Via Glenn I see that both the always astute Ann Althouse and the NY Times were intrigued by Bush's use of hand sanitizer. This is from the Times:
Reporters and politicians continually use the word authenticity to describe Mr. Obama, pointing to his ability to come across to voters as a regular person, not a prepackaged pol. And in these pages he often speaks to the reader as if he were an old friend from back in the day, salting policy recommendations with colorful asides about the absurdities of political life.
He recalls a meet-and-greet encounter at the White House with George W. Bush, who warmly shook his hand, then “turned to an aide nearby, who squirted a big dollop of hand sanitizer in the president’s hand.” (“Good stuff,” he quotes the president as saying, as he offered his guest some. “Keeps you from getting colds.”) And he recounts a trip he took through Illinois with an aide, who scolded him for asking for Dijon mustard at a T.G.I. Friday’s, worried the senator would come across as an elitist; the confused waitress, he adds, simply said: “We got Dijon if you want it.”
I am not sure from that extended excerpt just where either the Times or Mr. Obama thought they were headed - is that Bush-bashing, or just "Ain't life peculiar"? Ms. Althouse excerpted only the bolded portion, which some people did take as Bush-bashing.
Well. Bush's predilection for Purell has been well documented. However, Mr. Obama has also caught the bug, ar at least, had advice for Stephen Colbert on how to avoid that:
Celebrity Illinois junior senator, Barack who, the man of moi, tells famous comic that Colbert troublemaker, to use hand sanitizer after shaking hands with Knox College students! How rude!!!!!!
I had to read to the end to realize the letter from Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to comic Stephen Colbert was self-mocking schtick.
The full letter to Colbert very well done and is excerpted after the break.
MORE: We don't know the meaning of the word "overkill" - Wild Bill Clinton used hand wipes. After shaking hands, of course.
Obama is riffing on the invitation Colbert accepted to deliver the commencement address at Knox College in Galesburg. Obama who addressed the 2005 Knox graduating class, gives some unsolicited advice to Colbert.
this letter from Camp Obama....
Obama to Stephen Colbert: How'd Your Convention Speech Go?
No, Really...I Must Have Missed It...Was it Good?
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Tuesday released the
following statement in response to the news that Stephen Colbert will
speak at the 2006 Knox College commencement:"Stephen, Congratulations on being asked to speak at the 2006 Knox
College Commencement. This is an enormous honor and on behalf of the
people of Illinois, I'd like to welcome you to our state. As you know, I
was invited to speak at Knox after my keynote address at the 2004
Democratic National Convention and subsequent election to the United
States Senate. Your convention speech must also have gone really well to
have been invited. It's weird that I didn't read about it somewhere."Before you deliver your remarks in front of literally millions fewer
people than you would at say, a nationally televised political
convention, I'd like to offer you a few words of advice. First, I know
you're fond of your Peabody Awards, whatever those are, but I'd
recommend not bringing them. The students at Knox are down to earth and
not impressed by materials possessions like my Grammy Award for Best
Spoken Word Album."Second, use hand sanitizer after the Pumphandle. Lots of germs there. I
cannot stress this enough."And finally, don't forget to bring the Truth. I'd recommend putting it
in your carry-on bag rather than in your checked luggage. O'Hare Airport
is notoriously unreliable."To the Knox College class of 2006, I'm sorry I won't get to speak with
you this year, but congratulations and best of luck. You make us all
proud."Note: This release is completely tongue- in-cheek - except of course for
the part about the graduates making us all proud. They do. Colbert has
had so much fun with members of Congress on his show that we decided it
was our turn.
Speaking of shake this, apparently Rogers has outed someone, using his magical outing techniques. Patterico has it-- I'm not about to give Rogers the traffic. What a drama queen he is.
Posted by: MayBee | October 17, 2006 at 10:06 PM
I suppose next we will be worrying about what tool Bush or Clinton use to manage the nose hair. Or that Hillary is now wearing a cross.
As for Barack Obama, I find the guy intelligent but boring. I can't believe that he will ever gain the enough trust of Joe SixPack, unless he is running against a dead guy, to ever be voted President, like so many want to believe.
