jberryhill
jberryhill's JournalFOX: Obama Campaign Seizes on Mitt Romney "Victims" Video
Oh the job of a FOX headline writer...
Having to take a prime example of your guy having stepped boldly and alone into a pile of dogshit perched atop the third rail, and make it look like Obama did something to him.
I suppose next they'll have "liberals attack embassies in frenzy over offensive Mitt Romney video"
What makes red-staters think Mitt likes farm subsidies?
I don't profess to be an expert on the subject of farm subsidies, but what makes them think they are immune to Mitt's indictment of recipients?
I like the new Romney stragety
They said they would change course, and boy how they have.
No longer content with alienating identifiable blocks of voters such as women, latinos, LGBT, and so forth, the Romney campaign has kicked into high gear by dissing an unidentified 47% of the electorate, without regard to color, creed, origin, gender, or disability.
Well done, Mr. Romney, well done.
When should we tell them that the winner is decided by who gets the most votes?
Liz Cheney: Francisco Franco is NOT DEAD
In a statement sure to embarrass the writers at SNL news, Liz Cheney was reported to have issued this update from the undisclosed location where she is under observation.
I missed the news, did Germany invade Czechoslovakia again?
In a nutshell, aside from naming a non-existent country, wtf point was she on about?
I mean, hey, I'm as upset as the next guy over the breakup of the Habsburg Empire, but I think I'm pretty much over it on a personal level.
Breaking News: Most Of Planet's 1B Muslims Had A Normal Day
In what seems to have been a spontaneous global breakout of normalcy, most of the world's 1B Muslims report having a normal day in what many call, "Kind of a mundane week, really."
Which occupation best controls malpractice?
Some professions remain largely self-regulating:
The Constitution expressly grants a right to the services of only one of these professions
South Africa was run by Dutch Reformed Protestants
The apotheosis of the Pilgrims is largely a product of a certain strain of Protestantism. The reason the Pilgrims went from England to Holland is twofold. First, the political climate in relation to anglican, reformed, and Catholic populations had long been turbulent. Second, their Calvinistic strain of belief was itself an import, most directly kindred to the Dutch Reformed.
They left Holland for two reasons. First, they were concerned that their children's minds were being polluted by Dutch tolerance. Now, the Dutch Reformed are as personally uptight as the next Protestant, but they were still too tolerant for the Pilgrims. Second, the Dutch West India company needed suckers to make money for their investors. These were the first venture capitalist to export jobs.
But anyway, the Pilgrims themselves lost their battle against assimilation here in the long run. However, those of the purest strain of Dutch Reformed established colonies in South Africa.
It is their culture - the culture of the Afrikaners - which finally bloomed into its glory as the ruling culture of South Africa in the 20th Century.
And I well remember at the time when we responded to the call of Anglican Bishop Desmond Tutu and others to use economic action to effect social change in South Africa.
And do you know who the chief opponents of ending apartheid were, here in the US?
The remnants of the Calvinistic heritage of the Pilgrims. Not by descent, but in the spiritual sense.
South Africa is one of two historical examples of where things go when "literalist" Bible believers get their hands on the wheels of power.
(note to hosts - this is not a religion thread. It is a thread about the political impact of a particular religious mindset, its political manifestation in South Africa, and what that might imply about our political future)
Who is crazier?
Which person is crazier?
And does your answer depend on whether the second one gives money to the first one?
Inconsistent application of "free speech" principles
Since the following has been locked as "off topic" for GD, I have been requested to post it in Meta..
----
Okay, so what I see on the news are a lot of people demonstrating their displeasure with something someone said.
A few of them, as with any angry mass demonstrations do destructive things. Now, when that happens in protests we like, "they must be agitators, provocateurs, etc."
But we have quite a few folks here taking the position "what's wrong with these people is that they don't understand freedom of speech."
That is true to a large extent, because they didn't grow up with it. But this criticism misses the the elephant in the room.
By and large, the protests consist of people gathering, chanting, carrying banners and signs, and not doing any harm to anyone.
In others, they are engaging, exercising, and thus expanding their own freedom of speech.
The ones doing violent things cannot be a majority of the thousands upon thousands who, by and large are simply walking down a street, shouting and gesticulating.
The outstanding hypocrisy here is that the simple observable fact of the overhelming preponderance of non-destructive protestors, is the folks here who say:
"These people need to understand free speech!"
Uh... Wtf do you think most of them are DOING?
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Delaware
Member since: Fri Jan 20, 2006, 08:14 PM
Number of posts: 62,444
