Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Weekly Standard) NewsFlash Santorum to pull out. Gross   ( weeklystandard.com) divider line
    More: NewsFlash, Rick Santorum  
•       •       •

15698 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Apr 2012 at 2:11 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

829 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Newest

 
2012-04-10 07:26:08 PM  

Overfiend: DarnoKonrad: I really didn't think Romney could do it.

I am looking forward to Romney beating Obama in the election.

Romney has always been the Republicans best chance, and he was the most moderate of all the Republican candidates. I think he will make a pretty good president.


Look, I'm a pretty die-hard Republican, I despise Obama and everything the Democrats stand for, but I really can't see myself voting for Romney. Romney is "more of the same". Sorry, but "more of the same" from the Republican party leadership is what got us Obama in the first place.

I figure if Obama gets a second term, then that just gives him the opportunity to fark up the country to the point where Congressional Republicans will finally say enough is enough. Maybe then they'll put an end to the Imperial Presidency we've been saddled with since FDR.
 
2012-04-10 07:37:53 PM  

make me some tea: NateGrey: Anyone seen the Fark Republicans? No proclamations of forever. Where are all the trolls? We need Fark Freepers to melt down here too.

I think we chased em away.


They need time to regroup and discuss the new newspeak.
 
2012-04-10 07:38:01 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: our Bill of Rights will be forgotten and we will be subjected to East Germany quality nanny-statism.

The parts of our economy that could succeed will be suppressed, we will have massive and unpopular social change foisted on us, ignorant and fatalistic pseudo-scientists will finally get a ruinous chance to lord it over us with fantasies like population control and MMGW, and Agenda 21 will try to force all Americans into giant metropolises on the coasts, so that the heartland will be depopulated.


I find it funny that conservatives believe this stuff. Who do they suppose is going to implement all these totalitarian measures? Our military is filled to the brim with conservatives, so if any draconian measures are carried out, it will be by their own hand.

Cookoo!!!

/Keep your govt hands off my medicare!!!
//LOUD NOISES!!
 
2012-04-10 07:40:47 PM  

Mouser: I figure if Obama gets a second term, then that just gives him the opportunity to fark up the country to the point where Congressional Republicans will finally say enough is enough. Maybe then they'll put an end to the Imperial Presidency we've been saddled with since FDR.


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2012-04-10 07:41:30 PM  

SilentStrider: WhyteRaven74: Methadone Girls: people actually think this? Where do you find this stuff??

FreeRepublic.com it'll send you running to 4chan for a breath of decency.

Freeperville makes /b/ look like facebook.


At this point, I think this sums up Fark's response to the Freep meltdown...

lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-04-10 07:44:32 PM  

Weaver95: there's that 'american exceptionalism' thing again. WTF man....what does that even mean?


Lenny_da_Hog: No matter how farked up we are, we're the best because we don't admit it! YAY!


netweavr: It's a non-confrontational way to say "nationalism." Various wars ruined that term for contemporary usage.


bobbette: It's the belief that America because of its history and culture is the most special and unique and country ever, and (in recent development) normal rules and standards for nations don't apply, because FREEDOM. U-S-A U-S-A


Weaver95: so...basically its craziness?


PlatinumDragon: Heh.

I just finished reading

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. Guess how much any reference to AE enrages me right now?

/someone needs to write a canuck equivalent of that book

zedster: it's a run around separation of religion and state and a dog whistle.

the idea is God wanted the infallible, down home, white, puritan founding fathers (who were not religious, owned Korans and farked their slaves out of wedlock) to create a new Zion (Hebrew for penis), a shining city on the hill and light onto the nations showing the heathens the true path of being rich, white, and farking the poor


bobbette: No, it's just a right-wing strand of American nationalism divorced from any honest analysis of America's history or its international perception, and it's frequently used as a rationale for neoconservative foreign policy aims.

I have no problem with a view of America as a country with a unique political culture that valued republicanism and constitutionality, although you have to consider that concurrently with the institution of slavery and the huge concentration of economic power in very few people's hands at the time of the Revolution and assess just how free a society America originally was. I have no problem with nationalism as long as it isn't blind nationalism. I also have no real problem with the concept that America is unique, because it is. So is every other country.


extroverted_suicide: It's a term basically one step above Divine Providence. It's the belief that America is innately superior to other nations due to natural resources, political freedom, and good old 'merkan spirit. It came up a lot in my PoliSci and Sociology courses, and I thought the phrase was coined by Tocqueville. But according to wikipedia (yeah, yeah) the phrase was actually first used by Stalin (!). I find the concept disturbing and dangerous because it is inherently nationalistic and elitist.


zedster: the idea is God wanted the infallible, down home, white, puritan founding fathers (who were not religious, owned Korans and farked their slaves out of wedlock) to create a new Zion (Hebrew for penis), a shining city on the hill and light onto the nations showing the heathens the true path of being rich, white, and farking the poor


ecx.images-amazon.com

It's also part of the subtitle of the most recent book published by a certain Ph.D. in History, former Associate Professor of History (A Nation Like No Other: Why American Exceptionalism Matters, co-author Vince Haley, ©2011 Regenery Publish Company, p. ISBNs #1596982713 & #9781596982710).

Therein, this history Ph.D. and former history prof. committed errors that he himself should've considered as cause for rejecting any paper from a student who committed a similar error: in at least one case, he quoted a secondary source for an alleged Founding Fathers quote (p. 76, bulleted list item #2, footnoted as ²) that did not cite its own source for that quote.

