What about well-connected American mullahs?

I agree that the religous right is dangerous. I find it depply disturbing that religion is playing such a big roll in politics. I talked to a depply religous old man the other day and he thinks that all this God talk the candidates are spouting off about is dangerous.

Meh, THE (new window) real story.

Even someone who thinks Reagan was the best president of the 20th century thinks that Bush and his cronies are dangerous.

Come on GOP, go back to being a sensible party.

My penis is a well-connected American.

..A few days after September 11, 2001, he invited a group of Christian leaders to the White House to discuss the theological implications of the terrorist attacks. When one of them told him that he was "God's man for this hour" he began to cry.

Wow Gee Dubya. Crying over how Jesus-like you are? And you only attend church twice a year. You're a complete delusional.

Somebody needs to tell the author that the Creation Museum is in Kentucky. We have enough weird crap in Ohio already. Don't need this pinned on us.

From the article:

"In other words," he writes, "the most powerful enemies of our modern, humanBoobies-Enlightenment world may not be militant Islamists more than an ocean away, but Christian fundamentalists and their neo-conservative allies".

Well, he's right up to a point. Some well-connected Americans are indeed more dangerous than crazed mullahs.

But they are not neocons or Bible-bashers: they are liberal commentators who suggest a moral equivalence between their churchgoing neighbours and terrorists. That means you, Craig Unger.

Well, yes, of course. People who bomb abortion centers aren't terrorists. People who call bombing abortion centers terrorism are the terrorists. I hope I cleared that up for you.

But they are not neocons or Bible-bashers: they are liberal commentators who suggest a moral equivalence between their churchgoing neighbours and terrorists. That means you, Craig Unger.

Anyone know what that means?

sparkmysmeg: Meh, THE (new window) real story.

Put that one up for the Tin Foil Hat Award.

When exactly was the republican party hijacked by these extremists?

bourneobscurity: When exactly was the republican party hijacked by these extremists?

Under Nixon actually, but it took them until 2000 for them to get enough power to show exactly how insane they all are.

Also, why the hell didn't the guy ever use italics or underline when referring to the book? Is he an idiot or is that supposed to be some sort of insult?

What a crap article. I don't think it even had a point. It appeared to be a collection fo KOS, truther, and Fark quotes. It reminded me of the David Allen Coe song. It could of been the perfect liberal article, but it didn't mention anything about Cheney, 911 conspiracy, Halliburton, or Hitler.

FTFA: Well, he's right up to a point. Some well-connected Americans are indeed more dangerous than crazed mullahs.

But they are not neocons or Bible-bashers: they are liberal commentators who suggest a moral equivalence between their churchgoing neighbours and terrorists. That means you, Craig Unger.

See, nice statements like this are when rational thought and conversation dives off a high bridge and is replaced by emotionalism and idiocy.

No blanket statement was made saying churchgoing neighbors are equivalent to terrorists. The point was that fundamentalists (no matter of which religious sect) are dangerous in positions of power. This is very different than saying the nice little ol' lady neighbor who believes in Jesus and wouldn't harm a fly is equivalent to a terrorist. Of course, many people are just stupid and can only "think" in terms of black or white.

bourneobscurity: When exactly was the republican party hijacked by these extremists?

Maybe I was too young to notice but I didn't see nearly as much of these extremists in Reagan's or the first Bush's presidency. I think it came around as the Republicans were shocked to loose to Clinton twice in a row and needed to find some way to get people out to vote and this was the easiest group to get to vote en masse.

Its just gravy to them that the evangelicals don't question authority figures and so they can do whatever they please.

bourneobscurity: When exactly was the republican party hijacked by these extremists?

Here is your answer (new window)

the_colonel: What a crap article. I don't think it even had a point. It appeared to be a collection fo KOS, truther, and Fark quotes. It reminded me of the David Allen Coe song. It could of been the perfect liberal article, but it didn't mention anything about Cheney, 911 conspiracy, Halliburton, or Hitler.

Be honest.

You didn't even read the article, did you?

lelio: Maybe I was too young to notice but I didn't see nearly as much of these extremists in Reagan's or the first Bush's presidency. I think it came around as the Republicans were shocked to loose to Clinton twice in a row and needed to find some way to get people out to vote and this was the easiest group to get to vote en masse.

It was there, we just notice it more now since we have the internet and 24 hour news networks. When Pat Robertson comes close to getting the GOP nomination, the phrase "well reasoned moderation" isn't bandied about that much.

miseducated: the_colonel: What a crap article. I don't think it even had a point. It appeared to be a collection fo KOS, truther, and Fark quotes. It reminded me of the David Allen Coe song. It could of been the perfect liberal article, but it didn't mention anything about Cheney, 911 conspiracy, Halliburton, or Hitler.

Be honest.

You didn't even read the article, did you?

I read it but it just looked like the same old crap. As I read it I had the headline in mind and the "I was drunk the night my mama got out of prison" standard comments filled the article. I didn't look at the last paragraph until I re-read it. I'll be damned if it isn't a review of a book instead of an editorial.

The way this article at first moseys along on a semi-agreeable tangent and then veers off the rails into a desk-pounding, finger-pointing morass is actually quite amusing.

It's precisely at this paragraph

The implication is that this is part of the administration's "war against science". There is no evidence for this idea - but Unger needs it to bolster a grand theory of his own: that the most significant clash of civilisations today is between "fundamentalists" and the modern world, not between Islam and the West.

that you can see the writer ripping off his glasses and tie, rolling up his sleeves, and raring to administer a horsewhipping.

the_colonel: I'll be damned if it isn't a review of a book instead of an editorial.

