Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Art as Propaganda for Evolution
CEH ^ | April 10, 2009

Posted on 04/11/2009 9:21:02 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Art as Propaganda for Evolution

April 10, 2009 — Should a scientific theory be propagated by appeal to scientific evidence, or by appeal to emotions through visualizationNature this week contained two articles that shamelessly praised art as propaganda for evolution.  Surprisingly, one of them mentioned Charles Darwin as someone “at the cutting edge of visualization.”

  1. Endless Forms:  Carl Zimmer reviewed an exhibit currently at the Yale Center for British Art, Endless Forms: Charles Darwin, Natural Science and the Visual Arts.1  The title is taken from the last sentence in the Origin where Darwin said that endless forms most beautiful are being evolved from so simple a beginning.  Zimmer said that in the 19th century, “artists shaped the way scientists saw nature, and thought deeply about how science changed the nature of art.”

    The exhibit examines the history of art as Darwinism was overtaking traditional religious beliefs.

    The exhibit does a good job of showing how differently people saw the world at the dawn of the nineteenth century.  Nature was replete with signs of divine design.  A painting of Noah’s flood was considered historical art.  Yet Darwin was able to learn a great deal from art of this time, whether he was studying illustrations of geological formations or marvelling at the paintings of French–American naturalist John James Audubon, who Darwin met as a teenager.

    As Darwin developed as a scientist, he made some modest art of his own.  On his journeys in South America, he painted the rock strata of the Andes in watercolour.  On his return to the United Kingdom, he began to scribble odd little tree diagrams in his notebooks – a visual expression of his great epiphany that species are related through common descent.  Darwin worked closely with artists to illustrate his books.  This may surprise readers of On the Origin of Species – a book with a single illustration showing the branching of species.  But his other books were lavishly illustrated....

    Darwin was at the cutting edge of visualization.  His 1872 work The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals was one of the first books ever to be illustrated with photographs – including pictures of faces distorted by electric currents, produced by the work of French physician Guillaume Duchenne.

    Zimmer claims that Darwin did not use pictures merely to illustrate ideas, but to investigate them.  For instance, “the very notion of beauty was something Darwin wanted to explain: the beauty of orchids actually masked a complex contrivance for getting pollen onto insects; the beauty of an Argus pheasant’s feathers was the result of sexual selection.”  Artists, in sympathetic vibration, paid attention to Darwin.  “They replaced sentimental scenes of nature with bleaker portraits of the struggle for survival.”

    Zimmer was glad the exhibit did not shy away from difficult subjects.  “....some [artists] wrongly took it [evolution] as justification to elevate whites over other races, cloaking their freak-show voyeurism in the guise of anthropology.”Why Zimmer gives the exhibit “great credit” for this was not explained.  Is he glad that the dark side of evolutionary thinking is being exposed?

  2. Scopes Cartoons:  Another article by Michael Hopwood in Natureapplauds an account of how US scientists used images to counter creationismand promote public understanding of evolution in the 1920s.”2  Sure enough, artists during the Scopes trial, rather than being scorned for misleading the public, are praised in this book review of God – or Gorilla: Images of Evolution in the Jazz Age by Constance Areson Clark (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008):
    God – or Gorilla hints at a larger clash of visual cultures between modernists and fundamentalists: Neanderthals versus Adam and Eve, church frescoes depicting ascent from protozoa against a ‘picturable God’.  That would be a great topic for further research, which would need to pay religious icons more attention, but this highly readable book is valuable as it stands.  It is also timely.  The 1920s shaped pictures of evolution, and of evolutionary debate, that are still in our heads.  As biologists work with illustrators to communicate science, and creationists attack textbook icons,3 it is helpful to reflect on the struggles of that decisive decade.

    Hopwood thus identified the evolutionist imagery as useful to science, whether or not it was accurate.  Clark, for instance, said “Cartoons played on images of the Scopes ‘monkey trial’, and people joked about missing links.”  In museums, tree diagrams and misleading sequences like the fossil horse series were presented as “unvarnished facts.”  Hopwood did not condemn any of this.  For instance, he disparaged the attempts of Henry Fairfield Osborn to imply that evolution was compatible with religion.  “This theistic evolutionism repelled secular scientists and fundamentalist Christians alike, but was often presented as the scientific consensus.”  Hopwood seems to imply that the scientific consensus allows no such accommodationism – it must be anti-religious and materialistic.


1.  Carl Zimmer, “Drawing from Darwin,” Nature 458, 705 (9 April 2009) | doi:10.1038/458705a; Published online 8 April 2009.
2.  Nick Hopwood, “A clash of visual cultures,” Nature

458, 704-705 (9 April 2009) | doi:10.1038/458704a; Published online 8 April 2009.
3.  This seems to be a direct reference to Icons of Evolution by Dr. Jonathan Wells (Regnery, 2000).

