I think its very important to make the charge that Congressman Maurice Hinchey regularly eats Irish babies in a feast of Swiftian proportions. I think its very important to combat this kind of heinous activity in every way that we can, and I'm willing, as most people are not, to step forward in situations like this and take the risk of being eating by this ravenous politican. Now, I don't have any actual PROOF, but isn't just the CHARGE of it enough?

If you read the trascript over at Charles' site, this Moonbat Congress Critter wasn't sure which network Dan Rather worked for. He "guessed" it "might be" CBS... Claimed he also had proof that Karl Rove orchestrated the entire fake memo plot, then backed off when questioned about having proof. Unreal. The Moonbats are running this Party.

Ah, but MikeTL, I've got video of the Congressman eating the babies. That proof enough?

No, I'm afraid not. You see, that footage is being held until the Congressman requests its release. He'd sooner resign that do that (a-hem), and therefor is not real proof. Besides, it could JUST as easily be a Rove orchestrated fake video. Until the Congressman admits publically that he has eaten babies, it is not "real" proof.

Gotta love the leftwing nutcases. Anytime one of their own gets caught with their pants down, they accuse Rove of being the mastermind behind it.

Rove is a very busy man.

NY Congressman (YAWN) blames Karl Rove (DULL) for planting CBS documents (OLD STORY). I give it a 3.1 (on a scale of 1 to 10). My MSM is still carrying the 'Bush smoked dope' story.

I have no proof, but I think it's very important to ask the tough questions.

I think Hinchey hangs in teen chat rooms and cruises malls with Scott Ritter, the notorious ephebophile.

I think I'm being courageous to combat sexual predation situations like this.

It could be worse. He could be a one-time gay prostitute lobbing softballs at Bush.

Now THAT would be irresponsible.
-=Mike

Hinchey hasn't got it up in a year -- blame it on Rove!

Rep. Hinchey launched into a barking moonbat conspiracy rant...
...When our operative asked Hinchey if he had evidence for these charges, he first said, "Yes, I do," but when asked a second time he admitted he did not.

Ahh, the "Eason Jordan Davos Defense". A contemporary classic - the incongruous strategy that doesn't know if it's coming or going, only that it's lost.

This is Eason Jordan II. A drive-by smearing. Make a claim no matter how ridiculous, claim you have proof, then deny you have have proof, the last ingredients are denying you actually said it and claiming that anyone that heard you say it misunderstood it, when the tape surfaces you calim it was taken out of context. LGF should never have told anyone about the tape until Hinchey denied saying it. Had they kept the tape secret it would have gotten much more interesting before it was over with. I'd love to have seen a slander suit with Hinchey and several of his flock of moonbats facing perjury charges when it was done. You know that at least 20 of them would have been willing to testify he never said it. Liberals need to know that the truth matters, they may willingly accept it from their leaders (Cambodian boat trip, Chappaquiddick car/boat trip), but it matters to decent people.

Ahh...here we are, back to the game. I used to get pissed off Paul, but now this is kinda fun.

First you introduce some liberal who has said or done something stupid, then you cite the appropriate text, then at the end you make the blanket "See how insane liberals are?" statement.

Usually this is when I respond by saying that not all liberals are like this, and then I get flamed along with any other liberal who replies for supporting such an idiot like this guy. Anyone who defends liberals is seen as defending the actions of one idiot liberal.

So, first I will say that I'm not buying Hinchey's conspiracy theory, and in fact I will go as far as saying that its asinine.

Just for fun I'll put a quote here too:

"Intelligent design theory is upheld by the same kind of data and analysis as any other theory to determine whether or not an event is caused by natural or intelligent causes...Today, qualified scientists are reaching the conclusion that design theory makes better sense of the data."

~Rep. Mark Souder on the "theory" of intelligent design, an argument for including MAGIC in science classrooms, specifically Judeo-Christian magic stories.

Hmmm...well Paul, that guy is one of yours. He thinks that reading Genesis literally is the way to go, and advocates the idea that Creationism is a scientific theory that should be taught alongside evolution is biology classrooms.

