I’ve been trying to keep an open mind about Edwina Rogers, even after I listened to the interview with Christina. I thought perhaps I needed to consider this issue from the point of view of “politics makes strange bedfellows.” I do have considerable doubts about Edwina, but I have no doubts about this comic.
This is funny!
Tasty, tasty crackers.
They’re really not. My former church occasionally used real bread at special communion services, and it was far and away better than those crappy wafers of tastelessness they used at most communions. The grape juice was usually decent, at least….
*ROFL* at Pope PZ.
It does have nice ring to it 😀
I don’t think the analogy holds up here. There is no contradiction between being a fiscal conservative and an atheist. Is there any evidence that she is a social conservative? Don’t forget that the Republican Party is made up of strange bed fellows; social and fiscal conservatives. The same is true for the DFL. Why do labor and social liberals necessarily have to hold each other’s views?
Riiiight. Because the only objection to Ms. Rogers is that she happens to be a fiscal conservative. Not because she financially supported candidates who were anti-secular, bigoted theocrats. Not because she couldn’t give a satisfactory answer as to what she has ever done to further secular causes. Not because she couldn’t (with loads of warning and time to prepare) give a knowledgeable answer about what causes are important to her new constituency. And finally, not because she either lied about the Republican platform and thought that her audience of mostly politically astute sceptics would buy it, or is so incompetent as to not have a clue what the major planks of the Republican platform have been for the past two and a half decades even though she’s spent her career working for the party.
Are you sure you replied to what I wrote? If so, why the attitude?
Because what you wrote is a strawman. Sure, there might have been a small problem among some people with Edwina Rogers, fiscal conservative, if that were her only foible. But the cartoon is pointing to the actual objections that have been overwhelmingly raised which have nothing whatsoever to do with her stance on supply side economics. It’s disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise.
Are you sure you read what I wrote?
I am far less sure you read what you wrote.
Because, my dim-witted, friend, Ibis3 is describing the ACTUAL objections raised to Edwina Rogers’ hiring, rather than the FICTIONAL ones you described in your original post.
I would vote for Matt Dillahunty in a heartbeat.
As president, I wonder how long it would take before he would be threatened to be “punched in his fat face for Allah”?
Okay,m that’s pretty funny. So, when does Dawkins begin selling religion to the vitamin shops?