Re: Truth To Power

1

I assumed he was bitching at Jesus McQueen about something.


Posted by: alameida | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 8:13 AM
horizontal rule
2

it's a line for the ages.

but I think it may get the historico-sociological direction of causation backwards.

It's not the Jesus-Mary obsession that led the renaissance to foreground individuals. Rather, the selection of those two in endless pietas/virgin-&-infants etc. was a way of expressing a growing interest in individuals.

i.e., I don't think a bunch of medievals started geeking out over the story of Jesus, *then* started depicting his human figure with intense detail to personality, and *then* got interested in human personality more generally. (And his humanity, given the alleged details, doesn't generalize so well in any case).

Instead, portrayals of J&M were convenient ways to explore the faces of those around you; patrons, yes, but models and family and all sorts of people. And there was an antecedent interest in the exploration of faces.

Contrast byzantine iconography where St. Chrysostom and St. Basil and every other damned saint all look the same: bald top, long beard, intense eyes, etc. The only differentiation comes through little emblems (I forget the word for this) like a wheel for Catherine, upside down cross for Peter, golf-club or stethoscope for Luke, etc.

Those folks were *not* using the portrayal of individuals as a way to explore individuals. Even the Pantocrators look pretty much like the saints, only even more pissed off. (I remember one incredible Pantocrator--maybe at Daphne?--who has this look of supreme contempt and disgust gazing down at the congregation, a sort of "I. Smell. *Feces*!" look, and all I could think of was the picture of Baudelaire from les fleurs du mal.)

Anyhow--Emerson's in good form.


Posted by: kid bitzer | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 8:25 AM
horizontal rule
3

Come off it, Jesus

Impenitent thief, much?


Posted by: standpipe b | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 8:26 AM
horizontal rule
4

Below the real Jesus explains the correct attitude toward the cricifixion of the false Jesus: laughter. The neo-Platonists were all wet.

". . . it was another. . . who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over . . . their error. . . And I was laughing at their ignorance." (The Second Treatise of the Great Seth 56:6-19).

Link


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 8:40 AM
horizontal rule
5

It's not the Jesus-Mary obsession that led the renaissance to foreground individuals. Rather, the selection of those two in endless pietas/virgin-&-infants etc. was a way of expressing a growing interest in individuals.

I disagree. Let's open our books to Masaccio's Trinity. The array of the Father, Son, & HG in the painting has a direct impact on the perspective of the piece. The architectural realm above God's head is distorted as a way of visually hinting at that which can't be depicted—ecstasy, the noemenal realm, that sort of thing. To my mind this is one of the important moments of art—bending the newly invented perspective to convey narrative meaning—and it's driven by the theology.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 8:46 AM
horizontal rule
6

Emerson's comment reminds me of that great bit by Eddie Izzard on St. Paul. Something like, "Dear Paul, Fuck off. Where do you get off writing to a whole city? Hugs and kisses, the Corinthians."


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 8:49 AM
horizontal rule
7

If Jews were more open about their belief that Jesus had it coming to him, I might convert -- Israel or no Israel.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 8:50 AM
horizontal rule
8

Jesus was either the son of God, or else a bowl of potato soup. You couldn't honestly countenance that he was a bowl of soup, could you? Well there you go.


Posted by: C.S. Lewis | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 8:56 AM
horizontal rule
9

Well, they did kill him, John.


Posted by: Chopper | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 8:56 AM
horizontal rule
10

7: John: We'd gladly risk all the subsequent pogroms for the joy of having you join our fold.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 8:58 AM
horizontal rule
11

Yeah, but they don't say, "Sure we killed him! Wanna make something of it?"


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 8:59 AM
horizontal rule
12

Well, when they go to the trouble of drinking the blood of our babies, you would think that saying "What are you going to make of it?" ccould be taken as read.


Posted by: Chopper | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 9:03 AM
horizontal rule
13

OK, I'm done making horrible jokes now. Just jokes, that's all people.


Posted by: Chopper | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 9:04 AM
horizontal rule
14

Give that man a Koufax!

11: Or, "So we killed him. You don't like? Go shit in the ocean."


