When it comes to the Clintons, you never know which scandals will stick and which will miraculously disappear because of the deal they made with Satan when selling their tattered souls. That being said, Hillary's metastasizing email scandal seems to have the potential to derail her presidential aspirations - and perhaps incur criminal charges.
It seems that when Hillary became Secretary of State, she immediately set up a private email server in her home and conducted all of her official business (and quite likely monkey business) on that computer email system rather than the cyber-secure government system which is required by federal law.
After a two day silence on the subject, Hillary eventually tweeted that she really, truly wants America to see her emails, and State Department spokes-hipster Marie "Jobs For ISIS" Harf has confirmed that this will absolutely happen. You know, eventually.
The problem is, the State Department doesn't have (and never has had) all of Mrs. Clinton's emails - it only has the ones which Hillary's personal staffers chose to give them.
Apparently, a lot of people in high places (perhaps even a certain president?) were aware of and comfortable with this clear violation of law and (oh yeah!) putting classified communications at risk for the sole purpose of protecting Hillary's obsessive political aspirations.
Now that her private email system has been discovered, Hope n' Change would like to suggest that Mrs. Clinton go back and review the many unread messages in her spam folder.
Maybe that's where ambassador Chris Stevens' requests for help in Benghazi ended up.
BONUS: HIT THE SHOWERS
Speaking of people who have no business running for president anymore, Dr. Ben Carson won the "stupidest thing said all week" award (and trust us, the competition is murder) for declaring that homosexuality is "absolutely" a choice rather than a condition of birth.
As proof, Carson said (with a suggestive eyebrow wiggle) that many people “go into prison straight, and when they come out, they’re gay. So did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question.”
So if we understand the good doctor correctly, the difference between being a felon and suddenly being fabulous is whether or not you drop your soap in the prison shower?!
There is much to like about Ben Carson, but he's ignoring his Hippocratic Oath to "do no harm" when he speaks such idiocy.
Hope n' Change, on the other hand, took a Hypocritical Oath which forbids us from looking the other way when an otherwise appealing conservative stoops to the worst kind of stereotyping and anti-gay prejudice.
Carson has now taken to social media to try to backpedal his backward opinion, saying "I do not pretend to know how every individual came to their sexual orientation. I regret that my words to express that concept were hurtful and divisive. For that I apologize unreservedly to all that were offended."
Despite the fact that some bigots would insist he was born to do so, Hope n' Change believes that candidate Carson has now made the choice to tap dance.
And of course, if he is offended by that remark, we're sure he'll accept our unreserved apology.
48 comments:
Hitlery may be hiding something? Nah, that's not possible. In 2008 she said: “I think I’m the most transparent person in public life”. Øbitchboy claims to have a "transparent" presidency as well.
Evidently liberals define transparency as meaning that all records, both public and personal, will be invisible.
Funny cartoon, but I don't believe anything will stop Hillary from running for president. It's what she has always wanted and no one stands in the way of what a Clinton wants. If you do, you end up dead. You're right is saying they've sold their souls. As for Ben Carson, I didn't hear his comment but suspect it's been misunderstood. Being "born gay" has been blown out of proportion by media acceptance and probably not all that common. I need to see scientific evidence on that score. Some people DO CHOOSE an alternate life style for whatever reasons. Dr. Carson is a very well spoken, educated man.
So Hope'n'Change found the "gay gene"! wow, huge news since there is no actual scientific proof yet. Glad you finally are able to finally tell off those that believe being gay is a choice once and for all! /sarc
How was having a private e-mail server supposed to have protected Hillary's political aspirations, anyway?
Stilton, this little "bump in the road" will have no effect on her campaign aspirations. This nation is no longer governed by laws. The rulers in Washington do as they say and their lapdog media makes it OK with the moronic masses. This isn't new. Think Sandy Burglar.
As for Ben Carson, I like him a lot and even sent his campaign a couple of hundred bucks over a year ago. Just to help him be part of the discussion. He's not cut out to be president, but his life story and incredible success as a black man who made the right choices is compelling.
Carson said it. Now explain Obama and Frank Davis. Or were those colonoscopies?
