Actually, what this really shows is Geller’s complete lack of factual information. Rosa Parks NEVER attempted to “go to the front of the bus.” That was NEVER the issue at hand.

For those not aware of the situation, here’s a relatively brief summary of the events.

Rosa Parks (who, yes, was a bit of a known civil rights worker and agitator) had boarded a bus in Montgomery in December of 1955. The bus, as with ALL public buses in Montgomery, was clearly segregated. There was an assigned “whites-only” section which was, as suggested, FOR WHITES ONLY. The rest of the bus was NOT designated for anyone. The reason for this was so that IF the “whites-only” section was filled, then the next row would be cleared of any and all Black riders, even if the rest of the bus behind that row was filled. THIS was the situation that Rosa Parks faced. She took a seat in one of the non-“whites-only” rows and began her trip home. At a later stop, a white passenger boarded the bus but the “whites-only” section was completely full. So, as was expected, the bus driver went back and ordered the Black passengers seated in the first row adjacent to the “whites-only” section to move. Even though this meant one row of seats (on both sides of the aisle) would be empty except for the lone white passenger (and no, a Black passenger could NOT sit in a seat in the same row—even on the opposite aisle—as a white passenger) and the rows behind that one were already filled with Black passengers. (The system didn’t care if Black passengers were packed in like sardines or even standing while the bus was moving as long as no white passenger had to face the prospect of sharing a row with “one of them.”) Rosa refused to give up her seat.

Now, there are several conflicting points in the story. One suggests the white passenger didn’t mind standing until his stop; another even suggests the white passenger had no problem sharing a seat with a Black passenger. These are, however, fairly irrelevant as Miss Parks was arrested on the spot for her failure to obey the bus driver. (In most jurisdictions, even today, the law considers the bus driver as being in charge and refusing to obey his/her directives can be considered akin to refusing to cooperate with police.)

(I realize that might be a bit more than a “brief summary” but there are a lot more facts in the case than what I posted.)

Unfortunately, Dave, that’s all beside the point (and, technically, it’s gone Dem in 6 of the last 7 elections; it’s voted Dem in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008 and 2012 but GOP only in 2004). The real point is that Iowa is the first major political battleground with the first vote during the year of the Presidential election (courtesy of the Presidential caucus) plus its fairly influential (at least, in the sense of bragging rights; it can also make or break some campaigns since the winner can use the results to boost contributions to their campaigns) GOP Preference “Straw Poll” held the year before the Presidential election.

Plus, most of the recent elections have been pretty close—no more than about a 6% margin of victory. 1996 was pretty much of an outlier. Clinton won over Dole by 10%, but if you add the Perot vote as mostly coming from GOPers, Clinton’s win would be less than 2%. The last time there was a genuine 10% margin of victory was 1988 when Dukakis won by just over 10% (54.71% to Bush the Elder’s 44.5%). Even Reagan’s 1980 win in Iowa was only greater than 10% when compared ONLY to the Carter vote (adding in Independent candidate Anderson’s vote, Reagan’s margin was less than 5%).

If Iowa really didn’t mean that much to the GOP, then why do the candidates spend so much time visiting the state in the year before the caucus? Nor does it explain why the GOP candidates spend so much time there (compared to other similarly sized states, population-wise) during the critical pre-election, post-convention period. In 2012, for instance, Romney and Ryan made a combined 16 visits to Iowa (according to FairVote.org) while Obama and Biden made only 11 visits. Iowa has only 6 electoral votes at stake, but it was the FOURTH most visited state by presidential campaigns behind Ohio (73 visits for 18 EVs), Florida (40 visits for 29 EVs), and Virginia (36 visits for 13 EVs) and was ahead of states like Colorado (23 visits for 9 EVs) and Wisconsin (18 visits for just 10 EVs). (For what it’s worth, the Dems won ALL of those states, in spite of the Romney/Ryan’s combined 132 campaign visits compared to the Obama/Biden’s combined 85 campaign visits.)

Oh. One final comment. Well, more like a question.

Does this mean that Ms Geller DOES acknowledge that guns are NOT just for “protection” and “self-defense?” That innocent people can be the targets of guns and that maybe guns should NOT be allowed in certain places where tensions and feelings might run a bit hot and high?

I guess Wayne LaPierre’s going to have to have a long talk with Geller over her crossing the line with her radical ideas.

A couple of points.

First, guess which current Justice, widely considered to be one of the most (if not, THE most) right-wing justices on the Supreme Court may have very well been THE deciding vote on the Texas v Johnson case which overturned flag desecration laws across the country? (Hint: His last name rhymes with “Malia.”*)

Second, about the China and North Korea comment. Maybe Mr Higbie needs a little history lesson regarding the importance (or, more accurately, the lack of such) of flags in foreign countries. During the various “revolutions” that swept Eastern Europe following the fall of the Berlin Wall, many LOYAL PATRIOTIC CITIZENS took their countries’ flags and defaced them and even burned them. Now, why did these people destroy their own countries’ flags? Because they represented a government they DISLIKED (even loathed). They also all just happened to have symbols of the state (mostly coats of arms or seals) located in the center of the flags where they were very easy to cut out (I remember newscasts from Romania, in particular, where the protesters were carrying around flags that had big old holes in the middle). All this was going on not long after the Court ruled in Texas v Johnson.

