Glenn Beck reads email from Sarah Palin

There arrives one more some new variations mbt sport below the brand brand of Moncler, which helps make them pretty mbt kengät myynti widespread within public. The Moncler aims at production additional and additional jackets with fashion, mbt kengät suomi which permit one to think about element in all sorts of occasions. no create a difference whether you mbts need a sleek minimize as well as a hood in your jacket, Moncler has designed particular mbt casual which you have that which you want.

First of all your religions MORMON doctrine begs the question what God ? IS Jesus the son of God and is Jesus GOD in the flesh " or the God man ...Glenn you say you are a believer ...Was Jesus created or IS HE GOD the trinity ? Also Sarah Palin????? Are you kidding me ?????? Please Please Please Get realer then real !!!!!

Sadly so many are following this pied piper.... Its all about me... . its all about me ...its all about me ....Wake up America, wake up all you stupid old men that cant think above your zippers.Parrots ..Palin followers that dont have a clue.

Shilrey Hinton

Dallas Ga

Fox News should fire Rush Limbaugh & Glenn Beck for now practicing the true values of respected conservatism, which are being open minded, constructive, intelligent, responsible, sincere, & truthful.

Limbaugh's complaints about Obama's attempts to discard the warts of the health care system are utterly lacking in constructive and intelligent ways that are needed. Considering how prone so many millions of Americans are in having Rush Limbaugh's kind of disease ( obese & bloated ), I do not trust Limbaugh's comments.

Staats52runner

Sarah Palin is not a true respected conservative who practices the values of being openminded, constructive, intelligent, responsible, sincerety, & truthfulness to be truly one of them. Her efforts in being an activist indicates scattered brains. Being a distant cousin of hers via PILGRIM Richard Warren, anyone who feels she should run for President in 2012 I would describe as a wacko-ist. Staats52runner

The first thing I deed when I hear the shooting in Arizona was pray to God for the safty of the victoms. The far left first thing of their future.

They asked Sarah Palin if she could correctly use the two words Blood Libel in a sentence and she replied, When I shoot moose, blood libel pour out. Our Sary is sure smart. My Great Uncle used to tell me never to aim my cross hairs at something I did not want to kill. Palin painted crosshairs on Gifford, what did she think would happen.

They asked Sarah Palin if she could use the words Blood Libel constructively in a sentence and she replied, I shoot a moose, blood libel pour out. Our Sary is sure smart. My Uncle used to say never aim your cross hairs at something, you don't want to shoot. Sarah drew her cross hairs on Gifford. What did she expect would happen?

"...your bronze age fairy tale and seasoned the **** sandwich with a double dose of smug "I'll pray for you," garbage." (DAN)

A double-dose huh? I didn't even offer a single dose of "I'll pray for you" sir. I haven't even alluded to prayer a single time on this entire page or this entire site for that matter. I guess that makes you a shameless misrepresenter. Some people simply call that a liar.

I would surmise that CM's glowing praise of you yesterday is something he might wish he had avoided. You made him look like a bad judge of character didn't you? You took his glowing words of praise and slapped him right in the face with them.

I for one am not baffled by your fibs, your foibles or your fantasmagorical, flatulence.

RS

It's a religion in itself and you, a proud, assistant, substitute, deacon in it.

Scientists and professors who don't tow the evolutionary line are black-listed, outright fired, lose funding, or otherwise are killed by the established elites. The politification of science.

There are scores of advanced degree scientists and Profs in many, many fields who disagree with both you and the artificial elites, you know, the ones, quashing dissent whom you revere.

"Dawkins himself..." blah, blah, blah (DAN)

Was I supposed to bow at the name of an irrefutable person here? Dawkins? Dawkins? He's as religious about atheism as you claim to be unreligious about everything. I think you are overhyped Dan...and overconfident in something you don't realize is, wait for it.....wait for it....nuthin'.

Does it usually take you this much effort to accomplish nuthin'?

this is a good reading by beck

You continue to worship yourself sir...or nuthin'. I have too many reasons to believe otherwise.

