published Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010

2012

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

119
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
nucanuck said...

Nah Clay,President Palin might be catastrophic for the US,but the Mayans are predicting end of times for all but a few,not just the USA.

Even assuming Palin is elected in 2012,the Mayan Moment is in December 2012,before her inauguration.

Should we live it up now,or just hope we are among the few survivors for President Palin to govern?

August 3, 2010 at 1:17 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

If Palin is elected it will also prove the truth of one of my favorite quotes by an astute observer of human nature.

"No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby". H. L. Mencken

Another appropriate Mencken quote: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary".

In closing, if Palin is elected then this quote by Mencken will almost seem prophetic.....

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron".

August 3, 2010 at 4:02 a.m.
alprova said...

Here's a few more quotes that I feel are quite profound and very applicable;

"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." -- H. L. Mencken

"It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office." -- H. L. Mencken

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

"The worst government is often the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression." -- H. L. Mencken

"Whenever you hear a [wo]man speak of [her] love for [her] country, it is a sign that [s]he expects to be paid for it. -- H. L. Mencken


Sarah Palin has offered some of her own quotes that will live in infamy as well;

"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." -- Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS's Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=politicalhumor&cdn=entertainment&tm=117&f=00&su=p504.3.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/25/palin-talks-russia-with-k_n_129318.html

"'Refudiate,' 'misunderestimate,' 'wee-wee'd up.' English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!'" -- a Tweet sent by Sarah Palin in response to being ridiculed for inventing the word "refudiate," proudly claiming her illiteracy for literary genius, July 18, 2010

"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn't that ironic?" -- Sarah Palin, admitting that her family used to get treatment in Canada's single-payer health care system, despite having demonized such government-run programs as socialized medicine that will lead to death-panel-like rationing, March 6, 2010

August 3, 2010 at 6:14 a.m.
woody said...

Well, I was going to say..gee that was cute, Clay. However, after reading the comments already there, now I'm just plain scared....

Climbing back into bed, Woody

August 3, 2010 at 6:42 a.m.
Livn4life said...

Thanks for your non-biased approach draw-boy. I wonder where all the sexist cries are from the so-called women protectors on the left. Oh that's right, they pick and choose whom they "speak up for". So much for equal treatment for ones who claim EVERYONE should be treated equally and respectfully. What a joke as are your cartoons. By the way, what calendar is being used by the Democrats? I hope they mark a certain date in November. That could very well be the Mayanization of their control in Congress. DRAW THAT!

August 3, 2010 at 8:01 a.m.
notlittletommy said...

I continue to be amazed at how scared the left, and Clay, is of Sarah Palin. She was OK as governor and, sure, she has generated a lot of excitement among some in the Republican party and the Tea party. But get real. She is not going to be a major factor in the presidential race. Anyone with half a brain - and that includes the not-so-always-articulate Palin - will be better than Obama. Clay, find some real issues that we can sink our teeth into.What about Maxine Waters? What about making EVERY issue a race issue? What a joke our government has become. Wake up America. You too, Clay.

August 3, 2010 at 8:09 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

If she did win, how long would it be before we would see Obama billboards the read "Miss me yet?"

I think America can do better.

August 3, 2010 at 8:34 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

Here's another quote:

"That woman is an idiot."

  • Keith Olbermann
August 3, 2010 at 9:07 a.m.
librul said...

And the greatest part is, Keith doesn't just say that in idle banter. It's only after showing a video clip in which she makes his point perfectly clear to anyone watching.

August 3, 2010 at 10:12 a.m.
OllieH said...

Hilarious cartoon, Clay!

Quickly (because I have to get to work in five minutes)...

I would say to nucanuck:

Don't wrench every ounce of humor out of the cartoon by over-analyzing it. 2012 is the year the Mayan calendar calls for the end of civilization as we know it. Whether that occurs on December 21st, as the Matans predict, or November 6th, as Clay ponders, is irrelevant. You've got to give a cartoonist some artistic license.

To notlittletommy (hesitating to even dignify his post with a response at all):

Neither Clay, nor the left is afraid of Sarah Palin. Check out here favorability numbers. She can't seem to pick up a single supporter outside her marginal base of neanderthals.

And finally to Livn4life:

Criticizing a female politician is not inherently sexist. If so, any criticism of Elena Kagan (by any Republican Senator) could be cast in the same light. I find it really odd, that someone who would, undoubtedly, insist that their dislike of President Obama is not inspired by racism, would call any critic of Sarah Palin, a sexist.

But I guess if you didn't have hypocritical views, you might not have any views at all.

August 3, 2010 at 10:19 a.m.
Soos54 said...

To Livn4life: I'm a woman and I won't tolerate sexist comments. But this cartoon was in no way sexist. It was a critique on someone because of their true merits (or lack thereof) and not because she is a woman.

Nice try on your part to divert attention away from the real issue though...

August 3, 2010 at 10:37 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

notlittletommy- "I continue to be amazed at how scared the left, and Clay, is of Sarah Palin".

Actually, I think more people are afraid of persons who support an obviously unqualified, self serving, demagogue like Palin. That so many people would rally to a person who so obviously has a limited intellect and understanding of the world both geographically, politically, and historically is indeed scary. Especially after we just went through eight years of a Prez who exhibited these same attributes.

I too would wish America would "wake up". Sadly though, many people on the right are going to be sleepwalking to the polls and once again voting for the conservative philosophy which created this mess.

It will be deja vu...all over again.

August 3, 2010 at 10:54 a.m.
alprova said...

Livn4life wrote: "So much for equal treatment for ones who claim EVERYONE should be treated equally and respectfully."


No one has ever, to the best of my knowledge, called for equal respect for anyone. Respect is earned. It is never granted strictly due to one's gender.

When it comes to that woman, she has no respect for anyone other than herself. Thus, she deserves no respect in my opinion.

She's dangerous because she is fanatical, woefully ignorant to the issues that matter, classless in her repertoire much of the time, and totally self-serving at all times.

I need not worry though, because the Republican Party will send her packing back to Wasilla long before 2012 rolls around. They know she doesn't stand a chance going up against President Obama.

August 3, 2010 at 11:05 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I continue to be astounded at what the right will forgive when it comes to Palin. She quit her job as governor, she blathers about family values while exhibiting poor family choices, and she is neither intelligent nor worldly. Yet I know intelligent people that think she can do no wrong. And Obama gets blamed for everything from the weather to soldiers being deprived of pillows. This coming after TN politicians call a major religion a "cult" and talk about secession. I am frightened for my country.

August 3, 2010 at 11:07 a.m.
EaTn said...

dewey60- don't keep it all bottled up, just come right out and say what's on your mind.

August 3, 2010 at 1:52 p.m.
user_name said...

I don't see what's so far-fetched about it. After all, we've elected people with less experience than she has, right?

August 3, 2010 at 2:19 p.m.
EaTn said...

Eschatology is the study of end times and generally referred when life on this earth as we know it will cease. Prophetic predictions have been documented from various sources for hundred of years. It is briefly referenced in the Bible by Daniel and similar prophets nearly twenty five hundred years ago, then more details by Jesus and finally by His follower John in various metaphoric details in Revelation. The only predicted end-time events that anyone should look forward to is the second coming of Jesus, provided they know and are known by Him.

August 3, 2010 at 2:37 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

User- "we've elected people with less experience than she has, right"?

Perhaps. But to think that Palin is ready to be the leader of the free world is insane. Sitting on the sidelines and sniping at others while offering no coherent plan for change is not leadership. Quitting her job as governor is not a sign of leadership.

August 3, 2010 at 2:44 p.m.
woody said...

Gee wiz, I no more peak out from underneath the covers once again and here's someone named "user-name" asking a question I have an answer to.

The answer is you betcha..George "W" Bush! On second thought she might have as much....

Getting back to my crossword, Woody

August 3, 2010 at 2:45 p.m.
FM_33 said...

2012 = Armageddon

August 3, 2010 at 3:30 p.m.
ordinaryguy said...

Keith Olbermann is the idiot! A You Tube brodcast by Basil gets better ratings than the jackleg that could not hack it at ESPN. You can bet your last dollar that had someone called Kagen an idiot that every lefty in America would have been sceaming sexist. The lunatic fringe of the democratic party is more racist and sexist than any in the middle or the right.

August 3, 2010 at 3:35 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Sarah Palin will not run for president she will run for a Senate seat and remain there for most of her career like my birdy man Robert Bryd the formor senate super hero for many years.

I have had a few words with the editor of PalinTV (www.palintv.com ) and most of that Pro-Palin site believes that she will come to the rescue of the GOP and save the day.

Sarah is much more smarter then that and she knows how to make the cash without all that stress.

  1. Nation Wide Radio Show

  2. Writing Conservative Books

  3. TV Show On Fox

  4. Senate Seat On The Hill

  5. Being A Conservative Motion Picture Producer

Now why in the world would Sarah Palin wont to be President of the Untied States and only making $250.000 dollars ?

Duh...she aint going out like that !

August 3, 2010 at 3:39 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Sarah Palin is a straight up Mack Moma when it comes to making her cash and staying paid.

And it's like that !

August 3, 2010 at 3:41 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

FM_33 Shhh, don't say it too loud that she is simply a money grubbing opportunist pulling the wool over peoples eyes. It would be a shame to disillusion people who think she really stands for something.

August 3, 2010 at 4:58 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Great quotes hd.

"...On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron"

We're already there, see the quotes below.


"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary"

Like "Global Warming"? Now, who's pushing that ball of B.S. uphill?


al too,

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."

Kinda like this, "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal."


As for more dummy quotes...

"The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries."

O.K.?


"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

And that's why health care should be run by government (non-)functionaries, right?


"The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system."

Read it closely.


"There's a lot of -- I don't know what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing."

Austrian what?


"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."

I see dead people!


"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go."

Let's see, one, two, three, five, seven, no wait a minute, three, six, seven, awe heck Red! No Blue AAAAHHHHH!

August 3, 2010 at 5:11 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Scotty, should I even bother to trot out some Bushisims, Palinisims, or Qualeisims? What about some of the far right idiotic statements put out on a daily basis?

Any attempt on your part to compare the intellect between Palin/Bush and Obama is pretty pathetic. Come on Scotty, you can do better than that.

August 3, 2010 at 5:54 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

hd,

What you're missing is that I think all three of them are idiots of various sorts. Some more dangerous to the welfare of the country than others, but idiots all.