Posted by: J— | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
15

But Smasher, isn't KidB is right to say that what differentiates Renaissance art from the medieval is the growing interest in actual perception, convincing depiction human emotions, and recognizable space? Masaccio's distortions are minimal compared to those of a late medievalist icon painter like Cimabue. It's not fair to claim that because an interest in the transcendental hadn't totally disappeared (and after all the church was still the most important of patrons), it was the driving force in this transition.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 9:15 AM
horizontal rule
16

convincing depiction of human emotion


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 9:25 AM
horizontal rule
17

convincing depiction of human emotion


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 9:25 AM
horizontal rule
18

oops.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 9:26 AM
horizontal rule
19

Actually I think John is completely wrong about the Jesus/Mary thing being the root of modern narcissism. On the contrary, the Jesus/Mary thing is the lingering salvation of the church, inasmuch as it celebrates a very human *relationship* and makes Catholicism pretty much the only major religion that still retains faint ideas of the divinity of women. The narcissism comes from shoving aside the idea of the mother as life giver and pretending that every man is self-made.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 9:39 AM
horizontal rule
20

it celebrates a very human *relationship*

Virgin birth? Not so human. Jesus/Mary Magdalene fits better.

the only major religion that still retains faint ideas of the divinity of women

Hinduism, yes?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 9:43 AM
horizontal rule
21

Not the virgin birth part, that comes later. Anyway, the virgin issue is more about her relationship with Joseph. If you look at Renaissance depictions of Mary and Jesus together, what's so marvellous about them is the way that they depict her as a doting mother, and the infant as a chubby baby.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 9:45 AM
horizontal rule
22

She meant religion for people, not brown people and dogs, Apo.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 9:46 AM
horizontal rule
23

But yes re. Hinduism, I think. The rest of 'em--Buddhism, Judaism, Protestantism, Islam--suck.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 9:47 AM
horizontal rule
24

Compared to Kali Durga and her necklace of human skulls, the Virgin seems wimpy.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 9:52 AM
horizontal rule
25

Yeah, but they don't say, "Sure we killed him! Wanna make something of it?"

Well, you see, the problem is... Some people did.

It's still a touchy subject. They had to take that line out of all the literature.


Posted by: JAC | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 10:28 AM
horizontal rule
26

Lenny Bruce said that his cousin confessed that it was him> "Sure I did it, Lenny. What else could I do?"


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 10:30 AM
horizontal rule
27

One of the innovations of mahayana Buddhism in particular is the docrine that women are just as close to enlightenment as men. Earlier versions of Buddhism tended to hold that a woman would have to be reincarnated as a man before attaining enlightenment.

This strain of Buddhism strikes me as coming as close as you can to recognizing the divinity of women for a religion that is, strictly speaking, still atheistic.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 10:31 AM
horizontal rule
28

If you look at Renaissance depictions of Mary and Jesus together, what's so marvellous about them is the way that they depict her as a doting mother, and the infant as a chubby baby.

Not always.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 10:39 AM
horizontal rule
29

"Everybody blames the Jews for killing Christ, and then the Jews try to pass it off on the Romans. I'm one of the few people that believe it was the blacks." -Sarah Silverman


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 10:40 AM
horizontal rule
30

Parmigianino's Jesus grew up to play center for the Bethlehem Kings.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 10:43 AM
horizontal rule
31

That tall baby in Apo's link is also laid out in the posture of Christ taken from the cross.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 10:52 AM
horizontal rule
32

Of course not always. That pic linked in 28 is hilarious.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 10:53 AM
horizontal rule
33
Anyway, the virgin issue is more about her relationship with Joseph.

Exactly. Poor man was cuckolded by the Holy Spirit.


Posted by: Invisible Adjunct | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 10:56 AM
horizontal rule
34

a very human *relationship*

Though sometimes a little bizarre.

1: Yeah, I get myself confused with that other guy once in a while.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 11:06 AM
horizontal rule
35

As usual, IA swoops in with the winning comment.


Posted by: Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 11:08 AM
horizontal rule
36

While we're on the topic of religion, I can't vouch for the credibility of the accuser (having never heard of him before), but if his story turns out to be true, then maybe we can get Ted Haggard to be the Mineshaft chaplain. Oh, pleasepleaseplease let it be true.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 11:13 AM
horizontal rule
37

33 is the basis of a Joe Frank episode. As I've mentioned before.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 11:20 AM
horizontal rule
38

having never heard of him before....

