share with the rest of us exactly how you define “strong faith”? That might go towards having this entire discussion make a modicum of sense.
It would certainly be preferable than descending to Puddy’s level of mindless sloganeering.
I’ll certainly grant to Piper (and everyone else) that for anyone of faith and/or genuine moral character, a great many political decisions are less than simple, and often a frustrating choice between a selection of frustrating compromises.
@41 ArtFart:
Dumb and inattentive. There is no hope here ArtFart, it’s factual. Libtardos like Pelletizer can’t remember what he wrote the day before. When rhp6033 proclaimed his Christianity and talking with God, rude jackASS (rujax) lost his tongue, and clueless wonder attacked Puddy. Cat probably ate rude jackASS’ tongue.
ArtFart: Compromises are not part of the Christian character. Achan and the Babylonian cloth? Remember David on his rooftop checking out Bathsheba? Remember Remember Ananias and Sapphira? No? Refresh yourself.
Puddy is a good Christian.
Don’t take my word for it. Puddy will tell you himself that he’s a good Christian man.
And Mr. Klynical? He’s a good Christian too.
Mr. Klynical tells jokes that make Marvin laugh.
I bet Mark the Redneck is a Christian.
@42…AF…
Actually, Puddy makes a great deal of sense if you look past the way he says what he says. I’d say he has the positive gift of irony.
A person of strong faith is someone who has it at the core of his or her life – who makes moral and ethical decisions and judgments based upon it and who is commited to it even unto persecution or worse.
I have to wonder how many of the HA Happy Hooligans would suffer for their belief in light rail or a public option health care plan?
Gotta love that secular gub’mint.
The Piper
@50 You chimed in with Marvin on the “faggot” accusations of bigotry made towards myself and GBS. I think it fair to ask, what do you make of Puddy calling gays “fags”? Did that come from what you call his “positive gift of irony” or might that spring from that “moral and ethical decisions and judgments” thing? My goodness, you don’t think Puddy’s a bigot, do you? I don’t.
There you go deflecting again steve.
Stop trying to justify your behavior.
Now you are begging Piper to support you?
You insult him, his business and now you are groveling at his feet to throw you a bone.
Priceless.
If you don’t think he’s a bigot, what’s you point of posting his words over and over? Would Jesus do what you’re doing?
this is just how I remember the 8th grade..
There you go, Marvin, ignoring fellow wingnut hate spewed towards gays and blacks again. Hmmpf! Some defender of gays and blacks you turned out to be! You’re such a disappointment. Could it be that you don’t give a rat’s ass about gays and blacks after all? I don’t know if I could take it, Marvin. Tell me it ain’t so.
A bit of a tangent, but FWIW King county is now named after the REV Martin Luther King Jr.
It doesn’t get anymore religious..no?
Anyone doubt Martin Luther Kings religious beliefs? Or that they drove his actions? That all people are created equal by God?
Ron Sims was the driver to change King County to Martin Luther King Jr County, and rightly so..
I don’t think it’s bigotry..because liberals don’t apply the same standard to Demorats.
The religious “litmus” test liberals impose on Republicans, falls away when the candidate is a Democrat.
But feel free to go after the only “Republican” on her faith…God has endowed each of us with free will…..
Piper ..
Just to be sure we all know the actual history, Jefferson WAS very much involved in the writing of the bill of Rights. Madison was his representative and Jefferson’s support for the Constitution hinged on adoption of the bill of rights.
@53 “Now you are begging Piper to support you?”
You never disappoint with your ability to display a dimwttedness beyond what mere words can describe. To clue you in, goatfucker, I’m only revealing Piper to be your equal in blatant wingnut hypocricy.
Would Jesus do what I’m doing? If by that you mean would he laugh at your pathetic, goatfucking asswipe existence then, yes, I imagine he would. And he’d probably call you a faggot just to see if he could get a rise out of you. Probably so, seeing as how you’re just too easy.
@57…SJ…
Jefferson was a voice at the time, not the voice. And he was in France during the writing and ratification of the Constitution.
