[macfantn]

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?vid...s=1&fs=1&hl=en

[- - e r i k - -]

It's scary when a Hollywood actor talks more sense than most in this whole mess.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Ahahahahhaa

"I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago…that's an important – I want to know that, I really do…because she's going to have the nuclear codes."

Matt Damon, teh funnay

greg

[Timo]

Seems like a pretty articulate guy.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

It's scary when a Hollywood actor talks more sense than most in this whole mess.

Amen. This is what I was thinking as I watched it. I also appreciate Damon's ultimate thought: "I want to know..." who this woman really is. If it's not good, do you think the handlers and the RNC are really going to let us find out?

[Captain Curt]

Matt Damon is an actor. His expertise is.....acting. He is mocking the idea of a president accepting the bible as being literal. So what. George Patton stands in history as one of America's finest military minds and he believed he was reincarnated.

[Kerrigan]

It sounds like Matt knows a bit more about movies than he does irony. Seriously, he's an actor--the product of an industry where one attains success by being a histrionic receptacle of other people's creative talent.

Oh, and do you guys remember how Obama's supporters lashed out and accused Bill Clinton of being a racist after he said Obama's ascendancy was like a fairy tail? If, according to Obama's people, that is a racist charge, then by their standards the analogy has perhaps even greater weight as a sexist insult.

But of course I love the Bourne series.

[Ghoser777]

I propose a ban on analogies.

[Wiskedjak]

It always amuses me when Republicans get all upset when a celebrity endorses a Democrat. They seem to think that celebrities aren't just as qualified as the rest of us to evaluate political candidates. Of course, they're never upset when a celebrity endorses a Republican.

[Helmling]

Or when one gets elected...it seems like that's happened recently. In fact...seems like there was one big one...an actor...but something else happened to him...can't quite put my finger on it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

He was a girly man?

[Captain Curt]

I question if actors are MORE qualified than ordinary people to evaluate political candidates. I'm not upset at all. In fact, I think that Matt Damon has done a fine job of providing motivation to the republican base.

[vmarks]

So wait, explain something to me:


Where's the cute thing that learns the valuable lesson?

I mean, that's the Disney Pixar formula, isn't it?

[Kerrigan]

Actually, we tend to favor this type of thing. There is nothing that says "out of touch with middle America" like celebrity endorsement of political views.

[Doofy]

It could be worse. At least Disney tends to know how to hold a camera still.

[stupendousman]

I mentioned before in the thread talking about Kerry and Dukakis wearing strange uniforms that I thought the Democrats had learned their lesson regarding stuff they'd done in the past that had failed spectacularly.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Celebrity surrogates do nothing to convince middle America that a candidate is for real. It comes off as elitist and petty. Most people know that they do not share values with the wealthy and pampered in Hollywood. I think that the exception was MAYBE Oprah, and that benefit was harpooned once it was obvious that Oprah was using the good will given to her by her viewers to give an unfair advantage to her candidate of choice who is now down in the polls.

What I'd like to have is a famous actor criticizing McCain (or especially Palin) in the news every day. I'm pretty sure that's what the plan is anyways, so I'm looking forward to more and more backlash.

Really...I thought they'd learned.

[Macrobat]

Matt Damon is a celebutard of the first order.

Kinda ironic, actually. He's saying Palin is an idiot, when he's such a moron he read a parody site http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.ph...278&Itemid=104 and thought it was real, so he commented on it, as if it was what she actually said.

Yeah. Overtaxing that braincell, he is.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Alright you people are beating teh funnay to death, Why can there not be humour in politics, he had some well-delivered jokes in there.

And as a completely uninterested observer who couldn't give a damn if a black guy, a white guy, or a Chinese guy turned Russian spy got into the White House, Matty's question about her experience makes absolute sense. Johnny's past his life expectancy. She's been mayor of a teensy town, a governor of a isolated state with less than 700,000 people, and a few months ago she publicly admitted she didn't know what a Vice-President even did…and now there's a distinct possibility that she might be the President of the most powerful nation in the world within the next 4 years?

That…is kinda scary, man.

greg

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Matt Damon is a celebutard of the first order.

Kinda ironic, actually. He's saying Palin is an idiot, when he's such a moron he read a parody site http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.ph...278&Itemid=104 and thought it was real, so he commented on it, as if it was what she actually said.

Yeah. Overtaxing that braincell, he is.

WTF do you think an obscure forum post would be his source? Palin is a creationist, and a belief in "dinosaurs walking the earth 4000 years ago" is a simplified common belief amongst such.

[Macrobat]

No, it's not. It's a smear perpetrated by people on the left against creationists.

I know of no real person who thinks dinosaurs walked the Earth 4000 years ago, and I live in the Bible Belt.

And yes, Damon obviously got his info there, he quotes it verbatim.