No need to pretend, Apo, you're among friends. Is he good?


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 11:20 AM
horizontal rule
39

That Ted Haggard story is amazing. He's really, really powerful in the Christian fundamentalist movement.


Posted by: Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 11:23 AM
horizontal rule
40

How much evidence does the public need to conclude that the folks who've built their houses on anti-gay platforms are the gayest of all the gays in gaytown?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 11:25 AM
horizontal rule
41

It's undeniable that the devil works hardest to tempt the most righteous among us, is another way of looking at it.


Posted by: Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 11:28 AM
horizontal rule
42

Though sometimes a little bizarre.

Did they have breast implants back then? Put a different head on her, and that Madonna could be Victoria Beckham.


Posted by: Wrenae | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 11:32 AM
horizontal rule
43

Dude, there has to be an H. Rider Haggard joke in here. The best I can come up with is mentioning Queen of the Dawn.


Posted by: Chopper | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 11:34 AM
horizontal rule
44

People forget that nice Christian kids aren't supposed to be heterosexual either. In conservative environments, gay boys are the least tempted, so they might seem to be good boys.

Handholding, very restrained hugging and an occasional kiss were all that was considered proper even for engaged couples. No second or third base, much less a home run. So the only nice boy in the school might be the faggot.

Didn't work. In mys sister's 1967 HS graduating class (no more than 40 girls) at least 6 got pregnant. At least 3 were nice churchgoing girls. (It could have been one more except for me. My sister's cute best friend had a crush on me, but I didn't pick up on it.)


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 11:40 AM
horizontal rule
45

People nowadays have forgotten that you're supposed to live your life under intense temptation to do things that are sinful, but not ever actually gratify yourself until you get to heaven. Men may be tempted by extramarital ladies or by men, but they are only TEH FAYG if they give in to the unholy urges that all of us have.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 11:45 AM
horizontal rule
46

23: No idea of the divine feminine in Buddhism? You're joking.


Posted by: Doctor Slack | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:00 PM
horizontal rule
47

and an occasional kiss

I once read a treatise on a fundy Xian website that declared kissing - even closed-mouth pecks - to be off limits before marriage: What if you and the girl/boy didn't end up married? Then you would have kissed someone else's spouse.


Posted by: DominEditrix | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:08 PM
horizontal rule
48

You speak as though that sort of thing is in the past, Emerson.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
49

47.--I remember being told at Mormon girls camp that french kissing was sinful because it was analogous to sex. Having never kissed anyone at that point, I found that idea very exciting.

I asked an older, engaged girl who didn't seem crazy how she and her fiancé managed not to french kiss, and she replied that it wasn't so hard, if they concentrated; she sometimes entertained herself with pecking his face in patterns. :-)


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
50

she sometimes entertained herself with pecking his face in patterns

For some reason this clause is bringing violent imagery to mind.


Posted by: Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:17 PM
horizontal rule
51

For me personally it's in the distant past, thank God, and for most of urban America, but yeah, it still hangs on in many places.

Though the Mormons are among the least anti-sexual, in my opinion. They're anti-feminist, for sure, but their message to horny 16-year-olds seems to be "get married right now and then you can screw".

And a lot of the revivalist prosperity-gospel New Churches seem to have made allowances for the good stuff, as long as its heterosexual.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:17 PM
horizontal rule
52

revivalist prosperity-gospel New Churches seem to have made allowances for the good stuff

Really? Can you point to an example? I grew up in that, and I've never seen or heard of such allowances.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
53

Yes, and single women shouldn't be allowed to recork wine bottles either. Or put plugs in light sockets, or join plumbing parts together. It might give them the idea.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
54

My ex-landlord cruised churches because the women there were cleaner, tighter, and more appreciative than the ones he met in bars. My brother also dated a young Christian lady who felt terrible guilt but was very enthusiastic and quite forward. Others have told me that they cruised Christian groups in college.

