Comments for Darwin Central

Comment on Fearless Predictions for 2011 by Tweets that mention Fearless Predictions for 2011 | Darwin Central | Coniuratio compatiens -- Topsy.com

Wed, 29 Dec 2010 09:15:12 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Founder Fire. Founder Fire said: Fearless Predictions for 2011 | Darwin Central | Coniuratio compatiens: With East Tawas… http://tinyurl.com/3yzmyr7 #prayer #tcot #912 [...]

Comment on September 11, 2010 by Trencherbone

Trencherbone — Sun, 12 Sep 2010 10:33:38 +0000

HARBITUDE - the antidote to dhimmitude!

Comment on Best of DC • JournoLism’s Bias by satchmodog

satchmodog — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:28:53 +0000

Seriously man, you should blog one of your posts each week. You do great work like this on a regular basis with no tripe or strawmen, just facts and a hard driving ability to make your point.

You also have a way with words. To quote one of my favorite movie lines”you use your mouth prettier than a twenty dollar whore”.

Comment on Chicago Reacts to the Supreme Court … Chicago Style by pagan

pagan — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 04:02:59 +0000

I remember the previous Daley; vote early, vote often, bring out your dead (Holy Grail?) to vote and vote as I say or my fellow thugs will beat you with Cubs baseball bats
and pipes…and probably pistol whip you with our contraband machine guns. I am Mayor Daley, armed and I and my contingent of armed thugs…umm body guards and Aldermen are here to make my corrupt administration safe…from the people. Nothing changes, sheep continue to install our enemies into office?

Comment on Hollywood to Help Clean-Up Effort in Gulf by Gumlegs

Gumlegs — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:31:52 +0000

It’s always the dead guy …

Comment on Hollywood to Help Clean-Up Effort in Gulf by satchmodog

satchmodog — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:55:10 +0000

Only De Mille could do this whole thing the right way.

Comment on US Supports Muslim Demands for Anti-Blasphemy Laws by Gumlegs

Gumlegs — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:08:27 +0000

It would appear my fears are shared by others. Stuart Taylor writes, “It was nice to hear Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton say on October 26, “I strongly disagree” with Islamic countries seeking to censor free speech worldwide by making defamation of religion a crime under international law.

“But watch what the Obama administration does, not just what it says. I’m not talking about its attacks on Fox News. I’m talking about a little-publicized October 2 resolution in which Clinton’s own State Department joined Islamic nations in adopting language all-too-friendly to censoring speech that some religions and races find offensive.”

From here: http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/openingargument.php

It’s also discussed at The Volokh Conspiracy, http://volokh.com/2009/10/30/stuart-taylor-on-obama-administrations-endorsement-of-restricting-advocacy-of-religious-hatred-that-constitutes-incitement-to-hostility/

Comment on US Supports Muslim Demands for Anti-Blasphemy Laws by Mike

Mike — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:38:19 +0000

Yeah, me too. I would like to believe that the Obama administration is capable of admitting a mistake (if that’s what it was) and changing its mind/stance/policy.

Time will tell, I guess.

Comment on US Supports Muslim Demands for Anti-Blasphemy Laws by Gumlegs

Gumlegs — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:55:54 +0000

Update: Could this be a possbile source of the variation in reporting:

“(CNSNews.com) – Seeking to break a longstanding impasse between Western and Islamic nations over freedom of expression, the United States has piloted a finely-balanced resolution through the U.N.’s Human Rights Council which the two sides are choosing to interpret differently.”

From: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54982

I am hoping that your report, which is much more current than any of the ones I have, including the one above, represents a change in direction, and not a reflection of the differences in “interpretation.”

Comment on US Supports Muslim Demands for Anti-Blasphemy Laws by Gumlegs

Gumlegs — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:49:25 +0000

It certainly does, Mike. I shall look into this further. It could be that whoever represents the US at the UN body in question isn’t on the same page as the Secretary of State. It wouldn’t be the first time. It could also be that we’ve reversed course, which would be a good thing.