Posted by: Neo | October 17, 2006 at 11:18 PM
Maybee...Hotair, Ace and a few others have it too...people are getting pissed....Hey Rogers...way to energize the GOP base, you go girl!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 17, 2006 at 11:36 PM
I had a famous friend who hated hated hated handshakes. He would be disgusted by the guys he'd see sneeze into their hands, then march up to him and go for the handshake. If you're famous and refuse the shake, you get labeled as an unfriendly, ungrateful jerk.
I hate handshakes because I sometimes get eczema on my right hand, and I know that it is going to feel gross to the person that has to touch it. As soon as they reach their hand out, I know I'm either going to have to explain why they don't want to shake my hand, or subject them to the scales and let them them think to themselves how gross my hand felt. It's a no win situation.
I like the little head bobby bow, or even a hug. Not all of me is gross, just my hand.
Posted by: MayBee | October 17, 2006 at 11:38 PM
Mr. Monk Goes to Washington?
Posted by: MJW | October 18, 2006 at 12:02 AM
Sorry to be rough, but this guy (Sir W) is a loon. I was thinking tonight, has anyone working with him just gone bullsh*t and told him he's wrong about anything? I can't think of a single reported example of this.
Hoping for the best... expecting the worst.
Posted by: jerry | October 18, 2006 at 12:04 AM
You'll need more than hand sanitizer once Rich">http://karlmaher.blogspot.com/2006/10/q3-kicks-for-free.html">Rich Liberals Gone Wild hits your state.
Off topic. Sorry. But I worked in the soap!
Posted by: km | October 18, 2006 at 12:28 AM
I was thinking tonight
Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Neo | October 18, 2006 at 12:54 AM
jerry, I suspect the expression you were searching for is ape..., not bull... Bull seems to be your specialty.
Posted by: MJW | October 18, 2006 at 01:03 AM
jery- I was thinking tonight, has anyone working with him just gone bullsh*t and told him he's wrong about anything? I can't think of a single reported example of this.
I know! You would think that Anderson Cooper could have had some breaking news on the sheer looniness of a President using Purell.
I hate our right-wing press, hiding the really important stuff.
Maybe that big lump in Bush's jacket during the debate in 2004 was a Big Vat of Purell. He is so looney, he would do that! Our SCLM hid that from us by floating the more palatable excuse that it was a transmitter.
You are right, jerry. I won't take it any more. It is just wrong to santitize your hands, Mr. President. Rove, tell him how wrong his Purell use is!
Posted by: MayBee | October 18, 2006 at 01:35 AM
They still make Lava? That used to be a heck of a good hand soap for manly men.
Posted by: Daddy | October 18, 2006 at 02:12 AM
Ah, Lava. My dad always had a bar by the basement sink. I always complained that it "hurt."
Sweet memories of childhood...
Posted by: goddessoftheclassroom | October 18, 2006 at 06:56 AM
Celebrity Illinois junior senator, Barack who, the man of moi, tells famous comic that Colbert troublemaker, to use hand sanitizer after shaking hands with Knox College students!
Is the above series of words supposed to form an actual sentence in the English language?
Posted by: Arr | October 18, 2006 at 08:36 AM
Have any of these mustard-worriers been in a supermarket mustard section lately? Even the down-market ones have six kinds of Dijon, from horseradish to stone-ground country style to honey flavored. To say asking for Dijon mustard makes one look like a snob is like saying asking for salsa is pandering to Hispanics. All your food are belong to us.
Posted by: Robert Speirs | October 18, 2006 at 08:53 AM
And as we shape up on our 2008 election matchup...drumroll, please...
Hillary/Obama vs McCain/Condi.
Problem is all the voters decide they need to stay home and wash their hair that day.
Posted by: ed in texas | October 18, 2006 at 08:53 AM
Sadly, Lava went "consumer". The color was changed from pumice grey to some sort of green, and the pumice content was reduced to the point where it no longer hurt.