I posted here so you would be sure to see Oh captain my private. You're an empty suit. Albeit, a pompous empty suit. You and your theories are bankrupted and good for what they are...nuthin'.

I was going to ask you to list some of the virtues of your atheistic missionary ways but since you quit, like they all do, I'll save it for someone who doesn't take a day and a half to say nuthin'.

We have the empty tomb of Christ. We have the transformed lives of the Apostles from chickens to fearless (people don't willingly die for a lie they know is a lie) and we have hundreds of eyewitness accounts of the miracles and the resurrection of Jesus. How many eyewitnesses can your shoe fairy boast?

Dan, with all due respect and even though I have lost count of the low-class name-calling from you, it seems to me that you have made the mistake of infinite extrapolation sir. You have, at best, described sideways movement, micro-evolution, or what is known as variation with a species. You can raise generations of dogs or cows and breed some different traits into them, but that dog will never become anything other than a differentiated dog.

What you and others have utterly failed to do is illustrate how the first living single celled organism evolved from non-living matter. If you cannot do that, you most definitely cannot show how the eye of a mollusk is much more complex than a human eye or more importantly how the human brain evolved from that single cell or the mollusk. Your infinite extrapolations based on variation within a species are simply bridges too far. You can’t get here from primordial slime. The first cell couldn’t survive the ultra-violet rays from the sun even it could evolve from non-living matter, and whereas you consider the case closed, it is anything but.

In addition, you have not explained how that first living cell or any other macro-evolutionary presupposed act occurred. There are definite limits to how far you can extrapolate what you have attempted to show. It is an over simplification and over-extrapolation and I think, a downright impossibility, in a world where the law of increasing entropy or (2nd law of thermodynamics) is supreme. Even here you can show how a baby becomes a human but that is not able to be extrapolated beyond the death of that one person. That short term upward mobility and increasing complexity is due to the intelligence with the DNA. It is not a straight up graph, but a parabola. I think the 2nd law (entropy) makes macro-evolution, impossible. Whether or not the earth is an open or a closed system. The 2nd law is stubborn indeed. If it is an open system, that increases entropy even more and exacerbates the problem because the Sun is not intelligent energy, it is nonsense energy and hastens entropy. Thanks for listening and please stop the name-calling. It doesn't help your cause, it simply exhibits your frustration.

You stuffed too much into that last post... control yourself... sheesh.

Listen, the first video with Michael Shermer. I would say the weakest part of his argument was when he called himself an evolutionary libertarian with the claim that he gets to natural law, bypassing a diety, using evolved natural law, an evolved nature. I would argue that the Bible contradicts this quite easily and takes 3500 years to do so. Biblically man's nature is quite static. Shermer's first recourse is to relate man to primates as a group. This is weak, it's definitely darwinian, shades of Hegel. It's the explanation in lieu of diety.

I'm unsure if it is just dishonesty or ignorance, but too many atheists are drumming the claim that religionists are into big government to enforce social mores. I believe natural law includes the moral and that self-governance (we've discussed this before) is contained within. As a natural system it is self sustaining... the very system the founders relied upon in order for America's founding to work. Theology was a separate sphere, unrelated to laws of government therefore no big government necessary to enforce "religious theological norms". This is what makes the American system very pluralistic... for people of many faiths or creeds to be good citizens... except Muslims under shariah. I believe what many present day libertarians object to are Christians pointing to natural law as an expression of the moral and saying... "there conduct yourselves accordingly!" In essence pointing out that the libertarian is not following the natural law they hold so dear. The Christian would say its sin, the libertarian would say it's his freedom in natural law. The Bible has an explanation for the libertarian's excesses. A wall has been hit.

I'll get to the other stuff soon... thanks for the vids.

Here it is the 81st time. I would guess that you've never been able to deal with it at any time. I think you need a bigger clip. One that holds more BS. MAybe after you heard it 82 times you'll realize you are being a missionary for lies and nuthin'.

Yes, you're a prince. The complimentor/moderator earlier has also lost my repect because of your perfromance. You have neither proven nor shown anything at all, notr have you gained my respect other than that of a BS-er extraordinaire.