He repeated that same error in his twenty-page Presidential Commission on Religious Freedom (A Proposed "On Day One" Executive Order of Newt Gingrich's 21st Century Contract with America) which apparently excerpts chapters from the aforementioned book, quoting that sentence on p. 8, again as bulleted list item #2. He footnotes it here as 6, and Footnote #6 on p. 18 reads as follows [word-wrap as-is]:
6 Carl Pearlston, "Is America a Christian Nation?" Connecticut Jewish Ledger,
April, 2001; available at: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/
politics/pg0040.html (accessed April 26, 2011).
As you can see, Mr. Pearlston cites no source whatsoever. That particular website is, of course, merely reprinting his article, so the original may have had a source. So, I decided to check. Here's a link to the print-published version (California Political Review, March, 2001, pp. 24-27). Still no citation for that nor any other claim in Pearlston's article.

Now here's the real origin of the quote (well, one step removed from the actual origin):
1.bp.blogspot.com
Page 134 of the September, 1956 issue of The American Mercury.
Note the pull-quote at the bottom, from the segregationist magazine The Virginian earlier that same year.

Here's that pull quote closer up:
www.goodasyou.org


As you can see, the only quote even alleged to actually be from Patrick Henry is the one cited from his will (and even that is spurious!). The part often quoted is from commentary about that quote written by the article writer of the The Virginian article.

Someone (so far it looks to be one Stephen C. Dawson, in or somewhat before 1988) apparently saw that pull quote in The American Mercury and somehow thought (despite the citation clearly showing which text was allegedly those actual words of Patrick Henry) that the sentence "The above quotation from the will of Patrick Henry is a notable example." were referring to the immediately preceding paragraph(s) (despite the numerous anachronisms such as "propaganda" and "religionists" used in the sense used in this quote ["propaganda" hadn't even been coined yet nor would it be for another century or so, and "religionists" had a meaning almost the 180° diametric opposite of the way it's used in this quote during Patrick Henry's time and for quite some time thereafter], not to mention that America was not yet "this great nation" at the time, nor did had it yet "afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship" to "people of other faiths" when Patrick Henry lived), not the text clearly indented and labeled as being form his will!

Interestingly enough, while David Barton (in his The Myth of Separation) and numerous others cite Dawson as their source for that quote, they all apparently misstate the title of the source! They always cite it as: "Steve C. Dawson, God's Providence in America's History (Rancho Cordova, CA. Steve C. Dawson, 1988), Vol I, p. 5.", but the actual title is "God's Providence For America."

Even Amazon.com gets it wrong as does small publisher GoRapture.com (both calling it "God's Providence To America"), despite the correct title being clearly shown on the cover on both websites:

ecx.images-amazon.com



Note that this is a rather chintzy self-published dot-matrix-printed spiral-bound book, not some professionally published book. It is apparently no longer available. I'd love to track down a copy, to see what Mr. Dawson claimed his source for that quote to be, if he did even cite his source.

Because everyone who cites it always cites it the same way, complete with a majorly altered title (unless Dawson released another version either before or after with the longer title but still in 1988), it appears that even most of those who cited it as their source were being less than honest, apparently instead having found it in some other source that cited it, and skipping citing where they actually found it − a form of plagiarism. For whoever was the first to cite it as such it may well have been an honest mistake (even though s/he should've had the physical book in hand when citing it), but the others would all have been plagiarizing that first citer, or someone else who'd him/herself plagiarized that first citer, and so on.

I've not been able to find any biography on this "Stephen C. Dawson," nor any mention of what credentials he might've had or claimed when he wrote that. But we do know from the magazine scans that he at the very least was sloppy in his research, or else some source he cited was (which would still make him sloppy, since, like Gingrich, he should not have cited a non-primary source without checking its own sources and so on until he got back to a primary source).

Of course, historical truth and accuracy doesn't stop certain people from making money by promulgating this (and many other) phoney-baloney Founding Fathers quotes.
 
2012-04-10 07:46:24 PM  

Weaver95: sweater vest!?

STFU and just bail out now Rick.


s3.amazonaws.com

"You're welcome to come up here and join me and Stanley!"

/Join meeeeeeeeeeeeee
 
2012-04-10 07:48:55 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Serious Post on Serious Thread: our Bill of Rights will be forgotten and we will be subjected to East Germany quality nanny-statism.

The parts of our economy that could succeed will be suppressed, we will have massive and unpopular social change foisted on us, ignorant and fatalistic pseudo-scientists will finally get a ruinous chance to lord it over us with fantasies like population control and MMGW, and Agenda 21 will try to force all Americans into giant metropolises on the coasts, so that the heartland will be depopulated.

I find it funny that conservatives believe this stuff. Who do they suppose is going to implement all these totalitarian measures? Our military is filled to the brim with conservatives, so if any draconian measures are carried out, it will be by their own hand.

Cookoo!!!

/Keep your govt hands off my medicare!!!
//LOUD NOISES!!


The weird thing about the military is that it isn't as lockstep in terms of ideals and who would do what in what situation. In fact, having a political schism in the military is a good thing.
 
2012-04-10 07:49:50 PM  

COMALite J: Wall o' text and pix


tl;dr
 
2012-04-10 07:53:30 PM  

Benni K Rok: The Southern Dandy: Serious Post on Serious Thread: our Bill of Rights will be forgotten and we will be subjected to East Germany quality nanny-statism.

The parts of our economy that could succeed will be suppressed, we will have massive and unpopular social change foisted on us, ignorant and fatalistic pseudo-scientists will finally get a ruinous chance to lord it over us with fantasies like population control and MMGW, and Agenda 21 will try to force all Americans into giant metropolises on the coasts, so that the heartland will be depopulated.

I find it funny that conservatives believe this stuff. Who do they suppose is going to implement all these totalitarian measures? Our military is filled to the brim with conservatives, so if any draconian measures are carried out, it will be by their own hand.

Cookoo!!!

/Keep your govt hands off my medicare!!!
//LOUD NOISES!!