Sigh. These days, I use GoJo and Boraxo, plus one of those "callus" bars (white pumice) to get the crud embedded in the fingerprints. Does the job, but I wish I had a stash of old Lava.
Kirk
Posted by: largenfirm | October 18, 2006 at 09:57 AM
"get the crud embedded in the fingerprints"?!
Heck, the old Lava would get rid of that and the fingerprints too.
Posted by: Cronaca | October 18, 2006 at 10:16 AM
In defense of my (sometimes) eczema-ish hand, I would like to point out Christina Applegate has the same problem. I believe Nicole Kidman does as well. So.
Posted by: MayBee | October 18, 2006 at 10:36 AM
I have my suspicions about some of you, but I can quit any time I want.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | October 18, 2006 at 10:48 AM
LOL Patrick. I wonder if they did the interviews via the internet?
Posted by: Specter | October 18, 2006 at 11:50 AM
Maybee,
I just cured my occasional eczema on my shins by taking Vitamin D. It was a pretty mild case, but I had noticed it seemed to get better in the summer. My wife thought it might be a deficiancy and suggest I take Vitamin D... it worked almost immediately, and I have been free of an outbreak for over 2 months now.
You should also read this: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20594786-1702,00.html>Defective skin barrier 'key to eczema'
Hope it helps!
Posted by: Bob | October 18, 2006 at 11:53 AM
Funny Maguire keeps referencing Althouse.
He should clutter his site up with pap like
'American Idol' and other such crap she is smitten with and star-struck about. He doesn't have far to go to reach "Outhouse" levels.
Posted by: Semanticleo | October 18, 2006 at 12:31 PM
I think Cleo's going for the blog record for "most failed attempts at wit in a row".
Posted by: The Unbeliever | October 18, 2006 at 12:45 PM
As far as the Outhouse comment, the pungent smell seems stronger whenever you appear - for what it is worth.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | October 18, 2006 at 12:56 PM
Unlike hand sanitizer, the other good thing about a bar of soap is that in the old days, whenever you made rude, stupid and intemperate remarks to a decent individual who certainly didn't deserve them, your momma could always take that bar of soap and make you wash your mouth out with it.
Posted by: Daddy | October 18, 2006 at 01:00 PM
momma could always take that bar of soap and make you wash your mouth out with it.
But if the CIA did that to terrorists..........
Posted by: hit and run | October 18, 2006 at 01:06 PM
Sorry Unbeliever, but anonymous has definitely taken the lead in the "lack of humor" gig... that is of course if they are not the same puppets!
Posted by: Bob | October 18, 2006 at 01:22 PM
But if the CIA did that to terrorists..........
Ain't that the truth!
Posted by: Jane | October 18, 2006 at 02:15 PM
Why would not title this post: "Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!"
Especially since 23 Americans have been killed in Iraq since Saturday.
Posted by: Don | October 18, 2006 at 02:52 PM
There will be a lot more killed by November 7th. The alQueada/Democrat alliance assures that.
I wonder if Dean has a direct line to Zawahiri or if they just converse via email? Perhaps it's a conference call so that Schumer, Clinton and Emanuel can have some input?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 18, 2006 at 03:06 PM
There will indeed be more Americans killed by November 7.
FOR WHAT?
Posted by: Don | October 18, 2006 at 03:10 PM
Here's the thing, Rick. It's obvious they are ratcheting things up in hopes of helping the Dems who they rightly perceive as softer on the war, but I thought the meme was that as long as we stayed in Iraq we provided the terrorists with a powerful recruiting tool.They want us out to diminish their own ranks?
Posted by: clarice | October 18, 2006 at 03:10 PM
Clarice, you despicable hag, it's no Dem'al qaeda plot more Americans are dying because they're now driving around Bagdhad and getting killed by IEDS.
Why the fuck would Dems need to plot to get more Americans killed when Bush is doing a heckuva job?
Posted by: Don | October 18, 2006 at 03:17 PM
Al Queada is simply trying to give their allies a hand. Perhaps they've read up on how close the Copperhead seditionists came to winning in 1864 and see themselves providing a a hand to a friend to get them over the top?
