Friday, March 23, 2007

For the factually challenged and ignorant...

Here is a short account of the 1996 Republican presidential nomination fight.

Here's what happened. Several candidates that a few rich men would have liked to run (Colin Powell, e.g.) did not run. Even the future Vice Glorious Leader, head of the cabal of rich men who pretend to give a shit about abortion every four years to dupe pro-lifers out of their votes. But what happened was not that Bob Dole was just kind of there ... but he won a series of primaries, ones where poor people were allowed to vote no less. Other men won a few primaries -- Steve Forbes won several (what ... didn't the few rich men like him? ... he was even somewhat pro-choice and ran on flat taxes at the time, i.e., perfectly willing to screw Christians in the name of Salvation Through Empire, Leviathan and Mammon); Pat Buchanan even won New Hampshire and a couple of others (why did the few rich men allow him to run ... obviously he's complicit then in the rigging of the system to provide only unacceptable alternatives).

But see ... what happens in primaries is that people vote, they get counted, and whoever has the most votes wins. That was Dole, I think, though maybe the Neocon Brain Cocktail has obscured my memory on this point.

It's amazing what you can learn about the obscure facts of ancient history lost in the mists of time when you trouble yourself to read obscure, inaccessible books in dead languages like Wikipedia before dribbling off at the mouth.


kathleen said...

the voice of omniscience:

"Faithful Conservative Catholics[TM] and Bible-Believing Evangelicals[TM] who cheerlead for the Right come hell or high water and endorse the crazy "Salvation through Leviathan by Any Means Necessary" ethos aren't simply sinning: they're stupid."

why mince words?

Anonymous said...

Here's the link, BTW ... (

I mean ... being called stupid by someone with such a dearth of basic ABCs fact knowledge, so little grasp of what ideas mean or don't mean and do or do not fit together, so literacy challenged from all that "just skimming," so completely cavalier and careless about accurately citing the views of others ... 'tis to laugh.

I got a big guffaw about that "pop quiz" list of 10 things (which I'm guessing is some kind of attempt at rebuttal to this).

Here's another game we can play with the same list. And I suspect it even has the same answer.

Nine of the quotes** are actual quotations from real persons. One is the hostile paraphrase of a lying fantasist. Can you a) circle the lie and b) explain why it is a lie?

** Note ... this is The Big Liar's actual word.

Roger H. said...

He [Fred Thompson] sounds like a possible alternative to the Three Stooges currently being proposed for our rubberstamping.

Wow Mark, since when could three candidates from the same party all be that party's presidential nominee?

Anonymous said...

Isn't the very point of rubber-stamping that you only get one choice?

Anonymous said...


Since we all know that Mark is an incorrigibly stupid blowhard, let me address another subject: the infatuation some Catholics have with criticizing secular politicians on abortion but not their own bishops.

Yes, Mark fits into this category. So does a Fr. Tom Euteneuer, who heads an organization called Human Life International and who took on Sean Hannity's support for contraception.

Where are Fr. Euteneuer, Mark Shea and their ilk when it comes to such "bishops" as Roger (The Truth Dodger) Mahony and others in Church authority who refuse to promote the Church's teaching concerning "life" issues?

Of course, challenging your own doesn't get you any brownie points for being "countercultural." More to the point, challenging your own takes away from the task of trying to gain political influence -- which, as we all know, is far more important than morality, anyway, right, boys and girls?

I mean, why should we try to hold Church authorities accountable for what they're supposed to be teaching when we can have fun ripping political candidates who have a far larger consituency to serve, ostensibly?

Phillip said...

I agree with Joe on this. Several months ago the subject was a permanent deacon who preached on stem cell research. This while a Catholic representative who voted in favor of the measure was in the congregation. The deacon didn't call for the the rep. to be denied communion but simply noted that people could talk with the rep. after mass. As I recall, Mark's support for the deacon was tepid at best particularly given his gushing support for Fr. Euteneuer. Many of those who replied also thought the deacon was out of line.

Perhaps another example of the cognitive dissonance currently going on at CAEI.