The weird thing about the military is that it isn't as lockstep in terms of ideals and who would do what in what situation. In fact, having a political schism in the military is a good thing.


I was in the military and I can tell you there ain't much schism. 90% lean hard right.

/liberal
 
2012-04-10 07:58:42 PM  

The Southern Dandy: I was in the military and I can tell you there ain't much schism. 90% lean hard right.

/liberal


I guess it depends on the branch, and individual community. I don't know anyone who's hardcore right. I know folks who lean right, and folks who lean left, but for the most part, everyone just doesn't really talk about it.
 
2012-04-10 07:59:54 PM  
About damn time.

For a little bit there he was making me nervous he might , just might have a shot. Then I was just waiting for him to follow Perry's lead and fade back to obscurity.

Does this mean Huntsman can step back in and take all the non-Romney Delegates?

/how I wish that were possible.
 
2012-04-10 08:00:41 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Benni K Rok: The Southern Dandy: Serious Post on Serious Thread: our Bill of Rights will be forgotten and we will be subjected to East Germany quality nanny-statism.

The parts of our economy that could succeed will be suppressed, we will have massive and unpopular social change foisted on us, ignorant and fatalistic pseudo-scientists will finally get a ruinous chance to lord it over us with fantasies like population control and MMGW, and Agenda 21 will try to force all Americans into giant metropolises on the coasts, so that the heartland will be depopulated.

I find it funny that conservatives believe this stuff. Who do they suppose is going to implement all these totalitarian measures? Our military is filled to the brim with conservatives, so if any draconian measures are carried out, it will be by their own hand.

Cookoo!!!

/Keep your govt hands off my medicare!!!
//LOUD NOISES!!

The weird thing about the military is that it isn't as lockstep in terms of ideals and who would do what in what situation. In fact, having a political schism in the military is a good thing.

I was in the military and I can tell you there ain't much schism. 90% lean hard right.

/liberal


I seriously wonder why that is. I can only assume that the Right's constant drumbeat for more war only gets through to folks who already by the line that constant war is not just called for, it is a necessity to the success of America.
 
2012-04-10 08:16:53 PM  

Kittypie070:
Holy f*cking tail-eating sh*tsnake, can you BELIEVE THIS!!??


www.superawesomewow.com
Take it easy there Kittypie my friend. Maybe you already know this but let me repeat. This is nothing new. Welcome to the 60s my friend. What did you think "Right Wing Reactionaries" meant. These people have been around forever. And we have fought them before and won. Hell, G. Washington hisself, was fighting them way back when. And Isaac Newton couldn't hardly talk to anyone in town, they'd a burned him at the stake.

So, take a deep breath, tweet your team and do something.

Or drop out. Those were the two choices then. Those are always the two choices. Either attend a rally, or get baked behind the barn. Zup2U.
 
2012-04-10 08:17:09 PM  
Moderate Republicans shining through?
 
2012-04-10 08:20:43 PM  
Split the GOP vote in November, Freepers. I dare you.

/maybe the GOP will finally be rid of the crazies.
 
2012-04-10 08:21:56 PM  

Mouser: I figure if Obama gets a second term, then that just gives him the opportunity to fark up the country to the point where Congressional Republicans will finally say enough is enough. Maybe then they'll put an end to the Imperial Presidency we've been saddled with since FDR.


They didn't do anything about it with GWB and his wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus and freedom tickles, why would they start now?
 
2012-04-10 08:24:42 PM  

Altitude5280: Culled from Tea Bagger Nation- Anyone but obama.We can get through 4 years of romney but obama will change America forever. Get yourselves some guns and ammo and learn to be self sufficent as possible cause you will need to be self sufficent. America under obama will go back 100 years. Wake up people. Stop voting the death of yourselves.


Actually, I know some dyed-in-the-wool derpers who would probably be pleased with this.
 
2012-04-10 08:26:32 PM  

hubiestubert: Maybe God was trying to tell you something Rick...

[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 320x480]


American Rhetoric: Movie Speech

"Inherit the Wind" (1960)

Henry Drummond Questions Matthew Brady on the Scientific Authority of the Bible

Audio mp3 delivered by Spencer Tracy and Frederic March

Drummond: I call to the stand one of the world's foremost experts on the Bible and its teachings: Matthew Harrison Brady.

Davenport: Your Honor, this is preposterous!

Hornbeck: Brother, let us pray.

Judge: Well, it's highly unorthodox. I've never known an instance where the defense called the prosecuting attorney as a witness.

Brady: Your Honor, this entire trial is unorthodox. But if the interests of Right and Justice will be served, I would take the stand.

Davenport: But Colonel Brady --

Judge: The Court will support you if you wish to decline to testify as a witness against your own case.

Brady: Your Honor, I shall not testify against anything. I shall speak out as I have all my life on behalf of the living truth of the Holy Scriptures.

[Court officer begins to swear the witness in]

Drummond: No, no, no, no -- that won't be necessary to swear him in.

Brady: Oh, I can make affirmation. I have no objection to swearing to God.

Drummond: [chuckling] I take it you will tell the truth. Now, sir, I am right in calling upon you as an authority on the Bible, am I not?

Brady: I believe it is not boastful to say that I have studied the Bible as much as any layman. And I have tried to live according to its precepts.

Drummond: Bully for you. Now, I suppose you can quote me chapter and verse right straight through the King James version?

Brady: There are many portions of the Holy Bible that I have committed to memory.

Drummond: I don't suppose there are many portions of this book you've committed to memory -- The Origin of the Species?

Brady: I am not the least interested in the pagan hypotheses of that book.

Drummond: Never read it?

Brady: And I never will.