It's completely understandable - like to like and all.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 18, 2006 at 03:21 PM
Bush is the best thing that ever happened to Osama.
Al Qaeda is winning the war on terror and you people are too blind and stupid to know it.
Posted by: Don | October 18, 2006 at 03:28 PM
Call down, Don. Seditionists have come very close in the past and they might make it this time.
Don't worry - just get in their and root for more American deaths. It's what good Democrats do - every day all day long.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 18, 2006 at 03:31 PM
Don bin Laden
Posted by: Specter | October 18, 2006 at 03:31 PM
What war on terror?
Posted by: Sue | October 18, 2006 at 03:33 PM
You mean of course other than the 10 times the Clinton let him go, right?
Posted by: Specter | October 18, 2006 at 03:33 PM
Just remember 2 things. (1) Democrats don't believe there is a war on terror. (2) Democrats will use the war on terror to claim Bush is a failure.
Posted by: Sue | October 18, 2006 at 03:35 PM
"There will indeed be more Americans killed by November 7.
FOR WHAT?
Posted by: Don | October 18, 2006 at 12:10 PM
"Dem'al qaeda plot more Americans are dying because they're now driving around Bagdhad and getting killed by IEDS."
Root cause Don,root causes.The Iranians are waiting out the Bush presidency, having listened to the the nabobs of the DNC,read the chicken entrails of speeches by those like "Okinawa Murtha" and decided to add a little pyrotechnic punctuation to help things along.No casualties,no excuse to "cut and run",do you really think all the negativity goes unheeded in Tehran?
Don't insult Clarice,she is a better woman than you will ever be,hell, she is a better man than you will ever be.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 03:36 PM
AT goes behind the wall to give us a glimpse of what Friedman is saying...
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=6379>American Thinker
Posted by: Sue | October 18, 2006 at 03:46 PM
Maybe it's just me; but I'd prefer a President who gets a "dollop" of hand sanitizer after shaking hands, than a President who puts a "dollop" on a Blue Dress.....but then again, that's just me...I know I'll get attacked by the Leftists for being fascinated with Clinton's lovelife, but hey, again, that's just me...
Posted by: Dale in Atlanta | October 18, 2006 at 03:47 PM
Dale,
They complain about the way Bush walks, talks, grins, jokes, sits, stands, rides a bike. Why wouldn't they complain about his use of hand sanitizers?
Posted by: Sue | October 18, 2006 at 04:15 PM
Sue: I know, they're freaking idiots!
Meanwhile, they're guy, who is like a BILLIONAIRE, had a Valet who he paid $48K a year too, and who had to prepare his Crustless Peanut Butter sandwiches, and NO tomato products, EVER, ad naseum, ad naseum; talk about an elitist, spoiled, panty-waist!
That's what really bugs them; they're liars, and cowards, and elitists, and snobs, looking down their noses at anybody who's from "Red State America"; because, don't you know, they're BETTER than that, and SUPERIOR to you Religious, church-going, Wal Mart shopping, cow-raising Hicks from Hooterville!
It boils down to one thing: ARROGANCE!
Posted by: Dale in Atlanta | October 18, 2006 at 04:22 PM
more Americans are dying because they're now driving around Bagdhad and getting killed by IEDS.
See, I thought the whole Dem talking point was about how we needed more troops in Iraq. We move in more troops, and now there are too many troops.
It's predictable, but still annoying.
Posted by: Pofarmer | October 18, 2006 at 05:10 PM
you Religious, church-going, Wal Mart shopping, cow-raising Hicks from Hooterville!
Awww nuts. I hate Wal-Mart. Do I still count?
Posted by: Pofarmer | October 18, 2006 at 05:12 PM
hmmm
off
Posted by: Pofarmer | October 18, 2006 at 05:13 PM
Al Qaeda is winning the war on terror and you people are too blind and stupid to know it.