Also bear in mind that some of his interpretations of it have summarily been rejected by courts. The notion that states had a right to pass on the constitutionality of federal law, for example, was a complete non-starter.
That his letter to some Baptists in Danbury, CT talked about a “wall of seperation…” shouldn’t be seen as an iron-clad rule of legal interpretation of the Constitution, though through legal sleight of hand it has become so.
Remember also that Washington and John Adams, his presidential predecessors, both routinely called for prayer and fasting, decidedly religious activities. So, in Jefferson’s day he wasn’t an exlusive voice or the demi-god some regard him to be today.
The Piper
Don’t want to poop on your Susan parade, but what about this?
(Fair-use copyright infringement via blahblahblah. Yahoo, in this case.)
Obama’s promise to restore science to its proper place by appointing a pro-eugenics czar is part of a pattern:
That’s from Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Are you worried, yet, about Obama’s brave new world order? Afraid? Or are you still shaking in your shoes about Cheney’s secret war on al Qaeda?
Rabbit’s shrieking hysteria about a nascent secret plan to get bin Laden was utterly discredited this morning by NPR’s Morning Sedition. The 1948 NSA enabling legislation left a hole big enough to drive an up-armored Humvee thru when it comes to protecting America’s security. This morning’s NPR report made it plain that the administration was rightly concerned about Cengress leaking and the press printing the details of national-security secrets, a concern justified when the Jaysdon Blair Times printed cherry-picked details of Cheney’s secret plan when Congress was secretly told about it.
Not that the Jayson Blair Times, the Pentagon Papers people, would ever set aside our security to grab a headline. Which is what they did with so-called “warantless” wiretapping.
And which is what the Jayson Blair Times didn’t do when a Times reporter was recently kidnapped by the Taliban. Last night, NPR’s On the Liberal Media told an interesting story about the Times pressuring media outlets, including Wiki, to suppress all reports of the kidnapping. There was a good reason: the Times was trying to protect the reporter’s life by not feeding into the jihad publicity machine.
Why doesn’t the Times extend the same courtesy to us?
@26 26. Piper Scott spews:
First, I never said whether the judgments our elections make were based only on a positive view of faith. Hell, the Whigs campaign against Jefferson accused him of being an atheist while Obama very skillfully entangled his campaign with his own history of conversion. For that Matter, GW Bush sure as hell campaigned as a Christian .. to the point of claiming Jesus as his personal adviser!
I did not say that, BUT literal belief that the host is human flesh would certainly worry me in any biologist.
Really? So you would be comfortable with an animal rights activist as head of NIH or a Quaker as Secty of Defense???
How about a jihadist as secty of State?
I suggest you look up the definition of oxymoron.
FWIW, as usually defined in the west, “God” can be scientifically proven NOT to exist. “God” is fine, as long as your beliefs keep He, She or It away from trying to understand the physical world. Once you cross that line (e.g. by belief in creationism, ID, etc) then we know no such creature exists or all of our knowledge of science fails. BTW, while you are looking up “oxymoron” you might also re-read Spinoza, Pearson, and Popper.
The Piper
Rabbit was utterly discredited last week, but an earlier assertion that Amity Shlaes was utterly discredited has been discredited. Shlaes was ‘discredited’ by Lyndon LaRouche, who wrote that Shlaes is a sock-puppet of British imperialism. LaRouche has been discredited.
@59 Piper
I know that Washington and Adams were whigs, Jefferson and Jackson are why we no longer have a Whig party .. unless Sarah Palin has her way.
As for TJ and the Constitution, OF COURSE he was not the only contributor. Mr. Hamilton, inter alia, would not have been very happy with the US being governed by Jeffersonian constitution! BUT, Jefferson was a major force in determining what became the Constitution and, his election firmly established the secular nature of our government that persists until today .. some might even say “thank God” for TJ!
BTW,
If anyone wants to see the OTHER side of bigotry, go visit Effin Unsound. That supposedly liberal blog is arguing that having a devout Christian as NIH director is perfectly fine.