Here's the quote:

On oil exploration and drilling in the ANWR:
God made dinosaurs 4,000 years ago as ultimately flawed creatures, lizards of Satan really, so when they died and became petroleum products we, made in his perfect image, could use them in our pickup trucks, snow machines and fishing boats.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

I know of no real person who thinks dinosaurs walked the Earth 4000 years ago, and I live in the Bible Belt.

As I understand it, if you think the earth is 4000 years old you either believe dinosaurs are a hoax or that their fossilized bones were created with the earth.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Alright you people are beating teh funnay to death, Why can there not be humour in politics, he had some well-delivered jokes in there.

And as a completely uninterested observer who couldn't give a damn if a black guy, a white guy, or a Chinese guy turned Russian spy got into the White House, Matty's question about her experience makes absolute sense. Johnny's past his life expectancy. She's been mayor of a teensy town, a governor of a isolated state with less than 700,000 people, and a few months ago she publicly admitted she didn't know what a Vice-President even did…and now there's a distinct possibility that she might be the President of the most powerful nation in the world within the next 4 years?

That…is kinda scary, man.

greg

And a guy who's biggest "experience" was as a "community organizer" who managed to blow $100 million taxpayer dollars without reaching his stated goal and who has been RUNNING for elected office longer than he's held it is a viable choice as the ACTUAL president?

Not to mention his "community organizing" was with a discredited group (ACORN) and his campaign uses guerilla tactics to keep the public from seeing the records of his greatest experiential claims (Annenberg).

No, Greg, she would be the VICE president.

It's been done before, a habberdasher from Missouri was actually a damned good president. And he was a Democrat.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

As I understand it, if you think the earth is 4000 years old you either believe dinosaurs are a hoax or that their fossilized bones were created with the earth.

You're projecting. The entire "Earth was created 6000 years ago" crap is a smear perpetrated by the Left against all people who believe in Creationism because it was once espoused by a kook fringe group.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

You're projecting. The entire "Earth was created 6000 years ago" crap is a smear perpetrated by the Left against all people who believe in Creationism because it was once espoused by a kook fringe group.

How is that projecting?

You'll also notice I didn't mention "creationists".

[Macrobat]

And for you scientific geniuses, it was NOT the dinosaurs' remains that became oil. It is the remains of the sea creatures who populated the Earth millions of years before even the dinosaurs lived and plant matter.

[Macrobat]

I was raised in the Bible Belt, lived here most of my life, except when I was in the military, and I can tell you I have never met a single person who thinks the Earth is that young. Not one. And I am 49 years old.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

I was raised in the Bible Belt, lived here most of my life, except when I was in the military, and I can tell you I have never met a single person who thinks the Earth is that young. Not one. And I am 49 years old.

So how was what I said projecting?

[Macrobat]

Probably not the best term to relay what I was thinking.

I covered it in the other posts.

The belief in Young Earth Creationism is a kook fringe that is projected onto anyone who doesn't strictly toe the evolutionist line.

[Dakar V]

Ok, I was wondering. Believe it or not, my roomate's gf in college was a creationist who believed that God created the earth with the dinosaur bones.

[Macrobat]

Was she also a natural blonde?

[Dakar V]

No, she came from a psychotically religious family.

[Macrobat]

Sounds like you got that right.

[- - e r i k - -]

So we are in agreement that Creationists are a kook fringe group then?

[Macrobat]

No, not all Creationists believe what you are claiming. As a matter of fact an EXTREMELY small percentage of them believe such.

Biggest concern most feel with evolution is that it doesn't account for the beginning of life. Only for the evolving of existing life.

I would say that does not necessarily make them "kooks."

Anyone who would hold the Young Earth belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is, by definition, a kook.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

So we are in agreement that Creationists are a kook fringe group then?

Pretty much.

But what gets me is the seeming lack of concern about how injecting these concerns into our politics is making the US less and less a secular country. What gets me is how wanting to have their beliefs become part of the mainstream political discourse--instead of keeping it in the home and church where religious discourse belongs--is diminishing the overall value of the already poor political discourse we have in this country. When so many people want their religious beliefs to influence or possibly determine their political beliefs we have already begun the slide down the slippery slope into turning religious dogma into public policy.

[Macrobat]

Well, Palin has not done so, and Damon (among others) is claiming she has.

What she SAID was that she disagreed with disallowing the discussion of Creationism if it came up in the classroom, not the forced teaching of Creationism.

But, as with much of anything she does or says, it has been distorted so that those of weak mind (like the aforementioned Damon) take the distortion to be the truth.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

No, not all Creationists believe what you are claiming. As a matter of fact an EXTREMELY small percentage of them believe such.

Biggest concern most feel with evolution is that it doesn't account for the beginning of life. Only for the evolving of existing life.

I would say that does not necessarily make them "kooks."

