Image 01 Image 03

Embarrassing even for Dick Durbin

Embarrassing even for Dick Durbin

At least this time Dick Durbin didn’t go all Godwin on us like he did last time.

Even though Democrats do seem to be throwing around Nazi analogies out of frustration, Durbin didn’t go there.

But this was embarrassing, even for the senior Senator from Illinois.

When I saw it last night live I could not help but wonder how sad it must be to have to be a senior Democrat these days defending the indefensible.

Is Durbin headed into DWS territory soon?

(video via Capitalist Preservation)


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Wasn’t it Turbin Durbin who compared our troops to Storm Troopers WRT Iraq?

Godwin-land is well known territory to the Deemocrats.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | September 5, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    Repeal the 17th Amendment. Give the Senate back to the states’ assemblies. Restore the freakin’ Constitution.

      Previously many state legislatures were like the United States Senate, and senatorial districts were geographically based. In Colorado it was Lucas v. Colorado which forced a change. With representatives population based and the senate geographically based, legislatures were more conservative. I’m not sure how the U.S. Supreme Court found “one-man, one-vote” when the United States government isn’t set up that way, but they did. Yes, let’s restore the selection of Senators to the state legislatures, but let’s also restore state senates to being based on geography rather than population.

      In Colorado Boulder and Denver dictate the political scene. In Illinois it’s Chicago and Cook County. In both cases liberals and moochers can control spending.

Durbin didn’t help himself with this interview.

This from a man who describes himself as Catholic. He should be deeply ashamed of himself for this display (not that I think that he has any capacity for shame).

When I see this level of phoniness I despair for our once-great country.

Has Brett Baier lost his mind?

Video: Brett Baier caught on tape interviewing empty chair.

What’s interesting is that this seems to be the technique the Dems are using now. When they get caught lying or get caught doing something indefensible, they go into full attack mode and accuse the questioner of darker motives. They are trying to obfuscate by putting people back on their heels.

It obvious that we should be prepared for this now.

Just heard “Sack of Durbin” (as he is affectionately called on WLS 890 am talk radio in Chicago) say that he doesn’t know why the three letter word (ahem, “God”) was left off of the party platform.

I guess G-o-d’s seat at the convention will be empty, too.

You can take God out of the Democrat’s platform … but you can’t take Godwin out of the Democrats.

And I get shouted down when I say Atheism is constantly attacked in this country, why? A party can’t even be agnostic on the issue of god without being attacked.

    Ragspierre in reply to Awing1. | September 5, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    Is being asked why a significant change occurred an “attack”?

      In this context yes. Notice how both take the term “godless” to be an insult?

      I think this line is also telling from the professor:

      “When I saw it last night live I could not help but wonder how sad it must be to have to be a senior Democrat these days defending the indefensible.”

      It’s my one big problem with the Republican party in general. Why is removing God from a platform deemed “indefensible”? Granted, Durbin did a terrible job, but the obvious answer is that there is no reason for a political party to take a position on monotheism vs all other belief systems. I don’t understand the need to segment out like that. The platform isn’t explicitly Christian or Explicitly Jewish, why be explicitly theist?

        Pasturized in reply to Awing1. | September 5, 2012 at 5:43 pm

        Well, … that would be the ‘trying to appeal to the largest cross-section of voters,’ wouldn’t it. A non-sectarian reference to God doesn’t get anybody but the lunatic fringe atheists up in arms. Whereas deliberately refraining from making a reference to God (e.g. removing references from boilerplate platform language reused convention after convention) tends to upset more people. Of course, there are more lunatic fringe atheists inside the Democratic Party, so the cost/benefit analysis which applies to the general population may not apply to it. Oh wait, did I just call the Democrats “godless” (NTTAWWT)?

          So, it takes a lunatic atheist to be offended by the mention of God (a positive denial of their worldview), but the average Christian will be offended by the failure to mention God (neither a denial nor affirmation of their worldview). Forgetting the practical reasoning, doesn’t that tell you something?

          Spiny Norman in reply to Pasturized. | September 5, 2012 at 6:13 pm

          “So, it takes a lunatic atheist to be offended by the mention of God…”

          Yes, awing1, apparently it does. I’m “atheist” “agnostic” “non-religious” (whatever label makes you feel better), and I’m not at all offended by a mention of “God”. Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.

          If your “worldview” is that fragile, I’d say you have a lot more personal issues than being “oppressed” by Xtians.