Drummond: Then how in perdition have you got the gall to whoop up this holy war about something that you don't know anything about? How can you be so cock sure that the body of scientific knowledge, systematized in the writings of Charles Darwin, is in any way irreconcilable with the book of Genesis?

Brady: Would you state that question again, please?

Drummond: Well, now, let me put it this way. On page 10 of The Origin of the Species, Darwin states --

Davenport: I object to this, Your Honor. Colonel Brady has been called as an authority on the Bible. Now the gentleman from Chicago is using this opportunity to read into the record scientific testimony which you, Your Honor, have previously ruled irrelevant. Now, if he's going to examine Colonel Brady on the Bible, let him stick to the Bible, the Holy Bible, and only the Bible.

Judge: You will confine your questions to the Bible.

Drummond: Alright. Forget it. We'll play in your ballpark, Colonel. Now, there, I'd like to get this part clear first. This is the book that you're an authority on, isn't it?

Brady: That is correct.

Drummond: You believe that every word written in this book should be taken literally?

Brady: Everything in the Bible should be accepted exactly as it is given there.

Drummond: Now what about this part right here, where it talks about Jonah being swallowed by the whale? You figure that really happened?

Brady: The Bible does not say "a whale." It says, "a big fish."

Drummond: As a matter of fact, it says "a great fish." But, I guess that one's pretty much the same as the other. Now, what do you think about that business?

Brady: I believe in a God who can make a whale, and who can make a man, and make both do what He pleases.

Lady in the audience: God Bless you, Matthew Harrison Brady.

Audience: Amen, amen....

Drummond: I want those "amens" in the record. Now I recollect a story about Joshua -- Joshua making the sun stand still. As an expert, do you tell me that that's as right as the Jonah business? That's a pretty neat trick.

Brady: I do not question or scoff at the miracles of the Lord, as do ye of little faith.

Drummond: Have you ever pondered what would actually happen to the earth if the sun stood still?

Brady: You can testify to that if I get you on the stand.

Drummond: If, as they say, the sun stood still, they must have had some kind of an idea that the sun moved around the earth. You think that's the way of things? Or don't you believe that the earth moves around the sun?

Brady: I have faith in the Bible.

Drummond: You don't have much faith in the solar system.

Brady: The sun stopped.

Drummond: Good! Now, if what you say actually happened -- if Joshua stopped the sun in the sky -- the earth stopped spinning on its axis, continents toppled over one another, mountains flew into space, and the earth, shriveled to a cinder, crashed into the sun. Now, how come they missed that little tidbit of news?

Brady: They missed it because it didn't happened.

Drummond: But it had to happen. It must've happened, according to natural law. Or don't you believe in natural law, Mr. Brady? Would you ban Copernicus from the classroom along with Charles Darwin? Would you pass a law throwing out all scientific knowledge since Joshua? Revelations, period?!

Brady: Natural law was born in the mind of the heavenly Father. He can change it, cancel it, use it as He pleases. It constantly amazes me that you Apostles of Science, for all your supposed wisdom, fail to grasp this simple fact.

Drummond: Now listen to this. This is Genesis 4 to 16: "And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife." Now where the hell did she come from?

Brady: Who?

Drummond: Mrs. Cain. Cain's wife. If, in the beginning, there were just Cain and Abel, and Adam and Even, where did this extra woman come from? Did you ever stop to think about that?

Brady: No, sir. I leave the agnostics to hunt for her.

Drummond: Never bothered you?

Brady: Never bothered me.

Drummond: Never tried to find out?

Brady: No.

Drummond: You figure somebody else pulled another creation over in the next county somewhere?

Brady: The Bible satisfies me. It is enough.

Drummond: It frightens me to think of the state of learning in the world if everybody had your driving curiosity. Now, this book goes into a lot of "begats": "And Arphax'ad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber" and so on and so on and so on. Now, are these pretty important people?

Brady: They are the generations of the holy men and women of the Bible.

Drummond: How'd they go about all this begattin'?

Brady: What do you mean?

Drummond: Well, I mean, did they begat in much the same way as folks get themselves begat today?

Brady: The process is about the same. I don't think your scientists have improved it any! Hahahaha....

Drummond: In other words, all of these folks were conceived and brought forth by the normal biological function known as sex. What do you think of sex, Colonel Brady?

Brady: In what spirit is this question asked?

Drummond: Well, I'm not asking you what you think of sex as a father or as a husband or even as a presidential candidate. You're up here as an expert on the Bible. What is the biblical evaluation of sex?

Brady: It is considered original sin.

Drummond: And all these holy people got themselves begat through original sin? Well, all that sinnin' make 'em any less holy?

Davenport: Your Honor, where is this leading us? What has it got to do with the State versus Bertram Cates?

Judge: Colonel Drummond, the Court must be satisfied that this line of questionin' has some bearin' on the case.

Drummond: You've ruled out all of my witnesses. You must allow me to examine the one witness you've left to me in my own way.

Brady: Your Honor, I am willing to sit here and endure Mr. Drummond's sneering and his disrespect, for he is pleading the case for the prosecution by his contempt for all that is holy.

Drummond: I object! I object! I object!!

Brady: On what grounds?! Is is possible that something is holy to the celebrated agnostic?

Drummond: Yes. The individual human mind. In a child's power to master the multiplication table, there is more sanctity than in all your shouted "amens" and "holy holies" and "hosannas." An idea is a greater monument than a cathedral. And the advance of man's knowledge is a greater miracle than all the sticks turned to snakes or the parting of the waters. But, now, are we to forgo all this progress because Mr. Brady now frightens us with a fable?! Gentlemen, progress has never been a bargain. You have to pay for it. Sometimes I think there's a man who sits behind a counter and says, "Alright, you can have a telephone, but you lose privacy and the charm of distance."