@Geoff King- Hillary and Barry are both transparent liars. Maybe they misunderstand the whole "transparency" concept?
@Judi King- I'd like the email scandal to stop Hillary, but nothing ever seems to stop the Clintons. I'm only half-joking about the whole "pact with Satan" deal - their continuing presence in public life defies logic and morality.
Regarding Ben Carson, his comment was sadly clear. Mind you, he says he sees gay marriage as being a states rights issue, and says he is supportive of states that approve gay marriage and supportive of states which don't.
But the "prison" comment was way off base. You say you want to see "scientific evidence" on what causes homosexuality, and so should Carson. The "fact" he cited as proving his case is entirely unsupported by scientific evidence.
@Anonymous- Carson backpedaled to say "nobody knows" what causes homosexuality. I agree with that - but not in a backpedaling sense.
I think we can definitively say that prison doesn't function as an assembly line which turns straight people gay because there's no evidence to support the assertion.
My belief is that sexual orientation is not a choice (do you remember the day you chose yours?). That being said, the way people express their sexual orientation is totally about choice.
@DavidD- Having a private email server meant that Hillary, and only Hillary, could decide which emails could ever be seen by investigators, journalists, or the public.
It would be the perfect system for someone who was arranging deals between corporations and countries in return for donations from both. Which is exactly what Hillary was doing during her tenure as Secretary of State.
One thing the Clintons (both lawyers) know - if you're going to get away with a crime, it's vital to control the evidence.
@TrickyRicky- You're right that this will probably end up being "OK with the moronic masses," which incidentally should be Hillary's campaign slogan.
The "defense" currently being offered by Hillary's supporters is that her email scam was so big, blatant, and long term that it must be innocent.
Regarding Ben Carson, I like him a lot too - but he's just not cut out to be president, especially at this critical time. That being said, I agree that it's good to have him out there sharing his story and (most of) his thoughts.
How could I not admire a man who stood up in front of Barack Obama and blindsided him with blistering criticism?
"...rather than a condition of birth." When did you drink that BS-laced Kool-Aid Stilton? NO WHERE is there the slightest objective evidence of "born that way"! The human genome has been mapped 100% - NO 'homosexual gene' exists! (& they were anxiously seeking one!) Same-sex attraction is NO more a "born that way" condition than being a passionate Packers fan or getting sexually turned-on by redheads! If you're a real "Dr", then go seek the most credible research on this topic found at narth.com
Gay as a word has co-opted by people who want to normalize deviancy. People are made homosexual. People are taught to act that way. It's a behavior, not an identity.
@Ed G. Mann- I wish I could explain Obama and Frank Davis.
@Anonymous- Please don't get too hung up on the phrase "rather than a condition of birth." At birth, I freely concede that no one is gay or straight; at that stage of development there aren't procreative proclivities of any kind.
And I readily admit that no "gay gene" has been found to date, although the fact that the human genome has been fully mapped is a long way from saying that we understand the complex interactions of all the genes in the body.
Narth.com cites some interesting identical twin studies suggesting that homosexuality is not necessarily caused by genes, and uses that as a jumping off point to suggest that homosexuality may well be caused by post-birth conditions (physical and/or psychological). That may very well be true - but I would argue that this doesn't constitute "choice" for the individual in any meaningful way.
So rather than talk about genes and birth, I'll simply stick to my opinion (yes, I used the o-word) that sexual orientation is not a choice, but sexual expression is.
Billary sez:
"Email? Email? Did you say email?
No, I said I installed a female server (see also French Maid) to put something in my INBOX."
Good for you, Stilt. I appreciate your stand here. I heard the dumb choice comment in passing, but I hadn't heard about the prison remark. That's highly, highly offensive.
It's absurd to try to reduce any human behavior to a question of whether or not we are born that way, whether we're talking about sexuality, aggression, intelligence, or anything else.
Implying that people's sexuality is based on what is done to them is disgusting. Thank you for pointing that out.
@Manfred- "Deviancy" is a slippery word. Much of what goes on in heterosexual bedrooms was outlawed as "sodomy" not too long ago. And how about those "deviants" who give in to miscegenation?
