I say "Bah!" (in the word of Jedmuds) to this Moran!
"Sensitive" -- they want us to be all "sensitive" to their *reasons!* -- how *liberal* of them...they must have feelings after all.
"Bah!"
I'll link to it so that his message can be further distributed over the internets!
BG
He's now on blue girl!
May his message spread like wild fire!
I think this guy might be Josh Blaydes given a few clues I've found, but I'm not sure.
Here's another pic.
Hmmm. Doesn't quite have the .... the chipmunk cheeks that look like the guy dips...have to check Purdue sources....
The kid definitely should have gotten a buzz-cut, brought a Marine recruiter with him (many have a surprisingly good sense of humor, I have found) and asked politely why they didn't have one in their meeting-- since they're so in favor of the poor people of the country "volunteering" when they have nowhere else to turn.
Come on, Republicans! Anyone can serve when they have no other options-- but what are YOU sacrificing for your nation? Pat Tillman gave up everything, and lay down his life for his ideals, why can't you?
Me? You said it yourself-- I don't share your ideals. Why in the world would you ask a liberal to fight for your ideals when you won't fight for his?
Kind of looks like a young Halford. Oh man, it is Halford!!!
It seems to me that we've been shown the face of a future President of the United States.
My thoughts exactly, the thing about Clinton's BS, is somehow it was usually believable. Actually, I thinking the new Scott McLellan.
Who the hell is this guy?
Did you watch the vid? The only thing we know for sure is he goes to Purdue. Possible hints College Repub (obvious) and Campus Crusade fro Christ
Geenie, I've never been a sensitive guy.
This guy is a dead ringer for Sean Hannity.
Yeah Pinko, I saw the video, but this is the kind of retard I wouldn't even give the time of day.
He really does look like the Young Repubs that went to my high school. One is reformed, the other I'm not so sure....
I sometimes ride the conservative line, but people like this douche are crusaders and even further reason to distance myself from conservatives.
The ultimate goal of these people is spreading their religion through a political party, even though they hide behind the lie they are tolerant.
Like the topic of intelligent design, and who evolution offends..Hmmmmm, I wonder who is behind that debacle?
Ches- read the column about ID that Atrios linked to today in the WaPo. You will pop a vein.
Pinko,
I've seen your name and comments over at JG. I've been calling my sister Pinko Punko for, cough, many years. 'Tis a good name and indicates laudable tendencies. See ya around.
`
You have a link?
thanks stinkeye!
Ches-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...5082800964.html
I am in shock right now Pinko. I cannot believe this writer has shamelessy hijacked the sports section to post this dribble.
Well, religion has duped more intelligent people in the past.
I will find an article I read today that keeps me hoping for sanity.BRB.
This is a big one. I don't know if you guys will get pissed so I apologize in advance. If I had the link I would provide.
Show Me the Science
By DANIEL C. DENNETT
Published: August 28, 2005
Blue Hill, Me.
PRESIDENT BUSH, announcing this month that he was in favor of teaching about “intelligent design” in the schools, said, “I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought.” A couple of weeks later, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, made the same point. Teaching both intelligent design and evolution “doesn’t force any particular theory on anyone,” Mr. Frist said. “I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future.”
Is “intelligent design” a legitimate school of scientific thought? Is there something to it, or have these people been taken in by one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science? Wouldn’t such a hoax be impossible? No. Here’s how it has been done.
First, imagine how easy it would be for a determined band of naysayers to shake the world’s confidence in quantum physics - how weird it is! - or Einsteinian relativity. In spite of a century of instruction and popularization by physicists, few people ever really get their heads around the concepts involved. Most people eventually cobble together a justification for accepting the assurances of the experts: “Well, they pretty much agree with one another, and they claim that it is their understanding of these strange topics that allows them to harness atomic energy, and to make transistors and lasers, which certainly do work…”
Fortunately for physicists, there is no powerful motivation for such a band of mischief-makers to form. They don’t have to spend much time persuading people that quantum physics and Einsteinian relativity really have been established beyond all reasonable doubt.
With evolution, however, it is different. The fundamental scientific idea of evolution by natural selection is not just mind-boggling; natural selection, by executing God’s traditional task of designing and creating all creatures great and small, also seems to deny one of the best reasons we have for believing in God. So there is plenty of motivation for resisting the assurances of the biologists. Nobody is immune to wishful thinking. It takes scientific discipline to protect ourselves from our own credulity, but we’ve also found ingenious ways to fool ourselves and others. Some of the methods used to exploit these urges are easy to analyze; others take a little more unpacking.
A creationist pamphlet sent to me some years ago had an amusing page in it, purporting to be part of a simple questionnaire:
Test Two
Do you know of any building that didn’t have a builder? [YES] [NO]
Do you know of any painting that didn’t have a painter? [YES] [NO]
Do you know of any car that didn’t have a maker? [Y
Actually, i will post the blog. Sorry.
www.deadissue.com
scroll about three posts down.