"Madam, you may vote, but at a price. You lose the right to retreat behind the powder-puff or your petticoat." "Mr., you may conquer the air, but the birds will lose their wonder and the clouds will smell of gasoline." Darwin took us forward to a hilltop from where we could look back and see the way from which we came, but for this insight, and for this knowledge, we must abandon our faith in the pleasant poetry of Genesis.

Brady: We must not abandon faith! Faith is the most important thing!

Drummond: Then why did God plaint us with the power to think?! Mr. Brady, why do you deny the one faculty of man [that] raises him above the other creatures of the earth: the power of his brain to reason? What other merit have we? The elephant is larger; the horse is swifter and stronger; the butterfly is far more beautiful; the mosquito is more prolific. Even the simple sponge is more durable. Or does a sponge think?

Brady: I don't know. I am a man, not a sponge.

Drummond: Well, do ya think a sponge thinks?

Brady: If the Lord wishes a sponge to think, it thinks!

Drummond: Do you think a man should have the same privilege as a sponge?

Brady: Of course!

Drummond: This man wishes to be accorded the same privilege as a sponge! He wishes to think!!

Brady: But your client is wrong! He is deluded! He has lost his way!

Drummond: It's sad that we don't all have your positive knowledge of what is right and wrong, Mr. Brady. How old do you think this rock is?

Brady: I am more interested in the "Rock of Ages" than I am in the age of rocks.

Drummond: Dr. Paige of Oberlin College tells me this rock is at least 10 million years old.

Brady: Well, well, Colonel Drummond, you managed to speak here some of that scientific testimony, after all.

Drummond: Look, Mr. Brady. These are the fossil remains of a marine prehistoric creature found in this very county, and which lived here millions of years ago when these very mountain ranges were submerged in water.

Brady: I know. The Bible gives a fine account of the flood. But your Professor's a little mixed up in his dates. That rock is not more than six thousand years old.

Drummond: How do ya know?

Brady: A fine biblical scholar, Bishop Usher, has determined for us the exact date and hour of the Creation. It occurred in the year 4004 B.C.

Drummond: Well, that's Bishop Usher's opinion.

Brady: It's not an opinion. It's a literal fact -- which the good Bishop arrived at through careful computation of the ages of the prophets, as set down in the Old Testament. In fact, he determined that the Lord began the Creation on the 23rd of October, 4004 B.C. at, uh, 9:00am.

Drummond: [Is] that Eastern Standard Time? Or Rocky Mountain Time? It wasn't Daylight Saving Time, was it, because the Lord didn't make the sun until the fourth day.

Brady: That is correct.

Drummond: That first day, what do you think, it was 24 hours long?

Brady: [The] Bible says it was a day.

Drummond: Well, there was no sun out. How do you know how long it was?

Brady: The Bible says it was a day!

Drummond: Well, was it a normal day, a literal day, 24 hour day?

Brady: I don't know.

Drummond: What do you think?

Brady: I do not think about things that I do not think about.

Drummond: Do you ever think about things that you do thing about?! Isn't it possible that it could have been 25 hours? There's no way to measure it; no way to tell. Could it have been 25 hours?!

Brady: It's possible.

Drummond: Then you interpret that the first day as recorded in the Book of Genesis could've been a day of indeterminate length.

Brady: I mean to state that it is not necessarily a 24 hour day.

Drummond: It could've been 30 hours, could've been a week, could've been a month, could've been a year, could've been a hundred years, or it could've been 10 million years!!

Davenport: I protest! This is not only irrelevant, immaterial -- it is illegal! I demand to know the purpose of Mr. Drummond's examination. What's he trying to do?

Brady: I'll tell you what he's trying to do. He's trying to destroy everybody's belief in the Bible and in God!

Drummond: That's not true and you know it. The Bible is a book. It's a good book. But it is not the only book.

Brady: It is the revealed Word of the Almighty God spake to the men who wrote the Bible.

Drummond: How do you know that God didn't spake to Charles Darwin?

Brady: I know because God tells me to oppose the evil teachings of that man!

Drummond: Oh, God speaks to you?

Brady: Yes!

Drummond: He tells you what is right and wrong?

Brady: Yes!

Drummond: And you act accordingly?!

Brady: Yes!!

Drummond: So, you, Matthew Harrison Brady, through oratory or legislature or whatever, you pass on God's orders to the rest of the world! Well, meet the Prophet from Nebraska! Is that the way of things?! Is that the way of things?! God tells Brady what is good! To be against Brady is to be against God!

Brady: NO!!! Each man is a free agent!!

Drummond: Then what is Bertram Cates doing in a Hillsborough jail?! Supposing Mr. Cates had the influence and the lung power to railroad through the state legislature a law saying that only Darwin could be taught in the schools!

Brady: Ridiculous! Ridiculous!! There is only one great Truth in the world!

Drummond: The gospel!! The gospel according to Brady!! God speaks to Brady, and Brady tells the world world!! Brady!!! Brady!!! Brady, Almighty!!!

Brady: The Lord, the Lord is my strength --

Drummond: Suppose that a lesser human being -- suppose a Cates or a Darwin had the audacity to think that God might whisper to him? That an un-Brady thought might still be holy. Must a man go to prison because he differs with a self-appointed prophet?! Extend the Testaments! Let us have a book of Brady! We shall hex the Pentateuch and slip you in neatly between Numbers and Deuteronomy!!

Brady: Now, now my friends! --

Drummond: The witness is excused!

Brady: -- my followers --

Drummond: The witness is excused!

Brady: All of you know -- what I said was -- what I believe -- I believe in the truth of the book of Genesis! Exodus! Leviticus! Numbers! Deuteronomy! Joshua! Judges! Ruth! 1st Samuel! 2nd Samuel! 1st Kings! 2nd Kings! Isaiah! Jeremiah! Lamentations! Ezekiel --

Judge: Court is adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow mornin'.