I was just placing a bit of damping material into the echo chamber ya'll had going on.

Also, it's funny the way you placed the words "intellect", and "Obama" in the same sentence without using the words "defective" or "stunted".

August 3, 2010 at 6:37 p.m.
alprova said...

Scotty, say what you will, but I'd love to see you stand on a stage and try to take our President on in a debate. You woefully underestimate his intelligence and his knowledge. You would of course be a far more worthy opponent than Sarah Palin would begin to be.

Taking sentences completely out of context, or quoting words that are clearly mistakes while speaking off the cuff is and always will be a cheap shot. But what else is new?

Sarah Palin has NEVER backed a way from a thing she has said, and has in fact gone to great lengths to defend or excuse her utter ignorance so many times.

There's no comparison.

August 3, 2010 at 6:59 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

While we are on the subject....Sharron Angle: The Press Should be My Friend

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20012559-503544.html

August 3, 2010 at 7:07 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"You woefully underestimate his intelligence and his knowledge."

Possibly, though I've never seen any evidence that he possesses either. On the other hand there is much evidence that he does not possess enough brains to think his way out of a wet paper bag.

"Taking sentences completely out of context, or quoting words that are clearly mistakes while speaking off the cuff is and always will be a cheap shot."

Context is not needed when things as stupid as I posted above are quoted, as there is no context in which they would be anything but non-sense. And yes, they are clearly mistakes, mistakes of a low I.Q. mind hooked up to a smooth talking mouth which fools only those who suspend their own intellect and pretend to hear what they want to hear and ignore the inanities, stupidities, misconceptions, and outright lies.

He is a high-zoot conman and you, along with a significant portion of the population refuse to look at the situation from an realistic point of view.

It would be a hilarious joke if he and his various sycophants weren't doing such damage to the country.

Obama may know how to play Chicago-style political hardball, but he is neither a great leader nor a great thinker.

Sarah P. is, judging from the venom spit her way, being acknowledged as a problem for the left in this country. For this reason alone, I hope she keeps on keeping on. I love watching leftists contort themselves into knots attacking a non-elite speaking out against a government gone mad. It's extremely counterproductive, and it keeps ya'll busy. You just keep on with your "Journolist" contrived agenda to discredit her, and I'll keep on with my apt observations of the moron in the W.H. and his useful idiots in Congress.

August 3, 2010 at 7:31 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Just curious, Scotty: How did you feel about George W. Bush?

August 3, 2010 at 7:40 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"While we are on the subject....Sharron Angle: The Press Should be My Friend"

Too bad Sharron, they are too busy licking Odumdum's shoes.

From the article, "Washington Monthly's Steve Benen wrote, " I'm trying to imagine what the response on the right would be if President Obama said he needs independent news organizations to be his 'friend.'"

We'd be laughing so hard we'd need to change our underwear.

The "Journolist" problem exposed the partisan nature of the media in this nation. They are not only Odummdumm's "friends", they actively ran cover for him during the last election cycle and have been ever since. This is fact.

The fantasy that those who oppose Odumdum's policies are doing so as a result of racism is clearly a bit of propaganda dreamed up by the "Journolist" group to cover for Odumdum's idiocy.

They also conspired to divert attention away from Odumdum's racist friend Rev. Wright, and his terrorist buddy Bill Ayers.

Not to mention the attempt to destroy anyone who is a threat to the agenda. (aka Sarah P.)

It's all there in black and white.

Mainstream "journolist"s conspiring to control the flow of information and produce a desired effect, namely the election of Odumdum to the highest office in the land.

He'd have never won otherwise. Now that the "Journolist" has been exposed, the conspiracy theory of those on the right concerning the bias of the media has been exposed as fact.

Yet the dupes continue to believe the contrived fantasy that Odumdum is worthy of the position he now occupies.

August 3, 2010 at 7:52 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

IK,

"How did you feel about George W. Bush?"

Statist-lite, and only marginally less dangerous than the full-statists he defeated at the polls.

Pastel vs. bold.

You won't get much defense of him out of me.

I don't deify anyone, politicians included.

I don't go along with the majority of the party just because we are "on this team" or the others are "on that team".

This is an individual sport, us as individuals against those who want us subservient to the state. They come in various flavors, all of them rotten.

I enjoyed the tax-cuts, and the strong hand in matters of defense.

No child left behind is statist B.S., as is the expansion of entitlement spending and the accelerated spending in general, though both are looking pretty tame compared to the current trajectory.

August 3, 2010 at 8:07 p.m.
alprova said...

Scott wrote regarding our President: "Possibly, though I've never seen any evidence that he possesses either."


But then, when have you ever been inclined to look for evidence of his intelligence or his knowledge? One of two scenarios is a fact: Either you detest him for his opposite political viewpoints or you detest him for his skin color.


"On the other hand there is much evidence that he does not possess enough brains to think his way out of a wet paper bag."


That's your opinion. It's not a fact.


"Context is not needed when things as stupid as I posted above are quoted, as there is no context in which they would be anything but non-sense."


His statement regarding the Post Office was spot on AND put back into the context in which it was presented at the time, expressed the fact that UPS and FedEx were private enterprises that were profitable. Excising that statement and using it to apply it to any argument against health care reform is totally pathetic and worse than disingenuous.


"And yes, they are clearly mistakes, mistakes of a low I.Q. mind...blah blah blah..."


Again Scott, do you think that you could stand in front of an audience and not make blunders every now and then? Not many people could. I know that I couldn't.

Sarah Palin is not guilty of making simple mistakes or blunders. She is guilty of being uneducated, totally ignorant to the issues that she attempts to weigh in on, and she is nothing more than a barking dog that never shuts up, and worse, she doesn't know when to shut up.

Defend her to your heart's content. The woman is a complete zero and all but about 7% of this nation knows it. Her mouth grows bigger by the day, every time she wedges her foot in it further inward after opening it.

I'd hate to know what she spends on lipstick each month.

August 3, 2010 at 8:36 p.m.
ITguy said...

Scotty,

Obama graduated from Punahou Academy in 1979 with highest academic honors. He graduated from Columbia University in New York, in 1983 with a degree in political science. He graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude in 1991.

In my book that is pretty smart. What is your bio?

August 3, 2010 at 8:43 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Scotty, I don't think that Bush is as bad as liberals make him out to be, but I was concerned that his decisions were slanted by big business, especially big oil. I think his faith in God was real (more real than most presidents) but that his abilities were average and that he was influenced by those more intelligent and less honest.

I believe that Obama was handed a mess that the parties agreed existed but could not agree on how to tackle them. I find him articulate and intelligent, but perhaps a bit unprepared to take on the multiple problems we have. However, I think he would do better if those that oppose him would give him time, rather than making his failure their one and only objective. (I am not making this up-there are many who are on record as saying his failure is their only goal-why I cannot say.)

As for Palin, I can't see how anyone with love for their country and IQ higher than a squirrel could support her-ever. As a woman I find her an insult to our gender. As a citizen I have no problem with her. As a politician who spouts conservative family values and calls those of us that are not conservative unamerican, unchristian and unpatriotic, I find her a trashy hypocrite that doesn't walk the walk. I am an educated atheist who raised a good family (yes, parented, a hard, thankless job, whose kids did not conceive out of wedlock, go on TV, or sell their stories to tabloids), pays taxes, works two jobs, and supports my country. I get really pissed when conservatives try to paint me with the "evil" or "unpatriotic" brush just because I don't agree with their ideas. At least Bush didn't do this. Neither did McCain. I also have a real problem with Americans who equate Obama with either Hitler or Stalin. They absolutely spit on the memories of those who suffered under those regimes: there is NO comparison. This is America, for Pete's sake. Nothing the current admin does comes close to either communism or fascism in the vein of 1930's Germany or 20th century USSR. It's insulting to the intelligence of the American people to do so.

August 3, 2010 at 9:01 p.m.
alprova said...

The quintessential Sarah Palin

http://i.imgur.com/X6b6V.png

August 3, 2010 at 9:08 p.m.
alprova said...

I'm in no way stating that this video is proof of anything, but...it does make you wonder...

August 3, 2010 at 9:09 p.m.
alprova said...

Scott wrote: "Sarah P. is, judging from the venom spit her way, being acknowledged as a problem for the left in this country.


I don’t fear her nor do I consider her to necessarily be a problem, outside of her penchant for distancing herself from a little concept known as "truth."

I fear for our country if she were to be anywhere near in charge of it.

August 3, 2010 at 9:15 p.m.
alprova said...
August 3, 2010 at 9:20 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I'm not sure I'm buying the faked pregnancy, for the following reasons:

Sarah Palin is tall, and her baby was only 6+ pounds. I think that she could minimize her pregnant appearance up through 7-8 months. I could, and I am very small. I could still mount a horse at 7 months from the ground.

If she didn't have the baby, who did? Bristol? It is more likely that Sarah, in her 40's, would bear a Downs baby than her daughter at 18.

The bigger question is why would she fake it? Or, why would she try to hide it? Why would she not want people to know she was pregnant? That doesn't make sense.

August 3, 2010 at 9:40 p.m.
moonpie said...

Why this cartoon now?

Is Basil Palin appearing on Kimmel?

August 3, 2010 at 9:41 p.m.
moonpie said...

Scotty, you give quarter to Palin that you don't give to Obama. You criticize him for lack of experience, yet give Palin a pass. I'm dissapointed in your reasoning. It seems purely based on the fact that she's on your side of the aisle.

The way you write I would make a very good party line politician.

Defend your own to the point of absurdity. You're not acting like the independent thinker I've supposed you to be.

August 3, 2010 at 9:57 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"In my book that is pretty smart."

I think there is a flaw in your reasoning.

The man is a B.S. artist, with degrees in B.S., earned spouting B.S. with a dab of actual work and heavy on the B.S. babble that mesmerizes others who do not possess critical thinking skills.

It's all so PROGRESSIVE.

He is the sort who can convince receptive others that elitist fantasies will work this time because it's different this time.

When, in actuality, it is the same "central control" ideas which have failed every time they've been tried.


"What is your bio?"

I'm a meth-sniffing/illegal-gun-running/graffiti artist/secret agent who left school after beating up the teacher in 2nd grade. I will not be forced to read, write or learn numbers to please anyone.

;)

You may have seen my work around town, hiding in plain sight.

By bio is irrelevant.