If people are "made" homosexual or "trained" to be that way - by who? And where is the evidence?
And here's a thought experiment for those who think Carson has it right and I have it wrong: how long would you have to be in prison to turn gay?
Of course much of sexual activity outside the realm of homoesex is deviant - no argument. That does not make homosex less than deviant.
@Japheaux- I actually tried to make "female server" the punchline to today's cartoon, but the set up was too complicated.
By the way, just to further honk some people off today (grin), I believe that a StateDepartment.gov email account is a condition of berth, but setting up your own email server is a matter of choice.
@Sarah Rolph- Thanks for your comments. I knew I wasn't going to make everyone happy today, but I respect HnC readers too much to be anything but honest about my opinions, whether I think people will agree with them or not.
I'll also say that I don't think conservatives need to be in 100% agreement about every issue in order to move our broader agenda forward. Case in point: I don't want Ben Carson for president, but I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over any Democrat.
Again, I say we all have the freedom of choice which includes sexual behavior. Being is prison doesn't facilitate deviancy, but it can give a greater opportunity for it. As for Dr. Carson being president, I think he is too nice to survive but, as you say, he'd be better than Hillary or any other democrap.
@Manfred- Technically, "deviant" simply means to be at variance from the majority. Unquestionably, homosexuals are not in the majority.
But there's also a pejorative connotation to "deviant" which I don't believe applies to a sexual relationship only because the individuals involved are same sex.
If, on the other hand, whips, blindfolds, excrement, and roman candles are involved, I'd call it deviant no matter what the mix of genders is.
Excellent points about being gay - we do not yet know what makes people gay, but we do have a choice how we express our sexuality. More importantly, it doesn't matter who is gay, or which politician personally accepts gays, but it does matter that they are not treated differently because of that.
Amen
Now I know why Bubba Clinton was smirking when he exclaimed the server went down.
I'd still prefer Ben Carson over the current White House occupier (and many other alternatives).
I also find it funny that Carson's comments apparently disqualify him from political office, whereas Øbama's comment about same-sex couples making a "lifestyle choice" to GloZell (investigative journalist extraordinaire) seem to have raised nary an eyebrow. I too have a problem with the specificity of the prison part of his comment, but let's be honest - that's not the part to which most people are taking exception.
In regards to Hillary's criminal activity, I suspect that the NYT decided to bring the story up now, so that it will be old, "why are you still talking about that" news by election time.
@Anonymous- Nicely said. I certainly don't have all the answers, but I do have gay friends (including conservatives) who should be entitled to the same rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as my straight friends.
And let me be really clear: I'm not an "anything goes" kind of guy. I can respect a committed, monogamous relationship whether it's gay or straight - but I can not respect self-indulgent sexual behavior which hurts others physically or emotionally.
Being gay may not be a "choice" but it is a dysfunction. It used to be in the DSM, and it still should be.
@Japheaux- See, that's funny!
@txGreg- Yes, if we could swap Carson for Obama right this moment, I would do a happy little dance.
And you're right that people are taking exception to Carson on the broad subject of nature/nurture as it relates to homosexuality. My very specific concern, and the reason I editorialized today, is the prison comment. Because it's a problem when any candidate cites sheer myth as proof for any belief.
Remember the stink when some conservative numbnut declared that rape victims should be denied abortion because women couldn't get pregnant from "real" rape? Whatever your position on abortion, idiocy like that only hurts our cause and credibility.
I did not read the Dr. Carson bit. I don't really care per se. Sadly of course, all kinds of whining is going on about it because he is violating the orthodoxy. A thousand lashes....
However, my own opinion about homosexuality, based on a number of things I have read over the years about sexuality and the brain, is that on the surface, Carson is correct. There are in many very small instances people born with issues related to hormones in the womb during critical development phases and such - or other genetically-defined problems - that lead to true homosexuality. But this is extremely rare - simply wouldn't explain the vast number of people out there who call themselves "gay".