One of my favorite arguments is when Creationists like this guy argue about the holes in evolutionary theory, but then they counter with the idea that GOD made everything magically. Ya, thats rational. Stephen Jay Gould, Darwin, Wallace, Dawkins, and every evoltutionary biologist is full of shit because the four authors of Genesis knew how it all worked 3000 years ago. The world was created by literary metaphor...ya, thats it.

I guess this would be the place where I would denigrate all conservatives for the misinformed views of one man who happens to be a conservative....but this is where we differ Paul, I refuse to make such leaps in judgement. In fact, I think that many conservatives are smart people, and that they might see the flaws in the thinking of people like Congressman Souder and Congressman Hinchey.

In summary, Hinchey is a fool, Souder is too, magical creation stories are interesting but shouldn't be taken literally, and idiocy knows no political boundaries...

that's gotta be one of the weirdest non-sequitors I'm had the misfortune to waste time reading in a while.

congrats, ra

wanna go at solipsism?

The creation/evolution debate is one that's particularly hard to settle. I have to come away from it with the theory of people like r.a. know where they came from and I know where I came from. I'm not about to argue whether he's directly descended from apes when he clearly shows that it's more than likely true, and it's not that many generations ago either. Those descended from apes show different traits, mainly in personality, manifested as liberalism. Those created by G_d are uniformly conservative. I can live with that theory, can liberals?

Oh Darleen,

Non-sequitor: "A conclusion that does not logically follow from its premises."

Hmmm...lets recap.

1. Paul makes broad assertions about a large group of people based on what one person does. He cites an instance, then makes judgements about liberals based on what one idiot says.

2. Using a similar tactic, I attach a quote of a conservative who says something insane, and then rant a bit about that, for fun. In the end however, I say that I wouldnt judge all conservatives for what Mr Souder says.

3. I come to the conclusion that Paul's logic is flawed, that you cant judge large groups based on the actions of individuals.

Sorry Darleen, I know that you're just used to liberal bashing cheerleading sessions in here.

Oh gee willikers Bullwinkle, did you just say that I'm descended from apes? You are so clever and original.

Since you probably dont put Revelations down all that often to read other books, I feel that I should inform you that humans are not descended from apes, as you posit, but apes and humans have a common ancestor...humans and chimpanzees branched apart around 7 million years ago, FYI.

But thanks for telling me more about your magical beliefs!

RE: r.a.'s post (February 21, 2005 02:53 AM)

r.a.,

Congressman Hinchey made a false charge, knew he was making a false charge, conceded that making a false charge was worth the inherent "risks" of such claims, and would "continue to do it [either take such risks like making false claims or actually make false claims themsevles]".

Representative Souder, according to your snippet, simply promoted a religious theory. The theory is not a fabricated lie but is a current concept with scholarly considerations. Souder is not making it up from whole cloth. Souder is not attempting to discredit a particular person. Souder is not lying as policy to further an agenda.

Now I certainly don't accept intelligent design, but it is a worthy debate and one worth having. Is the "Rovian Evil Genius" nonsense a worthy debate? Seriously? How can you advance the idea that the rantings of a confessed propagandist (my imperfect interpretive word for one who knowingly perpetuates a myth while knowingly acknowledging it to be myth to further a cause) are reasonably equivalent to the declarations of another who only proposes an arguable, and defensible, theological position? Surely you jest.

I understand you're trying to make a point but I think you've selected a poor example. Pigeonholing for convenience is always a bit risky and I think this is what you are accusing Paul of doing with those of liberal persuasion. I think you picked either the wrong pigeon or hole - I'm not sure which.

I guess chimpmen like r.a. don't realize that there's no book of Revelations in the Torah. You also missed the point that I didn't say humans descended from apes, I said I was willing to accept your theory that you did, there are two major differences there. One, the point that I didn't say in any way that you are descended from apes, only that I was willing to accept your theory in your case, the second, I never accused you of being human.

r.a. the only problem with your post is that there are far more loons on your side of the fence making loony accusations.