If I mess up on the job(it is, technically, a great probability that I will, at some point), a small number of people and/or things will be affected, mostly me, my business partner, our insurance rate, and our deductible set-aside. We ruthlessly chase errors down.(They're everywhere!) We constantly reassess procedures using knowledge gained by ourselves and many others through millions of man hours chasing down errors and disposing of ideas which do not work when tested. We deliver exactly as contracted. No B.S. allowed as we'd be sued.

I accept being judged by my results.

When POTUS makes mistakes, we all bear the burden far into the future, and he is doing things that have never ended with the advertised results, and blaming others.


Dewberry wrote,

"that twangy awful country music"

Actually, I prefer Metallica, but thanks for the thought.

Racist idiot.

August 3, 2010 at 10:13 p.m.
alprova said...

Ikeithlu wrote: "The bigger question is why would she fake it? Or, why would she try to hide it? Why would she not want people to know she was pregnant? That doesn't make sense."


I think that the charge being made by those who are on board with "babygate" is basically that one child conceived out of wedlock is one thing. Two children out of wedlock in just over a year is quite another.

It just doesn't look good when attempting to appeal to the Conservative base, if you have a wild child who likes to paaarrrtttyy all the time.

Personally, I tend to doubt that someone, even the former half-term Governor of Alaska, would stoop so low as to take responsibility for an illegitimately conceived child in such a manner, for the sake of her political career, but then we are talking about Sarah Palin.

Where's the birth certificate? She's sure gone on record, calling for Obama's certificate to be coughed up more than a few times.

Hhmmmmm?

August 3, 2010 at 10:13 p.m.
dss said...

Moon--I was wondering the same thing. Did I miss something in the news that prompted this cartoon? (I ask that sincerely.) Because it's always enjoyable (I don't mean this sincerely) to read the same arguments that appear for EVERY Palin cartoon...and there have been many. I doubt that anyone's opinion of Sarah Palin has changed because of this board.

Fake pregnancy? Honestly? IQ score, though I doubt she's a genius, isn't exactly credible if the source stems from buzzfeed. C'mon. I can generate something in the next five minutes and have it posted to the site. It may be legitimate, but I wouldn't cite it in your dissertation. (Darnit, I know such question will generate a six page defense.)

And whether there are Bush-isms, Obama's 57 states, or a Palin quote, I for one am glad that my profession doesn't demand continual speeches and impromptu question and answer sessions, while all is recorded for posterity and manipulation. Many of you apparently do have such professions and are above folly. I applaud your perfection.

August 3, 2010 at 10:14 p.m.
ITguy said...

Scotty, As I suspected, you are an uneducated idiot.

August 3, 2010 at 10:19 p.m.
sd said...

Clay targets Palin often, so I have to ask--does anyone here honestly think she will run?

If Palin made a 2012 bid the GOP establishment would not allow her to win the primaries. She's too polarizing of a candidate and frankly, too much of a political wild card. In fact, she may be even more polarizing than Hillary Clinton used to be, which is really saying something.

Palin herself doesn't seem terribly interested in 2012. Why would she be? She's got a gig with Fox, she can publish whatever she wants and reasonably expect it to hit the bestseller list, etc. and so on. Why bother with a primary race that would be stacked against her? She's savvier than that. Besides, being President is thankless work that pays poorly by comparison. I wager she'll keep doing what she's doing.

August 3, 2010 at 10:24 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

mp,

I'm not defending anyone.

As I wrote above, "Sarah P. is, judging from the venom spit her way, being acknowledged as a problem for the left in this country. For this reason alone, I hope she keeps on keeping on. I love watching leftists contort themselves into knots attacking a non-elite speaking out against a government gone mad. It's extremely counterproductive, and it keeps ya'll busy."

Does that sound like a defense?

Maybe this, re the "Journolist" revelation. "Not to mention the attempt to destroy anyone who is a threat to the agenda. (aka Sarah P.)"

That's not a defense, it's an indictment of journalistic ethics.

"Defend your own to the point of absurdity."

Where? I'm not holding a shield for anyone.

When hd wrote, "Any attempt on your part to compare the intellect between Palin/Bush and Obama is pretty pathetic."

I answered, "What you're missing is that I think all three of them are idiots of various sorts. Some more dangerous to the welfare of the country than others, but idiots all."

Does that sound like a defense?

Your viewpoint is one which I enjoy reading and relating to, but I think you've misunderstood me this time.

I'm swatting at the hornet's nest just to get 'em riled up, I'm defending no one in particular.

Plus, Odumdum is so easy a target, I just can't resist.

I can only see two possible explanations for the decisions and ideas which have been emanating from the W.H., he's either totally incompetent, or he is intentionally trying run this country aground.

Surely it isn't the latter.

August 3, 2010 at 10:44 p.m.
alprova said...

dss wrote: "Fake pregnancy? Honestly? IQ score, though I doubt she's a genius, isn't exactly credible if the source stems from buzzfeed. C'mon. I can generate something in the next five minutes and have it posted to the site. It may be legitimate, but I wouldn't cite it in your dissertation. (Darnit, I know such question will generate a six page defense.)"


I agree. I threw the I.Q. score in to see what would result in it's posting. I seriously doubt that it's the real deal, as accurate as it may well be.

Conservatives have an average I.Q. of 95. Atheists have an I.Q. an average 107, and liberals have an I.Q's 106.

Source: Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science. He correlated data regarding IQ from a large national U.S. sample.

The pregnancy? That rumor has been floating around for two and a half years, and while I am not on board with it, the fact remains that Sarah Palin has done nothing at all that I have seen to squelch that rumor. It emanated from her own constituents in Alaska too.

The videos make a good case in support of the accusation, if the photos are time dated and documented appropriately, which appears to be the case.

One has to wonder why she refuses to put the matter to rest.

August 3, 2010 at 11:01 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"As I suspected, you are an uneducated idiot."

LOL

Attack those who do not agree with you often?

Have a little ego problem, or are you just following Alinsky's divisive teachings?

August 3, 2010 at 11:07 p.m.
moonpie said...

Scotty,

Nothing you've said here today is 100% what I referred to... perhaps it's a matter of opinion, I'll grant that.... but you've defended Palin in the past.

You criticize Obama for Palin's same deficiencies but never call her on the carpet for the same.

It's just inconsistent.

August 3, 2010 at 11:13 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

It's people like FM_33 that make Sarah Palin rich.

This is absolutely one of your best, Clay!

August 3, 2010 at 11:18 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"Conservatives have an average I.Q. of 95. Atheists have an I.Q. an average 107, and liberals have an I.Q's 106."

Not me, mine is 3.

LOL

What's the real margin of error on that data which was assembled by an "evolutionary psychologist" who has been shown to be error-prone. (Does he get paid for this stuff?)

I can't believe you'd post something he came up with. Wait, you posted the S.P. pregnancy conspiracy, not because you believe it ,of course, just to perpetuate it. Right?

August 3, 2010 at 11:26 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"... but you've defended Palin in the past"

I'm sure I have at some point, though I'd bet not with the energy expended by others defending Odumdum.

What she is does and says has zero bearing on me personally. (Other than the entertainment value of watching the contrived effort to destroy her turn so many of those on the left into raving nincompoops.)

Not so with POTUS. The things he, and the rest of his gang do and say have a direct bearing upon me, my children, and their children. I've much skin in the game, and I am not amused.

August 3, 2010 at 11:39 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Scotty- "Not so with POTUS. The things he, and the rest of his gang do and say have a direct bearing upon me, my children, and their children. I've much skin in the game, and I am not amused".

So were you amused during the Bush years? Chagrined? Did you get "skinned" by the policies of "trickle down economics"? How did the reckless spending of Bush strike you? Tax cuts for the rich? Four thousand dead Americans from an ill conceived war?

Pray, tell us your opinion of Bush as POTUS, and his conservative cronies. Pray, tell us why we should go back to those failed policies as we try to dig out from that mess?

August 4, 2010 at 12:11 a.m.
alprova said...

Scott wrote: "Wait, you posted the S.P. pregnancy conspiracy, not because you believe it ,of course, just to perpetuate it. Right?"


Not at all, but the questions have been out there for more than two years, and the two above referenced, VERY RECENTLY released videos escalate the questions to a whole new level.

I try to take people at their word. Unfortunately, Sarah Palin has proven herself to be a person whom cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Thus, she is constantly being questioned to clarify her credibility.

A lot of people have come to her defense, but she has done nothing to deflect the issue. Now I don't know about you, but if I had nothing to hide, I'd be the first to address the matter publicly with all the proof necessary to put the issue to rest.

C'mon Scott...how many Tea-Partiers, including Mrs. Todd Palin, have posted that they want to see our President's "long form" birth certificate, as laughable a proposition as that is, but you wave a hand of dismissal at the charge that she may have assumed the "motherhood" of Trig, in order to hide the embarrassment of what may have been the FIRST instance of an illegitimately conceived child?

She sure couldn't hide the second one, now could she?

She, like every other Conservative who portends to be superior in manner and morality, opens the door to that line of questioning.

She put herself out there in the limelight. She accepted the public scrutiny when she decided to become a national figure of sorts. If she indeed is hiding a secret of this magnitude, she's gonna be outed eventually.

Those videos, if a lie, are fodder for slander. Her silence on the matter is deafening, at least in my opinion.

Almost a week and nary a peep.

August 4, 2010 at 12:23 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Scotty, perhaps the Republicans plan for the economy is more to your liking.

I present the Economic Freedom Act of 2010, "introduced by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and backed by the 116 member-strong House Republican Study Committee".

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/08/pdf/republican_jobs_plan.pdf

Deja vu? I think so.

August 4, 2010 at 12:37 a.m.
alprova said...

I haven't read a word of what is printed on the following page, but the photos are very hard to deny.

Can you explain how a woman goes from having virtually no evidence of being pregnant to that of eye popping prenatal dimensions in the span of 20 to 30 days, mere days before she supposedly gave birth?

Another compelling reason that raises doubt to the claim, is due to the publicly released story that her water broke in Dallas Texas on the afternoon of April 17, 2008. She did not pass go or stop at any hospital, she did not collect $200, but she is to have hopped what appears to be a commercial flight to Anchorage, and made it to the hospital in time to download Trig.

http://www.adn.com/2008/04/18/380134/gov-palin-gives-birth-to-son-trig.html

Two things perplex me about the above story.