When I saw the Carson headline, I presumed, perhaps incorrectly, that he was referring to the prevalence of gay sex in prison by incarcerated men. It is hard to understand, difficult for me anyway, why someone who is straight can suddenly see the light and declare that gay sex is OK now that they are in prison. In that sense, it is a choice, although as that moron Sally Cohn says, I don't doubt that there is a coercive element there. Thinking of my own needs, I would be appalled that the coerciveness could be so great that I would suddenly want gay sex. Holy crap, no. I will go wank off, thank you very much.
That coercive element, that Cohn refers to, is self-induced by hormones that one cannot control. The reason those men are in prison in the first place is mostly due to lack of self-control. Why those men do not simply wack-off but instead resort to gay sex is clearly a choice.
There is evidence of an epigenetic, but not an genetic, source for homosexuality. Our closest animal relative, the Bonobos, are wildly bisexual, though it is more of a tribal or pack thing than a distinctly sexual thing from what I have read. So it is no surprise that humans may be prone to the same thing. And it makes perfect sense to me that some people have a natural proclivity to prefer one aspect over another - eventually leading to total preference. But that is a choice.
Genetically it is hard to see how a species, any species, could ever in preponderance be (even though a minority) genetically inclined to homosexuality in substantial amounts and survive as a species. And it simply doesn't exist in nature beyond humans, the wildass claims of the left notwithstanding. It doesn't. I can think of two real examples (the Bonobos being one) that are easily explained as being something else.
Now, I am a live-and-let-live guy; if being gay is what an adult wants to do, so be it. Knock yourself out. But don't claim you have science on your side. And don't be so sure that it wasn't a choice. Be honest with yourself.
Oh never mind, let the whining begin....
@Groveland- Good and thoughtful comments. The science is unsettled and so isn't really on anyone's "side" right now - but we're still able (and I dare say required) to reject flat out myths.
I particularly like, and agree with, your "live and let live" philosophy.
No question about it. Another whore in Bill's stable would be built-in and far less trouble politically than Hillary's private e-mail server in the basement.
Truth be told, if I was Hillary I would have done the exact same thing if I thought that that as political royalty I was exempt from the laws that regulate the behavior of everyone who is not. If Hillary learned anything from their first go-around at the White House, it's the importance of controlling documentation and making sure that anything the least bit incriminating disappears, be it her billing records at her former law firm, raiding Vince Foster's office after his "suicide", or dispatching Sandy Berger to the national archives to walk out the door with as as many documents as he could shove down his pants. So that she'd want a mail server that only she directly controlled and that no other agency or authority had any access to is hardly a surprise. Again, I'd do the exact same thing if I was her. The only thing I wonder is how many other private mail servers there are in basements among her circle of the political elite.
What this is really an example of is the sense of entitlement that the leftist elite have. That Hillary says that she's acted "within the spirit of the law" exposes this conceit; In the Bill & Hillary universe, what is or is not considered "ethical" is defined only by what one can be successfully prosecuted for in a court of law. Making sure there is never any incriminating evidence hanging around guarantees that Bill & Hillary can maintain their "most ethical status", at least in their heads.
What has always fascinated me is the lengths that the Clinton's friends and associates will go on their behalf. I saw an interview with Clinton apologist David Brock the other day, who stared straight into the camera with a kind of hypnotized look and endlessly repeated that there was no scandal here. I get why the Clintons do what they do, but I've never understood the power they have over people in their orbit that makes then fall on their swords for them. It clearly must be part of the deal the Clintons made with Satan that includes all these people. (God have mercy on their souls) I guess it's all part of the same spell that gets an entire nation debating the meaning of the word "is" instead of the actual crimes and misdemeanors of these two.
...to be continued...
...continued...
For those who've forgotten the ethical and legal circus that was the Clinton era of the '90s, you've just gotten a preview of what the next Clinton era would be like. It will definitely be different from the Obama era, but not any better for an America that is sliding ever closer to "banana republic" status every day. Obama is a true believer in his Marxist ideology. The Clintons on the other hand, are just opportunists who are always willing to sell out their professed ideology (and country) in favor of their own interests.