The creationism angle isn't a good one. Creationism is a "topic" up for debate. If this subject were say about "global warming" I think it would work.

But creationism isn't exactly the same thing as accusing a man of organizing a massive deception. The loony left is full of these wackos who wear their tinfoil hats a little too tight.

In the course of my time-limited reading of posts here recently, I see a trend:

Paul points out one left-wing-loony after another as supporting evidence that the left's philosophy is horribly flawed and devoid of logic.

Others, like ra, point out each and every time that Paul (and others, of course) is pointing to one person as representative of the entire party.

Let me put forward a theory here--though there are sound minded people who are liberals, the party of the left is defined by those who consistently demonstrate that they are not in that category. I would accept in the same vein that there are more than a couple loons on the right, but that's not the defining characteristic of the right's party.

And exactly how many "individuals" need to be presented before assertations about their group are no longer considered a "leap to judgement?"

If, in fact, most liberal Americans don't agree with the most visible and vocal mouthpieces that have been presented by Paul, why don't they strip the influence that these "bad apples" now enjoy and take the party/movement back over?

Sounds a lot like the Muslim question, no?

Likely has the same answer, too.

I guess chimpmen like r.a. don't realize that there's no book of Revelations in the Torah.

Bullwinkle...of course I realize that Revelations isnt in the Torah, or what served as the basis for the Chistian Old Testament. I was being sarcastic and implying that you read only Revelations, which is the part of the Bible that too many Fundamentalists read, ignoring other sections that make a little more sense in the everyday. (Like maybe the parts that discuss The Sermon on the Mount, etc.)

However, you have informed me that you read the Torah, so I was mistaken in my claim.

And...I get your theory that I am descended from apes, like all other liberals, and "conservatives" were made by God. Very nice theory.

AnonymousDrivel wrote:

Representative Souder, according to your snippet, simply promoted a religious theory. The theory is not a fabricated lie but is a current concept with scholarly considerations. Souder is not making it up from whole cloth. Souder is not attempting to discredit a particular person. Souder is not lying as policy to further an agenda.

First of all, Souder and other creationists are not promoting a theory, they are twisting their own 3000 year mythologies and trying to put a scientific face on them in order to get their beliefs into a science classroom. It is not a scientific theory, it is religious belief. There isnt any empirical evidence to support ID "theories" beyond the pages of the Old Testament. And yes, Souder is doing this to further his own agenda. It's not like he's fighting for equal time for all creation stories, he's pushing his own worldview onto everyone else.

Well, the debate about putting stories of Adam and Eve and Noah's ark into the biology classroom alongside discussions of Darwin, Mendel, Gould, etc. is not a worthy one. Thats my opinion though.

I think that The Old Testament belongs not in biology classrooms, but in the classrooms that discuss Hinduism, Islam, Taosim, Confucianism, and so on.

And remember, I already said that Hinchey's idea is whacko:

So, first I will say that I'm not buying Hinchey's conspiracy theory, and in fact I will go as far as saying that its asinine.

I understand you're trying to make a point but I think you've selected a poor example. Pigeonholing for convenience is always a bit risky and I think this is what you are accusing Paul of doing with those of liberal persuasion.

Yes, you're right, my post is certainly no masterwork. But, at least you got the point, which is all I care about. Mr Souder was included because I just heard the guy on the radio recently making his nutty claims about his beliefs.

BoDiddly, Just Me, Bullwinkle, AnonymousD:

I get what you guys are saying, and I think that you guys get my point.

First of all, I have to remind you that I'm not a Democrat, and there are reasons for that. Second, from what I see, there are alot of Americans who are stuck somewhere in the middle, waiting for better answers.

I personally wouldnt go around claiming that the 47 percent of voters who voted for Kerry are all insane, or even that a large chunk of them are...I think they are probably alot like the 52 percent who voted for Bush in most ways. I think there are insane fringes on each end of the spectrum.

I agree with you guys though when you say that the Republican ticket has a more unified message and identity. The Dems are all over the place, incoherent, and disorganized. Its often not clear where they stand.