Unless I have missed something, there is not an airline based in this country that would allow a woman to fly commercially who is eight months pregnant, for fear of going into labor. She was in LABOR AND EXACTLY eight months pregnant, if the publicly released story is accurate.

And second, what woman in their right mind would not head straight to a hospital, wherever they happen to be, when their water breaks?

Read the story. To head of the argument in advance, it would be correct to say that Sarah Palin did have the State's owned jet at her disposal (it was sold in September 2008), but she has been quoted many times stating that she almost never used it, hated it, and campaigned on getting rid of it.

Palin's spokeswoman, Sharon Leighow, stated "I do know that she got on a plane and landed in Anchorage late last night."

Not "the" plane or the "state's owned plane." "A plane."

Do you begin to see why there are questions surrounding her claimed pregnancy and birth?

Now here's why I tend believe that Sarah Palin is indeed Trig's mother;

1.) The births of Trig and Tripp were 8 months and ten days apart. Not impossible, but highly improbable, and;

2.) John McCain did not select Sarah Palin until four months after Trig Was born, and a few months after Sarah Palin was little more than a blip on his radar screen.

Short of a highly improbable right-wing conspiracy on behalf of the the McCain campaign, it just doesn't seem likely at all that he would go to such great lengths to choose a woman with that much baggage, over someone else with no baggage, strictly to secure a block of votes.

I've sat here and pretty much talked myself out of believing the accusation that Sarah Palin assumed the motherhood of Trig for political reasons. She just got frisky with Todd one night in September, 2007.

August 4, 2010 at 1:24 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

hd,

"Pray, tell us why we should go back to those failed policies as we try to dig out from that mess?"

The first rule of holes is, when you find yourself in one, quit digging.

I know, it's hard to comprehend.

The boneheads in D.C. have been digging deeper and deeper for many years. Accelerating the failed spending policies of the Bush Administration is not going to fix the problem.

I enjoyed the "tax cuts for the rich", though I'm neither rich, nor ignorant enough to believe the leftist meme that the tax cuts were only for the "rich". I paid considerably less in taxes after those cuts. I'll bet you did as well. Those cuts did not cause the problems we are experiencing.

The problem is out of control spending. Period. Taking more from the productive to then give to the dependent is not the solution. It never works. It never has. It is nothing more than theft, under color of law intended to purchase political power. That the purchased political power is then used to bully, harass, steal from, or enrich others, depending upon political affiliation is the inevitable consequence of this sort of governmental perversion.

I'm not sure why those on the left interpret criticism of the current administration (and idiot in chief) as a wholesale approval of the last one. Perhaps you only see the world in the absolute of Dem vs. Repub, the way it is portrayed in the media.

Voting against Gore and Kerry is not necessarily a vote in favor of Bush. Same with Odumdum and flakyman. Did it occur to you that perhaps it could be a case of attempting to slow down the headlong rush to become another failed socialist state by grabbing onto those who are not quite so enthusiastic about the whole game?

August 4, 2010 at 1:52 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

hd,

As for the linked propaganda piece, I made it to "deficit financed tax cuts for the rich" before losing interest in reading anymore leftist drivel.

Tax cuts cost zero dollars.

It's like me saying that I'm going in debt if I steal less from my victims during a robbery.

It's leftist babble.

Spending money you'd like to confiscate in the form of taxes, without collecting those dollars costs every penny plus interest.

The spending is the problem.

August 4, 2010 at 2:07 a.m.
alprova said...

Scott, you really should have spent a little time reading that file. It's very enlightening.

The proposed tax cuts by the Republicans, falsely disguised as a jobs promoting scheme are ludicrous. When you're talking about the lower and middle classes who have lost a great deal of their income due to shifting to jobs that pay far less than what they had a decade ago, tax breaks are meaningless to them. It wouldn't begin to make up for the losses they have incurred.

Spending is up, no question, but then no less than a quarter of this nation, and probably more like a third of this nation have seen their standards of living lowered substantially. And the clowns who are responsible for that circumstance are touting more tax cuts for those who are within the upper income echelon? Boy, they have some nerve.

The Republicans sold America once on the farce that by favoring the rich with lower taxes, that jobs would be created. No one is buying it any longer, except those who align themselves on the right side of the aisle.

Spending is indeed the issue on the table. When people have nothing to spend, the economy falters. The lower and middle income classes have lost a great deal of their spending ability due to the economic policies of the Republicans.

I've stated it more than once. If you make less than a well entrenched six figure income, you have nothing to fear. Given that you do seem to be enamored by any proposed increases in taxes, then perhaps it is the case that you are indeed are one of those who does.

If so, a four to eight percent tax increase will probably cramp your style, but not to any degree that the middle and lower income American's lifestyle has been cramped over the last decade and a half.

In short...cry me a handful, fire one of your employees to cover your impending tax bite, if you have any employees that is, and prove your own point. Heaven forbid that any employer pay one more cent out of their pocket that they claim they cannot afford.

It's certainly expected, because as we all know, employees take it in the rear every time that employers are faced with any proposal at all that threatens THEIR any lowering of their lifestyles.

August 4, 2010 at 7:19 a.m.
FM_33 said...

FM_33 Shhh, don't say it too loud that she is simply a money grubbing opportunist pulling the wool over peoples eyes. It would be a shame to disillusion people who think she really stands for something. Username: hotdiggity | On: August 3, 2010 at 4:58 p.m.


Oops sorry Hot i said a little to much.

August 4, 2010 at 1:03 p.m.
FM_33 said...

It's people like FM_33 that make Sarah Palin rich.

This is absolutely one of your best, Clay! Username: SavartiTN | On: August 3, 2010 at 11:18 p.m.


I wish because then i would have more money then she does !

August 4, 2010 at 1:05 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Dewberry wrote,

"that twangy awful country music"

Actually, I prefer Metallica, but thanks for the thought.

Racist idiot. Username: SCOTTYM | On: August 3, 2010 at 10:13 p.m.


Cool then you should check out the "Big 4" tour with......

  1. Metallica
  2. Slayer
  3. Anthrax
  4. Megadeth

The tour they should have done 20 years ago in my opinion.

August 4, 2010 at 1:08 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Ok guys which one of you would NOT wont to get laid by Sarah Palin ?

Thought so because it got real silent all of of sudden !

August 4, 2010 at 1:11 p.m.
FM_33 said...

"Conservatives have an average I.Q. of 95. Atheists have an I.Q. an average 107, and liberals have an I.Q's 106."

Not me, mine is 3.

LOL

What's the real margin of error on that data which was assembled by an "evolutionary psychologist" who has been shown to be error-prone. (Does he get paid for this stuff?)

I can't believe you'd post something he came up with. Wait, you posted the S.P. pregnancy conspiracy, not because you believe it ,of course, just to perpetuate it. Right? Username: SCOTTYM | On: August 3, 2010 at 11:26 p.m.


Scott please don't fall into that "Charles Murry" Bell Curve crap !

August 4, 2010 at 1:14 p.m.
FM_33 said...

To the SCOTTYM poster

It does not matter what you say because its all about who and what a crowd is. You repub/conservs just stick to playing that twangy awful country music when you get together and donot forget your Tea baggers and sarah palin and your religious goofball evangelicals who think the earth is only 6 thousand years old. Give me the big tent Democrats and all the diversity anyday,anytime over the hickish white fear mongers of the republican party. Thats just the facts. Now,when all is said and done the elections will always be about the people and you SCOTTYM can have the republican party. And anyone reading this need to stay away from putting republicans into office today and forever.

These are weak anti-everything group of creeps. You would think people would realize that after Bush and the Repubs destruction that took place and yet some want to put them back in charge. Oh well

Dewayne Callahan East Ridge Username: dewey60 | On: August 3, 2010 at 8:16 p.m.


Cut the crap Dewey60 go 3rd party !

August 4, 2010 at 1:17 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Last I heard, Scotty was not Republican, but libertarian.

August 4, 2010 at 5:42 p.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Cartoon not true, and not great art, but good for a laugh for me, and another for my wife, so thank you, Clay.

Sarah Palin is an ink blot like Obama '08. The right wing projects its hopes on her, the wrong wing its fears; the reverse of Obama '08. If she had doubled the Alaska deficit, raised its unemployment 20% (from 7.7% to 9.5% is an increase of over 20%), and against bipartisan opposition used the votes of her own party to put dozens of bureaucracies between patient and doctor, I think the Democrats would've told us about it; so she was a less bad Governor than our President has been a President. Prove the Mayans right, re-elect President Obama? (Are you going to draw him landing on an aircraft carrier on the 31st?)

She can do fine for herself on talk shows...

August 5, 2010 at 1:25 a.m.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 at 3:10am

"Today’s Wall Street Journal contains some puzzling news for all Americans who are impacted by high energy prices and who share the goal of moving us toward energy independence.

For years, states rich with an abundance of oil and natural gas have been begging Washington, DC politicians for the right to develop their own natural resources on federal lands and off shore. Such development would mean good paying jobs here in the United States (with health benefits) and the resulting royalties and taxes would provide money for federal coffers that would potentially off-set the need for higher income taxes, reduce the federal debt and deficits, or even help fund a trillion dollar health care plan if one were so inclined to support such a plan.

So why is it that during these tough times, when we have great needs at home, the Obama White House is prepared to send more than two billion of your hard-earned tax dollars to Brazil so that the nation’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, can drill off shore and create jobs developing its own resources? That’s all Americans want; but such rational energy development has been continually thwarted by rabid environmentalists, faceless bureaucrats and a seemingly endless parade of lawsuits aimed at shutting down new energy projects.

I’ll speak for the talent I have personally witnessed on the oil fields in Alaska when I say no other country in the world has a stronger workforce than America, no other country in the world has better safety standards than America, and no other country in the world has stricter environmental standards than America. Come to Alaska to witness how oil and gas can be developed simultaneously with the preservation of our eco-system. America has the resources. We deserve the opportunity to develop our resources no less than the Brazilians. Millions of Americans know it is true: “Drill, baby, drill.” Alaska is proof you can drill and develop, and preserve nature, with its magnificent caribou herds passing by the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), completely unaffected. One has to wonder if Obama is playing politics and perhaps refusing a “win” for some states just to play to the left with our money.

August 5, 2010 at 11:51 a.m.

The new Gulf of Mexico lease sales tomorrow sound promising and perhaps will move some states in the right direction, but we all know that the extreme environmentalists who serve to block progress elsewhere, including in Alaska, continue to block opportunities.