Other than the obvious (i.e., I suspect it doesn't look like a win from their side), this is a clarion call to an electoral a**-whuppin'. (The fact that some on the left feel the need to provide more than moral support to their philosophical allies is just icing on the cake.) It is perfectly legitimate, even in wartime, to suggest a better course of action. Cheerleading for the enemy is beneath contempt, as is defeatist maundering (or worse, parroting enemy propaganda), which deserves all the scorn that can be heaped upon it.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | October 18, 2006 at 05:16 PM
more Americans are dying because they're now driving around Bagdhad and getting killed by IEDS.
But this is not true. In fact deaths to IEDs has and still is going down, even while total US deaths for the month are up.
Posted by: Neo | October 18, 2006 at 05:20 PM
I have just read that the U.S. population has reached 300 million. So, I can understand why you all don't seem too concerned about losing a few in Iraq. I guess it's 'plenty more where they came from.'
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 05:34 PM
The great thing about that 300 millionth American is that the odds are that (s)he was born into moderately conservative family.
(S)he'll have the will to reproduce because (s)he believes that optimism will always beat pessimism and that winners beget winners, losers beget liberals and liberals beget nothing.
Except for misery, of course.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 18, 2006 at 05:45 PM
Those darned liberals have certainly made you quite the miserable bastard, Rick. Maybe you should get out more; spend less time obsessing online about your "enemies."
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 05:49 PM
Helping the enemy
Terrorists use new leaks to outwit us, thanks to NYT's
Posted by: SunnyDay | October 18, 2006 at 05:53 PM
Well anontmous,at least with your predilections you aren't breeding.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 05:54 PM
You idiots and your assumptions. It never ceases to amaze me how often you people think you know something, and then get it exactly backwards.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 05:58 PM
"Maybe you should get out more; spend less time obsessing online about your "enemies."
What,and leave you here babbling to yourself? We're doing you a service analymous,without us you wouldn't exist.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 05:58 PM
Seditionists are a fact of life - like slime mold in dark damp places, they need to be pointed out so that they can be scrubbed away.
Orwell pointed out the objective reality regarding those unwilling to support victory some time ago. I'm surprised you don't take pride in wearing a mantle knitted by a true man of the left.
Squealing like a little girl is unbecoming of those committed to rot as a way of life. People will think you're a bigger coward than you in all probability are.
Seize the day - take your rightful place next to Tokyo Rose and the Rosenbergs.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 18, 2006 at 05:58 PM
Don't forget Ezra Pound, Ricky.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 05:59 PM
"and then get it exactly backwards."
Precisely analymous.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 06:00 PM
And once again, you've got it backwards. It is the Republican Party that is systematically undermining the Constitution of this country. In partnership with the so-called 'terrorists,' it is the Republican Party that is destroying the American 'way of life' (such as it is.)
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 06:01 PM
Rick,
Analymous,is more a "little league" seditionist.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 06:01 PM
There will be a short intermission while Mr. Ballard Googles 'Ezra Pound.'
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 06:02 PM
And let us not forget that the legendary Hebrew preacher known as 'Jesus' was hung for sedition by the Roman empire.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 06:03 PM
We knew you were an egotist analymous,but comparing your,somewhat pitiful, self to Jesus,is meglomania.
BTW he wasn't crucified (not hanged,note not hung, you imbecile) for sedition,"I can find no faut in the man",Pontius Pilate.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 06:08 PM
I hope anonymous and his buddies are going on lot's and lot's of conservative blogs.
Posted by: Pofarmer | October 18, 2006 at 06:09 PM
everyone anonymous
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 06:15 PM
"Awww nuts. I hate Wal-Mart. Do I still count?"
Yes, The exception proves the rule.
Posted by: Semanticleo | October 18, 2006 at 06:19 PM
this blog has been so trashed by trolls
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 06:21 PM
"Hung" is a colloquial and accepted usage. (But please, feel free to report me to the NSA for impure grammar.) And by the way, what do you suppose you do when crucified? Stand there tap-dancing? No, stupid, you hang from the cross. (Please review your hymnal for examples.)
Procurator Pilate may have reportedly said he "found no fault" in the man, but it didn't stop him from sentencing the poor fellow to be executed. And if you actually read the tale, only Pilate had the authority to do so. (No, the Jews didn't do it. But you and Mel are perfectly free to believe as you need to.)