Perhaps they were all on the point of falling away, but I got the idea that the churches had a tacit "don't ask, don't tell", "we're all sinners", "the flesh is weak" serial-repentance approach.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:28 PM
horizontal rule
55

Note to religious leaders: We figure it out anyway sans pipes.

I have too many high school classmates, who went off to Christian colleges, who have too many stories of friends being convinced that 'that girl must be the one God chose for me because of what I feel when I see her!' ('no, man, she's just hot.'), and to avoid sin, get married at age 19 or 20, and then divorce by 25 or 26. And you have to wonder: wouldn't they have been better off just french kissing, groping, and breaking up like everyone else?


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:31 PM
horizontal rule
56

55- could be remedied by strict laws against divorce.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:35 PM
horizontal rule
57

their message to horny 16-year-olds seems to be "get married right now and then you can screw"

This, absolutely.

(Well, it's a bit more tailored than that. Boy: wait until your mission at 18, then wait until you come home at 20, THEN get married and screw. Girls: find yourselves a returned missionary and nab him quick! Then screw. I have a male cousin who got married to an eighteen-year woman he barely knew within six months after returning from his mission; the less devout members of my family refer to her as his "child-bride," although the baby seems to have aged her a bit.)


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:36 PM
horizontal rule
58

56 -- also, by eradication of the human race.


Posted by: Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:37 PM
horizontal rule
59

My sister's cute best friend had a crush on me, but I didn't pick up on it.

John Emerson, letting the side down. For shame.

I know a couple who got married right out of college because of sexual frustration, and it was pretty obvious that they were ill-suited for marriage & would have discovered their incompatibilities but for the blocked sex drive. It's a small thing, but sad.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:37 PM
horizontal rule
60

The thing that kills me is that my cousin and his child bride seem to have as decent a shot of making it work as anyone I know. It doesn't seem right.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:42 PM
horizontal rule
61

Eh, people got married pretty randomly throughout human history, and it worked out fine a reasonable amount of the time. Not that that makes marrying the next person you meet a good idea, but the historical track record demonstrates that it's not doomed.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:44 PM
horizontal rule
62

56: then you've got people thinking the purpose of marriage is so they can get sex and make each other miserable. Nothing wrong with deciding to abstain, but holding up marital sex as this alternative to self-control really seems to degrade the institution. (Yes, I know what Paul said. Hugs and kisses, the Thessalonians.) Don't get married because you love someone and want to have a future and children together, get married because otherwise you'll poink half the town. Seems like bad advice as opposed to 'calm down, it won't fall off if you're not married by 19.'


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:45 PM
horizontal rule
63

Eh, people got married pretty randomly throughout human history, and it worked out fine a reasonable amount of the time.

Did it really? Most of the time the goal of marriage was something like to secure alliances and pop out children, and it succeeded in doing that. But is there any reason to believe that most marriages in history were happy, especially from the woman's perspective?

Another way of putting it: for most of human history, marriage has been intensely patriarchal. People were probably able to hook up at random because women couldn’t complain and men were happy to be getting the long end of the stick.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:50 PM
horizontal rule
64

62 me.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:51 PM
horizontal rule
65

Several of the shotgun marriages I remember from the 60s are still seemingly healthy. A lot of the hooplah about teen marriage is based on the need for education, but there are always are going to be people driving truck without an advanced degree, and they're usually going to get married.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:51 PM
horizontal rule
66

Cala assumes that marriage might possibly not be a degraded institution under some conditions. Hence her confusion and error.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 12:53 PM
horizontal rule
67

More on the Haggard story: the escort says he has voicemails and a letter from Haggard and will take a polygraph test.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 1:36 PM
horizontal rule
68

It's like Christmas! Please oh please oh please santa post some voicemails on the web! Go ahead and scan the letter too, I've been extra good this year!


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 1:39 PM
horizontal rule
69

Well, he'd better give over the evidence sooner rather than later. This is coming almost too late in the season to be effective.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 1:42 PM
horizontal rule
70

re: Haggard - I hate being reminded that Mr. Garrison is based off of real people.