These environmentalists are putting our nation in peril and forcing us to rely on unstable and hostile foreign countries. Mr. Obama can stop the extreme tactics and exert proper government authority to encourage resource development and create jobs and health benefits in the U.S.; instead, he chooses to use American dollars in Brazil that will help to pay the salaries and benefits for Brazilians to drill for resources when the need and desire is great in America.

Buy American is a wonderful slogan, but you can’t say in one breath that you want to strengthen our economy and stimulate it, and then in another ship our much-needed dollars to a nation desperate to drill while depriving us of the same opportunity. - Sarah Palin

August 5, 2010 at 11:53 a.m.

Written by Raven Clabough Wednesday, 23 June 2010 09:40

"Democratic politicians would have us believe that the Republicans are pro-big oil companies and that the Dems are against the “evil oil giants.” Why, then, did President Barack Obama approve a transfer of $2 billion American tax dollars to help fund the Brazilian oil company Petrobras? The answer is relatively simple: It has to do with George Soros’ Center for American Progress, and the groups’ influence on President Obama.

George Soros is a billionaire radical Progressive globalist who supports a socialist agenda for America, believes in toppling the free-market system, and the creation of a "new world order." (See interview, below:[video entitled: "China must be part of the New World Order"]) He has invested in groups like Open Society Institute, which advocates for social justice, the anti-capitalist Tides Foundation, and the Progressive blog site Media Matters.

In 2003, Soros created the Center for American Progress, a group that has taken credit for Obama’s 2008 victory, for helping to create Obama’s team of cabinet members, and for the creation of his administration's policies, including "Cap and Trade."

Likewise, the Center for American Progress encouraged President Obama to set up an escrow account for BP to deposit billions of dollars for Gulf Coast residents, and asked that he set up a commission to investigate the causes of the largest American oil spill in history. The Center for American Progress also asked President Obama to pass a bill requiring the California Public Utilities Commission to develop a plan for a smart grid. California now has the grid, provided by General Electric, a powerful supporter of the Obama administration. Obviously, this group is influential.

In addition to Soros’ powerful Center for American Progress, the SEC filings indicate that Soros also has invested $637 million in Petrobras, a Brazilian state-controlled oil company that boasts $15 billion a year in profits.

Strangely enough, the Obama administration pledged $2 billion in preliminary commitments for Petrobras for exploration, even after the British Petroleum oil spill, which has prompted President Obama to declare a 6-month drilling moratorium on all drilling. The question is, why would Obama feel it necessary to give money that America does not have, to a company that is already netting impressive profits annually?

August 5, 2010 at 11:56 a.m.

Ironically, even as President Obama bans deepwater drilling at 1,500 meters, Petrobras is drilling at 2,777 meters. By banning deepwater drilling for Americans, Obama is virtually destroying all American competitors of Petrobras. A brave reporter questioned White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Obama’s decision to invest money in Petrobras: “There are a couple of reports about an ex-import bank loaned to the Brazilian government for offshore drilling, Petrobras. And I’m wondering if you can give us an administration take on why investment in Brazil and petroleum exploration there is a good idea, helpful for the U.S. economy.” To this, Gibbs replied, “I’ve not seen that story. I’d have to take a look at the story.”

What’s worse is that the White House justified the moratorium by using the testimony of 15 experts who allegedly agreed with the administration’s decision. However, according to the panel of experts, two paragraphs were added to the report after the experts signed it — the same two paragraphs that recommended a moratorium. When word of this was released, eight of the experts addressed a letter to the Interior Department where they explicitly stated that they had not in fact recommended a moratorium, and in fact, wholly disagree with a moratorium, claiming it would do more damage to the economy: “A blanket moratorium is not the answer. It will not measurably reduce the risk further and it will have a lasting impact on the nation’s economy which may be greater than the oil spill.” Likewise, the President is using the oil spill to impose upon Americans cap and trade legislation, heavily supported by the Center for American Progress. We find ourselves once again confronted by Crime, Inc.

(Read: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3553-crime-inc-the-movement-towards-global-government).

The moratorium is expected to cost rig workers $330 million per month in loss of wages. Thirty-five rigs will sit idly while Brazil’s Petrobras will continue to drill as deep as 14,000 feet. George Soros will continue to get richer while Americans will lose $6 billion in wages, at the request of our President. Why? Here’s another interesting, perhaps coincidental, tidbit: John Podesta is the head of the Soros’ Center for American Progress. His brother, Tony Podesta, is the lobbyist for British Petroleum. John and Tony also started their own lobbying company together, an apparent conflict of interest given the current situation in the Gulf.

In addition to BP, Tony Podesta’s clients include NBC Universal, a company that is owned by General Electric, the company that provided the smart grid for California, recommended by the Center for American Progress. Could it be that the tangled web Obama weaves grows more sticky — or is this all a mere coincidence?"

August 5, 2010 at 11:57 a.m.

“A man’s admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him”. Tocqueville"

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it. Thomas Sowell"

August 5, 2010 at 12:01 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Canary, Do you do ANY research before you post such tripe??

Expand your horizons a little. You pontificate on how everyone ignores the "truth" and yet are reeled in once again by Glenn Beck.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/braziloil.asp http://mediamatters.org/research/201006210060 http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/bogus-brazilian-oil-claims/

"Now if I tell you that you suffer from delusions You pay your analyst to reach the same conclusions You live your life like a canary in a coalmine You get so dizzy even walking in a straight line"

"Canary in a Coal Mine" Lyrics by The Police

August 5, 2010 at 10:58 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

I miss rolando...

August 5, 2010 at 11:30 p.m.

That wasn't from Beck you deviant. You obviously cannot read nor answer any facts or data except with immature, typically Left-Prog insanity. Poor you when your whole world turns upside down-soon. Basil Marceaux makes you guys and who you vote for look like the Fools.

August 5, 2010 at 11:34 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

My feathered friend. I KNOW it was from Raven Clabough. The lie was taken up by Beck and his minions, (Michael Savage, Faux News, etc.), where people like you get your "truth". Please sir (ma'am), do a little research before you post something that has been thoroughly debunked.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201006210051 http://mediamatters.org/iphone/research/201006240036 http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/19/obama-soros-petrobras-brazil-offshore-drilling-double-standards/

Read the links I provided earlier. You obviously swallow every conspiracy theory put out by your right wingnutters.

You said, "You obviously cannot read nor answer any facts or data". Uhh, read the facts and data I previously provided and get back to me. Yawn.

'A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on'. ~Winston Churchill

August 6, 2010 at 1:03 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

What, canary posting stuff that's not true? Say it isn't so!!

August 6, 2010 at 8:25 a.m.

Cold Dog: "Expand your horizons a little. You pontificate on how everyone ignores the "truth" and yet are reeled in once again by Glenn Beck".

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/... http://mediamatters.org/research/2010062... http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/bogus-b...

Snopes, mediamatters and fact check and you DODO birds call my posts lies and conspiracy theories? Hilarious, when all you can quote is the Far-left lies and tripe from the above.

The difference between you and me is I don't quote you Liars out of context and I've actually lived in the Reality where your sick, Far-Left ideologies exist and know they don't work and are only for Sissies and evildoers. Take your pick, your lot fit into those two categories nicely.

You were wrong on Beck, wrong on Malkin and you continue to lie because you have absolutely nothing else but the Sick Indoctrinators like George Soros of media matters or Airhernia Snuffingon of Huff n' Puff to back you up. Hilarious.

August 8, 2010 at 2:39 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Yawn, throughout your whole post you offer no facts to dispute the links I provided. Instead you call me a liar ("I don't quote you Liars out of context"), ("you continue to lie").

Here are some more facts for you concerning the loan. http://www.exim.gov/brazil/pressrelease_082009.cfm Since your factcheck link does not work, here it is.. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/bogus-brazilian-oil-claims/

For Palin and Fox fans http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/20/loan-brazilian-oil-company-riles-conservatives-favor-offshore-drilling/

Notice that once again Palin is short on facts.. ""So why is it that during these tough times, when we have great needs at home, the Obama White House is prepared to send more than $2 billion of your hard-earned tax dollars to Brazil so that the nation's state-owned oil company, Petrobas, can drill off shore and create jobs developing its own resources?" she asked on her Facebook page".

As Fox notes, "In fact, the Export-Import bank receives no appropriations from Congress and thus does not rely on American taxpayer dollars and is also not "sending" $2 billion to the Brazilian company but offering lines of credit to U.S. firms so they can compete to land contracts as part of Petrobras' drilling".

This benefits our exporters. Get it? They do not cost the American taxpayer a dime. Get it?

Once again, get back to me on this issue when you have some facts instead of just calling me a liar and pitching a tantrum.

August 9, 2010 at 2:17 a.m.

yawn yourself. Who ever said Foxnews is perfect or has no bias? I sure haven't and the above postings were NOT from Fox Bub. The plain fact is that Soros of Mediamatters, Moveon and the other sick, evil twisters of the Truth are a huge influence on The Pres and his corrupt cronies. Not to mention their ignoramus followers.

When you can answer to the MAIN facts that Obama, George Soros and the whole unholy Cabal he's got going in the White House is not corrupt and hypocritical, particularly in regards to THIS oil issue, then you actually have some cred. Until then, I stand behind the main facts and the most important one: you sick far-Left deviants lie through your teeth continually, even making up stories if the truth isn't good enough for ya. A la your Saul Alinsky manual, eh?

August 9, 2010 at 10:45 a.m.

Here's what was actually said above in my posting. So much for "Transparency", "Open Government", "compassion" for the American people and the rest of the lies and tripe out of their mouths:

"In addition to Soros’ powerful Center for American Progress, the SEC filings indicate that Soros also has invested $637 million in Petrobras, a Brazilian state-controlled oil company that boasts $15 billion a year in profits.

Strangely enough, the Obama administration PLEDGED [my emphasis] $2 billion in preliminary commitments for Petrobras for exploration, even after the British Petroleum oil spill, which has prompted President Obama to declare a 6-month drilling moratorium on all drilling. The question is, why would Obama feel it necessary to give money that America does not have, to a company that is already netting impressive profits annually?" Good question, any answers? The crickets are still chirping Boys.