You are wearing no clothes and I am the only one to notice it today. That get's your goat doesn't it? Does it also get your chaff? Do you often "win" arguments like you claim others do that you quote? I don't think they've won anything. They spout pure nothingness and so do you. I am unimpressed. You might impress some who don't know what you're NOT talking about and they might say, hmmm, and stroke their beards and nod. That's what you did when you read your mentor's BS isn't it? Polly want a cracker? Good day Sir.

Glen, It is my firm belief that I seriously doubt we have anything to worry about from the left coming at us full gallop on a pale white steed with a AK in one hand and a magic wand in the other hand, a silver dollar rubber dildo butt plug, with tie died hair, nipple and ear rings and LGBA tattooed on his ass (what does that last A stand for anyway anal). I think we are safe.

Why whatshisname has so much confidence in you is a mystery. You have little class. I don't see anything praiseworthy in your recent posts sir. Pontidicating blowhard of nuthin'.

belligerant dunce. good evo tactic. nothing. empty suit, parroted vacuousness.

belligerant dunce. good evo tactic. nothing. empty suit, parroted vacuousness.

belligerant dunce. good evo tactic. nothing. empty suit, parroted vacuousness.

Right. You present nothin, I notice the nothing and so you must resort to the next tactic. Youa djust you ass-cot, refill your ivory pipe and pronounce incapapble of grasping nothing as if it were something. You are just like every evolutionist I've ever read or encountered. You ARE one of the best at filling a box completely full of nothing. But you have many mentors to choose from in that arena of nothing. Peace.

"It was found in his lifetime, called Archeopteryx Lithographica. Among too many other factors to list, the unfused wing-fingers was a key feature predicted by Darwin."

I can't believe you actually wrote this sir. Are you kidding? Really? This is a fully formed, fully functiuonal bird. What the hell is your problem? Your posts about evolution are paragraghs of nuthin'. You, like the evo books pontificate for a few hundred pages, and sound as intelligent as you can, but it does NOT hide the fact that your box of evolution (macro that is) is completely empty.

OMG have you been brainwashed with a whole lot of nuthin'. Reread some of your stuff here on this subject. Evolution proponents try to outintelligent the vocabulary, the this the that...they ramble...they ridicule...but what they continue to present, is a big box of nothing whatsoever. And you not only fall for it, you envision a living thing in the empty box and like the people who admired the emporers new clothes, you, in like fashion admire this empty box of nuthin'.

Thanks...for nuthin'.

“Reproduction with genetic variation + environmental attrition = Evolution.” (DAN)

Sthay, that’sth math isthn’t it? It’s pretty. Pretty unproven that is. You’d be a great advertising guy for stuff that doesn’t work very well. You know, there’s a sucker born every minute?

“PE was just an attempted explanation of why the data points of the fossil records are distributed as they are.” (DAN)

Oh, the DATA points of the fossil record…you mean as in: Data point 1. Nuthin’ Data point 2. Nuthin’ Data point 3. Nuthin’ etc. forever ad nauseum? Got it. Great stuff.

“If the data is there, you do all of that + sequencing”

Right…if the data is there. It ain’t though.

“how many genes we have in common with which animals, and the best of them all, Endogenous Retrovirus DNA in a genome shared in both DNA fragment AND location.” (DAN)

Common design features by a common designer sir. One can also tell a Picasso from a Rinosso and Ford from a Chevy. So far you’ve said Nuthin’, just like the evo books do. Oh you sound real intelligent, just like the evo profs do, but they never say anything. That takes incredible skill. Are you copying and pasting some rambling evo?

“It’s all part and evidence for evolution.” (DAN)

It is? What is? That’s the longest diatribe on nuthin’ I’ve heard today sir. I am trying to respect you, but you are a spent light bulb, ie., but still, a vacuum of nothing’.

You may have described micro-evolution a little. But macro(?) Molecules to man, fish to philosopher? Hell no! You’ve got Nuthin’. Here’s what I came away with your eloquent wordsmanship: Nuthin’.