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 1:57 PM
horizontal rule
71

I just clicked through to Apo's and realized who Haggard is. This is great.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 1:59 PM
horizontal rule
72

I don't believe it. I worry that this is going to turn out to be a hoax, and that it will be lumped in, with Dan Rather, as evidence of the "liberal media's" attempt to get conservatives. I worry that the escort is going to fail the test on Friday, that he knows he's going to fail the test on Friday, and that so does the Republican Party. Just another Guckert-Gannon, servicing the Party.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
73

I'm with SCMT. My Spidey-sense is tingling.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 2:16 PM
horizontal rule
74

Another art thread

I like van der Weyden myself.

A Lot

A Whole Lot

Memling was a martian.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
75

This is coming almost too late in the season to be effective.

This wouldn't have had any effect on the election anyhow. He isn't running for anything, and his minions will vote Republican regardless. My pleasure is purely of the petard-hoisting variety.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 2:51 PM
horizontal rule
76

It woulda topped off Cocktober nicely, though.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 2:56 PM
horizontal rule
77

Just another Guckert-Gannon, servicing the Party.

I know we're less than a week away, but this story isn't about the election, yo.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 2:57 PM
horizontal rule
78

I think it is about the election, Apo. He's not running, but he's giving marching orders, even if only indirectly. Major disillusionment on the evangelical right translates into losses at the polls. They view their representatives as in league with the goals of their religious leaders (and their reps hold themselves out that way, far too often), and this--especially on the back of Mark Foley--has the potential to ampify their disgust with the whole lot.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 3:06 PM
horizontal rule
79

I almost said "especially coming on the back of Mark Foley", but edited it for family-friendliness, but I'm not sure I ended up much cleaner.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 3:08 PM
horizontal rule
80

I love it for the opportunity to needle my evangelical homophobic acquaintance. Muahaha.


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 3:21 PM
horizontal rule
81

61: LB, are you nuts? It worked out fine if you overlook things like domestic abuse, marital rape, and contracting syphillis from your husband. I mean, it was better than the alternatives for the most part, so "fine" by comparison, I suppose, but ick.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 3:57 PM
horizontal rule
82

I didn't mean to say it worked out well for everyone, or even for close enough to everyone that it was a good idea. Just that there have, historically, been enough happy marriages (for whatever value of happy is possible given the oppressive state of marriage at that time, but I'd argue that happy is still a possible description of a marriage even in a legal environment where women can't own property, etc.) that running into a marriage that looks pretty good despite the fact that the partners chose each other kind of randomly isn't all that unlikely.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 4:05 PM
horizontal rule
83

Oh, well, sure. I don't think that the whole romantic companionship thing is the ne plus ultra.

But no-fault divorce is.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 4:08 PM
horizontal rule
84

Someone please march down to LB's office and rip down the feminist credentials she has hanging on her wall.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 4:09 PM
horizontal rule
85

83: Yep.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 4:10 PM
horizontal rule
86

No fault divorce is the ne plus ultra?


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 4:12 PM
horizontal rule
87

Of marriage, yes.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 4:14 PM
horizontal rule
88

I was fully in agreement with #72...but wow, look at the top of Talking Points Memo right now:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

You don't step down from certain positions before spending even one day stonewalling with the media if you're innocent. And you certainly don't do it if the whole thing is part of a ratfuck scheme to make your opponents look like liars.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 6:11 PM
horizontal rule
89

The official story is that there's a formal procedure which is followed in any case of such an accusation. It seems a bit unlikely, and actually wrong, for a man to step down merely upon accusation. But those people are crazy.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 6:29 PM
horizontal rule
90

Oh, the gloating is so sweet...


Posted by: Chopper | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 6:30 PM
horizontal rule
91

Someone stop me. I'm having way too much fun reading this Free Republic thread.


Posted by: Paul | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 9:04 PM
horizontal rule
92

God, it's amazing. They just love to assume guilt. Nobody seems to be saying he's being framed, at least in the first few messages. They're meaner than us.

The cancelled press conference of support must be the clincher for them.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 9:15 PM
horizontal rule
93

Oh man, the Free Republic thread is something else.

"This smells like a Foley-esque smear."

Foley wasn't smeared, he was caught.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 9:33 PM
horizontal rule
94

And this from cccp_hater (psst, that thing you hate hasn't existed for 15 years):

IF, IF, this is true it will impact th election here in CO.

