Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Run_to_da_hills · 12-09-2012 9:20am

"a physician running for the Illinois State Senate sums up ObamaCare in one sentence " " So, let me get this straight. This is a long sentence....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdnY8r7_fLw

robindch · 12-09-2012 9:46am

^^^ Let me add another class of nutter to our Republican presidential fruitcakes - in this case, physicians who oppose healthcare!

doctoremma · 12-09-2012 10:32am

jank wrote: »

They could be wrong but they are automaticly ALWAYS right when pitted up against someone who has beliefs that have religious overtones... Hmmm. Sure!

I would hesitate at declaring their views automatically right but have no such problems declaring their views automatically more valid.

joseph brand · 12-09-2012 10:32am

‘I Didn’t Know You Had Families’ Mitt Romney Told Group Of Gay Parents

Who knew? Gay men and women actually have parents, siblings, children and extended family. Who wants to tell Romney that the Earth is round (it's not a perfect sphere but let's keep it simple) and that losing your home (tent cities) is a mild setback?

“It was like talking to a robot. No expression, no feeling,” recalls David Wilson, one of the plaintiffs in the case who met with Romney that day. “People were sharing touching stories, stories where you’d expect recognition in the other person’s face that they at least hear what you’re saying — that there’s empathy. He didn’t even shake his head. He was completely blank.”

Occasionally Romney would say something.

“I didn’t know you had families,” remarked Romney to the group, according to Wilson.
The offhanded remark underscored that Romney, the governor of the first state prepared to grant same-sex marriage, hadn’t taken the time to look at what the landmark case was really about. By this point the plaintiff’s stories had been widely covered by national media — in particular, Julie Goodridge’s heartrending tale of how her then-partner, Hillary, was denied hospital visitation following the precarious birth of daughter Annie. It was the ignorance of these facts — and Romney’s inaccurate, insensitive answer to her parting question, that pushed Julie Goodridge to her breaking point.

“I looked him in the eye as we were leaving,” recalls Goodridge. “And I said, ‘Governor Romney, tell me — what would you suggest I say to my 8 year-old daughter about why her mommy and her ma can’t get married because you, the governor of her state, are going to block our marriage?’”

His response, according to Goodridge: “I don’t really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don’t you just tell her the same thing you’ve been telling her the last eight years.”

:eek:

What was that argument put forward by the religious concerning morals? :rolleyes:

joseph brand · 12-09-2012 10:43am

jank wrote: »

They could be wrong but they are automaticly ALWAYS right when pitted up against someone who has beliefs that have religious overtones... Hmmm. Sure!

That is the fallacy of looking at the cover of the book or the author and then automaticly agreeing or dissagreeing with it even though one doesnt read the pages.

If you're talking about theists and their holy books, then you're bang on the money.

The sheer amount of catholics here in Ireland, who haven't read a single page of the bible, but they 'know' it's all true.

The irony is, according to Penn Jillette, that if they did read it, their eyes would be opened. I don't think it would have a 100% success rate, but assuming they were reasonable, ethical and critical thinkers it would enlighten them to what their masters know.

Question: Why would reading the Bible make you an atheist?

Penn Jillette: I think because what we get told about the Bible is a lot of picking and choosing, when you see, you know, Lot's daughter gang raped and beaten, and the Lord being okay with that; when you actually read about Abraham being willing to kill his son, when you actually read that; when you read the insanity of the talking snake; when you read the hostility towards homosexuals, towards women, the celebration of slavery; when you read in context, that "thou shalt not kill" means only in your own tribe—I mean, there's no hint that it means humanity in general; that there's no sense of a shared humanity, it's all tribal; when you see a God that is jealous and insecure; when you see that there's contradictions that show that it was clearly written hundreds of years after the supposed fact and full of contradictions. I think that anybody... you know, it's like reading The Constitution of the United States of America. It's been... it's in English. You know, you don't need someone to hold your hand. Just pick it up and read it. Just read what the First Amendment says and then read what the Bible says. Going back to the source material is always the best.

decimatio · 12-09-2012 3:12pm

jank wrote: »

They could be wrong but they are automaticly ALWAYS right when pitted up against someone who has beliefs that have religious overtones... Hmmm. Sure!

Who said that ? Not I. I specifically talked about inferior and superior.

The theory of relativity (gravity) might be wrong and it could well be shown to be wrong tomorrow. But that doesn't mean it isn't superior to someone who thinks there are invisible ropes holding everyone down.

sponsoredwalk · 12-09-2012 3:30pm

decimatio wrote: »

Who said that ? Not I. I specifically talked about inferior and superior.

The theory of relativity (gravity) might be wrong and it could well be shown to be wrong tomorrow. But that doesn't mean it isn't superior to someone who thinks there are invisible ropes holding everyone down.

Where is this superiority complex coming from, & why does it sound eerily similar to this shining city on a hill rhetoric pumping out of both conventions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jpv5rzlTm4

Memnoch · 13-09-2012 12:37pm

jank wrote: »

They could be wrong but they are automaticly ALWAYS right when pitted up against someone who has beliefs that have religious overtones... Hmmm. Sure!