And since I am not guilty of sedition, I was not comparing myself to the legendary preacher. I was merely pointing out a famous example of someone executed for sedition against an empire.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 06:22 PM
Pofarmer,
Exactly,the more people that know that if they vote Democrat,they are voting for an outbreak of Oral Nappy Rash,out of the mouths of babes!.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 06:27 PM
How's it going on that Ezra Pound research? Have you figured out how he relates to the sedition/treason question?
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 06:28 PM
Better from the mouths of babes than from old fools.
Mr. Leary may have been right: perhaps no one over 30 should be allowed to vote.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 06:29 PM
OT but interesting - this is only being reported locally - but I guess that's where it counts the most.
MSM blackout
Posted by: SunnyDay | October 18, 2006 at 06:31 PM
"In both the civic and faith realms, a commitment to the common good means pursuing policies and community actions that benefit all individuals and balance self-interest with the needs of the entire society."
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 06:32 PM
No,hung is just your ignorance,hanged is different,but you didn't know until you googled it did you,my fine slobbering little cretin? If you are offered the choice between being hanged or being crucified,take the former,but the again,it will be the chair for seditionists.
Pilate actually freed Jesus,why not read the Scriptures and find out,go on, it won't be like the exorcist.
Not a seditionist? There are enough lawyers here and ample members of the jury.What say you JOMers?
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 06:39 PM
Well, unlike you, "anonymous" (if that's your real name) I have read the so-called Holy Scriptures. And no, if Pilate had freed Jesus, he would not have been executed (by the method of crucifixion reserved for non-Roman citizens who had offended the state, and which punishment could only be imposed by the state.) And so, if Pilate had freed Jesus, he would not have been executed; he would not have died; and he would not have (allegedly) risen from the dead; and there would be no Xtian cult and no doctrine of redemption. But, that's all over your head.
JackOffMers are no jury; and they only play lawyers online. (Besides, like all good Republicans, they don't like law, except when it is used to punish their 'enemies.')
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 06:45 PM
One more thing: I know you RightWingNuts are obsessed with gay sex, but don't make it so obvious by obsessing over the word 'hung.'
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 06:46 PM
SunnyDay,
"local news reports indicate that the Tennessee Democratic Party has received $52,250 for state races and $18,000 for federal races from a major Democratic donor, Barry Stokes, who was arrested by federal officials on Friday for embezzling retirement funds from his clients – money Tennessee Democratic Party Chairman Bob Tuke vowed last Friday to keep even after one of the top state Democratic Party officials, State Sen. Doug Jackson, urged his own party to return the money. In a letter to Tuke, Jackson said that keeping the money would be a “travesty.” In recent months, two Tennessee Democratic Congressional candidates have returned campaign contributions from Stokes".
Barry Stokes,a name to remember,eh anonymous?
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 06:46 PM
Barry Stokes .... if your report is accurate, he would be another example of the general corruption of the American political system. Just add him to the long, long list of Democrat and Republican crooks in office.
Wake the fuck up, kid ... you're arguing with the wrong person about the wrong things. Lose your assumptions and think.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 06:50 PM
"have read the so-called Holy Scriptures. And no, if Pilate had freed Jesus, he would not have been executed "
No,you ignoramous,Pilate could commute the sentence for the Passover,by public demand he released Barabbas in the place of Jesus,as the story goes he symbolically "washed his hands of this man(Jesus)".A piece of political expediency in the face of a hostile crowd.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 06:58 PM
"Wake the fuck up, kid ... you're arguing with the wrong person about the wrong things. Lose your assumptions and think."
So the Barry Stokes affair is that serious eh Anon?
Barry Stokes...what can you tell us about him? Is he a typical Democrat?
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 07:03 PM
There is no historical evidence outside of the Xtian texts to support the tradition of releasing a prisoner "for the Passover." But, again, the Jews as an occupied people could not execute the preacher Jesus for crimes against the Roman state. Religious crimes were punished by stoning (to death); political crimes were punished by crucifixion.
