Must not compare Mrs Obama to a chimp
Even though GWB got called that a zillion times by Leftists:
"Walt Baker, the CEO of the Tennessee Hospitality Association believes she resembles a chimpanzee, and he found the idea so hilarious he had to share his racism with his pals. He forwarded a “joke” racist email to 12 prominent Nashville citizens (all white males) comparing Michelle Obama to Tarzan’s chimp Cheeta:“I was at the store yesterday, and I ran into Tarzan! I asked him how it was going and if he was into anymore movies? He told me that he could no longer make any more movies as he had severe arthritis in both shoulders and could no longer swing from vine to tree. I asked how Jane was doing, he told me she was in bad shape, in a nursing home, has Alzheimer’s and no longer recognizes anyone, how sad. I asked about Boy, and he told me that Boy had gone to the big city, got hooked up with bad women, drugs, alcohol, and the only time he heard from him was if he was in trouble or needed something. I asked about Cheeta, he beamed and said she was doing good, had married a Lawyer and now lived in the White House!!!”
As the fallout over the crude email continued and made it to the local news channel, Spyridon released a statement condemning Baker’s email, as “appalling and unacceptable” and terminated the NCVB’s “contract with Mr. Baker’s marketing agency, Mercatus Communications.”
Source
The usual double standard
16 comments:
Darwin's finding are confirmed.
I have seen this particular e-mail several times over the last year, but this is a first for it causing people to fall on their swords and apologize up the ying-yang for chuckling about it. Get a grip, people!
She doesn't look like cheeta,,,,she looks like G.W.Bush.
Are there any pictures out there to confirm this ?
All these pea-brains who belive this darwinists poppycock and comapring mrs obama to a chimp insults chimps
try finding that image on goole images - funny how it does not come up
Leftist: Must never, EVER make fun of Mrs. Obama. Must ALWAYS make fun of George W.
The amusing thing is that this episode has just given the picture heaps of publicity
(re 5:20 PM) wow, does this site also attract "creationist" whacos?!
And oddly enough, the facial expressions in the pictures at least do resemble each other.
Anon 3:34 AM said, "...wow, does this site also attract "creationist" whacos?!"
Hmmm, let's see:
Option 1: A supernatural entity created everything.
Option 2: An explosion that occurred for some unknown reason spewed forth all matter and energy, and after billions and billions of years the remnants of that explosion came together to ultimately form everything purely by random chance.
Please explain how Option 2 is any easier to accept than Option 1?
Hey, come on. If she looks like a monkey....
6:38 AM - read a book other than the Bible.
The "explosion" was a rapid expansion of space-time. The energy/matter particles eventually formed hydrogen atoms and ultimately gravity formed stars. Heavier atoms formed in the stars and when the stars' fuel was spent they exploded spreading heavier atoms in space that ultimately ended up in planets (star satellites) like the Earth. All this is basic science. The Bible has a creation myth where an anthropomorphic god popped everything into existence at will. There is of course no scientific evidence for this as it is one of countless creation myths that primitive peoples dreamt up to explain their world,
Why compare Michelle Obama to a chimp?
It would be more accurate to say that her thinking is closer to a stump.
10:25 PM, I read lots of books other than the Bible, and I completely understand that if you really examine what you just described, it doesn't vary that much from what I described.
Then you said, "All this is basic science."
Just remember, that this "basic science" is ONLY speculation based on observation. Fundamentally, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing "hard" about any of this. Science cannot IN ANY WAY explain with ABSOLUTE accuracy how something happened in the past where there were no observers. It still takes a measure of faith to accept the scientific explanations. Any scientist worth his salt would concede to this notion.
I'm not saying that science is not valid or has no value, I'm simply saying that the scientific theories of the origin of our universe are fundamentally no more substantiated than the creation theory because at its basic level, it is all nothing more than pure speculation.
It is not pure speculation! - it's the result of scientific investigation. You don't think the police and forensic scientists can't work out past events from evidence that is left - so too with cosmology. It isn't a fantasy dreamed up by scientists while sitting idly smoking pipes in armchairs - it's very serious and very expensive scientific investigation.
Meanwhile, the creation story in the Bible has no scientific empirical evidence behind it at all.
Speculation may begin behind the "Big Bang" - you can say that it was "God what done it" but that says nothing about who that god was/is - where he/it came from - in what form of exitence it exists or how or why he created the known universe, etc., etc.
Science is an a "work in progress" - religion thinks it has all the answers by virtue of ancient dusty second-hand scribbles.
nice post. thanks.
Post a Comment