For the pundits who are now claiming that Hillary's chances for 2016 are fading over this, don't you believe it for a second. After a few weeks, the media sycophants will moderate their narrative and accept David Brock's narrative. There will absolutely nothing interesting in those 55,000 messages she turned over. Even if we do see them, as Hillary professes that we all should, it won't be until after November of next year. Nobody will ever be able to prove that Hillary deleted anything off her own server. Legally, nothing will happen and Hillary will hail that as a moral victory. That's the Clinton ethos at work, and obviously it does work. It's been working for them for 40 years now.
As for Dr. Carson: Nice knowing you. You are now officially a victim of the double-standard that exists between conservatives and the left. With a pliant mainstream media to "nuance" reality, an Obama, Biden or a Clinton can easily survive such an idiotic gaffe and exposed bigotry. But as a conservative, you're toast. Sorry, but if you didn't realize that by now, you have no business wasting our time as a potential Presidential candidate. You really should have known better.
I fail to see how anyone could become gay in prison, as the main definitions are: merry, lighthearted, and carefree. lf one goes with the other homosexual definition, I believe that "gay sex" in prison, like all forms of rape, is more of a power thing than a sexual thing. I have read testimonies from actual homosexuals that went to prison, and their lives became a living hell. There was no choice of sexual partners. The biggest, baddest Bubba in the joint owned their ass - literally. How anyone could possibly change their sexual preference in such a domination scenario is beyond me.
Carson is still My Guy. Carson/Walker in some mix. Ben was referring to the football player he knew was a tight end when he was imprisoned but left prison as a wide receiver
I think it will be a long time before Carson or any other black American gets voted into the presidents office.Sixty percent of the electorate will be saying :"I am not racist but remember the last time we voted for a ******". The other 40% will vote for whosoever promises them the most of your money.
Somewhat off topic (for today, but not for March 2nd) here's a short audio clip to make your blood boil if it's not already. Courtesy of Project Veritas.
James is a much better man than I am for this kind of stuff. That last comment about Breitbart would probably have resulted in a swift kick between the uprights from me.
Dr. Carson's remarks will sure stir up hatred in the limp wrist community, and their noise far outweighs their numbers. I have been far more concerned about his missteps on the 2nd Amendment. He needs a class in the subject, from people who know the subject. Otherwise he'll be tripping over his crank whenever the subject comes up.
To this day I haven't understood why we let the left drive the issue of the day. All of the "homosexual issues" are distractions created by the left to give us a shiny object while they take away our freedom. There are massively more important issues going on that need to be addressed. STFU about the gay stuff, America is ceasing to exist as it was founded. The world will be a dismal place for our children if we continue to let that happen.
Perhaps Dr. Carson should have chosen better words, but c'mon man. I agree with the spirit of what he said. People are NOT born gay, but choose it later in life. God did not create us that way because He abhors homosexuality.
And... it is a fact that people sometimes do leave prison with a homosexual bent; perhaps understandable given their choices while they're "in the joint," but it is still wrong.
Hats off to Ben Carson for having the guts to speak his mind and take a stand against what I believe to be a significant contributor to the moral decline of our society. I am sick to death of having gays and lesbians making a big public show of their sexual preferences along with the pressure for everybody to be accepting. Do heterosexuals do that? No.
@John the Econ- Great summation of All Things Clinton. If I had to bet, I'd say she gets away with this mess somehow. Email just isn't a sexy story - at least, not if Anthony Weiner wasn't involved. ServerGate will be pushed aside as quickly as the MSM can find something shiny.
@Geoff King- Exactly. The kind of same-sex activity you describe isn't necessarily "homosexuality" so much as predatory opportunism. I hate to make this odious comparison, but sailors stranded at sea have been known to run out of fresh water and resort to drinking their own urine. This does not mean that they've "changed" to prefer a piping hot cup of pee to a chilled bottle of water.
@Anonymous- Suddenly I want to watch Burt Reynolds in "The Longest Yard" again. (I'm not even kidding - it's a great movie)
@Ciccio- I hope you're wrong but am afraid you're right. I think Obama has hurt the black "brand" because he ran on it. A lot of people voted for him only because of his race, which is a terrible reason to vote for anyone at any time.