"George Soros is a billionaire radical Progressive globalist who supports a socialist agenda for America, believes in toppling the free-market system, and the creation of a "new world order." (See interview, below: [video entitled: "China must be part of the New World Order"]) He has invested in groups like Open Society Institute, which advocates for social justice, the anti-capitalist Tides Foundation, and the Progressive blog site Media Matters." A Real nice, loyal, American kinda guy, eh? To be found bending Obama's ear on a frequent basis. Hypocrites.

"In 2003, Soros created the Center for American Progress, a group that has taken credit for Obama’s 2008 victory, for helping to create Obama’s team of cabinet members, and for the creation of his administration's policies, including "Cap and Trade." Now isn't this lovely? Billionaires like Soros, "helping to create" a team of Cabinet members for dear, little Obama. Of course, there is nothing suspicious about any of it, eh Bub?

And this is why we KNOW who you Deviants are: by the words out of your mouths and what Evil ones you all follow. Duh.

August 9, 2010 at 11:03 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Your latest post shows that you made no effort to check your claims, canary. Why am I not surprised?

Paranoia (and psychosis) is treatable, using methods that scientists (that you vilify) have discovered. Take advantage of them. soon.

August 9, 2010 at 11:10 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

Canary reminds me of a child that has the class assignment on chemical reactions that not only brings in baking soda, vinegar and a clear container so all can see the reaction when combined, but also brings a bag of other "props" that has nothing to do with the demonstration and won't be used other than to place them on the table to clutter it.

August 9, 2010 at 11:43 a.m.

You're one to preach Deviant. You have never given us satisfactory facts, ever. Your words above PROVE you neither read my posts or as I suspected before, you just are not capable of reading anything correctly. Heal thyself of your own psychosis before you preach to others.

Re: my supposed "hatred" of scientists (that is your IGNORANT statement, not mine); here's some REAL science for your addled, living in the sixties, smokin' pot, Brain:

Evolutionary Natural Selection Explains Nothing By Dr. G. Thomas Sharp 2/19/2010

"Most all evolutionary arguments regarding topics like speciation, adaptation, transition, homology, common ancestry, etc. (all of which are among the bottom line issues in all origin’s discussions today) are based in Darwin’s own notions about natural selection. Simply stated, natural selection proposes the possibility that individual organisms that are best suited for their environment will live longer and have more offspring.

Therefore, they will more effectively spread their genes throughout the general population of their species, thus passing their survival factor to their offspring (though Darwin himself did not have knowledge of genetics because this field did not begin developing until two decades after his death, not-withstanding the work of Gregor Mendel).

Nevertheless, this idea asserts that the origin of modern giraffes, for example, was accomplished by a certain group of hoofed animals, whose necks being various lengths were all competing for the same environmental space. Those with the longest necks, it is believed, would naturally access more food, thus starving out the shorter-necked animals. Longer necks became a survival factor that lead to the development of modern giraffes is the modern belief of some evolutionists.

This all sounds rather foolish and that anyone would seriously believe this story seems totally preposterous. But on the contrary, many highly credentialed scientists do and at issue here are God’s Word and His absolute sovereignty. It is perfectly clear, it seems to me, either nature rules and brought about all the living forms found in today’s world, or God designed them and upholds what He has created with His word (Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Nehemiah 9:6-KJV)!

August 9, 2010 at 11:44 a.m.

This disparity is best seen in the remarks of one of America’s leading evolutionary geneticists, Dr. Francisco J. Ayala. He wrote in the American Scientist, Nov/Dec, 1974, page 692: Before Darwin, the adaptations and the diversity of organisms were accepted as facts without an explanation, or more frequently, they were attributed to the omniscient design of the Creator. God had created birds and butterflies in the air, fish and coral reefs in the oceans, trees in the forest, and most of all, He had created man. God had provided man with eyes so that he might see and given gills to fish to breathe oxygen in water. Theologians frequently argued that the functional design of organisms evinces the existence of a wise Creator….Darwin…provided a natural explanation for these facts–the theory of natural selection…substituting a scientific teleology (design) for a theological one. (Emphasis added)

What has Ayala just said...that the theologian explains the design in nature from an obvious Biblical bias and Darwinian from a naturalistic bias. Neither of these models are discoveries from science, both are beliefs or preconceptions. Nevertheless, for many scientists of the last 100 years’ nature rules.

Darwin and his immediate colleagues convinced the world that nothing is absolute, maybe except materialism. Everything is in a state of flux. But has this idea stood the test of time? Not at all! In their own words, the overwhelming finding’s of evolutionary scientists denies nature her ability to select for new species. Consider the following:

(1) Gradual evolutionary change by natural selection operates so slowly within establish species that it cannot account for the features of evolution. (Professor Steven Stanley, Department of Earth and Planetary Science, John Hopkins University)

(2) The role assigned to natural selection in establishing adaptation, while speciously probable, is based on not a single datum [fact]. (Emphasis added - Dr. Pierre Grasse, University of Paris)

(3) In other words, natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species chance of survival but simply enables it to “track,” or keep up with the constantly changing environment. (Dr. Richard Lewontin, Zoology, University of Chicago)

What observations are producing these conclusions? Actually, these conclusions are the result of the failure to observe Darwinian predictions. Furthermore, there is the fact that God said created kinds would only “bring forth” or reproduce after their kind! If this is true, it predicts that God designed all reproducible creatures from the beginning and maintains the constancy of their kind with a highly complex chemical program we call genetics. There is a reason why cats can only reproduce cats and dogs reproduce dogs, etc.

August 9, 2010 at 11:46 a.m.

Let’s think about the incredibly complex optical system of the trilobite, for example. Professor Levi Setti, an evolutionist, wrote that: …trilobites were the first in developing highly organized visual organs, but some of the recently discovered properties of trilobites’ eye lenses represent an all-time feat of function optimization…Their optical apparatus raises very relevant questions as to why such perfection was needed.

Drs. Stanley and Raup, also evolutionists, added: …natural selection operating on chance variations–trilobites evolved a remarkably sophisticated optical system. For an optical engineer to develop such a system would require considerable knowledge of such things as Fermat’s principle, Abbe’s sine law, Shell’s laws of refraction and quite a bit of ingenuity.

Now remember, evolutionary reasoning tells us that the trilobite is supposed to be an extremely simple animal because it appears so significantly frequent in Cambrian layers (in fact, it is considered an index fossil for the Cambrian geological system). According to evolutionary explanations, this is one of the first multicellular creatures to ever appear (they say between 500 to 550 million years ago). The complicating reality of this amazing animal is its own remarkable complexity coupled with the fact it has absolutely no fossil predecessors (intermediates). It just suddenly appears, fully formed–eyes and all–right from the start. Astonishing, isn’t it? Not really–not for Bible believers!

Darwin had this very same problem with the origin of the human eye. He wrote in his Origin of Species: To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the corrections of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

August 9, 2010 at 11:47 a.m.

It doesn’t just “seem absurd,” it is absurd. And to make matters much worse for the proponents that believe natural selection is the driving mechanism of evolution, this same problem continues for every unique organ and organ system of every organism whether plant, insect, animal, or man. For natural selection to work in an evolutionary fashion, it must do more than cull out the weak among the species, it must explain how transforming information can be imported into any species from the outside. It must explain how that information is inculcated into a species’ genome. It must explain how this process can explain “goo to you” evolutionary change.

To the evolutionist, natural selection is the mechanism that answers all questions about simple to complex progression. But there is a big problem because the opposite is actually observed in the real world. This is not to say that any aspect of God’s creation is “simple”! However, the so-called higher animals in the story of evolutionary progression are, by and large, more inclined to extinction. They actually seem less fit for survival.

This fact becomes extremely evident when you understand that by 1990 more than one million insects had been identified and only 21 species were on the US Department of Interior’s list of endangered species. Now compare this with the fact that 4400 mammals had been identified during this same period (mammals are supposedly higher in evolutionary complexity than insects) and 337 species were on the endangered list. This means mammals are 4000 times more likely to become extinct than insects?7 It seems from this bit of evidence the more “complex” an organism becomes the less fit for survival it is? It seems that what we observe is actually working at cross purposes with Darwinism.

It is highly possible that nature doesn’t select for the advancement of anything. Moreover, that the wonders of our universe are not due to the accidental selection of Mother Nature, but may very well be due to the design and superintendence of our Creator God–the Lord Jesus Christ."

August 9, 2010 at 11:48 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

LOL

August 9, 2010 at 11:51 a.m.

Eeeks-a-lot, look in the mirror, you have never posted anything remotely truthful, interesting or factual. What a nest of viperish, lying hypocrites. I rest my case, you violent haters. Ya'll need to go out and get yourselves arrested, doing some typical Leftish violence that is so typical of your kind. Instead of talking trash and saying nothing useful to anyone here.

Have an Evil day schmucks

August 9, 2010 at 11:54 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

lack of oxygen to canary's brain is causing it's fingers to flail.. surprisingly the random words to have structure.

August 9, 2010 at 11:59 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

When I finished laughing, I started drawing up responses to canary's posts (this will take all day, folks)

1 Dr. G. Thomas Sharp

A creationist and preacher who founded the creation "museum" in Arkansas, he holds a BS (area not listed in creationwiki) an MS (ditto) and a terminal degree in bible from a bible college. He is not a biologist, not an evolutionary biologist, not a geologist and not a paleontologist. He does no research, nor does he publish (a google search comes up mostly empty; he is not on wiki but only on creationwiki). As such, he has NO credentials as a scientist, therefore his ridiculous notions about evolution hold no water. As far as the "many credentialed scientists" mentioned in the last paragraph, I challenge canary to list one.

The other posts contain names I recognize, but I want to get more detail before I respond.

canary, you are too much.

August 9, 2010 at 12:40 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Francisco J. Ayala:

Noted biologist from UCIrving, the first three lines in the 2008 Scientific American article are:

"A geneticist ordained as a Dominican priest, Francisco J. Ayala sees no conflict between Darwinism and faith. Convincing most of the American public of that remains the challenge."

Ayala is a full supporter of what is known as theistic evolution, the notion that evolution occurred just as Charles Darwin described (but of course we know far more now about mechanisms) but that it was God's method to provide for the diversity of life on earth. Ayala does not support either Creationism or Intelligent Design as scientific theories.

Sorry, canary. Ayala is on our side. AND his statements support what I said on this very forum a couple of months ago: One does not have to abandon their religious faith to accept evolution. The young earth, Genesis, garden of Eden account is not what happened.

Back later...