It’s also a bit ironic that Americans were so outraged at the image of American flags being burned by anti-American protesters in foreign countries (especially during the Iranian Revolution) but more than a few of these “patriots” didn’t have any problem burning Japanese and South Korean flags as part of the “protests” against imports “putting Americans out of work.” And there didn’t seem to be any problem from these “patriots” when the foreigners were destroying their own flags as part of their anti-government protests.

I understand that the folks in charge of the Oxford English Dictionary are considering a new definition to be added for “hypocrisy.”

The new definition will simply read, “Fox News.”

Tammy should know the old saying about karma.

I’m just hoping she gets a really nasty yeast infection and she can’t find a gynecologist willing to treat lesbians—you know, because it’s against the gynecologist’s “deeply held religious beliefs.”

And who wants to bet that if Tammy went to one of these “christian bakers” (no—they do NOT deserve to be capitalized as they don’t follow the words or teachings of Christ) for a cake for her same-sex marriage (that, of course, presumes there’s some lesbian who’s soooooo desperate to get married to another woman, she’s forced to scrape the very bottom of the lesbian barrel and get the dregs) and that baker refused because “deeply held religious beliefs,” she’d be raising holy hell (pardon the pun) at the discrimination.

Like most right-wing teabaggers, until something personally affects her, she’s not going to worry about being discriminated against.

@ truman: Probably the closest that Toodles gets to when it comes to fruit. (Well, I’m certain he’ll eat fruit that’s covered in chocolate or deep-fried or both.)

Graham obviously doesn’t know the first thing about his own faith’s history, or the thousands (possibly, millions) of faithful who died—WILLINGLY—for their faith.

And I seem to recall his own father’s ministry holding up the example of all the poor Christians in Russia and China and other places behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains, who were so willing to worship Christ that they accepted torture and harsh imprisonment (the latter frequently leading to death). In fact, as I recall, the old Billy Graham Crusades (speaking of Christians who took up arms “for the faith”) used the idea of people who “fought—and died—for their faith” to help fund his work.

And doesn’t that whole “Revelation” book (at the end of the Bible) exist solely for the idea of “fighting FOR Jesus?”

The fact that she posed for Playboy while using the flag as a “drape” shows that a certain “patriot” is about as clueless when it comes to the US Flag Code (which is, incidentally, FEDERAL LAW—not mere “suggestions”) as many other so-called patriots.

Per US Code Title 4 Chapter 1, Section 8d:

“The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery.”

And Section 8j:

“No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations.”

Something tells me that the “readers” of Playboy would’ve preferred her wearing a flag “patch.”

The fact that she’s former military makes her actions then all the more reprehensible and the fact that she seems to have forgotten why she was in the military in the first place suggests to me that she doesn’t have any respect for the flag OR the country, “for which it stands” (you know—words from the Pledge of Allegiance).

Maybe cutting off any veterans’ benefits would be appropriate given her violations of military protocols AND interfering with other people’s First Amendment rights.

I recently went to see “Woman in Gold” and was subjected to a trailer for “Little Boy.”

OH

MY

F&&&ING

GAWD

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought it was beyond manipulative. I suppose it’s a good thing there aren’t that many WW2 vets still living because it pretty much seems to be mocking their service by having an obnoxious little twit wanting his dad to put HIM first (presumably to let other fathers go off and die instead).

If it were just a mere fantasy film, I don’t suppose anyone would give it a second thought but while the trailer emphasized the idea of “faith”—if you just believe hard enough, you’ll get what you want—it didn’t really seem to be all “put your faith in God and you can work miracles.” When I saw Roma Downey’s name attached to the project, though, THAT was my first indication that there was an underlying (pardon the expression) “agenda” that was going to be pushed. (And isn’t it funny when Christians are pushing an agenda, BillDo doesn’t have a problem with it? In fact, he never uses that word when it aligns with his own goals.)

@ truman: Man, you’re thinking WAAAAY too literally. “Dumb Guy” doesn’t have to be gender-specific.

In fairness, though, I suppose if Jon had intended it to mean any of the FoxNoise females, he would’ve probably said “Dumb Blonde.”

You know, when you look at that picture of Hannutty’s guest, you just have to wonder why he’s treated with such disrespect?

Could it be his choice of headgear?

I mean, just put a bandanna (either a red-white-blue one or a camouflage one) on his head, and he’d pass for a family member of the Duck Dynutty.

The Duck Dynutty kkklan’s sociopolitical views aren’t that far removed from those of radical Islamists. But, Hannutty doesn’t seem to have a problem with the Duckers.