And yet Hillary is running a variation of the same game now, asking audiences "don't you want to see a woman president in the White House?" My answer is "no" in the strongest possible terms. I don't want to see anyone elected president because of their race or gender.
@txGreg- I'm amazed at O'Keefe's self-control. Of course, he may also have been suspicious that this was a set-up to try to provoke him for the benefit of a hidden camera somewhere.
@Skoonj- I like Ben Carson a lot, but I've just never felt like he was a viable candidate. He's a conservative celebrity (and make no mistake, we need such) - but "celebrity" isn't a qualification for high office.
@Mike- I completely agree that there are many more pressing and urgent problems facing our country right now. Unfortunately, it is the left which drives the media narrative, and Carson's gay gaffe is something they'd use to beat him over the head endlessly while ignoring the fires burning in the Middle East.
I'm sure as hell not saying that's how things should be - but it's the way they are.
@Colby Muenster- We'll have to agree to disagree, my friend, at least until science settles the matter once and for all. As far as theological concerns go, I don't have a dog in that particular hunt so will restrict myself to issues of politics and constitutionality.
Let me say that I do think the morals of our society are going down the crapper at high speed - I just don't think homosexuality is less moral than heterosexuality. But neither do I think it is less capable of being expressed in immoral ways.
As far as making big public shows of sexuality, well, heterosexuals are known to throw their own parades on a regular basis... (caution: link NSFW)
SO...I found the CNN interview with Dr. Carson on line. An obvious attempt to set him up for what has been the outcome. The prison theory was used by Dr. Carson as an EXAMPLE, not his entire stand on the whole issue. This was, as I suspected, taken out of context and has been blown out of proportion by the oh so tolerant media and even so called Conservatives. As a popular contender for the Republican Presidential race, the left needs to start taking him down.
@Judi King- I agree with much of what you're saying. CNN obviously would like to knock Carson out of the race, and wanted to question him on a topic designed to trip him up.
Moreover, Carson's views on homosexuality when it comes to political policy aren't horrendously one-sided (for instance, he supports the right of individual states to decide the issue of gay marriage).
But... (you knew it was coming, right?) the "prison" remark was just bone-headed. He might as well have wriggled his eyebrows at some interviewer and said "are you going to tell me that people who wear glasses didn't used to masturbate?"
His prison remark was an unforced error. And if his hastily produced Facebook apology is to be believed (and I think it should be), Carson agrees with me.
BTW, thanks for your feedback. However, I think that you grabbed on to part of my comments as perhaps more loaded than meant to be.
When I used the phrase "But don't claim you have science on your side", I was referring to the chronic left-wing bastardization of science to support their political views. The worst is the global warming or climate change "discussion". The use of the word "science" by the left is another way for them to shut the (political) discussion down, much the same way as they use the words racist, sexist, islamophobic and so on. And of course, the panacea that is homophobia.
Science is what it is. Scientists should do their work, it should be objectively-based using repeatable data in a transparent peer-review process. Politics has no place there (but it most CERTAINLY is there in science!). And scientists are humans too with all the foibles of humans. So we should all be skeptical - and try to learn as much as we can ourselves, at least enough to be sure the scientists are not bamboozling us. And I sometimes wonder about the celebrity scientists.
Sadly, the world of science is now caught up in a great deal of celebrity and the geeks love it. So of course, those that butter their bread are going to get a pass. And it is the left that butters their bread. So science has been compromised greatly in the last decade of so. It saddens me greatly. And the issue of whether homosexuality is genetically rooted (like my eyes are brown) or not (whatever "not" means) is twisted around from being a scientific question to a political one with science "on their side".
That is the source of that comment of mine. Science is "not on their side", science is on science's side.
I will change my mind (and have many times over the years) when I see the facts, the science, the equations, the models with their verification, and so on and so forth. I have seen nothing to support AGW (though I think it is plausible) and I have seen nothing that indicates homosexuality is genetically rooted. Now again, what I mean by that is genetically rooted in the same sense that my eyes are brown.
I do believe, based on my reading over the years, that we are much more strongly a function of our genes than almost anything else. And that includes how we learn, what we learn and the influence that that learning has on us. But sexual behavior is a very primitive genetic component. In humans, does it get "modulated" by our experiences? Yabetcha. We all like different things. And those experiences are modulated by our genetic abilities to respond to them. (That is, epigenetic.)