Read a history text; it won't hurt (too much.)
And the proof that Jesus was not "freed" is fairly obvious: as the story goes, he was executed.
When you're wrong, genius, you're wrong.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 07:04 PM
Mr Stokes is every bit as typical of the Democrat Party as Mr. Foley or Mr. Ney or Mr. Wheldon or Mr. Cunningham or Mr. Delay or Mr. Safavian or Mr. Abramoff or Messrs. Reed and Norquist or Mr. Noe are typical of the Republican party.
The system has been corrupted by two corrupt political parties.
If I can make that any clearer for you, ... if there is a better way to get that concept through your adamantine skull, let me know.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 07:06 PM
Gee 10 posts in a row begging for attention.
Why not get a blog anonymous? Or have you tried that already?
Posted by: Jane | October 18, 2006 at 07:12 PM
"And the proof that Jesus was not "freed" is fairly obvious: as the story goes, he was executed.
When you're wrong, genius, you're wrong."
So he was executed for sedition,of which he was found innocent?
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 07:12 PM
"The system has been corrupted by two corrupt political parties.
If I can make that any clearer for you, ... if there is a better way to get that concept through your adamantine skull, let me know."
So you have a third way do you anonymous,intersted to hear it.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 07:13 PM
Jane, are you naturally stupid? or just get stupid when you're online? Or is it a reading compreheension problem. Obviously, there is more than one person posting here at the moment as "anonymous."
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 07:15 PM
So, I can understand why you all don't seem too concerned about losing a few in Iraq.
I'm having a harder time understanding why you lot are cheering for more. (Or, in those few cases where you have some influence, providing aid and comfort to the enemy.) Not exactly a recommendation for your candidates.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | October 18, 2006 at 07:16 PM
The form of execution of the legendary preacher known as Jesus, and the fact of who carried it out is all you need to understand the question. But then, you're not too bright, are you?
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 07:17 PM
"Religious crimes were punished by stoning (to death); political crimes were punished by crucifixion."
Sorry dummy,stoning was not a Roman punishment,I'll give you a clue,"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 07:18 PM
I skip all posts by anyone named "anonymous", which makes me a hell of a lot smarter than you.
Posted by: Jane | October 18, 2006 at 07:18 PM
Cecil,
It's obvious,the more troops sent to Iraq the more troops can be redeployed to some prime Democrat real estate in Okinawa.
Sound like one for Barry Stokes.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 07:22 PM
No, stupid, stoning was the punishment meted out by the Hebrew religious authorities for religious infranctions (like getting of your ass on the Sabbath). Pay attention. Crucifixion, of course, was the finest of the Roman punishments.
And your quotation, and the story it comes from, exactly supports the point above.
[And that's alright, Jane; you should pass up anything I write; you're obviously too dumb to follow any of it.]
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 07:22 PM
Has Tom given up on his blog and handed it over to "anonymous"?
Geez.
Posted by: anon | October 18, 2006 at 07:25 PM
"Jews as an occupied people could not execute the preacher Jesus for crimes against the Roman state. Religious crimes were punished by stoning (to death); political crimes were punished by crucifixion."
Your syntax is getting very garbled,you are obviously be in education.
Bu back to Barry Stokes,what alternative do you have?
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 07:26 PM
I'm just "sitting in" for old Tom while he thinks up his next pep talk for Republicans on the coming election.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 07:29 PM
Your syntax is getting very garbled,you are obviously be in education.
My syntax? Don't give up your day job, kid; I don't think you're ready to go to work for the grammar squad.
And what the fuck do you mean? An alternative to Barry Stokes? Is that the question?
Why personalize it by calling it Stokes or Jefferson or Foley or Cunningham? Why not call it corruption? And isn't the alternative to corruption nothing more than honesty, ethics, and integrity?
Elect better people.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 07:33 PM
Sure goes a lot faster when you skip "anonymous".
Posted by: Specter | October 18, 2006 at 07:34 PM
And when you ignore the ghosts and specters, it really picks up speed.
Posted by: anonymous | October 18, 2006 at 07:37 PM