Paul brings liberal nutjubs like Hinchey to light, but he then goes on to claim that ALL Democrats must be insane since guys like that exist on their side. I'm saying that you might be discounting the intelligence of MILLIONS of Americans who wanted an alternative to Bush, but didnt really have one.

Just remember that...you guys won, but it wasnt some landslide. The country was still pretty split about the whole thing, and to me calling millions of Americans stupid for voting Democrat is a bit out of line. That wont win YOU GUYS any converts, thats for sure.

That said, BoDiddly wrote this:

If, in fact, most liberal Americans don't agree with the most visible and vocal mouthpieces that have been presented by Paul, why don't they strip the influence that these "bad apples" now enjoy and take the party/movement back over?

Sounds a lot like the Muslim question, no?

Excellent point Mr Diddly. What it requires is for people to get off their asses, stop complaining, and make the changes that need to happen. Getting rid of the bad apples, and supporting people who have ideas and solutions, instead of blaming Republicans for everything, would be a start.

This is exactly what the cult of Scientology does, attack their critics by making wild and horrific allegations against them for which there is absolutely no evidence. Come to think of it, their attack on Jeff Gannon mirrors the behavior of scientology even more closely since accusations of paraphilia are one of their favorite ploys. The more time goes by, the more the left begins to resemble a mind control cult.

Maurice Hinchey is guilty of mopery with intent to loiter! He's a horse thief! Send for the hangin' judge!

"...of course I realize that Revelations isnt in the Torah, or what served as the basis for the Chistian Old Testament."

First r.a. the torah is only the first five books of the Bible, not the whole OT.

" I was being sarcastic and implying that you read only Revelations, which is the part of the Bible that too many Fundamentalists read, ignoring other sections that make a little more sense in the everyday."

Secondly, it is the Revelation not Revelations (granted lots of Christians screw this one up too, but if you are going to go around slamming Christians, at least get the names right).

Third, you are listening to too much Bill Moyers. I am probably by strict definition a Fundamentalist Christian, and I can tell you that the majority of my Bible study, and the majority of preaching is not from this book. Maybe you should actually spend a bit more time researching what you are speaking about.

You sat here and did the exact same thing you have accused Paul of doing, except that Paul does it better, and actually has more evidence to back up his claims.

But back to the topic-the truth is that generally the loony right people don't have much power or influence and for the most part get marginalized by the rest of the party (take Pat Buchanan for example, not many on the right pay much attention to him, and he was given so little power that he left the party), but the loony left not only gives their loons positions of prominence, they promote them, and congratuate them.

That is the difference. You could probably list ten loony right people, and I would bet their sphere of power and influence wouldn't be nearly as much as the ten loony lefts almost anyone of us could name.

Ultimately I think that ra has a very good point to make, that there are nutcases on the right that sound every bit as crazy as anything the left has to offer.

The problem is that while there are nuts on the right, the left seems to have a lot more of them, and they also seem to be the ones who define what it is to be a lefty, which has nothing to do with the classical and semantically correct meaning of the word liberal.

It is the ultimate irony that those who believe in freedom are not known as liberals, while those who have no love of liberty have nonetheless self-labeled themselves as being liberal.

For every right wing nut job there are dozen, if not hundreds, of left-wing nuts.

I've tried for many years to find some kind of a silver lining to modern liberalism, a core of rationality and common sense, only to be sorely disappointed on both counts. There just isn't anything there, no redeeming features, no saving grace. Nothing but a monstrous assemblage of destructive and corrosive bullshit.

What is typically known as conservativism on the ohter hand does have a lot going for it. There are flaws to be sure, but far more of it is based upon goodness and truth, or at least the honest effort to be good and true, than anything else. The really bizarre thing is that once upon a time modern conservatism would have been described as a liberal philosophy. Individual rights, individual freedoms, rule of law, equal protection under the law, government of the people by the people for the people, these are all tenets of classical liberalism. The reason why conservatives are not properly recognized as liberals today is because the far left absconded with the term and began using it as a euphemism to describe themselves. By now the word has become so sullied by this misuse that it has come to mean the opposite of what it used to.