But think about sexual reproduction in all other creatures. First they have to recognize their own species and then they have to recognize the opposite sex. Does anyone really believe, over all of those other species, throughout all the millennia of evolution, that somehow in humans we now have a gene to make us go after the same sex? Hardly.
But who knows, maybe science will find such a gene. I will change my mind when and if that time comes. It ain't there now.
And the left needs to stop slutting science. And so do the celebrity scientists and their academic fellow-travelers.
@Groveland- I can't argue with anything in your comment, and wouldn't want to. I think you've summed things up reasonably and eloquently!
I like Carson and basically agree with many positions he has taken on the key issues - HOWEVER:
1. Carter = 2nd WORST president EVER = A key qualification: A real OUTSIDER. Will surely improve things.
2. OBOZO = #1 WORST president EVER = A key qualification: A real OUTSIDER. Will surely improve things.
3. Carson = A key qualification: A real OUTSIDER. Will surely improve things.
Per A. Einstein, Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
No, third time probably WON'T be a CHARM.
Political naiveté and inexperience doesn't really help in politics - and Carson seems to have lots of both.
But keep Carson as a potential VP candidate.
I read something recently that I think has a bearing on the homosexuality question. The book was written by a woman (so it's definitely politically correct!) who was studying cannibalism. She went to New Guinea and went into the jungle with someone from one of the hidden tribes. This particular tribe was known to kill off its homosexuals. They apparently always had some homosexuals to kill off. You would think that if a group of people knows that the homosexuals were going to be killed off, certainly nobody would CHOOSE to be a homosexual, and yet, there were some to kill off. I'd tend to doubt the "choice" aspect of homosexuality.
I am praying for Joltin' Joe to get the Democratic nomination.
That's all. It's simple.
I guess, if you aspire to be a Republican candidate for President, you should keep your mouth shut and not voice an opinion. The 1st amendment be damned. Although a democrap can utter any number of outrageous lies and "bone-headed" sayings and it's all swept under the carpet by the media. Double standard anyone?
@Anonymous- Nicely put. The "outsider" standard seems like a good idea, but it doesn't tend to work in practice.
True confession: I actually voted for Ross Perot thinking an outsider was a good idea, and instead we got Clinton. Lesson learned.
@JustaJeepGuy- Yikes.
@SNL- I can't imagine it will happen, but it sure is fun to imagine the chaos which would ensue.
@Judi King- There is a huge double standard. Lefties get their gaffes buried or forgiven, while the gaffes of conservatives are exploited (and not infrequently invented).
That being said, I don't want anyone running for president to "keep their mouth shut." I do want an indication that there has been rigorous thought put into any opinion they voice, whether I agree with it or not.
The tribe(s) in New Guinea practice the use of fellatio with young boys as a ritual into manhood. Not exactly homosexuality and not a genetic anomaly but a tribal belief. The boys CHOOSE or are made to comply in performing this believing it will give them strength, etc.
@Judi King- I'll say it again: YIKES! For those interested, here's more information about how the tribe makes boys "eat the penis" in order to make them more manly.
As Paul Harvey used to say, "it is not one world"...
Ah yes, 'the science'. In Australia during the past disastrous period of leftist 'administration' the expression 'the science is settled' was used by the loony left to attempt to silence all dissent towards their ludicrous policies regarding so-called climate change and so on, all of which only resulted in higher taxes to fund these spurious theories.
The current conservative administration has been doing its' level best (with popular backing and approval) to unravel this nonsense but are being thwarted at every turn in the Upper House by the lunatic left fringe parties who unfortunately hold the balance and all the time supported by the howling mad & chanting Media Greek Chorus.
Scientists themselves have come out en mass to declare that 'science is NEVER settled' because that's what science IS, an ongoing process of research and discovery. I agree entirely but such commentary here in Australia is viewed with some surprise as men & women of genuine science (not the bullshit global warming endowment scam 'science' I mean) are generally perceived to be of the Left, politically speaking.
Post a Comment