Visualization is one of several pedagogical aids that can enlighten or propagandize, depending on how it is used.  There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with cartoons, simplified illustrations, and diagrams if they illuminate the truth.  However, wrong inferences can be made – such as Darwin’s photos of people expressing emotion being used to infer they inherited these capabilities from apes.  Art and visualization can distract, mislead, mischaracterize, or create emotional responses in lieu of scientific evidence.  Darwinists have been very skilled at this propaganda since their master wrote his materialist manifesto.  They should be scorned, not praised, for pretending that peppered moths prove humans had bacteria ancestors, or for piecing together unrelated fossils into a story of evolutionary progression.  Awareness of the danger of visualization is the best defense, and the best offense is to unmask it as propaganda.  Truth needs illumination, not varnish.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: africans; art; blacks; carlzimmer; cartoons; catholic; christian; communistagenda; constancearesonclark; creation; darwin; endlessforms; evolution; fundamentalists; gorilla; guillaumeduchenne; historical; intelligentdesign; jazzage; johnshopkins; michaelhopwood; modernists; moralabsolutes; naturalscience; nature; noahsflood; oldearthspeculation; painting; propaganda; racism; religion; religionofatheism; scopes; sentimental; struggle; survival; visualart; visualarts; visualization; whites
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-107 next last

1 posted on 04/11/2009 9:21:03 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; GourmetDan; MrB; valkyry1; DaveLoneRanger; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 04/11/2009 9:21:58 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
e.g. a visualization of a pig's tooth:


3 posted on 04/11/2009 9:28:26 AM PDT by chuck_the_tv_out (click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Another one that really annoys me is the animation of a meteorite hitting, and dinosaurs running away, and being killed by the blast. It’s such nonsense, but people see that, and it sticks, idiomatically, in their mind, because there is currently a vacuum in that place.


4 posted on 04/11/2009 9:30:12 AM PDT by chuck_the_tv_out (click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

lol


5 posted on 04/11/2009 9:32:30 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (ALSO SPRACH ZEROTHUSTRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I’m reminded of an exchange I had a while back about posting graphics as an argument.......


6 posted on 04/11/2009 9:34:24 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Here's some more illustrations by Darwinian demagogue and racist, Haekel:


7 posted on 04/11/2009 9:39:59 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

What chaps my hide is that they create these images, even though in many cases they know they are false, or at best extremely speculative.


8 posted on 04/11/2009 9:44:03 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I'm not sure what you are referring to. But there is a big difference between using a graphic to illustrate, and using a graphic for propaganda purposes. You can also use a graphic as evidence, such as the graphic I posted above illustrating the overt racism of Darwin propagandist, Earnst Haekel.
9 posted on 04/11/2009 9:48:13 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
One man's "illustration" is another man's "propaganda".

My disagreement with using them in a debate is that I consider it a coward's tactic. You don't have to defend what you're saying if you never really said anything.

10 posted on 04/11/2009 9:54:59 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

That makes no sense at all. Is showing the images of the dead bodies piled up at Auschwitz to a Holocaust denier taking the cowards way out?


11 posted on 04/11/2009 10:00:25 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
That makes no sense at all. Is showing the images of the dead bodies piled up at Auschwitz to a Holocaust denier taking the cowards way out?

No.

Showing that same picture in a different context, with the intent of implicitly accusing someone of being complicit or responsible but not being will to come right out and say so would be.

12 posted on 04/11/2009 10:07:54 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Well good, that settles it then. I came right out and said that Haekel was a full-on racist.


13 posted on 04/11/2009 10:15:05 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Well good, that settles it then. I came right out and said that Haekel was a full-on racist.

That's fine.

Do you agree with the author's assesment that the use of images is used to evoke an emotional response, rather than present a reasoned argument?

14 posted on 04/11/2009 10:22:21 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Visualization is of enormous importance in the propaganda of Darwinism.
We need only consider Darwin's tree. Visually the connections from primitive organisms to more complicated ones is immediately obvious as the connection of a tree limb to its trunk. Whether the connections actually exist is irrelevant, the image remains.
And that tree-like propaganda device is repeated over and over again with everything from purported human skulls to the ancestors of the modern horse without questioning whether there is anything between the tips of the limbs and the trunk besides the imagination of the illustrator.

““....some [artists] wrongly took it [evolution] as justification to elevate whites over other races,..”

But that is precisely what Darwinism teaches, that the dark skinned, ape-like ancestors of modern man came out of Africa and evolved into the lighter skinned races,(think Englishmen of the 19th century).

And the propaganda by poster art goes on: Lucy, peppered moths, animal embryos, feathered dinosaurs, auto insurance “cavemen”, etc.