Oh, right. Like the current crop of GOPers who “revere” St Ronnie aren’t the least bit radicalized. I mean, it’s not like they didn’t fall hook, line and sinker for all his simple-minded blatherings and then taken them to the extreme ends that morphed into the Teabagger movement.

By the way, how IS that “trickle down theory” working anyways?

How many more full-fledged citizens (not mere clusters of cells that more closely resemble bacteria and amoebae) have died since St Ronnie made his pronouncements against abortion (not that he really did anything to put an end to legal abortions, aside from nominating a couple of far-right people on the SCOTUS)?

And, might I also ask, how many children were never born to the 240+ service members killed in Beirut, an incident which required St Ronnie to take 2 weeks to even acknowledge the least bit of responsibility—using that word in the absolutely loosest sense since the most he ever really did was to acknowledge they were there at his order—for their deaths; meanwhile, top military brass were being thrown under the bus or falling on their own swords (at the “urging” of St Ronnie’s cohorts)?

Oh, and perhaps Mr Ablow would like to explain St Ronnie’s actual ties to certain Muslim extremist groups in the first place. For instance, while Afghanistan’s Mujahedeen were initiated in the final days of the Carter Administration, things really got going under St Ronnie’s watch. Of course, Afghani members of the Mujahedeen morphed into the Taliban while foreign members would form the nucleus of what would become al-Qaeda (ring any bells, there, Allblow?). AND, after al-Qaeda took down the Twin Towers, Dubya failed to capture Osama bin Laden and, instead, turned his attention to Saddam Hussein. And he whipped up a fake war by trotting out some mythical weapons of mass destruction. Now, it IS true that Saddam once had such weapons since he’d used them on Kurdish rebels. But I think Mr Ablow forgets the origin of those real WMDs was the US government—since there was a picture of St Ronnie’s “Special Envoy to the Middle East,” Donald Rumsfeld, meeting with Saddam (rather conveniently during Iraq’s war with Iran—the “enemy of my enemy” adage, I believe, Mr Ablow).

Oh, wouldn’t it be lovely if someone offered to take up Hannity on his boxing offer and then they showed up with a bucket of water and a towel, just to watch Hannutty either have a “something suddenly came up” moment* or crap his pants.

*Courtesy of “The Brady Bunch.” Marcia asks Greg some advice on how to break a date without hurting the other person’s feelings and Greg tells her an old favorite of his is “Something suddenly came up” because it’s virtually impossible to disprove. (This appears in the classic episode where Marcia’s nose gets in the way of Peter and Bobby’s little football game.)

That whole “In God We Trust” thing on the currency is funny. It doesn’t prove anything except some insecure fan of a silly mythology managed to force something on the people of this country.

But, do you think that Harris would like the US to prove its “Judeo-Christian” (a phrase which, as I explained on another thread a couple of weeks ago, is a recent development since Jews were constantly derided by many of the same “Christians” who so lovingly embrace the term now) heritage if we emblazoned a Christian version of the Shahada on Old Glory? (You know the Shahada—“There is no God but God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God.” A bit interestingly, the Shahada’s first known appearance was on coins. Just change it to “There is no God but God, and Jesus is His Son” or something like that.)

I’d like to go back to the good old days of the 1950s when white Christian men ruled the country and everyone else knew their place.

And the top tax rate was 80+% (and that was on as little as $200K per year).

It’s kind of funny but anyone else remember “The Beverly Hillbillies?” Where the Clampetts—especially Jed—didn’t seem to have any problem paying taxes and tended to feel somewhat offended when “Banker” Drysdale talked about ways of paying a lower tax rate. It’s so funny that the average TV viewer of the period was supposed to support Jed and his kin’s desire to pay what they rightfully owed (they almost seemed to feel a sense of it being their patriotic duty to give back when they had so much to give) and to boo Mr Drysdale for all his schemes to “protect” the Clampett fortune. (It’s also a touch ironic that the show’s first season showed Mr Drysdale to be a fairly nice character, more concerned about the Clampetts’ overall well-being rather than the near caricature he became where all he cared about was their fortune staying in his bank.)

So, they care about the environment but they feel the need to make jokes about it? Jokes whose sole purpose is to denigrate the environmental movement?

Oh, sure. I get that.

I just wish they had that attitude over jokes made “at the expense” of Christians. Or GOPers. Or FoxNoise. Or themselves.

I see Bolton has completely forgotten the events of 9/11/2001.

Yes, what happened in Boston was a tragedy, but it pretty much pales in comparison to what happened on 9/11.

And considering Bolton’s own responsibility for the failures of the Dubya administration, I doubt there’s any GOPer willing to even consider the man’s hopes to run for the White House. (Not to mention he’s hopelessly out of step with the Teabaggers, especially when he talks about moving "the overall debate on national security to return it to the center of the political agenda.” Teabaggers ain’t interested in returning anything to the “center.” (And from the tone of his comments, it doesn’t sound like he’s remotely interested in the “center” either. Unfortunately, for him, he’s already uttered the offending words.)