Movie Speeches

Online Speech Bank

American Rhetoric Home

© Copyright 2001-2010.
American Rhetoric.
HTML transcription by Michael E. Eidenmuller.
All rights reserved.
 
2012-04-10 08:29:12 PM  

hubiestubert: We should think Rick for his service.


Wait, what?
 
2012-04-10 08:39:43 PM  

ZoeNekros: mxwjs: Overfiend: DarnoKonrad: I really didn't think Romney could do it.

I am looking forward to Romney beating Obama in the election.

Romney has always been the Republicans best chance, and he was the most moderate of all the Republican candidates. I think he will make a pretty good president.

as a centrist that leans more left than crazy right. i am working on convincing as many people to vote for romney as possible...

it's not that Obama is doing a bad job, he isn't. it is that Romney will be just fine. he pioneered state healthcare, and it will get the farking conservative babies to shut their mouths and actually do something. by the time he is elected, all the bible thumping nut jobs will not remember santorum and will think Romney is the messiah. They will think they won something and stop whining and dragging down the rest of the nation.

in 2008 i thought if we had a smart president, people would think, "cool, somebody that actually thinks" WRONG. people just put their heads further in the sand, it has been a disgusting 4 years. like spending half a decade with a two year old crying in the checkout line. it is time to just buy the two year old some candy and get this thing rolling again.

/vote for Romney. save this country from further embarrassment of idiot, cry-baby, republicans.

As another slightly left-leaning moderate, I have to say that this is a terrible idea. Even supposing Romney doesn't cave to the republican party, he is a terrible choice given the economy. The one thing he is consistent about is pushing for lower taxes for the wealthy, happy to push the extra burden on the working class.

I will never vote for anyone who has signed the Norquist oath to never raise taxes. Not only is it bad policy, agreeing with it demonstrates a fundamental inability to think critically. I want every single one of those idiots out of congress.


at this point, i kinda look at it like this: what's the worst he's gonna do? no way he lets 3,000 civilians die, starts 2 wars, and destroys the economy. it would take some major talent to do that again, and i have already survived that. best case, he just becomes a mediocre president. sure there will be things i don't like, but really Obama does that shiat too. the difference will be that the entire right wing, about half the people in this country, will be happier. this is what i see if Romney wins... the general economy goes up because half the people in america aren't actively trying to sabotage it to prove a point. Then (after they think Reagan 2 saved the U.S.) gold and gun prices will plummet as they realize everything is going to be fine. That will be hilarious. anyway, i think everyone will be better off.

if Obama wins, those people will just be more and more angry, and they won't give up, or say "actually, you know what, Obama is not doing that bad" they will double down on destroying america just to say Obama did it. I'd rather have Romney.

/vote Romney 2012, he won't be as bad as Bush.
 
2012-04-10 08:43:12 PM  

kimwim: American Rhetoric: Movie Speech

"Inherit the Wind" (1960)


a) Dude LINK that shiat.

b) Also, Santorum is Catholic. Catholics believe in Evolution. They aren't really biblical literalist in the sense that crazy right-wing bible-thumping evengelicals are.
 
2012-04-10 08:45:29 PM  

mxwjs: if Obama wins, those people will just be more and more angry, and they won't give up, or say "actually, you know what, Obama is not doing that bad" they will double down on destroying america just to say Obama did it. I'd rather have Romney.

/vote Romney 2012, he won't be as bad as Bush.


That's not too far off from may take. Although I throw in a "Lame Duck Obama with nothing to lose worries me".
 
2012-04-10 08:50:58 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: kimwim: American Rhetoric: Movie Speech

"Inherit the Wind" (1960)

a) Dude Gentlewoman, LINK that shiat.

b) Also, Santorum is Catholic. Catholics believe in Evolution. They aren't really biblical literalist in the sense that crazy right-wing bible-thumping evengelicals are.


Santorum is a special kind of crazy catholic. I wasn't highlighting the evolution part of the story, but the "God speaks to you?!?!" part of the story, which needed the back story.
And
c) the thread is 774 posts long already, my movie scene isn't doing anything to your monitor.
 
2012-04-10 08:56:58 PM  

2wolves: hubiestubert: We should think Rick for his service.

Wait, what?


Never underestimate the value of a bad example.
 
2012-04-10 09:00:04 PM  

Weaver95: Infernalist: For those who can, go visit Freeperland...It's sixteen levels of 'omfg' awesome right now.

You got the disillusioned Santorum fans who are howling in fury at their guy...

You got the enraged Newt fans who are trashing Santorum for not dropping out and throwing his support to Newt, and claiming it was all a conspiracy to hand the nomination to Romney..

You've got the 'omg vote romney or the ni-BONG will steal your wife!' crowd who are desperately pushing the 'hold your nose and vote romney' spiel...

And then you've got the atomic-raging crowd that are declaring a Third Party run with SOMEONE, THEY DON'T KNOW WHO, BUT SOMEONE OTHER THAN ROMNEY.

There's so much derp being flung around, at each other, at the strawmen GOP establishment and Democrats and Obama..It's a great day to be a non-Freeper.

its amazing to watch.


Meanwhile, at the White House:

www.moonbattery.com
 
2012-04-10 09:14:03 PM  
It's coming down to Babtists against Mormons! (Who will the Catholics support?)


/Ron Paul
 
2012-04-10 09:29:20 PM  

WTFDYW: Cyberluddite: WTFDYW: Maybe all those Santorum For President signs littering all the yards will disappear now.

Really? Those actually exist?!? I've sure never seen one. Where in the hell do you live?