You might also be damned if the author is a red-blooded, meat-eating lib-hater, but it's certainly not my place to judge where you go in the great everafter.

*isn't.

....

Damn it.

Damian Thompson, is editor-in-chief of the Catholic Herald

the libs are coming - lock up your children!



actually, why not let damian do it for you?

wow, that article felt like some hardcore bait and switch. The author was running along a semi-coherent rant and then BAM look out! It's the libruls gonna destroy the world. How in the fark does he think the article leading up to the last paragraph relates at all?

sigh, politics at it's finest.

Poor Damian Thompson. Did the widdle book scare he? Watch out, there's a toe monster under your bed!

.

damian's rag doesn't seem to like using the word pedophile (paedophile / paedophilia). a search of the archives only throws up a handful of instances - one a review of a zimbardo book, and the other two, i think, bemoaning the terrible media for suggesting a catholic priest could be a pedophile. it's funny, too, given he's such an abnormal looking farker

johnsmith99
Anyone know what that means?

Afternoon_Delight submitted this article?

When was the last time an Abortion clinic was bombed?

It was like 12 years ago, if not longer. And hell. If someone truly believes that Abortion is the mass murder of innocents, as many seem to do, than I am surprised at the lack of bombings.

Meanwhile, the Arabs will bomb you all over the world, for drawing a cartoon. Or giving a bear the name 'Muhammad'.

jules_siegel: From the article:

"In other words," he writes, "the most powerful enemies of our modern, humanBoobies-Enlightenment world may not be militant Islamists more than an ocean away, but Christian fundamentalists and their neo-conservative allies".

Well, he's right up to a point. Some well-connected Americans are indeed more dangerous than crazed mullahs.

But they are not neocons or Bible-bashers: they are liberal commentators who suggest a moral equivalence between their churchgoing neighbours and terrorists. That means you, Craig Unger.

Well, yes, of course. People who bomb abortion centers aren't terrorists. People who call bombing abortion centers terrorism are the terrorists. I hope I cleared that up for you.

God sometimes the poorly programmed filter spits out pure gold.

inconnu: "the Arabs"

Maybe you can expand on that? Terrorist groups only comprise a small fraction of all muslims and Arabs. I just cannot stand to listen to any more poisonous diatribes from the likes of Ann Coulter or this author. Maybe it is time to decentralize power, and return it to the states. This way you can ban abortion and make your little theocracies. Maybe winning the civil war was a pyrrhic victory?

the_colonel: What a crap article. I don't think it even had a point. It appeared to be a collection fo KOS, truther, and Fark quotes. It reminded me of the David Allen Coe song. It could of been the perfect liberal article, but it didn't mention anything about Cheney, 911 conspiracy, Halliburton, or Hitler.

inconnu: When was the last time an Abortion clinic was bombed?

December 6, 2007?

They had me sort of interested until this:

Ronald Reagan may have been the greatest American president of the 20th century,

Pardon me while I PROJECTILE VOMIT

GIS for "well connected american"



No GIS attempted for "well hung american"

That article was hilarious.

It's basically presenting the fall-back position for evangelicals who supported Bush.

The fall-back position goes like this:

"Bush had his heart in the right place, as did all of the god-fearing folk who voted for him, but the neocons in his administration, while well-meaning and decent folks, made some blunders due to their zeal. That secular folks would try to claim that there was some sort of underlying plan and strategy to the neocon's well-meaning blunders, shows that secular democratic folks are dangerous to our way of life".

Like I said, hilarious.

Is there anyone stupid enough to actually BELIEVE that complete bullshiat?

Oh, and as a bonus, the article also offers a gigantic fig-leaf to the Neocons as well, with the implication being that Bush's policy wasn't a direct result of following Neocon advice to the letter, but was "caused by interference with the Neocon's glorious plans by the evangelical rubes".

So... the evangelicals get to blame the (well-meaning and kindly) Neocons for a few "blunders", and the Neocons get to blame the Evangelicals for "interfering with their plans".... while both groups can at least agree that the REAL enemy are those folks who will call them on what they've done for the past 7 years.

Double hilarious.

Is there anyone stupid enough to actually BELIEVE that complete and obvious bullshiat?

Oh, right. The 26%.

inconnu said:

When was the last time an Abortion clinic was bombed?

24 days ago.

inconnu said: It was like 12 years ago, if not longer.

No. It was 24 days ago.

inconnu said: hell. If someone truly believes that Abortion is the mass murder of innocents, as many seem to do, than I am surprised at the lack of bombings.

Well, sure... because in your twisted mind, the perfect response to percieved mass-murder, is the further random mass murder of nurses, doctors, patients, bystanders, and the poor UPS delivery guy who just happened to be in the wrong building on his route at the wrong time.

inconnu said: Meanwhile, the Arabs will bomb you all over the world, for drawing a cartoon. Or giving a bear the name 'Muhammad'.

Wow.

So... you're saying that (a) you are suprised that there aren't more bombings due to your perception of the injustice of abortion, and that (b) you are angry at "The Arabs" for their frequent use of bombings to deal with what they percieve as injustice.

Look at (a). Look at (b). Look in a mirror.

bourneobscurity: When exactly was the republican party hijacked by these extremists?

Well... the Moral Majority was founded in 1978.


/draw your own conclusions