Now that is an odd idea. Are the DK and Lee in cahoots with Piper?
Steve, Steve, Steve; Puddy sees you are back on the Stupid Solution. Regarding my position on
If you had a brain Steve and stop acting like clueless wonder who accused me of “dancing on Mike Webb’s grave” a year and three months before his murder, if you looked at what Puddy has always said ya moron:
Love the sinner hate the sin. And since you yanked the comment out of context just like clueless wonder… it was over a period of time where Puddy placed multiple pictures of GLA and GLAAD activities in front of little kids. It was was over a period of time where Puddy placed the Mass Teachers teaching gay acts to little kids in Mass schools.
Puddy has been very consistent and Steve you are still a persistent moron.
Keep up the good work fool!
These cretins love to yank a comment out of context. What will be their next attempt before another Puddy d.e.c.i.m.a.t.i.o.n?
@62…TYTS…
It appears that the HA Happy Hooligans have busted the limits on their discredit cards, eh what? And doesn’t Lyndon LaRooooooooooooooouche routinely run for office as a Democrat (when he’s not in jail, that is)?
The Piper
@62: The anti-argument Amity Schlaes was first postulated by clueless wonder when he quoted someone else’s trash instead of his own DD. He tried the same thing on Jonah Goldberg and Liberal Fascism but the historical record d.e.c.i.m.a.t.e.d his worthless attempt.
clueless wonder always gets his trash from left-wing puke sites.
Lawyer Jay Wexler, who clerked for Ruth Bader Ginsberg and who teaches law at Boston University, is funny. Funny in the sense that we used to refer to inmates of Western State or Warm Springs State Hospital. This is from Wexler’s book about the lighter side of the Establishment Clause:
And this:
g-a-w-DAMN I hate lawyers. Except for the excellent Piper, the Federalist society, and members of the Rutherford Institute.
To rise again and to win, Republicans must become the Anti-Lawyer party. It’s the least we can do to restore morning in Obama’s eugenicist America.
Puddy
Would it be too challenging to ask if you think a new religion might be founded on the remains of Michael Jackson?
Consider:
Miraculous transformation of his race .. even fathered white children!
Performed miracles acknowledged by millions.
Died because of insufferable pain?
Fathered children as a virgin?
His body disappeared from his tomb?
…………….
I expect Geraldo Rivera to attend the opening of the tomb and have already heard that Jackson and Elvis have been seen together in Arkansas.
@65 “Love the sinner hate the sin”
Oh, I see, you probably were just a little confused at the moment about that love-hate thing when you called gays “fags”. My bad, not yours, I’m sure.
Puddy, Puddy, Puddy. Did you laugh at Mr. Klynical’s racist joke? You’re a black man. How do you feel about humor where the butt of the joke is you and the entire black race?
@66 “And doesn’t Lyndon LaRooooooooooooooouche routinely run for office as a Democrat (when he’s not in jail, that is)?”
And Neal Horsely, he who fuck mules, washing machines and watermelons, routinely runs as a Republican. And so your point is what? That you fuck mules?
@63…SJ…
Washington and Adams were Federalists – the Whig Party didn’t come into being until the 1830’s.
Jefferson’s election didn’t establish any such secular thing. Individual states continued to support religious entities well into the 1940’s.
Remember, these were people who, in the pre-Constitutional confederacy, enacted the Northwest Ordinance, which became the model for westward expansion, and which declared the primacy of “Religion, morality, and knowledge” in that order.
Remember also that it was a certain segment of the American population who forced their religious views upon others in the 1860’s. They were called abolitionists.
The Piper
Is it religous bigotry to oppose a canduate for County Executive because her religious views are antithetical to my own?
Beside the point. But it probably is.
However, it makes perfect sense to oppose a candidate who is trying to usher in theocracy, or even smash the wall of separation between church and state.
@50 “Actually, Puddy makes a great deal of sense if you look past the way he says what he says.”
I’ll let that statement sit there for everyone else to ponder.