          I don’t take offense to the word “God” in a party platform spiny norman, I take offense to the idea that not mentioning God in a platform is more of an affront to the religious than having it is to the nonreligious.

          Pasturized in reply to Pasturized. | September 6, 2012 at 9:21 am

          “I take offense to the idea that not mentioning God in a platform is more of an affront to the religious than having it is to the nonreligious.”

          How could it be otherwise? If you don’t mention God the believers are offended that what they believe in isn’t acknowledged. If you do mention God the nonreligious are offended because some vacuous words are inserted into a party platform? Considering the sheer volume of vaucous nonsense already in a party’s platform, what’s a bit more? It only really offends someone who isn’t just nonreligious but is actively anti-religious.

          That doesn’t explain why actively rejecting my view is less offensive than failing to validate another’s view. Are the religious really so insecure that they actually need active validation? I would never support a party platform that actively validated my own religious views at the expense of others (for instance, by actively saying there is no God) because I don’t believe that’s what America is about, why do you support actively validating someone else’s religious view at the expense of mine?

          Pasturized in reply to Pasturized. | September 6, 2012 at 11:56 am

          The denial of a divinity is as important to you as the affirmation of one is to a believer? That’s the only way the offence could be equal.

          Why is it so important to you that people of faith deny their faith in public for your benefit? They want to have a few meaningless (to you) passages in the platform, a vacuous (in your mind) prayer to start the proceedings and maybe another one to wrap things up. Big deal.

          You really need to slowly read my points, because you’re just not responding at all to what I’m saying. Please point, even once, to where I ask for a denial of a divinity. If you can’t apologize.

          And I’ll say this now because I know you’re going to try this, not saying anything about God in a platform is not denying God, it’s being neutral. Denying God in your platform is denying God.

          Pasturized in reply to Pasturized. | September 6, 2012 at 5:57 pm

          Not saying anything about God in a platform is not being neutral, unless you think it’s even conceivable that a major party (i.e. not your pet National “Atheists” Party) is going to include a complete disavowal of God. It’s an effort to remove the influence of religion from the public sphere. Again that does not reflect atheistic thought but anti-theistic thought.

          Neutral is having only squirrelly little “God-given talents” type of references, which is what the Democratic leadership inserted (against the wishes of more than a third of their delegates in violation of the Party’s own rules) and you claim to be offended by it. Bless your heart, that’s like a four year old screaming about his sister’s coat sleeve touching his.

          Where to begin.
          1) “you claim to be offended by it”

          Actually, I’ve explicitly stated I’m not offended by mentioning God in a platform. I’m confused by the idea that not saying anything is somehow an “affront” to the religious. If you think not saying anything about God in a platform is “anti-theistic”, what do you call it when a platform states it wants to ban religion? Is not mentioning God the same as banning religion?

          Can you find where I claim to be offended by it?

          2) “your pet “National “Atheists” Party) is going to include a complete disavowal of God”

          Again, I’ve explicitly stated that I would vehemently oppose a party platform that actively disavows God. Do you even read what I write? Seriously, I’m embarrassed for you.

          3) “Neutral is having only squirrelly little “God-given talents” type of references,”

          Let’s look up the definition of neutral: “Favouring neither the supporting nor opposing viewpoint of a topic of debate”

          Please explain to me how mentioning God, which is an explicit denial of Atheism, is not taking sides in the debate between the religious and the non-religious? Better yet, explain how an Atheistic worldview is at all compatible with this type of language. For help, imagine God is replaced with Allah or Buddah. Would you claim using the term “Buddah-given rights” is not an active rejection of Christianity?

          4) “Not saying anything about God in a platform is not being neutral, unless you think it’s even conceivable that a major party … is going to include a complete disavowal of God.”

          I’ll certainly give you that no major party would actively disavow God, I wouldn’t support one that did, but that’s irrelevant to what an objectively neutral position is. If three people want to kill me, and one person wants to give me a million dollars, the neutral position to me still remains neither harming nor helping me. The fact that there are more people on one side doesn’t change where neutral is.

          I could go on, but I feel like I’m wasting my time. You make arguments based on what the caricature of me in your head would say, not on what I actually say. Arguing with you has been like arguing with an occupier, an utterly pointless endeavor.