No, what makes them kooks is wanting their religious beliefs about "the beginning of life" to be used alongside the scientific belief about the "evolution of existing life" as if they were equally valid. Religious thought and scientific thought are functionally incompatible intellectual frameworks and anyone who tries to suggest otherwise is deluding themselves. Trying to use religious beliefs to explain phenomena in the natural world is as kooky as trying to use scientific beliefs to explain phenomena in the religious world. The different intellectual frameworks require different levels of ideological rigor and different means of proof for an idea or concept.

The whole way these two mental frameworks function are incompatible and the fact that Creationists think they are compatible is what makes their actions so galling to me. This is not to suggest that the intellectual framework for religious thought is somehow inferior to that used for scientific thought, not at all--Scientists who try and explain miraculous events in the Bible using science are just as fraudulent as Creationists who try and explain natural events in the world using religion--but the two intellectual frameworks cannot inter-operate in each others intellectual milieu.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Well, Palin has not done so, and Damon (among others) is claiming she has.

But, as with much of anything she does or says, it has been distorted so that those of weak mind (like the aforementioned Damon) take the distortion to be the truth.

Did you watch a different video than the one linked in this thread? I just watched it again and he didn't claim that she did believe those things, he said he really really wanted to know if she did. I think it's a fair question considering that Huckabee for example would fall into the "extremist kook" category, as you have laid it out, so the "kooks" are not as OMG rare as you are implying, even in the presidential politics of this season alone. Of course, it's stupid of Damon to put up a video of it instead of going out and doing his own homework to find out, but there's no need for you to mischaracterize what he was being stupid about.

[Macrobat]

Yeah, he wanted to know if she believed these things based on them being posted on a complete parody site.

He "wanted to know" in a completely derisive, condescending tone.

She's never espoused a single one of those views.

In other words, any dink can post a site making fun of someone and claim they believe something they have NEVER claimed to, but it is the candidate's responsibility to go around assuring everyone who falls for it that he/she doesn't believe the things in the parody?

Please.

There is no mischaracterization.


For the record, Huckabee is NOT a Young Earther.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I just watched it again and he didn't claim that she did believe those things, he said he really really wanted to know if she did.

I agree. All important questions. I think as well Obama needs to do an interview and be asked if it's true that he's a Marxist. If he really believe that God should "damn America". If he really believes that the unborn are just lumps of flesh and cells. These kinds of things are what are really important to most Americans.

[Wiskedjak]

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...rch_type=&aq=f

[Macrobat]

yes, Wiskedjak, you perpetrating yet ANOTHER myth?

She did not, as has been asserted, claim that the Iraq war was God's plan.

The FULL quote, not bowlderized for derision:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

Now, most of you will deride her for simply BEING a Christian.

She's simply stating that she HOPES (prays) there is a plan and that it is God's plan.

In other words, she is hoping (praying) that it is the RIGHT course of action.

Now - you want to deride her for hoping that?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Yeah, he wanted to know if she believed these things based on them being posted on a complete parody site.

So you claim, but you haven't given any evidence of that. So far the evidence is only that Damon knows she is a creationist, and he knows that some creationists, even in this race already, don't believe in evolution. It's perfectly reasonable to ask whether she is one of them, regardless of having seen a parody site or not. IMO it's not reasonable to ask that in a public interview instead of to one's own self prior to doing some research and finding out, but it's still not as bad as you're making it out to be.

In other words, any dink can post a site making fun of someone and claim they believe something they have NEVER claimed to, but it is the candidate's responsibility to go around assuring everyone who falls for it that he/she doesn't believe the things in the parody?

Obama had to. He had to write a whole speech to counter the claims about Wright, and he had to answer the false "accusations" of being a secret muslim. If the accusation sticks, the candidate is obliged to answer it.

For the record, Huckabee is NOT a Young Earther.

I'd like to see your evidence of that please.

But regardless, he doesn't believe in evolution. Do you remember the debate where he answered that question? "Raise your hand if you don't believe in evolution." It was pretty clear. Here's a video on his own website where he confirms that specific answer:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cf...d-c87c5b1aab01
PLUS, they ask if he's a young-earth creationist and he says "I don't know." He specifically implies towards the end that he doesn't believe that humans evolved from (lower) primates. You implied that the kooks are the ones who believe creationism to the exclusion of evolution, rather than, as the pope has described, they can be compatible. Is that your position? If it is, then Huckabee is one of the kooks.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

yes, Wiskedjak, you perpetrating yet ANOTHER myth?

She did not, as has been asserted, claim that the Iraq war was God's plan.


Now, most of you will deride her for simply BEING a Christian.

She's simply stating that she HOPES (prays) there is a plan and that it is God's plan.

In other words, she is hoping (praying) that it is the RIGHT course of action.

Now - you want to deride her for hoping that?