August 9, 2010 at 12:49 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Steven Stanley: A biological paleontologist from John's Hopkin's University, who you quotemined. Here is the full text that your quote was the first sentence of (it is a scholarly paper abstract):

Gradual evolutionary change by natural selection operates so slowly within established species that it cannot account for the major features of evolution. Evolutionary change tends to be concentrated within speciation events. The direction of transpecific evolution is determined by the process of species selection, which is analogous to natural selection but acts upon species within higher taxa rather than upon individuals within populations. Species selection operates on variation provided by the largely random process of speciation and favors species that speciate at high rates or survive for long periods and therefore tend to leave many daughter species. Rates of speciation can be estimated for living taxa by means of the equation for exponential increase, and are clearly higher for mammals than for bivalve mollusks.

Here is a quote by Dr. Stevens, from one of his books, and the link where I found it:

"As we steer civilization into the future, we gain perspective by looking over our shoulder to the path already taken--the actual path of our biological and cultural evolution--as opposed to the fanciful paths portrayed in creation myths. Our perspective broadens when we view the journey in context, assessing the environmental changes that our ancestors either endured or engineered along the way."

http://www.2think.org/stanley.shtml

So, as you can see, you dishonestly quote-mined the man, when in fact, he supports evolution. You lose this round too.

August 9, 2010 at 2:43 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I had to search a bit about Pierre-Paul Grasse. He is a French Paleontologist (now deceased, I think) who is misquoted by creationists frequently. This is the answer to an inquiry that I found:

"I looked up the book "Evolution of Living Organisms" by Pierre-Paul Grasse (Academic Press 1977) and I can confirm that in his view, evolution is indeed a well established fact. I quote from page 3.

Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontonlogy, i.e., the history of the living world.

His views on the mechanisms of evolution are indeed not Darwinian, but that was not your question. Grasse is mishandled very badly by many creationist sources, who often cite his criticisms of standard theory as if he did not recognize evolution as a fact. If you are genuinely interested in Grasse's unconventional views, you should read his own works. "

Sorry, canary-on our side too.

August 9, 2010 at 3:02 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Oh well that ends well and can we just all get along.

August 9, 2010 at 3:10 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Another quote-mine (Quote mining is a common and dishonest way of using scientists' actual words to imply that they support creationism (or deny evolution) when they don't. Also called "lying for Jesus"

canary: "In other words, natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species chance of survival but simply enables it to “track,” or keep up with the constantly changing environment. (Dr. Richard Lewontin, Zoology, University of Chicago)"

The full text:

"Van Valen's theory [the Red Queen hypothesis] is that the environment is constantly decaying with respect to existing organism, so that natural selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than to improve it. Evidence from the Red Queen hypothesis comes from an examination of extinction rates in a large number of evolutionary lines. If natural selection were actually improving the fit of organisms to their environments, then we might expect the probability that a species will become extinct in the next time period to be less for species that have already been in existence for a long time, since the long-lived species are presumably the ones that have been improved by natural selection. The data show, however, that the probability of extinction of a species appears to be a constant, characteristic of the group to which it belongs but independent of whether that species has been in existence for a long time or a short one. In other words, natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species chance of survival but simply enables it to 'track,' or keep up with, the constantly changing environment…There is no way to explain and predict such evolutionary adaptations unless a priori niches can be described on the basis of some physical principles before organisms come to occupy them."

Richard C. Lewontin "Adaptation" Scientific American Vol. 239, No. 3 Sept. 1978 Page 215

August 9, 2010 at 3:12 p.m.
FM_33 said...

End Time Songs

  1. Ministry = Grace

  2. Slayer = World Painted Blood

  3. Megadeth = Black Curtains

  4. Megadeth = Holy Wars.....The Punishment Due

  5. Testament = The Preacher

  6. Metallica = Fight Fire With Fire

  7. Iron Maiden = The Number Of The Beast

  8. Iron Maiden = Seventh Son Of A Seventh Son

9.Testament = Ereeie Inhabidents

  1. Exodus = and Then There Where None

  2. Exodus = Fabulous Disaster

  3. Sepultura = Arise

  4. Slayer = Chemical Warfare

  5. Black Sabbath = Heaven And Hell

  6. Black Sabbath = War Pigs

  7. Black Sabbath = Electric Funeral

  8. K2-S = Operation Rescue

  9. T-Bone = Throwing Out The Wicked

  10. T-Bone = Thief In The Night

  11. Stryper = Always There For You

August 9, 2010 at 3:27 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Charles Darwin:

canary's quote: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the corrections of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

This is also a quote-mine. The full description takes a lot of space, so here is a full explanation and full text:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html

Once again, canary was dishonest

August 9, 2010 at 3:39 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Levi-Setti-this one was difficult. Richardo Levi-Setti is an emeritus Professor of Physics at Fermi Institute. He collected trilobites as a hobby and invented the scanning microscope. He wrote a book on trilobites (even though he is not a biologist, paleontologists respect him for his experience with trilobites). I cannot find this quote-it may be in the book, but I cannot find any evidence to support the notion that he denies evolution or supports creationism. I'll keep looking.

http://physics.uchicago.edu/research/areas/microscopy.html#Levi-Setti

August 9, 2010 at 3:57 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

by Raup I have to assume you meant David M. Raup. He is often quote-mined by creationists. Here is a detailed description of some of those quotemines and their full texts. Raup is an evolution scientist, not a creationist.

http://commondescent.net/articles/Raup_quote.htm

Another lie, canary. You are really rackin' 'em up.

August 9, 2010 at 4:03 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

canary posted:

"Now remember, evolutionary reasoning tells us that the trilobite is supposed to be an extremely simple animal because it appears so significantly frequent in Cambrian layers (in fact, it is considered an index fossil for the Cambrian geological system). According to evolutionary explanations, this is one of the first multicellular creatures to ever appear (they say between 500 to 550 million years ago). The complicating reality of this amazing animal is its own remarkable complexity coupled with the fact it has absolutely no fossil predecessors (intermediates). It just suddenly appears, fully formed–eyes and all–right from the start. Astonishing, isn’t it? Not really–not for Bible believers!"

Misrepresenting the Cambrian "Explosion" as a problem for evolution is a common creationist trick. It was neither an "Explosion" (it actually occurred over millions of years) and it is not a problem for evolution to explain. Here is a nice explanation:

http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/2006/01/there_is_no_controversy.php

It's just another example of "lying for Jesus".

August 9, 2010 at 4:06 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Last one: the entire 11:48 post appears to be a rambling personal observation, complete with arguments from incredulity. It has no real point, and mentions no scientists. It's completely wrong, but not really worth shredding. I'm done here.

August 9, 2010 at 4:10 p.m.
acerigger said...

Did this toon thread get de-railed or what??? Mayan calendar,,was that during the "evil-ution era"?LOL

August 10, 2010 at 12:39 a.m.

Speaking of "dishonesty", the smug, arrogant Left-Elitists continue to lie about and trash those they know nothing about? So far, from many of you 'geniuses', we've got wikipedia, mediamatters, acluorg, huffpost, dailykos, cnn, etc, as your primary 'sources' of 'unbiased' info. All Far-left, Christian-hating, conservative bashing, creation trashing sites, Media and the Left-Atheist/Marxists Haters on them.

Pray tell Elitists, are WE, the people not allowed to EVER question your ideologies and erroneous beliefs? It seems not, for everything you believe in, in your narrow little, sterile worlds appears to be set in stone, or maybe in Fossils, like your minds.

You ikey are the epitome of a baiting, arrogant know-little, who cannot get out of the Box you created (or 'evolved'?) for yourself. Keep laughing deviant. We'll see, in Time Who gets the last laugh on you. I'm sure you'll find other half-truths and lies to bash these good men, but I'll print their easily found Bios here anyway. They not only collectively, have more science and life experience than any of you posters above, they CONTINUALLY research and ask questions. Oh, but THEIR questions are not allowed in your world, eh? Heaven forbid, they ever question you hypocrites.

August 10, 2010 at 4:52 a.m.

G. Thomas Sharp has achieved national and international recognition as a Christian educator, religious leader, businessman and author. He is the founder and chairman of The Creation Truth Foundation (CTF) Inc., and founder of the Institute of Biblical Worldview Studies (IBWS), both in Noble, Oklahoma and co-founder & President of the Museum of Earth History in Eureka Springs, AR. Doctor Sharp serves as the Editor In Chief for the Truth In Science curriculum, a Bible based science curriculum.

Since the 1960's, Dr. Sharp has dedicated his life to understanding and penetration key problems facing the modern Christian society. As a result of the efforts in his research, he founded Creation Truth Foundation, Inc. in 1989. He now speaks internationally at churches, schools, universities and conventions. He has been a science educator since 1964, and has earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Purdue University, a masters of Science at the University of Oklahoma, and an Ph.D. from the South Florida Bible College and Seminary with an emphasis in the philosophy of religion and science. Dr. Sharp is a father of four children and grand father to ten grand children. He and his wife Diane reside in Oklahoma.

August 10, 2010 at 4:58 a.m.

Shelby Smith is a missionary to America’s Youth. Shelby has been a part of the CTF ministry since March 2005. He received a BS in Biology and is nearing completion of a MS (Science Ed) from The Institute For Creation Research in Dallas, TX. He serves CTF as SOWEd Director

From a purely scientific standpoint, adaptations are features that suit an organism or species for its niche and habitat. However, from a creationist’s viewpoint we see adaptation as the natural God given variation that was designed by him to allow organisms to function effectively in a differing array of environments. This means that the creature was designed with plan and purpose to function within the given environment. Creatures that live in cold environments have fur and blubber because that was part of God’s plan.

From the Biblical view, all organisms were created with the genetic variability, to produce all the diversity seen within created kinds. Post-Flood events that isolated these creatures in a given environment caused specific traits to be more prominent due to death of creatures lacking the God given characteristics to live in that environment. This is the very reason why we see creatures all over the world that are similar, but live in different niches of a given habitat.

Evolutionists explain adaptation as the process where organisms become better suited for their environment or in other words if an organism lives in a cold environment they may grow fur or a thick layer of blubber to combat the cooler temperatures. Therefore, from this view the organisms that are better able to survive in a specific environment will have offspring better able to survive in that environment and those that are not as well adapted to that environment will have offspring that will be out competed or selected against leaving less of their genes in the next generation. This view explains that each proceeding generation is bigger and better and will eventually evolve and take the place of the less suitable organisms. Those that did not develop these characteristics would freeze to death.