West Central Ohio. An hour or so north of Dayton. Lots and lots and lots of staunch Catholics here.

/not Catholic
//I'm like the anti CHrist on Fridays during lent.


You're the guy who is waiting outside the door of the steakhouse at 10 AM, the moment the door is unlocked you saunter in and say "Porterhouse, rare, with bacon cheesy potatoes and beer, and keep em coming!"?

/and now I've given Farkers ideas on how to trolololol their religious friends...that ought to do for most em em at once...
 
2012-04-10 09:35:12 PM  
and I know you Farkers are all disappointed.

You were just waiting for the RNC to decide they really don't like Rmoney or Lizard and throw behind the last man standing.

The queue of headlines reading "Republicans Nom Santorum" would have been a mile long, since the admins would be too busy puking to greenlight anything.
 
2012-04-10 09:43:49 PM  

etherknot: Weaver95: sweater vest!?

STFU and just bail out now Rick.

[s3.amazonaws.com image 259x177]

"You're welcome to come up here and join me and Stanley!"

/Join meeeeeeeeeeeeee


No. No, he's not.
 
2012-04-10 10:10:51 PM  
That's OK, Ricky. Next year you'll be at a new high school and maybe they'll let you run for student council president there.
 
2012-04-10 10:26:19 PM  

Weaver95: make me some tea: Weaver95: the freepers are screaming like a pack of Nazgul right now.

Holy hell, they really seem to hate Romney as much as they hate Obama. A lot of em are gonna sit this one out from the looks of it.

they'll knuckle under and vote Romney, you wait and see.


Either this...or we can actually date the moment when the GOP officially splits and the domininonist wing goes whole-hog Constitution Party for the first time.

(There's been the same Angry Noises being made in dominionist circles that were made in October 2007--when there wasn't an Ideologically Acceptable Candidate to the dominionist wing in the GOP; the CNP was organising a contingency plan to jump ship to the Constitution Party unless they got some SERIOUS loving from the GOP. This is very likely why Sarah Palin got the VP slot, as an aside.

(This time, I'm not sure they're going to GET someone Ideologically Acceptable; a LOT of dominionists Simply Will Not Vote For The Mormon, and most of the actual LIKELY Ideologically Acceptable VP candidates pretty much were or technically still ARE running against Romney (even if in token campaigns). About the best they can do is Palin (again), O'Donnell, Sharon Angle, or someone with strong NAR/Joel's Army cred who's a stealther...and the dominionist wing has felt their oats enough that I'm not sure they'll be satisfied anymore with a token VP slot, especially when the candidate ISN'T someone with one foot in the grave.

(At any rate, there do seem to be the same contingency plans being made to have folks vote en masse for Constitution Party candidates and focusing on Congressional and state and local level seats (which is where they have the REAL power--ask the unlucky folks in Virginia and Florida and Georgia and Kansas and ESPECIALLY Arizona about this). Without a real hand-out--and especially if the very few non-domininionists in the GOP left manage to find their testicles again--it's entirely likely you'll see the rise of the Constitution Party as the major third-party in the US.

(Which is scary in its own right, as the Constitution Party is basically the John Birch Party with an EXTRA helping of Dominionist Jeezus, but it's something observers have been seeing happening since the mid-2000s...the big question has not been "if" but "when and who will eventually be purged out or will take their ball and go to another political party".)

As for Santorum pulling out...I'm almost 100% certain it was the result of his kid getting a Hospitalisation Level Flareup and being told by the doctors that Time Is Short. (Kid has Trisomy 18, which is one of the nasty chromosomal disorders--almost certainly his kid is mosaic Trisomy 18 just on account she's made it to three (most are stillborn or die shortly after birth--Trisomy 18 is sufficiently severe that it's an accepted reason for third-trimester abortions) and it's one of those chromosomal mishaps where the kid afflicted with it pretty much is born in a persistent vegetative state (with lots of birth defects) and usually ends up dying of pneumonia or heart issues.)
 
2012-04-10 10:53:55 PM  

MythDragon: Is it too late to get David Palmer on the ballet?
[images.wikia.com image 357x491]
Not only is he 100% black, he'd actualy make a good president.


What if Pedro Cerrano shows up to take the oath of office?
 
2012-04-10 10:56:40 PM  

Guntram Shatterhand: but in the end they are just stupid cattle, and they'll walk into the slaughterhouse and justify it all the way to the air hammer.


I may have to steal that line. It rolls trippingly off the tongue.
 
2012-04-10 11:06:24 PM  
Holy farting mudkips this thing is brain-blasting.

www.freerepublic.comwww.freerepublic.comwww.freerepublic.com
www.freerepublic.comwww.freerepublic.comwww.freerepublic.com
 
2012-04-10 11:06:39 PM  

COMALite J: I've not been able to find any biography on this "Stephen C. Dawson," nor any mention of what credentials he might've had or claimed when he wrote that.


It's "Steve C. Dawson" by the cover. Searching Google Books turns up a couple references to Christian home-schooling texts he's behind. An amazon blurb suggests "Steven Charles Dawson, headmaster of Providence Christian Academy, a Christian day school in Auburn, Massachusetts" --- which doesn't show up on a quick web search.

Might just have been a ThD.
 
2012-04-10 11:13:21 PM  

LarryDan43: Will a mormon in office take away our beer?


No, he'll drink it all when you're not looking! Just like the old joke; Why do you never take just one mormon fishing? Because he will drink all your beer!

That's the joke!
 
2012-04-10 11:29:08 PM  
tinyarena 2012-04-10 08:16:53 PM

Kittypie070:
Holy f*cking tail-eating sh*tsnake, can you BELIEVE THIS!!??