He OWES those of us he has hurt (IF IF it's true) and he needs to pay ANY PRICE to minimize the impact on this election.

ANY PRICE

What do you figure he has in mind?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 9:39 PM
horizontal rule
95

can't LB's point from 61 be rephrased to incorporate B's reality-check from 81 as follows:

throughout history, there have been a lot of marriages where the partners were selected at random (or as good as random; e.g. for dynastic convenience).

These marriages led to a lot of domestic abuse, marital rape, and other horrendous outcomes.

But--so do marriages in which partners are selected (or believe they are selecting each other) by other means, e.g. love at first sight, cute meets, both like Bee-Gees, had the same mantra, the whole realm of what we're inclined to think of as "getting married for the right reasons".

Plenty of domestic abuse, marital rape, STDs, etc., in marriages like those, too.

So my amendment of LB's point: outcomes weren't much worse under the historical, random system than they are now under the system in which we strive for companionate marriage based on reciprocally-perceived temperamental affinities. Bad then, bad now, not clear when worse.

LB--any of that useful to you?


Posted by: kid bitzer | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 10:01 PM
horizontal rule
96

94

cccp-hater has quite a good Gollum-imitation going there. Yikes, Red State seems to be the first stop after they crawl out from under rocks. No wonder I make sure never to click on links that threaten to take me there.


Posted by: kid bitzer | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
97

I think you mean Free Republic. Red State is the second stop.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 10:12 PM
horizontal rule
98

97--
sorry; was hobbit-hater at Freep? That's another no-go destination for my browser.
I have google set to "Sane Search", so it blocks sites below a minimum threshold of sanity.


Posted by: kid bitzer | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 10:17 PM
horizontal rule
99

Assuming the quote is from the link in 91, which I haven't folloed, yes.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 10:21 PM
horizontal rule
100

"which I haven't followed"
yeah, I leave that to braver people, like apostropher, paul, et al.


Posted by: kid bitzer | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 10:28 PM
horizontal rule
101

You don't know what you're missin'.

Is this the last minute Dean orchestrated pre election surprise...hitting Christians right where it hurts the most?

Satan is at loose in the world.

150 posted on 11/02/2006 8:54:33 PM PST by eleni121 ("Show me just what Mohammed brought:: evil and inhumanity")

And

Not to compare Pastor Ted to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, but maybe his actions are similiar. When you are under direct fire from the evil one, I do believe God gives you a peace that transcends understanding. I don't know the man very well personally, but I think these accusations are lies from the pit of hell. I understand the doubts, but here on this website, let's practice Ronald Magnus Reagan's great precept 'Thou shall not speak ill of another conservative' until the person is proved guilty.

139 posted on 11/02/2006 8:10:53 PM PST by fatez (Euthanasia - GenX's retirement plan for the boomers)

Magnus?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 10:39 PM
horizontal rule
102

"Not to compare Pastor Ted to Dietrich Bonhoeffer"

no, no--wouldn't want to do that.

what is that, some kind of evangelical version of Godwin's law?


Posted by: kid bitzer | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 10:43 PM
horizontal rule
103

Okay, really: what is up with Ronald Magnus Reagan?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 10:47 PM
horizontal rule
104

If you run it without quotes, you discover that it's what fucking Rush Limbaugh calls him.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 10:52 PM
horizontal rule
105

and rush calls him that because...?


Posted by: kid bitzer | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 11:00 PM
horizontal rule
106

He drank too much brain tonic.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 11- 2-06 11:11 PM
horizontal rule
107

94: I was imagining something like this:

Barney: Is it okay to come out now, Mr. Gay Man? Sir?
Moe: I'll do anything you say! Anything!

Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 11- 3-06 7:09 AM
horizontal rule
108

94 -- sounds like a call for hara-kiri.


Posted by: Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 11- 3-06 7:31 AM
horizontal rule
109

How much evidence does the public need to conclude that the folks who've built their houses on anti-gay platforms are the gayest of all the gays in gaytown?

Can someone help me out with a list of such people? I'd like some rhetorical ammunition.


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 11- 3-06 8:29 AM
horizontal rule
110

94 - Free reach-arounds for all!


Posted by: Steve | Link to this comment | 11- 3-06 10:05 AM
horizontal rule