          Pasturized in reply to Pasturized. | September 7, 2012 at 8:49 am

          The ends of this spectrum are not one million dollars and killing you, Dr. Evil. The endpoints of the spectrum in this debate on religion in politics are a theocratic state and a state without any public religious reference (actively campaigning against gods is the antimatter version of religious observance, absence of any reference to gods reflects the absence of gods). On that spectrum, not having any references to a divinity in the party platform is far closer to the second endpoint than to the first one. Ergo, it’s not “objectively neutral.” Only someone whose endgame is complete removal of religion from the public sphere gives enough of a damn to find “a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence” offensive, even in a passive aggressive “I’m not offended by what you said, I’m offended by the idea that my feelings aren’t as important to you as her feelings” way. Which is why the Divine Debacle at the DNC is so telling.

          You have failed to explain why the opposite end of the spectrum isn’t a complete banning of religion.

          Pasturized in reply to Pasturized. | September 7, 2012 at 11:02 am

          Banning is an intermediate stage. See many temples to the gods of the Neanderthals? Nope, they’re forgotten. We are without those gods, we are a-Neanderthal-theistic.

          Further reflection indicated that including a denial of God in a platform is to include God in the platform, even if only to refute the existence of one. Therefore, the true negation is the nonappearance of reference to a God or religious faith at all, which you’re trying to claim is actually the neutral position. It’s like a father offering a high school boy interested in his daughter a sort of ‘neutral position.’ If the boy agrees to not go out with the man’s daughter, the father will refrain from forbidding her to go out with the boy. I fail to see how this is a compromise.

          I’m sorry, I wasn’t even aware neanderthals had structured religion and deities in the traditional sense (granted, there is evidence that they worshiped some animals, but considering how we treat the very animals they worshiped today, I’d consider that pretty active rejection, rather than just a failure to mention). Perhaps a better analogy would be a recognizable society with well known beliefs that we no longer believe in, that of the ancient Greeks. I would agree we are the equivalent of atheistic to Greek gods, not because we don’t mention them, but because we actively reject them as a society, referring to them as “myths” in official publications. That’s what an atheistic society would look like, people could believe if they chose (and some actually still do believe in ancient Greek gods), but the official position of the government would be that there is no God. A neutral position remains not taking sides at all. It doesn’t ban anything from the public square (you’re free to talk about religion in any public place), the government just doesn’t sponsor ANY SIDE.

          Under your analysis, you’d believe that both parties are slightly against Bruce Springsteen, correct? After all, neither party acknowledges him in their party platforms, and in your opinion, failing to acknowledge something is taking a stand against it.

          Finally, I must ask. What is it you see as the difference between atheism and agnosticism? So far, you seem to define atheism as if it is agnosticism, which is clearly inaccurate. Atheists affirmatively hold that there is no God or gods, agnostics do not.

          Pasturized in reply to Pasturized. | September 7, 2012 at 2:11 pm

          I do not define atheism as if it were agnosticism. If you’re confused, don’t project your confusion upon others.

          A true agnostic (one who doesn’t know if god(s) exist) is undecided and strictly speaking should be in favor of the inclusion of religious language as God may exist and it would be foolish not to include that language (see Pascal’s wager).

          A true atheist (one who knows no gods or theology) is firm in his conviction and is unconcerned as to whether generic religious language is included in the platform as these documents include a fair amount of meaningless twaddle inserted merely to please some interest group or other, so what’s the harm in a bit more.

          A false atheist (or anti-theist; knows no gods but posesses a theology of negation) is consumed by a religious fervor driving him to proselytize for his theophobic philosophy. He is opposed to even the mildest expressions of positive religiousity like Michelle Obama is of comfort food.

          If the Parties are against “Bruce Springsteen” they’re doing the right thing. He is a creation of Chuck Barris to deceive the Jerseyites with false prophecy.

          I didn’t realize you knew atheists and agnostics better than they knew themselves, please teach me your awesome power to decide how everyone else feels. (Pascal’s wager is a fallacious, by the way, because it ignores the opportunity costs of belief).

          I’ve noticed you tend to ignore the core of pretty much all of my arguments, which suggests to me that you either have severe difficulties with reading comprehension, or you’ve realized I’m right and are just trolling me. Good luck in life, keep crying every time some group doesn’t explicitly acknowledge your worldview, it’ll get you far I’m sure.

          Pasturized in reply to Pasturized. | September 7, 2012 at 4:13 pm

          Perhaps there isn’t a core to your arguments, that is you’re so far off base that it’s not even funny. Did you ever stop to consider that?