Wow, where did you get such an enviable collection of 1970's National Geographic?

I hear evolutionists claim all kinds of evidence and all kinds of ridicule for the creationists. All I see is the ridicule. Parrots mimicking older parrots. They assert all kinds of things and repeat the lie loud and often. It doesn't help show anything.

You have shown nothing, least of all an original thought regarding this topic at least. Evolution texts are vacuous. Michael Denton's book "Evolution, A Theory in Crisis" is pretty good. It is not vacuous and not the 70's geographic you appear to cite. Singularly unimpressive, but quite wordy.

Nothingness and ridicule. That's what evolutionary texts contain. They start with a conclusion that creation is impossible and work backwards to try and prove how it happened. At least intelligent design texts utilize the scientific method based on that which can actually be observed. What is observed fits the intelligent design model perfectly. Thanks for the discourse sir.

double p.s... that Chris Matthews analogy was a stretch, now i know I'm really losing it.

P.s. brain ((( dead)))) can't go on, must get exercise!!!!

Didn't know that HA was sold!

Your father was actually onto something there except that 1st Amendment rights revoking of course. What happened to you? Listen, I won't go too far into this, but this Libertarian chique which is becoming more in fashion imho is simply the refuge of many non-believing conservatives. I don't say this about you, but it is an observation.

Now... as far the societal ills stuff, when conservatives bring it up, the howls and screeching from the non-believers and, yes, the libertarians too can shut down the debate pretty quickly. The cherished prejudices of militant secularists and non-believers are a force to contend with when exposed. It's perfectly legit for a Christian to inform his culture that bad behaviours and certain social norms have consequences and that there is a better way. And yes, your father was correct about self governance, a point I have stressed previously. The methods by which they do this may leave much to be desired, but I find that even with regard to those I disagree with, their methods matter less than their message. This is a huge stumbling block for many. I can stomach Chris Matthew's methods, even if much of his message is wrong, I have a grudging respect. But none of it makes me bitter.

I'm always curious when someone confesses to an "embittering experience". Even you really must admit that in this culture it is the Christians who are demonized and marginalized... not the other way around. The embitterment usually has its genesis in something from their upbringing. I hope I'm not stretching here on that point. Losing friends? You don't have to answer, just curious. Anyway, gotta run... late with my workout. Catcha

Didn't know that HA was sold!

Your father was actually onto something there except that 1st Amendment rights revoking of course. What happened to you? Listen, I won't go too far into this, but this Libertarian chique which is becoming more in fashion imho is simply the refuge of many non-believing conservatives. I don't say this about you, but it is an observation.

Now... as far the societal ills stuff, when conservatives bring it up, the howls and screeching from the non-believers and, yes, the libertarians too can shut down the debate pretty quickly. The cherished prejudices of militant secularists and non-believers are a force to contend with when exposed. It's perfectly legit for a Christian to inform his culture that bad behaviours and certain social norms have consequences and that there is a better way. And yes, your father was correct about self governance, a point I have stressed previously. The methods by which they do this may leave much to be desired, but I find that even with regard to those I disagree with, their methods matter less than their message. This is a huge stumbling block for many. I can stomach Chris Matthew's methods, even if much of his message is wrong, I have a grudging respect. But none of it makes me bitter.

I'm always curious when someone confesses to an "embittering experience". Even you really must admit that in this culture it is the Christians who are demonized and marginalized... not the other way around. The embitterment usually has its genesis in something from their upbringing. I hope I'm not stretching here on that point. Losing friends? You don't have to answer, just curious. Anyway, gotta run... late with my workout. Catcha

To equate the description of a triangle with the circular reasoning of evolutionary theory is pedestrian and silly. Get a car.

To equate the description of a triangle with the circular reasoning of evolutionary theory is pedestrian and silly. Get a car.

And if transitional species were the order of the day, where are they? Even darwin himself said that if the evidence were not in the fossil record then his theory would be in serious question...to put it mildly. Why do you think they came up with punctuated equilibrium? That's why, because the fossil record says No, loudly and firmly. There would be many more transitional fossils than not, yet, where are they? Fossils are always of fully formed, fully functional animals. Never have there been a half-wing half fishscale fin has there?

Also, when the atmosphere was supposedly anaerobic, how did bacteria or single celled organisms survive that? With out atmosphere they would be destroyed in the sun's ultra-violet rays in about 20 seconds. I observed this in the lab and timed it. I think 27 seconds was the record. They must have been hiding under a rock for a few eons huh?

So what in your opinion is the driving force of evolution? If it isn't punctuated equilib...is it mutations, or is it the old darwinian way? Which theory is is your hat-hook today sir?

Why is it when someone does something so terrible and tragic we right away have to find someone to blame. Did anyone ever think that maybe this is a sick young man who needed help a long time ago. Why do we have to right away blame Sarah Palin for everything. I don't ever see her blamed for the good things that happen but boy everyone is quick to blame her for the tragic things that happen. Lets face facts this young man is a young man who needed some type of help and we ignore that fact. What perfectly sane and good person would do something like this

P.S. I always have uneasy feelings about HotAir. Never have that when reading MichelleMalkin, but with HotAir I know I am supposed to be on a conservative blog, but get that sinking feeling that it is something else also, mostly from Allahpundit, not so much from Morrissey. At least when I visit lefty sites, I can take a gravol before hand and it gets me through... but Hot Air leaves me uneasy. Their guest contributors are much more reliable with their conservatism.

Stathiests! ha! love it. Just what we need ... more nomenclature.

While I agree that atheism is not really an affirmative position, it is, however, a cultural norm with growing political clout. Look at various court challenges, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Orwelian sounding Military Religious Freedom Foundation, ACLU challenges etc.

"views non-believers as destructive, evil, all around dangerous, and/or wholly immoral it's the "right." There is some, and I will admit that it is used for political ends, but your are engaging a in a bit of hyperbole there doncha think? Ravi Zacharias, a Christian philosopher says something that really puts this in perspective. He says that liberalism (and he means post-modern) is the most intolerant philosophy today. In comparison to the so called religious "haters" out there on the right, they are no match for the intolerance, bigotry and hatred of liberals. Does it make it right? No! But I think your perception of how serious or malevolent the Christian view is, is coloured.

But what the "other party" does do is repudiate in absolutely vicious terms views that don't match up to their own. Christians still apply the golden rule, however imperfectly. That just cannot be said for the other side.

Allahpundit. Yeah he doesn't always hide his animus toward believers. It kinda makes me wonder how he manages to hold onto his gig since Michelle Malkin is his boss and a Christian. Oh... Maybe his position proves my point. Michelle holds not animus toward him as an Atheist. Funny how that works.

"...All of the best god arguments through Reason were done away with by Hume and Kant after Non-Physicalism became the religious norm.

Also, irreducible complexity has been obliterated both in court and in the academic arena every single time creationists have tried to present examples."

Nice opinion piece Dan. If these "professors", like yourself, have "done away" with anything, it is this: Common Sense and the Scientific Method.

"Schmuck". I like it. I think that evolved from the dreaded duck if darwin is not mistaken.

"survival of the fittest" Which ones survive? "The fittest". Which ones are the fittest? "Those that survive". oooh, what a pretty circle. Weeeeeee!

I wonder if being killed by a flash-flood, an earthquake, a tsunami, a tornado, a hurricane, a mudslide, a bolt of lightening, an avalanche, or a volcano is adaptive or maladaptive :-)

Naaa, I usually stick to my hometown newspaper surrounded by the great lakes.

And CM, I have no history with the atheist guy. If I was needlessly harsh, gauche, or overly disrespectful, I apologize. The lies of evolution raise many flags and much of my ire sir. Apreciative of the kudos you have bestowed. SALUTE!

Heh heh heh... your first line made me laugh. You took the words from my mouth.

Carter, peanut farmer evangelical, and Christians flocked en-mass and abandoned their conservatism. Ah... simpler times I guess, but I could never figure it out.

"I wouldn't consider the non-devout or the religious who aren't regular church goers to be "non-religious," as some might." You're absolutely correct on that. I was not implying that. Ah Language, an imperfect tool that.

On stats... the true left is really low in percentages. Twice as many Americans self identify as conservative than liberal. 20% liberal, 40% conservative. There's the mushy 40% remainder... and if I could be so presumptuous as to assume that if push were to come to shove, that of the remaining 40%, most would identify as conservative. I don't say this out of prejudice or bias... I say this out of an awareness that people have a default philosophy... and that default is conservative. But the conservative default is beaten out of them by cultural forces of liberalism. It's like the Joe Publick guy who listens to MSM media, is told what to believe because it's the "correct" view to have, yet in the back of his mind says to himself, "I don't really agree with these people, what they say does not sit well with me, but I can't put my finger on it". So he goes through the social motions of being a liberal, because he shuns public humiliation, yet in his heart remains conservative. I believe I can dig up information on this, but don't have it on hand. Oh yeah... that reminds me of a study by the Barna group on differences between liberals and conservatives... very telling... I'll dig it up. But like you... that's my personal experience leading to my opinion.

Your comment about Godless Americans... quite right, in the Dem party it's a liability to expose in a flamboyant way one's atheism, especially from such groups. But the back door is wide wide open. It's a matter of time before they will be received open-arms in the front door... like the SDS, SPLC, Democratic Socialists of America, ACORN and all the other far left "community groups" are now. Partly in thanks to Soros.

Heh heh heh... your first line made me laugh. You took the words from my mouth.

Carter, peanut farmer evangelical, and Christians flocked en-mass and abandoned their conservatism. Ah... simpler times I guess, but I could never figure it out.

"I wouldn't consider the non-devout or the religious who aren't regular church goers to be "non-religious," as some might." You're absolutely correct on that. I was not implying that. Ah Language, an imperfect tool that.

On stats... the true left is really low in percentages. Twice as many Americans self identify as conservative than liberal. 20% liberal, 40% conservative. There's the mushy 40% remainder... and if I could be so presumptuous as to assume that if push were to come to shove, that of the remaining 40%, most would identify as conservative. I don't say this out of prejudice or bias... I say this out of an awareness that people have a default philosophy... and that default is conservative. But the conservative default is beaten out of them by cultural forces of liberalism. It's like the Joe Publick guy who listens to MSM media, is told what to believe because it's the "correct" view to have, yet in the back of his mind says to himself, "I don't really agree with these people, what they say does not sit well with me, but I can't put my finger on it". So he goes through the social motions of being a liberal, because he shuns public humiliation, yet in his heart remains conservative. I believe I can dig up information on this, but don't have it on hand. Oh yeah... that reminds me of a study by the Barna group on differences between liberals and conservatives... very telling... I'll dig it up. But like you... that's my personal experience leading to my opinion.

Your comment about Godless Americans... quite right, in the Dem party it's a liability to expose in a flamboyant way one's atheism, especially from such groups. But the back door is wide wide open. It's a matter of time before they will be received open-arms in the front door... like the SDS, SPLC, Democratic Socialists of America, ACORN and all the other far left "community groups" are now. Partly in thanks to Soros.

Punctuated Equilibrium. "We cannot see evolution with our eyes because it happens too slowly. We cannot see it in the fossil record because it happens too fast". That's kinda' scientific huh? It's the comedic side of "science"

Even Crick, of Watson and Crick said that "life could not and did not evolve on this earth".

I don't apologize for apologetics. I came to it the hard way. You are part of the politification of science. Evolution and global-warming.

Can a cell make protein without a ribosome? No? How do you explain that the ribosome is made of protein? Which came first the cell or the ribosome? What you have in a cell is irreducibly complex.

Furthermore, I’ll bet you believe that a single strand of DNA encodes more information than the Library of Congress. I do too. You believe there are such things as invisible microbes that can wipe out millions unseen. I do too. You believe that the unimaginable complexity and staggering precision of the entire universe and all of it’s contents came from nothing, AND, that all of that/this occurred as a random process. I do not.

Touche’. Who’s the fruitcake? Next Christmas just give yourself away.