Big Ol' Smitty

Man, I must just not have it. I was KIDDING, it was an ironic comment. It's like when KKK says "a certain cable news channel that's always fair and balanced".... God, forget it, maybe I'M the terrible one. Fuck it, I'm not posting in here anymore. I'll still be in Sports and maybe TNA... I'll settle this. You're both terrible.

You want to ban Pope John Paul II?

Video here.

If I lived in NC I would be writing and making phone calls to try to get this church's tax exempt status revoked.

I couldn't figure out why he hadn't responded to my posts in the Laura Bush thread. Because he usually responds in like 5 seconds. I could give a damn less about the banning. He was obviously a very intelligent person and well informed. However, he was also a 30 year old man who called people "twatrocks" and took himself way too seriously.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/212784p-183225c.html

Whoopi Goldberg lost endorsements over this "offensive" joke:

I dunno--have you heard the "after hours" version of the horse joke? http://homepage.mac.com/onegoodmove/movies...geandlaura.html

Here's a pretty big liberal blog, Atrios, that's just outraged by the Laura jokes (about halfway down):

Michelle Malkin is consistent in bashing Whoopi and Laura.

Remember when Kerry claimed that all of the idiots who were making offensive comments were the heart of America? And I find it funny that Laura telling old jokes is so stunning to the left. Then again, the left ceased having a sense of humor years ago. -=Mike A. Yeah, Kerry saying that was dumb. But people bitched about him being there with people telling dirty jokes. B. I am not offended by Laura's jokes. Her delivery was kinda stiff, but the jokes were pretty funny, especially coming from a first lady. I just don't see why there was outrage over Kerry being around people telling dirty jokes but no outrage over Laura telling dirty jokes. Personally, I don't think people should be outraged by either. I'm not offended by the jokes, I'm offended by the hypocrisy. However, the Coalition for Traditional Values has come out against Laura for the jokes. I guess that's a liberal group. C. I am not "the left." I'm bigolsmitty, pleased to meet ya.

Remember when John Kerry got blasted for being at an event where Whoopi Goldberg made a Bush-->vagina joke? The media is worshiping the Bushes for horse masturbation and male stripper jokes and the Bushes are still making jokes about it in the media.

I saw this coming as soon as I typed the last post. But I'll start some more partisan bickering now...go to the Laura Bush is funny thread.

They don't hate each other. I was raised as a Baptist and neither I nor anyone I know hated Catholics. My mom married a Catholic. And I think Pope JP 2 even issued an edict or something that said Protestants were "brothers in faith" or something like that. You and I appearently know different Catholics, then. The kind that live down here think the sun shines straight out of their collective asses. Come to think of it, there was a Catholic kid in my Boy Scout Troop who told me and the other Protestant kids that we would go to hell. We did pick on him a lot though, so we probably deserved it. He was chubby and slowed us down on hiking trips.

*edit*

They don't hate each other. I was raised as a Baptist and neither I nor anyone I know hated Catholics. My mom married a Catholic. And I think Pope JP 2 even issued an edict or something that said Protestants were "brothers in faith" or something like that.

I don't even know what it has to do with anything.

Can't go wrong with jokes about jerking off horses.

Justice, debating you on this forum is a breath of fresh air. Please stick around. And I agree with everything you posted. I'm gonna keep an eye on Crooked Timber and the other linked blogs to see if they scrutinize the Oreskes study sometime soon.

Well, kicked out...shown the door...whatever you wanna call it. Whatever you wanna call it it's bullshit.

We have like 8 bagillion Baptist churches in my (southern) hometown.

You make strong points, as usual, Justice. I did know that Oreskes was a geologist and I don't think I was being hypocritical. Geologists do work on climate change quite frequently. I don't think that Peiser has much (non-social) scientific background at all. And I still contend that you would have to have an understanding of the science behind the (probably arcane) research to determine whether or not a particular article supports or does not support the notion of anthropogenic climate change. Also, upon further investigation, Peiser has worked as an (oily) right-wing think-tanker (International Policy Network). There's a discussion of the whole controversy here, at the Crooked Timber blog. The critics on these sites blast Peiser hard (he claimed that 34 of the articles challenged the consensus and the critics find 4 or 5 at most), but also question Oreskes, although her claim that no peer-reviewed pieces have challenged the consensus view seems to be holding up to scrutiny. In other words, Science probably didn't publish Peiser because they had already published the same study only done less poorly. What I think is clear, though, is that the Telegraph article basing its whole argument mainly around Peiser is crap.

Way to bash the largest Protestant denomination in the US.

A. The part you quoted by me wasn't even about the social anthropologist. B. If you're going to read 1000 articles and tell whether the research therein is supportive or not of anthropogenic climate change, you damn well better have a strong knowledge of climate change. And I would think you would have to actually read and understand the science behind the articles in order to determine whether they supported the notion or not, Justice. C. That telegraph article has a strong bias (as evidenced by the 2 people that they talk to in it) and is very short--I'm sure there was more than one reason that Science rejected the anthropologist's study. It doesn't even say where the "widely dispersed on the internet" claim comes from. I bet that it's what Peiser told the journalist.

Could Tom Delay be any more corrupt? Goddamn! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...9-2005Apr5.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/06/politics/06delay.html? http://www.citizensforethics.org/activitie...ign.php?view=16 http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/28-...004-320599.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...1&notFound=true http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=129 Plus, he led the charge in the Schiavo debacle & is threatening judges! Please, please, please, GOP--keep this uberdouche in charge.