Accurate? Who cares? What matter is the narrative.

15 posted on 04/11/2009 10:32:42 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Why are you bothering to complain about someone who did the bulk of his work over 100 years ago and who hasn’t been cited in a biology text for nearly as long?


16 posted on 04/11/2009 10:35:24 AM PDT by Poison Pill (Help, I've voted Republican and I can't get up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Yes, images can be misused in that way. However, some images, if they speak to some deep moral outrage, would be less than accurate if they failed to produce an emotional response. It all depends on the context. For instance, an image or images that produce a strong negative emotional response by showing a partial birth abortion procedure would be more accurate than a set of images that fail to produce the same. Again, it all depends on the context.


17 posted on 04/11/2009 10:37:45 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill

Yet some version of Haeckel’s drawings can
be found in most current biology textbooks. Stephen
Jay Gould, one of evolutionary theory’s most
vocal proponents, recently wrote that we should be
“astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless
recycling that has led to the persistence of these
drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of
modern textbooks.” (I will return below to the question
of why it is only now that Mr. Gould, who has
known of these forgeries for decades, has decided to
bring them to widespread attention.)

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf


18 posted on 04/11/2009 10:43:59 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; tacticalogic

Tell that to TL!


19 posted on 04/11/2009 10:47:03 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Yes, images can be misused in that way. However, some images, if they speak to some deep moral outrage, would be less than accurate if they failed to produce an emotional response. It all depends on the context. For instance, an image or images that produce a strong negative emotional response by showing a partial birth abortion procedure would be more accurate than a set of images that fail to produce the same. Again, it all depends on the context.

Again, the ability of the images to produce the emotional response is not in question. The context in which they are used and how they attempt to manipulate peoply by using that response is.

20 posted on 04/11/2009 10:47:46 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; GodGunsGuts
Accurate? Who cares? What matter is the narrative.

Do you have the same objections to religious imagery?

21 posted on 04/11/2009 10:50:00 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
There may be something to this.
Yesterday I was in a Swiss chocolate store, buying up some bunnies when I noticed a chocolate monkey head that looked exactly like a face that's been on the cover of Time Magazine a zillion times.

This was not a racist cartoon depiction like the media cartoons depicting George W. as a simian.

The mold for this Monkey face was classical, probably over a hundred years old.

Maybe the movie “Planet of The Apes” was spot on.

22 posted on 04/11/2009 10:56:29 AM PDT by TET1968 (SI MINOR PLUS EST ERGO NIHIL SUNT OMNIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; count-your-change

If it is a faithful representation of the biblical narrative...of course not. But I cannot say the same about Darwin/Haekel’s “tree of life.”


23 posted on 04/11/2009 10:57:51 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Would you consider Michaelangelo's Creation a "faithful representation of biblical narrative, do you still have that cartoon of the scientist-as-burglar?
24 posted on 04/11/2009 11:02:21 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

The cartoon of a “scientist” as burglar is meant to be humorous. However, like all good humor, there is an element of truth to it.


25 posted on 04/11/2009 11:04:33 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The cartoon of a “scientist” as burglar is meant to be humorous. However, like all good humor, there is an element of truth to it.

The element is implied to be the whole periodic table.

26 posted on 04/11/2009 11:06:00 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
And speaking of Michaelangelo's Creation, do you really believe that his depiction of the same was meant to convey something literal, or the biblical concept that man was made in God's image?
27 posted on 04/11/2009 11:07:59 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The cartoon of a “scientist” as burglar is meant to be humorous. However, like all good humor, there is an element of truth to it.

Okay, so either there's no attempt to provoke any kind of "moral outrage" directed towards them, or "moral outrage" can be funny.

28 posted on 04/11/2009 11:10:36 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
You mean this one?


29 posted on 04/11/2009 11:12:16 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
And speaking of Michaelangelo's Creation, do you really believe that his depiction of the same was meant to convey something literal, or the biblical concept that man was made in God's image?

I'm asking if you think that it's OK that it isn't literally accurate, but simply provides narrative.

30 posted on 04/11/2009 11:13:29 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Is this art?

31 posted on 04/11/2009 11:13:45 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . John Galt hell !...... where is Francisco dÂ’Anconia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

That’s the one!


32 posted on 04/11/2009 11:14:35 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Christians should be morally outraged by Darwin’s attempt to replace God with materialist religion. However, the cartoon assumes the outrage, and is instead going for laughs. That’s why it is called humor.


33 posted on 04/11/2009 11:15:07 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Haeckel’s drawings can be found in most current biology textbooks.

Really? You can name a current College intro text that use these with a scientific cite and not in a "curiosity of yesteryear" kind of way?

Stephen Jay Gould, one of evolutionary theory’s most vocal proponents, recently wrote

why it is only now that Mr. Gould, who has known of these forgeries for decades, has decided to bring them to widespread attention.