I can't speak for Wiskedjak, but for me I can say unequivocally that "Yes" I want to deride her for hoping that. Hoping that a secular nation's plans for war are in line with "God's plan" is reason to deride a political candidate. A secular nation shouldn't go to war because it believes its plan to go to war is "God's plan" or is in line with "God's plan". A secular nation shouldn't go to war for religious reasons. A secular nation should go to war because it is in response to an attack or declaration of war from another nation.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I can't speak for Wiskedjak, but for me I can say unequivocally that "Yes" I want to deride her for hoping that. Hoping that a secular nation's plans for war are in line with "God's plan" is reason to deride a political candidate. A secular nation shouldn't go to war because it believes its plan to go to war is "God's plan" or is in line with "God's plan". A secular nation shouldn't go to war for religious reasons. A secular nation should go to war because it is in response to an attack or declaration of war from another nation.

I think the distinction he's trying to make is that after a nation (secular or not) is already at war, it's not hysterical for someone to hope that it has all been part of "God's plan." There were a dozen justifications for this war before the fact, but I don't remember any of them being religiously motivated, and I don't think Palin was saying they were.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Sarah Palin

Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.

Let's deconstruct this statement.

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right."
Pretty basic statement that directs the hearer to use prayer to the benefit and/or protection of those who fight in a nation's armed forces. Not an un-common utterance and this type of prayer goes back thousands of years, probably as long as humans have been having organized conflict. (look at the Illiad for similar types of requests for an audience to pray for persons in service to their military.)

"Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God.”
Continuation of the previous statement directing the hearer to now use prayer to the benefit and/or protection of those who send into battle (leaders) those who fight in a nation's armed forces. And a clarification or amplification to the request that the hearer use their prayer to the benefit and/or protection of leaders to make sure that when the leaders send into battle those who fight that those who fight are fighting "a task that is from God".

“That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan."
Conclusion/Summary to the previous two-part directive regarding praying for those who go into battle and those who send those into battle (leaders). In summarizing the second part of the second directive in the second sentence ("sending them out on a task that is from God") there is another emendation to emphasize that the prayers being made are for there to be "a plan" for "our military men and women" that is [in accord with, aligned with, based on]* God's plan.

*I think this is where the major narrative gap resides in her speech--apart from the fact she never articulates what she thinks is God's plan. She never says how the plan "for our military men and women" should relate to "God's plan". And as she hasn't articulated what she thinks is God's plan, it's hard to articulate how that should relate to the plan "for our military men and women". She indicates there are two plans--one for "our military men and women" and "God's plan"--and that she thinks they should be related but she never articulates what comprises those plans and how she thinks they should be related: She just states she thinks there should be a relation but doesn't state the what or why of the relation.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Well, Palin has not done so, and Damon (among others) is claiming she has.

What she SAID was that she disagreed with disallowing the discussion of Creationism if it came up in the classroom, not the forced teaching of Creationism.

But, as with much of anything she does or says, it has been distorted so that those of weak mind (like the aforementioned Damon) take the distortion to be the truth.

This is why I urge everyone to use factcheck.org. I too had misconceptions about Palin's support for creationism. Both campaigns are guilty of spreading misinformation. Don't let any of it influence you--check out the site.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think the distinction he's trying to make is that after a nation (secular or not) is already at war, it's not hysterical for someone to hope that it has all been part of "God's plan." There were a dozen justifications for this war before the fact, but I don't remember any of them being religiously motivated, and I don't think Palin was saying they were.

I agree. I don't think she was trying to say the motivations for the war were religious in nature.

But I do think she was trying to justify the war on religious grounds by saying that she hoped (prayed) the war is part of "God's plan". And I don't want a leader in office who likes to think about whether or not their actions are part of "God's plan" when they send troops to war. I want a leader to think about whether or not their actions will help repel an invader or retaliate against an attacker when sending troops to war NOT whether or not the decision to send troops comports with a plan by a deity. We do not live in a formal theocracy where religious beliefs must influence political action.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

No, it's not. It's a smear perpetrated by people on the left against creationists.

I know of no real person who thinks dinosaurs walked the Earth 4000 years ago, and I live in the Bible Belt.

And yes, Damon obviously got his info there, he quotes it verbatim.

Here's the quote:

There are young earth creationists out there and I don't see anything wrong with lumping all creationists together in this way to point out the absurdity of their anti-science beliefs. It's certainly no less accurate than saying, oh I don't know, that "mayor is like 'community organizer' but with actual responsibilities."

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

You're projecting. The entire "Earth was created 6000 years ago" crap is a smear perpetrated by the Left against all people who believe in Creationism because it was once espoused by a kook fringe group.

I know of one person who embraces the young Earth belief, and I live in East TN (aka. hillbilly central).





Oh, and that person is a Muslim.