I just published a story in which a political pundit named Anne Coaltar wakes up chained to a rock on a barbaric planet that’s a lot like Gor. It was so much fun.
True. Brain surgeons know exactly what they are dealing with and exactly what they are doing, and that cutting bit X will, within a statistically knowable degree of certainty, produce result Y. Making public policy is harder.
Not sure how good his understanding of evilution is: the man is a Seventh Day Adventist. The SDA doctrine is biblical literalism, which makes him a YEC, because believers are not permitted to reject doctrine.
“Nay; to take my pleasure with this one would snap her in twain like a twig. Fetch me a stouter wench!”
According to the CBO, it turns out that defunding Planned Parenthood would actually cost the government $130 million over the next decade;
Crazy Louie Gohmert: “Having a gay Army Secretary will make Muslims think that the US condones child sexual abuse.”
The GOP has no trouble spending tons more when it suits their ideological purpose.
It’s not much of a conundrum when they want to defund other social services too.
So what? As one of the crazier GOP members, I’ve no doubt that he hates Muslims already, so what does he care what they think? Actually, I’d really like someone to follow up that statement with “Muslims think we shouldn’t draw pictures of Mohammed, so you believe we should take that into consideration too right?”
So we shouldn’t have an Army Secretary who can draw, right?
What a terrible, terrible article.
I’m an atheist, I think the current Pope is a showboater, and I think Napolitano is a nut, but that was a terrible article. It does exactly what Limbaugh does – it takes a line or two he actually said, and then goes into great detail about what he really means, essentially by saying, “You know who else said X?”
One line is especially telling: “The key point here is that this False Prophet is a leader on the world stage (significantly this is the exact phrase employed by Napolitano).”
Well no, it isn’t, at least not in any of his quotes included in the article. But significantly, it is the exact phrase the article’s writer used, twice. So he’s deliberately lying to make his point.
I don’t know much about the Kos website, but if they’re paying this guy, they should fire him. In any case, they should stop letting him use their website for his crappy articles.
The paragraph at the end of Andrew’s Nappy’s rant (linked from the KOS article) goes:
Pope Francis is popular on the world stage, and the crowds love him. But if he fails in his basic duties as the pope, if his concern is more for secular than sacred, if he aids the political agenda of the atheistic left, he is a false prophet leading his flock to a dangerous place, where there is more central planning and less personal liberty.
See, to christians, “false prophet” is utter nastiness. The false prophet in Rev. was one of the unholy trinity, along with the beast and Phil, the Prince of Insufficient Light. To call Frank a false prophet, to the christian mind, makes him an apostle of Phil. So, yeah, Dartagnan was really not at all off-base.
I’m sure God picked him for a reason. How can the good judge explain that?
Exactly. We’re talking white smoke vs black smoke. What gets more clear than that?
You write as if I hadn’t read the article, and as if all Christians believe the same things. I did read the article, and I do know about dog whistles. But the kind of Christians who would respond to the dog whistle the author of the article is talking about are not Roman Catholics, which is what Napolitano is. On the contrary, they are more likely to consider the Roman Catholic Church the “Whore of Babylon.”
He’s welcome to point out the connotations of what Napolitano said. He crosses the line when he asserts as a fact that Napolitano was deliberately using dog whistles, and IMO he loses all credibility when he misquotes him and puts words in his mouth. YMMV.
Well, did you read the encyclical written by the Pope?
He says, "Folks with private property ain’t got no hope!
“The rich ain’t welcome in the Heavenly Palladium!”
The Knights of Columbus own Yankee Stadium
Now, I ain’t sayin’ that the Pope was wrong
But he can easily afford to sing that song
If you’d like to call him up when you need some dough
His number’s Et Cum Spiri-220
– “Color TV,” Don Maclean
In the first sentence of the final paragraph of this article, to which the Kos article links, Napolitano states Francis is “is popular on the world stage, and the crowds love him”, and Kos quotes that and the preceding paragraph.
Napolitano does use the exact phrases “the world stage” and “false prophet”.
“… leader on the world stage”, if that is the phrase to which you refer, is not an egregious misrepresentation of “popular on the world stage” when referring to a head of state who is the spiritual leader of over a billion people.
The author (who is Dartagnan, not Kos) says “a leader on the world stage” (italics his) is the EXACT PHRASE Napolitano used, not that he used similar words, in a not egregiously different order. The italics make it clear that he is talking about those precise words, not the ones you mentioned. And that exact phrase is important, because it actually does appear previously in the article — not in a quote from Napolitano, but in Dartagnan’s exposition: “The False Prophet of Revelations is the embodiment of evil and is generally perceived in Apocalyptic theology (to which many Evangelicals subscribe) as** a leader on the world stage**”, (bolding his). So he has taken care to embed the phrase in his readers’ minds as a verse from Revelation, so they’ll read his later claim that Napolitano used it, and say to themselves, “Yeah, I remember that.”
But that phrase isn’t something Napolitano said, and it isn’t in the quotes from Revelation. It’s only in the author’s own description of the False Prophet of Revelation. He has taken Napolitano’s reference to a false prophet, which he correctly notes is mentioned in Matthew and elsewhere as a generic reference to dime-a-dozen charlatans, and turned it into a reference to someone who is not merely misguided or phony, but is “the third party in the unholy trinity,” along with Satan and the Antichrist – whom Dartagnan insinuates is meant by Napolitano to be Obama.
All of this is based not on what Napolitano said, and not on what Revelation says, but only on the false claim that Napolitano said exactly what Dartagnan said in crafting this hit piece.
I can’t make it any more clear than that. I’m done with it. If you still can’t see what a shitty piece of deception it is, then I guess he did his job.
This must show that you can never go broke underestimating the taste of the Gorean public. I thought even they had some standards.
I can’t watch Bill Maher because of the thought of his mouth on her pussy. Yuck.