That is the fallacy of looking at the cover of the book or the author and then automaticly agreeing or dissagreeing with it even though one doesnt read the pages.

Reason, logic, testable theories, empirical evidence, in short, the scientific method has produced... lightbulbs, phones, cars, planes, medicine, space shuttles, tvs, fridges...

Relgious belief has produced... oh yes, turning water into wine and all that other good stuff.

So yes... when someone approaches a problem with logic and the scientific method their answer or 'belief,' is always going to be SUPERIOR to someone who approaches the same problem with... 'That guy with the beard told me that he spoke to the sky fairy and he was told how to interpret this really old book that's been rewritten countless times.'

joseph brand · 13-09-2012 9:20pm

joseph brand · 14-09-2012 6:47pm

If you want to laugh at Pat Robertson giving advice on adopting foreign children or a US Judge warning that Obama is about to give US sovereignty over to the UN, these guys are funny. (btw they feature in a podcast called 'The Best of The Left)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0l6f4Be5pM

robindch · 17-09-2012 5:05pm

Obama Gets Foreign-Policy Scolding From Man Who Almost Started War With Britain

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/09/obama-gets-foreign-policy-scolding-from-man-who-almost-started-war-with-britain.html

The New Yorker wrote:

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—President Barack Obama received a stern lecture on foreign policy today from a man who almost started a war with Great Britain in July.

“When it comes to dealing with foreign countries, President Obama doesn’t have a clue,” said Mitt Romney, who during a summer visit to London caused the biggest international incident between the United States and Great Britain since the War of 1812. “Only I have what it takes to bring peace to the Middle East.”

Mr. Romney’s statement about his foreign-policy prowess drew an official response from British Prime Minister David Cameron, who in a tersely worded statement, said, “Hah, good one.”

But the G.O.P. nominee pressed on with this theme during several campaign stops today, saying that his trial by fire at the London Olympics had prepared him for foreign-policy challenges ahead. “Dealing with something as straightforward as the Middle East will be like a day at the beach compared to a volatile tinderbox like England,” he said.

Mr. Romney also laid out his plans for bringing a lasting peace to the Middle East: “Right now, the region is chaos. Entire countries are in uproar, and they are focussing their anger on America. The only way for us to fix that is by attacking Iran.”

In other political news, the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit a four-year high, making President Obama the crappiest socialist in history.

jank · 18-09-2012 9:21am

Almost started war? Well I suppose it follows the tone of the thread.

You do know as well that there are actually some very senior and serious people in the state department and Pentagon who have questioned the lack of leadership of the Obama administration. As Neil Ferguson said it is not enough to just say "I am not Bush, please love me."

magicbastarder · 18-09-2012 9:49am

mitt romney seems to be drunk at the wheel. i like this guy. not afraid to speak his mind.

MagicMarker · 18-09-2012 9:55am

Erm.... I assumed the article was supposed to be satire?

robindch · 18-09-2012 10:05am

Yes, The Borowitz Report is written by Andy Borowitz, a well-known satirist, writing for The New Yorker, a magazine described by wikipedia as "an American magazine of reportage, commentary, criticism, essays, fiction, satire, cartoons, and poetry".

Folks, what we're looking at here is a sarchasm -- the yawning gap between one person's irony, and another person's failure to notice it.

sponsoredwalk · 18-09-2012 10:08am

magicbastarder wrote: »

i like this guy. not afraid to speak his mind.

I like this guy better:

When he doesn't know a camera's rolling, the GOP candidate shows his disdain for half of America

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU9V6eOFO38

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjET1LGw5vM

mikhail · 18-09-2012 10:26am

robindch wrote: »

Folks, what we're looking at here is a sarchasm -- the yawning gap between one person's irony, and another person's failure to notice it.

What a fun neologism. I'm definitely stealing it.

magicbastarder · 18-09-2012 10:38am

MagicMarker wrote: »

Erm.... I assumed the article was supposed to be satire?

actually, i wasn't referring to the article, but to the latest gaffe about the 47%.
he's sounding increasingly like a cossetted, cranky old man.

jank · 18-09-2012 10:46am

robindch wrote: »

Yes, The Borowitz Report is written by Andy Borowitz, a well-known satirist, writing for The New Yorker, a magazine described by wikipedia as "an American magazine of reportage, commentary, criticism, essays, fiction, satire, cartoons, and poetry".

Folks, what we're looking at here is a sarchasm -- the yawning gap between one person's irony, and another person's failure to notice it.

Well its good to have a foot in two camps, then no one will have to answer a serious question.

18-09-2012 10:48am

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I like this guy better:

When he doesn't know a camera's rolling, the GOP candidate shows his disdain for half of America

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU9V6eOFO38

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjET1LGw5vM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8

joseph brand · 18-09-2012 10:51am

jank wrote: »

Almost started war? Well I suppose it follows the tone of the thread.

