Not quite the unforgettable Dan Quayle yet, but Joe is getting there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Printable View
Not quite the unforgettable Dan Quayle yet, but Joe is getting there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
This should be in News of the Weird, but it's just a smidgen too political.
Looks as though the Mormon Church posthumously baptized Obama's mother, without his permission (and obviously without hers). No harm, obviously, but it's still weird.
Details.
A reader contacted me last week, saying that last year, in the heat of the presidential campaign, the Mormons had posthumously baptized Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. Baptizing the dead of other faith's, secretly and without the consent of their families, is a common Mormon practice. For the past fifteen years the Mormons have caused quite a stir by forcibly baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims - in other words, converting them to Mormonism - despite strong objections from the Jewish community.
Thus, it's hardly a stretch to imagine the Mormons' doing this to Obama's mother. Still, I had no proof. Then yesterday, I received a document. It's allegedly a screen capture of the registration-only section of the Mormon-run Web site, FamilySearch.org. In that screen capture, excerpted above, is clearly the name and correct date of birth and death of Barack Obama's mother (Stanley Ann Dunham, born 29 Nov 1942 in Kansas, died 07 Nov 1995) and the date of her alleged post-death baptism by the Mormons. You can see the entire document here:
-edit-
To their credit, the Mormon Church is taking this seriously.
"The offering of baptism to our deceased ancestors is a sacred practice to us and it is counter to Church policy for a Church member to submit names for baptism for persons to whom they are not related," said spokeswoman Kim Farah in an emailed statement. "The Church is looking into the circumstances of how this happened and does not yet have all the facts. However, this is a serious matter and we are treating it as such."
$17 billion, huh? :inquisitive:Quote:
Obama's promised line-by-line scrub of the federal budget has produced a roster of 121 budget cuts totaling $17 billion — or about one-half of 1 percent of the $3.4 trillion budget Congress has approved for next year. The details were unveiled Thursday.
But it gets better:So, who's surprised? Anyone?Quote:
Those savings are far exceeded by a phone-book-sized volume detailing Obama's generous increases for domestic programs that will accompany the call for cuts. And instead of devoting the savings to defray record deficits, the White House is funneling them back into other programs.
link
Oh, uh...I'm shocked...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Found the link to the pdf. that covers all the programs and what-not being... "budgeted"
Budget of the US Government Fiscal Year 2010 - Terminations, Reductions, and Savings
Obama burgergate. Too silly to even attempt a summary, but let's put it this way: If you find mustard offensive, this story is for you.
Hannity ignites the firestorm.
Rush Limbaugh's show keeps it up, and Laura Ingraham must comment on mustardgate as well.
Huffingtonpost...hmm, huh? What? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Seriously though, I concur with the original poster that people are making too big a deal out of something like this. I do think it is just another pathetic attempt at showing the public what a peoples' person he is though.
I thought that a fanfare for $17bn isn't really justified when it's roughly 0.5% of the budget. I sort of assume that government reviews things and tries to save these sums routinely.
~:smoking:
Yes, it's true, I linked to a video in the Huffington post. Strange that you weren't around to lob your smilies when I've also linked to NRO or American Conservative. Strange that I only get flack when linking left, never right. Work the ref, much?Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
P.S.: Here's a site much more your speed, Vuk.
That anyone can call "fancy" the sludge which is apparently mustard that americans dump on their food is the most interesting thing.
~:smoking:
lol, the difference is though that your talking points came directly from the Huffingtonpost guy's commentary. When you link to conservative sights, it is usually to make fun of them. Lob my smilies? I posted one. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I don't think he is the anti-Christ BTW, just Hitler, don't you remember? ~;)
EDIT: I made the post comment in humor BTW Lemur. I based my opinion on your argument (what little bit you insinuated of an argument), not on your choice of sources. I only meant to be funny. :P
I wasn't aware of any evil you wouldn't impute to our President. He's not the antichrist? News to me.
Here's a person who was once considered a "conservative" (ever-shrinking circle, that) on mustardgate:
MUSTARD-GATE
Friday, May 08, 2009 6:38 AM
What kind of a man eats his hamburger without ketchup? That was the big question yesterday on talk radio, after President Obama visited an Arlington, Virginia, hamburger place on Tuesday and ordered his burger with spicy mustard.
First answer: Texans.
Texans traditionally eat hamburgers with mustard or with mayonnaise (or with both), but without ketchup. This is simply called a “hamburger” in Texas, but is sometimes called a “Cowboy Burger” or a “Texas Burger” outside of Texas.
A hamburger with ketchup is sometimes called a “Yankee Burger.” A hamburger with mayonnaise is sometimes called a “Sissy Burger.”
Dirty Martin’s (in Austin since 1926) serves hamburgers with mustard, pickles, onions, and tomatoes, but it is not known when this combination began. The popular Texas “Whataburger” hamburger chain has served hamburgers with mustard from its founding (1950). The hamburger-with-mustard combination in Texas is attested at least from the 1950s, but the pre-1950s hamburger condiments cannot be firmly established.
Second answer: Republicans. A 2000 survey of members of Congress by the National Hot Dog Council found that 73% of Republican lawmakers preferred mustard to ketchup, as opposed to 47% of Democratic lawmakers.
Final answer: traditionalists. Louis' Lunch in New Haven, Connecticut, the restaurant widely believed to have served the first hamburgers ever made in the United States, absolutely forbids ketchup.