Yep, 69, Michael was a transformative figure.
Were you confused when you were throwing the “faggot” word around like a drunk liberal?
Yes, it was your bad.
The author of the joke was very specific who the butt of the joke is. Sorry it was too tough for you to figure it out.
“Rabbit’s shrieking hysteria about a nascent secret plan to get bin Laden was utterly discredited this morning by NPR’s Morning Sedition.”
…and, it would appear, was subsequently confirmed by today’s lead story from Associated Press.
It would seem that if it had been going on since 2001, it wasn’t terribly effective…if indeed that was its actual purpose.
David Horsey does THAT to mules, washing machines, and watermolons? That explains everything.
@1…I thought the currently popular slang term was “cameltoe”.
Love those scare-italics, Art. (scaretalics?)
There’s been a horrible mistake. Rabbit @1 was describing Granny Pelosi. Limbaugh does a riff about her cinched-up thong. The horror.
Well, Gelding at least has a price…
On the HA site is an ad for this
The Piper
@76 “The author of the joke was very specific who the butt of the joke is. Sorry it was too tough for you to figure it out.”
Making up pathetic excuses for wingnut racism again, huh? Goes hand in hand with your condoning wingnut bigotry.
Tell me again, who’s the butt of that joke?
Watermelons. Whatever.
I think I get it now, Marvin. When a progressive like myself calls a wingnut goatfucker like you a “faggot” and later apologizes to the entire forum, that’s bad, that’s very bad. When a openly racist wingnut displays his bigotry by unapologetically calling gays “faggots”, as Mr. Klynical did, well, that’s a good thing.
Your moral compass is all fucked up, Marvin, did you know?
@84 Neal says that he gave his watermelons names.
“In sheer panic and fearing he was turning white and might have to start
working for a living”
Do you need some help with that one, Marvin?
Not making up excuses, simply pointing out the joke was very specific who the butt of the joke is.
I’m sorry you can’t figure it out.
Stop begging. Ask one of your “black friends” that you hang with at work, or maybe on of your “black friends” at the kountry klub, or maybe one of your “black friends” at the yacht club. Didn’t you write a post telling us you actually knew black people or something a month ago. Ask them.
If you were lying again about knowing black people, ask me again and I’ll tell you who the butt of the joke is.
I’m black because I said I was on welfare.
Doesn’t sound too much different than your “faggot” spewing buddy gbs.
Yet it doesn’t bother you when lefties spew the same hate you call out righties for.
Explain it to me, Marvin. Who’s the real target of this line of the Klynical KLOWN’s joke:
“In sheer panic and fearing he was turning white and might have to start
working for a living”
Break it down for me. Put some spin on it. Explain to me how that isn’t racist.
@89 “I’m black because I said I was on welfare.”
Whatever. And you fuck goats because you’re the dumbest fucktard wingnut on the planet.
yet another comment thread that devovles to goat schtupping…
How original.
@80 Dude…if you’re down to making fun of peoples’ font selections, you’ve really run out of gas.
@92 True, to a point. It’s also another thread where Marvin continues make baseless accusations of bigotry all while continuing to ignore the very real hate and bigotry being spewed by his fellow travelers.
Stuff like that.
@94
That anyone takes those comments you copied as anything other than obnoxious, juvenile drivel is ridiculous.
Who cares who condemns who? Isn’t what is written condemnation enough?
Steve, Steve, Steve, the joke was from one told about Jesse Jackson in 2005. Since Puddy knew about the joke from before Puddy didn’t feel it was necessary to jump like a little bitch you want Puddy to be. You see Steve, you’s our bitch. You can’t seem to fathom this issue too well.
Now onto your Neal Horsely attack: From Wikipedia…”Horsley traveled to San Francisco, California, where he claims to have become an anti-war advocate and hippie. Horsley did time in jail on charges of drug possession, and it was there in 1974 that he converted to Christianity.”
So he did all these acts while he was a certified Dummocrapt. Didya catch the trip to San Francisco CA and the anti-war advocate and hippie, Steve.