You do know as well that there are actually some very senior and serious people in the state department and Pentagon who have questioned the lack of leadership of the Obama administration. As Neil Ferguson said it is not enough to just say "I am not Bush, please love me."

Poe's Law. "Bazinga!"

Not being Bush is a great starting place for a POTUS. The Stimulus package, Medicare, withdrawal of US troops From Iraq and doing everything to avoid invading Iran are extras.

I just don't get how the conservative christians (Reps) love sending young Americans off to get blown to bits in the Middle East. And Romney wants to increase military spending. The christians
believe they're doing god's work, and if they believe in the ressurection, and a lippy snake, they'll believe ANYTHING!

http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/war/us-rep-cw-bill-young-changes-course-says-us-should-withdraw-from/1252055

robindch · 18-09-2012 10:52am

jank wrote: »

Well its good to have a foot in two camps, then no one will have to answer a serious question.

And to think I only read this on Sunday night:

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/doonan/2012/09/sarcasm_we_re_trapped_in_an_era_of_sincerity_bring_back_sarcasm_.single.html

/sigh

joseph brand · 18-09-2012 12:07pm

I always thought that humour (sarcasm) was a sign of intelligence.

Precisely because humor is a sign of intelligence (and many women believe, or were taught by their mothers, that they become threatening to men if they appear too bright), it could be that in some way men do not want women to be funny. They want them as an audience, not as rivals.

If you've ever met anyone with no sense of humour, wit, ability to laugh at themselves or ability to be sarcastic, you'll know that they can seem quite dim.

“This wallpaper is dreadful, one of us will have to go.” Oscar Wilde

I think that closed-minded individuals will find it mentally tough, trying to understand sarcasm.

Funny story, slightly relevant.

My Dad's cousin used to dress up as a priest and drive around town (Dublin). This was nearly 30 years ago, when they commanded a lot more respect.
He would drive down Grafton Street, prior to it's pedestrianisation, and give two-fingers to passers by.
There was one time when he entered a car dealership, in the same priest costume, enquiring the price of a Jaguar. The salesman told him the price, to which he replied, "Would ye **** off, I'm not paying that". "That's bollix!" And off he went, back into his car, no doubt giving two-fingers to more unsuspecting pedestrians.

Dades · 18-09-2012 12:15pm

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8

Methinks that point actually goes to Mitt Romney. :pac:

That lady is clearly one of the "47%".

jank · 18-09-2012 2:51pm

joseph brand wrote: »

I always thought that humour (sarcasm) was a sign of intelligence.

If you've ever met anyone with no sense of humour, wit, ability to laugh at themselves or ability to be sarcastic, you'll know that they can seem quite dim.

I think that closed-minded individuals will find it mentally tough, trying to understand sarcasm.

Funny story, slightly relevant.

My Dad's cousin used to dress up as a priest and drive around town (Dublin). This was nearly 30 years ago, when they commanded a lot more respect.
He would drive down Grafton Street, prior to it's pedestrianisation, and give two-fingers to passers by.
There was one time when he entered a car dealership, in the same priest costume, enquiring the price of a Jaguar. The salesman told him the price, to which he replied, "Would ye **** off, I'm not paying that". "That's bollix!" And off he went, back into his car, no doubt giving two-fingers to more unsuspecting pedestrians.

No, Sacrasm is and has always been the lowest form of wit.
By all means beat around the bush but just come and and say it like a man.

jank · 18-09-2012 2:58pm

joseph brand wrote: »

Poe's Law. "Bazinga!"

Not being Bush is a great starting place for a POTUS.

So that is enough for you? I am not Bush please love me. Serious questions have been asked not only by those inside the administration on what vision Obama has in terms of foreign policy especially towards the middle east but also by NATO members. The fact that the administration was woefully un prepared for the Arab spring, the debacle with Mubarak and the latest confusion around that video is symbolic of a "make it up as we go along" type of foreign policy.

Of course that may be your standard and by no means I am a fan of bush but the constant comparison between the two as if one is night and the other is day speaks volumes of each persons agenda and red tinted specs.

jank · 18-09-2012 2:59pm

The Mad Hatter · 18-09-2012 3:12pm

jank wrote: »

No, Sacrasm is and has always been the lowest form of wit.

Obviously you're not acquainted with my puns.

Sarky · 18-09-2012 3:14pm

jank wrote: »

No, Sacrasm is and has always been the lowest form of wit.

This has always been trotted out by people who are no good at sarcasm. You could just practice at it instead of sucking at it, you know.

By all means beat around the bush but just come and and say it like a man.

You heard it here first, folks. Jank believes sarcasm is effeminate. And the lowest form of wit. So jank clearly believes that women can't be witty. How sexist of him. I don't think any of us are surprised though, are we?

Corkfeen · 18-09-2012 5:25pm

jank wrote: »

No, Sacrasm is and has always been the lowest form of wit.
By all means beat around the bush but just come and and say it like a man.

The quote is actually incorrectly attributed to Oscar Wilde, you're still missing the rest of it. 'Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but the highest form of intelligence' :pac:

Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Comments