August 10, 2010 at 5:01 a.m.

Darwin did point out the main sources of adaptation that are struggle and death or corruption, due to man’s sin, as creationists would call it. The only problem is that struggle or disease is caused by mutations in a creatures genes and have no ill effects at best as far as the creature is concerned but, the majority of the time do cause disease in the creature. The thing to remember is that any change to God’s perfect creation can only be harmful 100% of the time. Reason being is that even if the mutation had been beneficial to the creature, as they very rarely can be and cause a trait that benefits the creature (i.e. fur or blubber in a cold environment) the rest of its genes would be affected by this change making it less suitable for survival. If the environment oscillates with cold and warm spells as they are known to do a new beneficial adaptation of this sort would no longer benefit the creature in warm weather and because it no longer can select for genes that are not there extinction is a definite possibility because a creature with lots of blubber and fur in a warm environment would over heat. However, we do see observable processes in the structural, functional, behavioral, and social adaptations of organisms.

Structural adaptations, or structures that are suited for a particular niche in the ecosystem, can be exemplified in the pollen collecting eyelets of honey bees and hooks and barbs of flight feathers in birds. Functional adaptations are specific features in the physiology of creatures that allow its body to function optimally within the place God has designed within his creation for these creatures to exist. Examples of these functional features can be seen in the exploding chamber of the Bombardier beetle that mixes hydroquinone and peroxidase to exude boiling hot chemicals out its backside if it is being attacked. Behavioral adaptations involve the response of the whole organism. Certain behaviors can be seen in insects such as honey bees that use a series of waggles or dancing in a figure eight that tells other bees the exact location of a food source. The last adaptation is social adaptation that is seen in the relationships among members of the species with differing social rank. Wolves exhibit this adaptation that helps them when hunting and prevents the harming of other members of the group after food is obtained with each animal feeding in its given order with each animal of lower rank waiting its turn to eat. All of these adaptations are very intricate and a part of the genetic make-up of these organisms. This means that their occurrence by chance due to struggle and death is improbable and is better exemplified in the design of an all knowing Creator who formed them with foreknowledge to have these components within their genetic make-up.

August 10, 2010 at 5:02 a.m.

Dr. Charles Jackson:

"This author is a not a politician, nor philosopher. I’m a science teacher. That being the case, I’ll not likely be invited to speak on “The View” about what I witnessed in the rotunda. But, what I can do is bring to bear some of the science relevant to the common question, “Are gays born that way?” I can also address the close-second shoe-drop question of “Once gay always gay?” For that, I will reference the Bible as anyone can. But first let’s look at that important “biological destiny” question. There’s some science history that can be brought in to help us on this one."

"You know the faith of many is being methodically tormented and sometimes broken, by intellectual "bullies" in college classrooms (sometimes in high school). If you've seen this first-hand, you know it is horrible. And unfortunately, some of these bullies profess to be "believers" themselves. The Book of Jude talks about these "teachers"; so does Romans 1:20-25."

"Check out those behind this bullying (like the Nat Cent for Sci Educ Inc., a private creation-hate group ... www.ncseweb.org) and you'll see. Atheistic evolutionists are moving, like Oxford professor Richard Dawkins in his book "The God Delusion."

"Team leader Prof. Tim White head of the Human Evolution Research Center at UCal-Berkeley "new" Ardipithecus ramidus "missing link" fossil "We can't say this species was a direct ancestor of modern humans, so we have to be careful." Yet Owen Lovejoy chair of Anthropology at Kent Stateboldly says, "We're going to have to rewrite the textbooks."(USA Today) But why? Dr. White says, Ardi's species could be the ancestor of Lucy, which could be the ancestor of humans ... Without additional fossil evidence, however, connecting the individual or dots is hazardous. (UCB news release 10/1/09 Lovejoy persists, this reverses the common wisdom of human origins. White boldly contradicts, “This is not that common ancestor but it’s the closest we have ever been able to come.”

“Is Darwinism Finally Dead?” Date: 10/16/2009 2:44:31 PM by Dr. Charles Jackson

“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.” (Charles Darwin, in “Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,” 1887, vol 2, p229)

August 10, 2010 at 5:16 a.m.

In 2008, I surprised myself by predicting the downfall of Darwin by year’s end. Watching the “signs of the times” in the scientific community, I took comfort for my claim in many indicators, like this headline from The New York Times (6/26/2007): “Darwin Still Rules, but Some Biologists Dream of a Paradigm Shift”

Darwinists also were being chided by those in the other branches of science: “Evolutionists have ‘Physics Envy.” They tell the public that the science behind evolution is the same science that sent people to the moon, and cures diseases. It’s not. The science behind evolution is not empirical, but forensic … no testing, no observations, no repeatability, no falsification … what the public discerns [is] that evolution is just a bunch of just-so stories disguised as legitimate science.” (John Chaikowsky, “Geology vs Physics,” Geotimes, vol 50, Apr 2005, p6) Things just kept getting worse, until last summer a group of renegade evolutionists got together for a conference with the purpose of coming up with “a new synthesis.” I was shocked with their proceedings. Here are quotes from the conference notes of some of the very influential leaders in evolutionary thinking.

“The structure of evolutionary theory becomes an organization of problem agendas.” (Alan Love of U Minn, Altenberg Austria 7/10-13/08) Hmm … there’s a new train of thinking. And how did they set about these “problem agendas?” They began to make up new concepts, even far more imaginary than the original failing theories they were seeking to replace! “The evolution of evolvability is also in the evolution of genome organization and evo-devo.” (Gunter Wagner of Yale U, Altenberg 7/10-13/08)

So, the ability to evolve … had to evolve? When they start talking out both sides of their mouths like this, you know something’s rotten in Denmark (or in this case, Austria). And I’m not just doing some sly out-taking were I managed to find silly things in their notes. This kind of warped logic was characteristic – characteristic of their new “Extended Evolutionary Synthesis,” which they intend to unveil to the world later this year of 2009!

August 10, 2010 at 5:18 a.m.

Meanwhile, how are the standard guardians of Darwin holding off the dogs of science, data, and inquiry? Their rhetoric has never been more desperate. During the question-answer period after a debate with Intelligent Design theorist William Dembski, famous evolutionary philosopher Michael Ruse blurted out this pronounced judgment on ID theory to the audience.

“I’m not saying it’s a bad answer. I’m saying it’s not a scientific one … some answers just aren’t appropriate!” (Michael Ruse of Fla St Univ, in Sharp Music Hall, Univ of OK, 2/27/09)

In Q&A, Ruse had to admit that Intelligent Design is actually a good answer to the question of the origins. The only thing left that he could do, was to just announce that “some answers just aren’t appropriate.” That takes nerve! If a creationist had so simply written off an atheistic but logical answer as just not being “appropriate” -- think of the outrage of the “open-minded freethinking” evolutionist community!

Top prize for hypocrisy and desperation goes to world-famous God-hating blasphemer Richard Dawkins (Oxford University’s Don for the “Public Understanding of Science”). He not only says that certain answers cannot be considered. He goes so far as to say that certain questions should never be considered!

“Science answers the ‘how’ question. The ‘why’ question is just a silly question. The question is an inappropriate one.” (Richard Dawkins, Oxford U, 3/6/09, OU McCaslin Fieldhouse)

Both Ruse and Dawkins were a part of the “Dream Course Lectures” put on by U of Okla near OK City this semester. Most of the lectures were attended by Creation Truth Foundation staff. The prize for stretching the limits of the envelope the farthest, however, in order to save the godless theory of evolution, we must go to Altenberg Conference speaker John Beatty who OU also brought in for the “Year of Darwin” talks.

August 10, 2010 at 5:20 a.m.

“If outcomes are chance, then maybe the Laws are, too … Once they say the Laws evolved, we’ll realize those aren’t the Laws … We might have moved beyond the Laws of Nature!” (John Beatty of Univ British Columbia, at Noble Museum, 3/10/09)

Finally! – an evolutionist admits their theory needs to ignore the known principles discovered by the greats in mankind’s history of science! Can you believe it? This man gets paid a huge honorarium to stand up and say there are no such things as the Laws of Science? If a creationist speaker were to say that – they’d publicly laugh us to scorn. But when it’s one of their own, they marvel at the deep wisdom!

We really shouldn’t be too surprised. Half a century ago, evo’s began invoking the working of miracles, without the benefit of a Miracle-Maker. Here’s the classic quote from the mentor of at-that-time young Stephen Jay Gould (one of the most famous evolutionists of the 20th century). “The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event … given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once … Given so much time, the ‘impossible become possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait; time itself performs the miracles.” (George Wald, Harvard U, in book “The Physics and Chemistry of Life,” 1955, p12.)

Did you see the evo-atheist go from “impossible” to “certain” … in a single breath? Did you hear him use the word “miracle.” ‘Beyond belief. But, such is their faith.

When it comes to evolution and creation, Dr. Charles Jackson has one piece of advice: "Follow the advice of The Matrix and free your mind."

Jackson, who has a doctorate in science education from University of Virginia, has used logic to give theologians and creationists "an intellectual leg to stand on." -campus newspaper at Kilgore College

Since the area of science is so influential in our lives, the scientific evidence will unveil another possibility other than evolution. -Hueston"

August 10, 2010 at 5:22 a.m.

So...pick away bubs. Or.. don't read a thing the Science Profs said above, as is your wont.

Just be careful you all don't think too hard or too deeply, you might get a Brain-Soul cramp.

August 10, 2010 at 5:25 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Your new string of rants have just as much dishonesty, quote mines and falsehoods as the last, canary. Unfortunately, I don't have the time today to address them. Not necessary anyway-you failed to show that ANYTHING I exposed yesterday wasn't a falsehood-instead you just kept piling it on. You know absolutely nothing about science, especially evolution, and referencing a bunch of religious charlatans (who have been exposed by far more qualified people than me) just shows that you are not interested in either learning or integrity.

You, sir, are a "Liar for Jesus".

August 10, 2010 at 7:15 a.m.
NativeTexan210 said...

I felt I should point out something. While the Mayan prophecy is indeed after the 2012 Presidential Election...it will be BEFORE the next Presidential Inauguration. So, if the United States of America is indeed responsible for the destruction of all mankind...it will be Mr Barrack Hussein Obama's fault. lol.

July 5, 2011 at 2:38 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.