[www.superawesomewowYAYHIPPIEZ!!!!1!.com]

Take it easy there Kittypie my friend. Maybe you already know this but let me repeat. This is nothing new. Welcome to the 60s my friend. What did you think "Right Wing Reactionaries" meant. These people have been around forever. And we have fought them before and won.

Hell, G. Washington hisself, was fighting them way back when.
And Isaac Newton couldn't hardly talk to anyone in town, they'd a burned him at the stake.

So, take a deep breath, tweet your team and do something.

Or drop out. Those were the two choices then. Those are always the two choices. Either attend a rally, or get baked behind the barn. Zup2U.


Thanks :3 I was really more "are you people shiatting me??" + uncontrollable hideous laughter.

But still, doublethink that's THAT severe and that witlessly self-attacking is always disorienting.
And definitely not in a pleasantly stoned way.

I was a wee little kitten in Pampers in the early '60's so I missed a LOT of incredibly fascinating goings-on.

[offers to share virtual Coke slurpee/slushy]
 
2012-04-10 11:29:59 PM  
Brave Sir Rick ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When danger reared it's ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("no!")
Yes, brave Sir Rick turned about
("I didn't!")

And gallantly he chickened out.
****Bravely**** taking ("I never did!") to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.

("all lies!")
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Rick!

("I never!")
 
2012-04-10 11:39:26 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Rick Santorum suspending his campaign to be President of the 1590's.
- pourmecoffee (@pourmecoffee) April 10, 2012


Fixited
 
2012-04-10 11:45:08 PM  

sethstorm: That, and it doesn't help that Newt Gingrich complained about Romney being a "corporate raider" (in the private sector) - while ignoring the State of Georgia's "economic development" department.


It helps to remember that Newt will say whatever helps his cause at the moment. Before Obama committed to Lybia, Gingrich blasted the President for his poor handling of the situation. When Obama did basically what Newt had advocated, Newt was against it.

Now, let's get one thing out of the way before anyone blasts me: I don't think the President should have the sole power to commit troops to a conflict. But for Pete's sake, look at Gingrich. He has a history of being against whatever some Democrat just did, even if he said in the past that the Democrat should do it. It seems that when he runs for the Presidential nom, he treats his own party that way, too.
 
2012-04-10 11:48:40 PM  
[settles in chair, awestruck by the sheer crazy manifesting in FR]
 
2012-04-10 11:54:12 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: Robert Budd Dwyer (new window)


Holy crap. I've never heard about that. Just looked at the video, geez is it graphic. Weird part is a full 15 seconds after an enormous river of blood has been pouring out of the guy's nose and mouth, you hear a voice calmly say "someone call the ambulance and a doctor and police".

Maybe he was thinking of shock victims and such. Pretty sure Jesus H. Christ, M.D., Chief of Neurosurgery could have been standing right there and he would have just shrugged.
 
2012-04-10 11:57:06 PM  

Kittypie070: [settles in chair, awestruck by the sheer crazy manifesting in FR]


It's amazing. Can't even really pick a place to begin, today.
 
2012-04-11 12:06:32 AM  
BRING BACK
freep-impact
 
2012-04-11 12:08:06 AM  
www.utgmc.com

shiat, way late to the party but I made this many years ago for a TFark thread or a photoshop contest or something. Just for fun.
 
2012-04-11 12:08:19 AM  

apoptotic: No. No, he's not.


We'll let them think that as they board a beleaguered F35 which has it's radio system replaced with a robocaller.
 
2012-04-11 12:08:26 AM  

mxwjs: ZoeNekros: mxwjs: Overfiend: DarnoKonrad: I really didn't think Romney could do it.

I am looking forward to Romney beating Obama in the election.

Romney has always been the Republicans best chance, and he was the most moderate of all the Republican candidates. I think he will make a pretty good president.

as a centrist that leans more left than crazy right. i am working on convincing as many people to vote for romney as possible...

it's not that Obama is doing a bad job, he isn't. it is that Romney will be just fine. he pioneered state healthcare, and it will get the farking conservative babies to shut their mouths and actually do something. by the time he is elected, all the bible thumping nut jobs will not remember santorum and will think Romney is the messiah. They will think they won something and stop whining and dragging down the rest of the nation.

in 2008 i thought if we had a smart president, people would think, "cool, somebody that actually thinks" WRONG. people just put their heads further in the sand, it has been a disgusting 4 years. like spending half a decade with a two year old crying in the checkout line. it is time to just buy the two year old some candy and get this thing rolling again.

/vote for Romney. save this country from further embarrassment of idiot, cry-baby, republicans.

As another slightly left-leaning moderate, I have to say that this is a terrible idea. Even supposing Romney doesn't cave to the republican party, he is a terrible choice given the economy. The one thing he is consistent about is pushing for lower taxes for the wealthy, happy to push the extra burden on the working class.

I will never vote for anyone who has signed the Norquist oath to never raise taxes. Not only is it bad policy, agreeing with it demonstrates a fundamental inability to think critically. I want every single one of those idiots out of congress.

at this point, i kinda look at it like this: what's the worst he's gonna do? no way he lets 3,0 ...


I remember a time when Republicans wouldn't negotiate with terrorists, let alone surrender to them.
 
2012-04-11 12:11:33 AM  
Wasteland 2012-04-10 11:57:06 PM

Kittypie070: [settles in chair, awestruck by the sheer crazy manifesting in FR]

It's amazing. Can't even really pick a place to begin, today.


There are 19 pages in this FR thread, very shortly to be 20 -- just save them in a separate file folder as HTM or TXT one after the other, depending on your browser, and read them at your lesiure (popsy)

Note: IE prefers TXTfiles, FF prefers HTMs.
 
2012-04-11 12:23:09 AM  
His nose sucks.
 
Displayed 50 of 829 comments


Oldest | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Newest


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report