Recently wrote?...Only now? Did the Discovery Institute hold a seance to reach him in the Great Beyond? The man's been dead for nearly a decade.

34 posted on 04/11/2009 11:16:03 AM PDT by Poison Pill (Help, I've voted Republican and I can't get up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Christians should be morally outraged by Darwin’s attempt to replace God with materialist religion. However, the cartoon assumes the outrage, and is instead going for laughs. That’s why it is called humor.

Kind of "preaching to the choir", and getting everything in a "right-brain" context?

35 posted on 04/11/2009 11:18:07 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: bert
Yes, and it is an accurate representation of what the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism believes, while at the same time identifying what they consider to be the main enemy of their Evo-religion--Christianity.


36 posted on 04/11/2009 11:23:24 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill

What do Modern Textbooks Really Say about Haeckel’s Embryos?

http://www.discovery.org/a/3935


37 posted on 04/11/2009 11:33:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill

Here is your original question: “Why are you bothering to complain about someone who did the bulk of his work over 100 years ago and who hasn’t been cited in a biology text for nearly as long?”

As you can see above, you are CLEARLY WRONG.


38 posted on 04/11/2009 11:37:08 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Your cited article begins:

To avoid confusion, let me point out that we are not claiming that Haeckel's embryo drawings and recapitulation theory are the bedrock of evolutionary biology in 2007.

Not exactly their best foot forward. Basically they're saying their argument doesn't have much merit.

Still wondering what's up with the recent writing of the dead Mr. Gould.

39 posted on 04/11/2009 11:49:01 AM PDT by Poison Pill (Help, I've voted Republican and I can't get up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

By the way, why do they call it the “Discovery Institute”? Can you tell me what discovery they have ever made?


40 posted on 04/11/2009 11:55:13 AM PDT by Poison Pill (Help, I've voted Republican and I can't get up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
To a degree, yes. Showing Jesus and the disciples sitting at a table for the last supper is a bit silly despite the stature of the artist.

However making a painting of Jesus when his exact appearance is not known is less bothersome since it's not to illustrate his appearance but his presence in the scene.
Other religious painting might contain anachronisms deliberately placed due to the style of the times and no one mistakes the intention of the artist or his work, the desire to explain a historical event in a more modern setting.

Quite a bit different are illustrations where appearance/shape/form IS the story. When a feathered dinosaur is shown in a drawing it is the possession and placement of the feathers on a particular animal that is being touted as fact by means of the illustration.

When a caveman is shown dark skinned and naked it these qualities that being offered as a picture of a very likely reality.

That's deceptive and propaganda.

41 posted on 04/11/2009 12:30:12 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

It was understood then and it is understood now that the Creation painting uses symbolism to illustrate concepts that cannot be shown literally, God with a long white beard, (a father of mature wisdom, worthy of respect), vs. Adam beardless (inexperienced, child-like innocence).

Using this painting to show how clean a shave Adam had in a razor blade commercial, say, would be quite the contrary.

Really and truly, You do grasp how symbolism is used, yes?


42 posted on 04/11/2009 1:09:00 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; metmom; tacticalogic
You don't have to defend what you're saying if you never really said anything.

Absolutely a riot coming from one who never says a thing!

43 posted on 04/11/2009 7:20:07 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; metmom; GodGunsGuts

Well good, that settles it then. I came right out and said that Haekel was a full-on racist.-GGG

That’s fine.

Do you agree with the author’s assesment that the use of images is used to evoke an emotional response, rather than present a reasoned argument?


Conversely, evos utilize images to propogate their propoganda, while stomping on reaoned arguments AND elicit an emotional response, like Sarah Palin riding a dinosaur comes to mind.


44 posted on 04/11/2009 7:28:22 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

So then where is the photo showing the embryos of these animals at these stages to show that they are not similar?

All you do is state they are fake. Where is the proof that they are fake? Just because you say so?

There is a very good exhibit of all the stages of human development at the Museum of Science & Industry in Chicago. Before you complain, they were all from miscarriages (as stated clearly in the exhibit)


45 posted on 04/11/2009 8:38:48 PM PDT by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


46 posted on 04/11/2009 10:14:47 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; tpanther; metmom; GodGunsGuts

When explanations start coming out that tortured, or questions only get answered with personal attacks and insults then something went wrong further up stream.


47 posted on 04/13/2009 9:04:28 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Indeed.


48 posted on 04/13/2009 11:29:54 AM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Indeed.

Now the question is, what went wrong that's causing the personal attacks and insults?

49 posted on 04/13/2009 1:10:12 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Ahhh....you've lost me with the deep subtlety of your comment.
50 posted on 04/13/2009 1:31:23 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-107 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson