Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) has announced that he is officially an atheist. Of course, if you'll recall, Congressman Stark was also responsible for verbally abusing a constituent who had the audacity to question him in the form of a polite letter.
The American Humanist Association has certainly picked quite a mascot there...
HA ha!
Comments:
#1 MB 13-Mar-2007
A truly insightful and brilliant bit of analysis, on your part.
#2 Brian 13-Mar-2007
Nice to finally see you stop by, MB! I'm sure that you've never fired a general snark in any general direction over in your territory, eh?
;)
As they say, every story can't be the most important one in the world. This one barely ranks [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Muntz]above [i]Nelson[/i][/url], which, well, explains the "treatment" it got from me...
Feel free to stop by for one of my more "analytical" stories if you don't feel this one delivered. It's always a pleasure to hear from the opposition once in a while!
Regards,
Brian
;)
As they say, every story can't be the most important one in the world. This one barely ranks [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Muntz]above [i]Nelson[/i][/url], which, well, explains the "treatment" it got from me...
Feel free to stop by for one of my more "analytical" stories if you don't feel this one delivered. It's always a pleasure to hear from the opposition once in a while!
Regards,
Brian
#3 Brian 13-Mar-2007
(Oh, by the way - am I to assume that you [i]support[/i] politicians coming unhinged and verbally berating their consituents? Or are you the type that believes that we--the public--serve at the mere whim of our supposed "public servants?")
There - is that a more appropriate level of "analytics" for ya, MB?
:)
Regards again,
Brian
There - is that a more appropriate level of "analytics" for ya, MB?
:)
Regards again,
Brian
#4 MB 13-Mar-2007
You can assume whatever you want - reasoning and general assessment of relevance don't seem to be your strong suits, so I'll not put too much effort into correcting whatever assumptions you make.
But, because I'm feeling generous, I'll point out a major difference between what you link and what you've done here. In my case, Virgil Goode opened his mouth and let spew ignorance, making an ass of himself (or a hero, in the view of some of his dimmer constituents). Here, Pete Stark (about whom I have little to no opinion*, as he's not been on my radar) responds to a questionnaire from an interest organization which you then try to tar by 1) linking it something completely irrelevant and 2) mischaracterizing the linked item so badly that (again!) your partisanship has outstripped your honesty/sensibility.
But hey, that makes you a great Republican. Congrats!
*beyond the fact that I think that was a great response to the constituent letter.
But, because I'm feeling generous, I'll point out a major difference between what you link and what you've done here. In my case, Virgil Goode opened his mouth and let spew ignorance, making an ass of himself (or a hero, in the view of some of his dimmer constituents). Here, Pete Stark (about whom I have little to no opinion*, as he's not been on my radar) responds to a questionnaire from an interest organization which you then try to tar by 1) linking it something completely irrelevant and 2) mischaracterizing the linked item so badly that (again!) your partisanship has outstripped your honesty/sensibility.
But hey, that makes you a great Republican. Congrats!
*beyond the fact that I think that was a great response to the constituent letter.
#5 Ron 14-Mar-2007
Hey, if your parents named you "Fortney," you might be an atheist too! LOL
#6 Brian 14-Mar-2007
LOL! Thanks for the chuckle, Ron!