          There are religious people for whom their “close personal relationship with God” forms the core of their worldview. Prayer and “witness” for integral parts of their lives. Funny thing, many of the groups who came to what became the US came to be able to practice their religion in just such a fashion without interference from a government espousing a different view. How can anyone say with a straight face that they have a “close personal relationship with the absence of God” in such a way as to even come close to the emotional attachment some believers have? Sorry, not possible. Therefore, it is not, repeat not, even remotely possible for the inclusion of what is (to a rational atheist) meaningless twaddle to give affront to the same extent that the exclusion can give to the faithful. I’m sorry if your anti-religious bigotry blinds you to these basic facts.

          Hmmm, I’ve never accepted Pascal’s formulation, but still, the opportunity cost of belief is miniscule when compared to an eternity of torment. If the opportunity cost sticks out in your mind it’s because you’re not undecided.

I merely assumed the name was removed at the request of its Owner.

Of course God is not a franchise of the Republican party. That’s like saying that YUM! Brands is a franchise of the Taco Bell down the street. It’s the other way around, Dickie boy.

Jesus is a competitor for the hearts and minds of the people, so the democrats must destroy him for there can only be one God to worship, Obama

TrooperJohnSmith | September 5, 2012 at 4:51 pm

The Nazi German analogies come naturally to a party whose leader is starting to sound like the beleaguered Fuhrer. To wit:

“We have created billions of new jobs!”

“I promise you that there are wonder weapons green jobs right on ze horizon! Reelect me, und ve vill be set forever!”

“Ze private zektor ist in zehr gut shape!”

“I am ze Von ve haff been vaitink for!”

“Ach! Jawahol! Ze stimulitch zaved Amerika from ze Bush und ze Cheney!”

“My Fuhrer! I can WALK!”

It is a serious question. Why specifically go in and remove all mention of God from one’s political platform? The Democrat Party is a coalition of several ‘identity’ subsets. Somebody demanded and/or negotiated for this specific change. Who? Why? And if it wasn’t a sop to some constituency, it must have come down from the top. Hmmm.

Put on Fox news. It seems the Dem platform has been changed to what it was before. Arent we glad the dems reacted to Ryan comments? LOL

or CNN. Just now

Convention floor chaos: Dems alter platform, disagree

Now we know who can take DWS’s job if she quits.

Man, what a clusterfark the Dems have wrought, lol. Is there no one in charge of this campaign? Removing a cite of Jerusalem as capital of Israel is an obvious bone tossed to supporters of ‘Palestine’ and CAIR (plus 100s of thousands of Arab suburban Detroiters), but at what cost? Does no one in the Obama campaign know how to conduct a risk/benefit study on issues? And why go in and specifically remove the word ‘God’ from their platform? Who was that supposed to please? Risk/benefit? Hello?

Fox News reported that the order to ‘fix it’ came down from Obama his-dang-self, and we were treated to that hilarious floor vote, where a 50/50 essential tie by volume turned into a 2/3s majority to replace Jerusalem and God, an obviously fixed vote that gave us the deliriously funny scene of a convention floor full of Democrat delegates booing God.

I think the wheels may be about to come off the Obama bus.

Here’s the video of the Dem’s vote for God (3 strikes and you’re in)

Jerusalem And God Vote Gets Booed At Dem Convention

Now Awing1 can cheer the booing of God, and feel inclusiveness and acceptance.

We all belong to government

    Awing1 in reply to Browndog. | September 6, 2012 at 12:30 am

    Yes, because I cheer the booing of God /sarc. You probably should just shut up about things you don’t have the cranial capacity to understand, you’ll look a lot smarter.

Word came to Brett Baier that it was Obama that wanted them put in … but of course he must have known they were taken out. Or maybe the buck stops with Valerie Jarret, then when the sheet hit the fan, she put out the press release that it was brave Obama that wanted it put back in.

Several other things about Israel were left out still, but I forget what exactly. Krauthammer listed at least three he thought were significant.

My favorite part is Durbin ranting that Baier should focus on important things. If Baier were more unprofessional (like me), he would have said “Like passing a budget?”

It was very obvious that the verbal NOS were louder than the AYES for the three votes to amend the Democrat platform. The delegates did not want to re-introduce God nor Jerusalem to the platform but the Chairman accepted the AYES over their objection. This is a good example of how Democrats would hold elections if they could. They acted just like any dictatorial leader does.

I’m sure the original platform without God or Jerusalem was created with much thought by the DNC. This amendment was made only after an uproar in the electorate. Are the Democrats just being hypocritical by adding the words “God” and “Jerusalem”? I don’t think they really believe what they say.

This fiasco shows that the Democrat Party is Godless, Sen. Durbin.