It’s a new twist. She was on a radio show explaining why she thought it was black ops - the victim with his legs blown off was not in shock or in pain. Now, much of the state knows who the victim is from local media – he worked in NH and his father lives in Concord, about 20 miles from her district. So now she’s going to have to come up with more bizarre theories to explain the existence of this double amputee that everyone knows about, or issue a public “I was Just Asking Questions” non-apology in a hurry.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Hamlet.
At least your Elizabethan grammar was correct! My favorite gasper was “Canst it be? A demon trys to rescueth me!” Ouch!
My grammar? Just to be clear, that was a quote from Michele Bachmann. I was making fun of her for botching the line.
ETA: Although I do have to admit that I misremembered the play that it was from. And I also have come to take it to mean something other than it originally did. The shame of it all.
IME, it’s mostly used nowadays to say, “that bitch wants it,” which is a significant departure from the original meaning. Gertrude was using the word protest to mean promise.
Is this a joke? This is a joke, right? I’ve never heard it or taken it to mean that.
I was taking it to mean something like “To overstate one’s protests of innocence to such a degree that one’s guilt is actually suggested.” Because of this, I was falsely recalling it as coming from MacBeth.
Yes, that’s sort of the same thing. “No, I’m not interested in you”, “stop bothering me” = playing hard to get.
No, it’s not at all the same thing. The connotation I am talking about has nothing to do with sexual behavior, and can be applied equally to either gender.
As the Wiki page on the quote says: "The phrase has come to mean that one can “insist so passionately about something not being true that people suspect the opposite of what one is saying.”
Applying this to the issue of sexual behavior and sex shaming is a pretty specific and unusual application of the phrase, IMHO.
Lamar Smith wants any research done using federal funds to be reviewed and approved by the House and Senate committees on science and technology, and if they don’t like the research, they can take it away from the scientists and dispose of it as they see fit.
Oh, let me guess before I read it - he’s from Arizona, Texas, or Kansas.
Texas! Where they think if they don’t like the US government, they can just declare independence for a while
Add North Carolina to the list:
I won’t be surprised when they hold out their hands for federal flood relief funding.
I will be surprised, but delighted, when the federal government only gives them $8,000 based on how much it cost to repair flood damage in 1877.
Virginia did something similar. We discussed them last summer.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15160729&postcount=5663
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15162134&postcount=5666
The willful blindness to facts is mind boggling.
Well, admittedly, whether the sea level change follows historical trend or really recent historical trend is less certain in the scientific world than the simple greenhouse effect.
The historical trend for sea levels has already been rising, and it’s hard to say the trend for the next hundred years will follow a particular model that someone has blessed.
Still, to base the future on the rosier sea level picture rather than the one that seems more plausible - more melted ice from the land equals more stuff in the ocean - is pretty blockheaded.
The Republican solution would be to invest in property about a half a mile to a mile from the shoreline, it will be beachfront real estate before long. Profit!
OOPS! My embarrassment; I didn’t realize you were quoting her misquotation. Apologies.
Well, fair is fair, then: credit to her for getting the grammar right, even if the quote isn’t.
“We had to destroy science in order to save it.”
The problem with Smith’s bill (ok, one of the problems) is that there are some real dimwits on Congress’ science and tech committees. Some of them don’t even believe in evolution.
It’s worse then that. What I read between the lines here is to defund any research which involves anthropomorphic global warming and any other “inconvenient truths”
Congressman Lamar Smith believes that there is an ideological component to “science” and he wishes to slant that viewpoint more conducive to his worldview along with his cronies.
As for the consequences of implementing his world view, “Lysenkoism” and “Jewish Physics” come to mind.
Sadly, I no longer view this thread as “Stupid Republican Idea of the Day”; rather “Cultic,” “Depraved,” and 'Nihilistic" seem much more fitting, but I can’t make it sound snappy enough for a thread title.
Nitpick: anthropogenic global warming. Anthropomorphic global warming would say that global warming was caused by the Heat Miser 