Next question?
lol, calling Obama the antichrist would attribute things to him other than what he does. I judge people solely by what they do. Also, by calling someone a supernatural being such as the 'anti-Christ', you are taking away their individual blame as a person that everyone has for the wrong they have done. I can tell you honestly Lemur, that I base my opinion of Obama solely on what he has said and done and the people he associates with - ei, his own actions. I neither attribute things to him that are not his, nor try to make more of him than he is. He is not the anti-Christ, he is Obama. Anything he does, good or bad is not the work of the 'anti-Christ', but of Obama. Any glory or blame for his actions is his entirely, and I have never and never will judge him on anything but his actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Sadly, I've known people who won't put French's or Heinz' yellow mustard on a burger...Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
...because they though it was too spicy.
:rolleyes3:
By that metric, Colman's would induce cardiac arythmia.
Mustardgate is not going away! Check out this blog. And here's more coverage from a Website That Dare Not Speak Its Name (good video links, however).
Websites can speak? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
lol, I am really in love with Ann Coulter. I generally do not like media personalities (not even Hannity), but that Coulter is something else. :P No wonder the liberals hate her, she is dynamite! As far as water-boarding goes, I got a story about that that I will post on the torture thread.
Mann Coulter is hilarious. It's all an act, Vuk, we're just waiting to the curtain to close and the scene to end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
I'll be honest, I think Mustardgate is the best thing ever in political news coverage.
I'm following this story with relish.
"Sissy liberals"Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
Yes she is truly a master of oratory.
If you'll excuse me I'm off to ketchup with the latest in dijongate.
Thank goodness we have you here to keep us focused on the important news...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Any fool can make something complicated, it takes a genius to make something simple. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Seriously though, she is shockingly intelligent, brutally simple and to the point, and totally unforgiving in her analysis's! Everyone I have ever seen who has argued against her has attacked her for her looks, accused her of selling books on her looks (which is funny, as she is ugly enough to frighten a semi truck), attacked her for her oratory, attacked her for being blond, attacked her for being FEMALE, etc. I have never heard anyone make any affective argument against her points or the facts she uses. The closest was some lady on the View, and she did a lousy job, got very much owned, and seemed all too eager to get away from Coulter at the end.
Thats strange since most people attack her on the basis that she is incredibly stupid and a liar, her written work has been described as unproffesional, crazy, unhinged......bugger all about her looks really apart from the few questions as to why this woman has an adams apple .Quote:
Everyone I have ever seen who has argued against her has attacked her for her looks, accused her of selling books on her looks
So its another case of "everyone I have ever seen" if I don't look at all :dizzy2:
What I mean Tribesman is that they say she is a liar and unprofessional, but they cannot attack any specific thing she says, so they go after her sex or looks. Plenty of people say she is a liar, but no one I have heard has made any type of good argument at all against anything she has said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I typed "Arguments against Ann Coulter" into Google and waddayaknow a reasoned article appears...Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
Bloody hell ?????? have you even looked at the reams of criticism on the tripe from that dozy cow ?Quote:
What I mean Tribesman is that they say she is a liar and unprofessional, but they cannot attack any specific thing she says, so they go after her sex or looks. Plenty of people say she is a liar, but no one I have heard has made any type of good argument at all against anything she has said.
Hold on I get it , you are using the Vuk definition of good arguement again aren't you:yes:
So because she still writes crap even if most others say it is crap then it isn't really crap becuse she still writes it:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
That is what I mean Tribesy. Plenty of people have said what she has written is crap, but the vast majority of all arguments against her coming from the media and from individuals I have met or talked too (you included) do NOT actually attempt to prove her wrong on anything, but instead simply say "She writes crap", "She is a stupid woman/blond woman", "She sells on sex", etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman in his effort to prove Vuk correct
Other writers, both liberal and conservative have their specific arguments challenged all the time, and people try to take them to task on specifics. Almost everyone is content to say about Ann "she is just an out of touch loony", "she writes garbage", etc, with out ever trying to prove that what she writes is garbage. The few who do attempt to seriously debate her get utterly owned. (all that I have seen, but I hold out faith that she is indeen not perfect and must have made at least one mistake in her life) ~;)
That says a lot .Quote:
That is what I mean Tribesy.
So.....
The answer is no:yes:Quote:
have you even looked at the reams of criticism on the tripe from that dozy cow ?
A discussion on Ann Coulter and her abilities is properly conducted in another thread.
If I may steer us back to topic, The Economist has a fascinating article examining President Obama's appointment to Education Secretary, Arne Duncan. The fellow seems to have some strong support across the floor, and doesn't seem to be afraid (along with the president) to challenge some shibboleths of the left.
The overview looks encouraging, though a fight with their own Congress may be in the offing. Any thoughts from those closer to the events?
Since moving to the Education Department a couple of months ago he has been a tireless preacher of the reform gospel. He supports charter schools and merit pay, accountability and transparency, but also litters his speeches with more unfamiliar ideas. He argues that one of the biggest problems in education is how to attract and use talent. All too often the education system allocates the best teachers to the cushiest schools rather than the toughest. Mr Duncan also stresses the importance of “replicating” success. His department, he says, should promote winning ideas (such as “Teach for America”, a programme that sends high-flying university graduates to teach in underserved schools) rather than merely enforcing the status quo.
Nor is this just talk. Mr Duncan did much to consolidate his reputation as a reformer on May 6th, when the White House announced that it will try to extend Washington, DC’s voucher programme until all 1,716 children taking part have graduated from high school. The Democrat-controlled Congress has been trying to smother the programme by removing funding. But Mr Duncan has vigorously argued that it does not make sense “to take kids out of a school where they’re happy and safe and satisfied and learning”. He and Mr Obama will now try to persuade Congress not to kill the programme.