You too are a chronological fool! Long ago Puddy equated you with clueless wonder another of the certifiable chronological idiots here on HA Libtardos.
Close, but no Kneepads Clinton cigar.
Oh, wait, that one burned up at Hell’s Own All-Nite Laundromat. This week, white boy, I’m wearing this one. You have a problem with that?
Puddy, Puddy, Puddy, what shall I ever do with you? Could I possibly be more patient? Surely, I’m deserving of Sainthood. Dude, Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat. Hell, you used to be a Democrat. So fucking what? What the fuck did they teach you at Cornell? Neal’s yours now, bud. The stupid mulefucker felt out of place with Democrats and found a welcome home with you! Please do try to keep up with current events, Puddy. It’d make it so much easier for me to converse with you.
So, Puddy, I hear that you hold down a job. How unblack of you. Heh, I kid you, my dear friend. You know as I do that Cynical’s attempt at humor crossed the line. I must be older than you as that old joke predates Jesse, you know. But does the retelling of it make Cynical a racist? Nah. Not in itself, no. It’d take more proof than that. Racism is a substantial charge. I would want to see substantial proof. Has Cynical left a trail of hate-filled comments spewed towards blacks? Not that I’ve seen. All I’ve seen is a wingnut klutz. That aside, I’ll tag him a racist as readily as he tries to label Democrat Christians as Godless heathens. If he doesn’t like it then he can go fuck a goat. And I can’t say that I blame Marvin for his lame attempts to make out that I’m a bigot. After all, everybody here now knows that the stupid fool fucks goats. I reckon he blames me for that. Heh, it’s a mean game we play, Puddy.
Baseless?
Steve spewed:
Here’s a clue, you goatfucking faggot cunt. Our calling you a faggot cunt is not to belittle gays and women. It is to belittle you, you worthless goatfucking faggot cunt piece of shit.
05/05/2009 AT 8:46 PM
http://horsesass.org/?p=15786&.....ent-916253
Haven’t you whined numerous times that you apologized and now all should be forgiven? If I make baseless accusations about you being a homophobic bigot, what did you apologize for?
The fact you tried to apologize proves that my claim you’re a bigot.
Since I proved steve was a homophobic bigot steve has become very bitter and hateful.
It is hard to believe steve is being sincere with his childish little games. One posts he denies being a homophobic bigot, the next posts he says he apologized. Steve is so confused he can’t even make up his mind. All I know is that only a someone with a lot of hate for gays would go around calling people “faggots” to belittle them. The fact steve even wrote he was trying to belittle me was astounding. I’ve always heard about people like steve, I didn’t really believe they actually existed.
I’m very glad all of you are here. Because that means I can read Goldy, and then go to Publicola where most of the comments betray a little intelligence. 8th grade, hell; this is the 5th grade.
There is a lot of bullshit trashy discourse going on here. However, it does look like Susan Hutchison is doing damn well in the polls, with more voters preferring her than all the other candidates put together. At the same time, Goodspaceguy is outpolling Larry Phillips among voters under 50.
Maybe some of the policies of the Discovery Institute — such as CREATIONISM — aren’t that popular at all among the majority of King County voters. But is this going to translate into Hutchison getting defeated in November?
Steve Steve Steve, this is why Sarah68 has issues. The difference between you and Puddy is Neil asked God for forgiveness and publicly told all his previous life. Puddy bets you have skeletons in your closet. Well Neil has told all about his skeletons and he asked for forgiveness. Puddy has no beef with Neil Horsely but you being a libtardo progressive will always hold his past against him. This is the BIG diff between us whom think right and libtardos like you!
Regarding Cynical, you can call him what you want. It’s a free country. Go for it. You still haven’t rejected headless lucy so it shows just how much a lowlife you are Steve. You had many months to be a man Steve and you continue to WIMP OUT! Then you yell at Cynical calling him names?
How typical of you Steve.
Susan Hutchison is a right wing, know-nothing crank.