Problem on the left is, when a nutjob makes a statement, no one on the left calls them on it.

Anything anti-Bush has become so popular, the middle-of-the-road folks condone and endorse it with their overwhelming silence.

It would be refreshing to see some one on the left call the fruitcakes on their hysteria for once. Not likely though.

And I just don't get this evolution argument. This "lesson" accounts for probably one day in a full year of Biology class. There's so much else to learn about the world that is not controversial, and our kids aren't getting it. I must say though, that a quick way to prevent some one from listening to you is by trashing their religion.

RE: r.a.'s post (February 21, 2005 12:21 PM)
What it requires is for people to get off their asses, stop complaining, and make the changes that need to happen. Getting rid of the bad apples, and supporting people who have ideas and solutions, instead of blaming Republicans for everything, would be a start.

Fair enough and entirely commendable. I now wish you were a Democrat so you could talk some sense into that party.

Just Me:

First r.a. the torah is only the first five books of the Bible, not the whole OT.

I know. Thats why I said that its the basis, i.e. the foundation, the beginning, the start. Many people argue that the first five books are the most important in the OT, however, since they contain the basic story of the people and the LAWS. There are three main sections in the OT:

1. The Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Dueteronomy)
2. The Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc)
3. And the most poetic part of the OT which contains writings like Psalms, Proverbs, the Book of Job, etc.

Secondly, it is the Revelation not Revelations (granted lots of Christians screw this one up too, but if you are going to go around slamming Christians, at least get the names right).

I always mess up and write it like that, bad habit. I'm not trying to slam all Christians, just the ones who want to inject their religious beliefs into science classrooms. Personally, I think that Christianity is really a really interesting and complex religion, like many others. Good stuff in there. I really dont think that anyone needs to get so worried whether or not the Bible is completely accurate on dates and events. I think there are more important points in it than trying to argue for a literal belief in the 7 day creation. The messages in it are more important, IMO, than the historical accuracy.

Third, you are listening to too much Bill Moyers. I am probably by strict definition a Fundamentalist Christian, and I can tell you that the majority of my Bible study, and the majority of preaching is not from this book. Maybe you should actually spend a bit more time researching what you are speaking about.

I havent ever heard much from Moyers, honestly. And I know that most Christians study other books much more than the Revelation. I wasnt talking to you anyway, I was being sarcastic toward another poster. I seem to have upset you, and thats not what I was meaning to do. From your posts, and your reasoning, I would not have pegged you as someone who reads only from The Revelation. So that comment was directed jokingly at another commentor specifically.

I do see where I said that "too many Fundamentalists" read The Revelation and ignore other parts. That statement was a bit too broad, you're right. Sorry for that. I have had experience with friends who became born-agains and let me tell you they needed to focus on some other areas in the Good Book.

I dont think that even Fundamentalist Christians need to feel threatened by science, or evolution, or geology, or the archaeological record. No need. I dont think the argument needs to be taking place at all, and people like Souder are forcing it by trying to get equal time in science classes for what is a matter of faith. "Creation Science" is anything but a science, and people like Souder who have political influence are going around proporting that it is.

That is the difference. You could probably list ten loony right people, and I would bet their sphere of power and influence wouldn't be nearly as much as the ten loony lefts almost anyone of us could name.

Point taken. By your account the right distances itself from its loons, while the left encourages them. Pat Robertson was a good example that you provided.

What about Ann Coulter? Do most on the right accept her views as rational? Look, I know that she brings up issues, and hits hard, but her arguments are about on the same level as Michael Moore to me...both of them are professional mud slingers. Why is Coulter so embraced by the right? Have you heard/read some of the things that she has put forth??? I'm honestly interested, being someone that finds lefty Michael Moore to be nothing more than a sensationalist.

Ultimately I think that ra has a very good point to make, that there are nutcases on the right that sound every bit as crazy as anything the left has to offer.

Thanks for acknowledging that Lee.

And trust me I understand what alot of you are saying on here about the "left."