Thanks C- will read more full y--
Pinko,
In an effort to know where you stand alittle better, what are your thoughts on this?
http://www.beardface.com/
article...ArticleID=07617
Being an artist myself, I have some opinions, but I don't want my expertise to interfere with your opinion. Tell me what you think of this. A word of caution to the feint of heart, it is an image of an aborted fetus head attached to a bird body in the name of art. Don't say I didn't warn you about it.
It is hard to say. Using the actual object to me seems to cross a line of taste, beyond what a representation would. The problem with shock art like that is yes, it is done to provoke a discussion, but the shock value is so extreme, what is the point, and essentially, I think less of the artist because of it. This is not to denounce all shock-art- in earlier times, a mere exposed shoulder was deemed shocking, and such art I would rightly support in terms of opening a discussion into sexual mores. As for that particular piece of art, I find it distasteful and uncreative. However, oddities of deformed and hideous fetuses are displayed in medical museums- so the question is is any display of a human fetus within acceptable limits- I don't know.
Compelling talking points Pinko. I agree about the taste issue.
I went to the premiere art school in the country The Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, CA. www.artcenter.edu
I had a history of art class that I thouroughly hated and was despised for my conservative tastes. I was of the opinion that Modern art is a black hole that was created in the 1930s after the impressionist and post impressionist movements. In the beginning the idea that art is not what the eye sees but what the mind percieves the eye seeing produced thought provoking work. I am of the impression [sic] that it devolved into what you see now based on the shock art syndrome that Modern art has suffered from.
While I agree that the artist has the right to show it, and he has purpose, I think that the burden of what is acceptable should be placed on the backs of the public. I disagree with this piece out of the "respect for human life" issue. Even though it was a fetus, it is being disrespected, and it would almost be the same to me as if someone we manipulating Holocaust imagery for pleasure or sale.
I am glad to see your level headed response to this, you are a true intellect worthy of respect. I have posted it on a more conservative blog for reaction and the same simple minded issues have come up about it. Abortion, human life, blah, blah, blah.Christian values, blah.
Thank you for the response.
I just feel the denouncing of some things over certain images is wrong. I would except symbols that are implicit threats however (cross burning, swastikas, the confed. battle flag-no matter how self-defined its symbolism, it matters what it means to the people looking at it, although I think the symbol has to represent a real atrocity as all those do- to be banned). The fetus I do feel is crossing the line, but it goes straight to the heart of the argument- what does that fetus represent- a life? A possible life? Cells? The artist is absolutely provoking the discussion- is it different that the people protesting abortion clinics with huge signs showing aborted fetuses- they are using the images for the same shock value, and regardless of their motives, the disrespect is the same, they are appropriating the image for their own purposes. You know what I mean?
I agree more than you ever know and that was my next step. I hope the artist thought this and I am glad you read through. It is complete hypocrasy for the people that "respect life" to use horrible imagery to justify the argument. I am not saying they can't but it is disrespectful to use it as a means to an end. I blogged about it, but it doesn't seem to get through. If you truly think that life starts at conception you should be horrified at the lack of respect people show to disillusion others about abortion. "Shock" seems only to apply to liberality, but it is actually more evident in the "right" of the country.
I am not condoning the artist, you read my post, but the issue is morbidly realistic. It simply is not fair of the far right to use this for gain and then chastise others who do the same. Hypocrasy literally defined.
It is the only reason I have faith in art. Interpretation is golden.
we truly are on the same page, Pinko. I am glad you have the uncanny knack to read through the lines, as I thought you did.
You literally stole my argument from me. As a liberal like myself, maybe you can use this to influence others. I mole righty blogs to gauge the heads I am dealing with. Know your enemy, and know him well. It appears you do.
I just try to think what is reasonable and also what is not hypocritical. What kills me is the lying to discourage abortion, when the absolute best way to prevent abortion is birth control. If you truly cared about abortion you would promote birth control. If you view both as sins, lying about abortion should be as equal a sin as birth control. For example, it shouldn't matter whether fetuses feel pain or not- that should be irrelevant to one's argument against abortion. And if you know it not to be true, why push the info on people considering abortion, it shouldn't matter to your argument anyway. The people that want to tear down Cindy Sheehan no matter what- they don't have an argument against her, so they call her "the bitch in the ditch"- you have got to be kidding me? If you have something to say for your side, say it, none of this everything and the kitchen sink BS. Ugh. I just get so mad. I used to live near an abortion clinic and there would be people out there all the time protesting. It just made me sad.
I'd do him.
luxury watches
replica chanel
replica movado
Replica watches
louis vuitton handbags
rolex watch
Commenting by HaloScan
