How Do Atheists Prepare for Hurricane Irene?

I’m not going to bother watching the video, intead I’m just going to ask what the point is for asking the question. I’m serious when I say this, but on first seeing the headline/question I became confused. While it is absurd to go on FOX to discuss the hurricane in the first place, the greater absurdity is in the question it self; what logic is there that makes this a legitimate question to ask?

All they do is mock him for not believing in the supernatural then claim he’s mocking them every time he tries to get a word out. He’s getting good at this though and he has a quick answer to every one of their ridiculous talking points. You’ve got to love how “fair and balanced” it was to surround him with a panel that wavered between unjustly calling him either a bully or an idiot.

Yeah well maybe we do mock you theists, but that’s our right and you deserve it. Don’t dish out the criticisms if you can’t take them.

My favorite part,

“Do you think god could stop the hurricane?”

“Noooo!”

“Then he’s not all powerful.”

*brief moment of silence as the rusty cogs turn*

That is simply incredible!  If believers like that really do exist then maybe there is a tooth fairy after all.

My reply was to Michael Gibbs. Looks like he took his comment off. 

Prayer is asking an omniscient god to change his mind.   Instead of prayer I suggest reading the “Encheiridion” (Manual) of Epictetus as the ultimate antidote to stress.  Epictetus, former Roman slave, Stoic philosopher and the man who was a huge influence on the great Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius.  

Christian: God exists!
Atheist: God doesn’t exist!
Christian: YOU ARE MOCKING HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT AS FACT!

You gotta love David Silverman. Always making the best out of every situation; even a Fox News situation…

“We want a calm discussion” : “We want YOU to be calm while WE ritualistically slaughter you on TV.  We want a punching bag, not a pugilist, capisce?”

what stupid reporters

Put two groups in a house next to each other. Have one group pray and the other not pray. See which one does better

“While watching that, I had all kinds of nasty words running through my mind to describe the female panelist… but I won’t mention them here. Because that wouldn’t be very nice. And the feminists would slaughter me.”

I’m sorry, why not not mention them because they’re (from context, I assume) sexist, rather than because you’re afraid some feminist will jump down your throat? Also, from context, it sounds like you’re saying you’re not a feminist. What?!? 

Who was mocking who again? I’m confused.

If you’re suggesting that Dave Silverman went on this FOX News programme because he believed that the question presented to him deserved a response, then as far as I’m concerned, he is an idiot. As I have already pointed out the FOX News network is notorious for vilifying atheists, so when they offer an invitation to an atheist to discuss such an asinine subject as to what atheists do in a hurricane, the only intelligent response would be to decline the invitation.

That is why I must question Silverman’s motive for going on the show, and why in that post of mine which has disappeared, I offered what I consider to be the only possible explanations for why he went on the show.

By the way, Silverman did not come across sounding sane and rational, instead he sounded like an arrogant ass, but so did everyone else on the program. And since this is supposed to be a business channel, the whole discussion made the show look like stupid.

David asked the woman if her god can stop the hurricane. She said god didn’t create it and god can’t stop it. David was right in saying then her god is not all powerful. But I would like to add… What exactly are they praying to god for then, if not to stop the hurricane?

Are they praying that god keeps them safe during the hurricane? Wouldn’t this imply that god was at least using his power to keep objects from being effected, or god at least steering the hurricane? These all still sounds like powers that I can’t understand why they consider possible but actually stopping the hurricane isn’t possible.

David should have also asked if the panelists supported preparing in the sense of stocking on food and keeping valuables out of the basement because of flooding etc, OR if the panelists supported only praying. Because if they put so much faith in prayer, shouldn’t that be the only thing they need to do?

Lastly, I will take a guess and say the Fox panelists knew ahead of time to say “You’re mocking us!” to give the impression to viewers that the atheist was being cruel at every stage of the discussion, while at the same time being able to sneak in their own insults. But so long as they kept freaking out as much as a soccer (football) player does in a game, to cause a penalty against the other side, they hoped to make it seem like David was causing discussion penalties.

Hold on, Fox is supposed to be a business channel?  Thats news to me.  
Only if your business is religion or right wing politics. The only way to find an hour where they dont mention God or how democrats hate america is to ride a unicorn across a rainbow while looking for a pot of gold. 

The whole purpose of having Dave on was to show that Atheists are stupid.  And Dave did well.   Will hard core fundagelicals agree with Dave?  No, but fence sitters might hear  the ” Can God stop the hurricane”, “no?” routine and have something click. Which is why he went on the show.  To take it where they live.  

I don’t think they could get anyone more shrill than that woman.  She came across like an SNL caricature of a local access TV commentator.

I agree that the the drug comparison may have cost him a little, but it is in fact spot on.  Your brain on drugs and your brain on religion is remarkably similar.  They can  both lead to delusion, hallucination, and incessant talking about useless things.
Personally I would have said that Masturbation gives me comfort.
Seriously though I really would have said the company of my friends and loved ones. 
To that point : a person with a large support group is will most likely come out of a disaster better than those who dont. 

Yeah. I thought the same thing. You know, Hemant, you can refrain from sexism because it’s the right thing to do. Instead you tell us how cowed you are by raging feminists, but if you weren’t you’d really let the woman have it. Nice.

What I found most interesting is that the female panelist essentially admitted that praying doesnt do anything (like stop the storm), but it makes you feel better (comforts).  My mouth dropped when I heard that admission. 

Shrill:  High-pitched and piercing in tone or sound. (from thefreedictionary.com)

Why would I call her obnoxious or malicious when I was referring to the pitch and volume of her voice?  There’s no gender attached to the word, so your complaint really is off base.

I was not complaining about you, I would have replied to you if I was.  Honestly, I had not seen your post when I made my comment. I used “shrill” and “bitchy” as examples for Hemant, because they are words that are commonly used to discredit women. I think this nicely shows how the term “shrill” is used to silence women: http://mimiandeunice.com/2011/06/28/shrill-2/
However, since you seem to want to get into this I must point out that by attacking her method of delivery (her “shrill” voice) you completely ignore the idiocy of her message. How does the “shrillness” of her voice have anything to do with the quality of her argument?

Wonder if the panel will jump on the hate train after the hurricane when the uber-fundies come out to tell the world it was “God washing away the gay!”

I think that if the only thing being religious did was provide a helpful placebo effect, none of us would be fighting against it quite so hard.  It’s all the *other* stuff that being religious does (such as blind one to rationality) that’s the problem.  If we can someday whittle religion down to “it makes you feel good and doesn’t bother anybody else,” I’d call that a win even if it can’t ever be eradicated entirely.

I have no problem with her loudly yelling that god doesn’t answer prayer.

And I don’t have a problem with you having no problem with it.  I do have a problem with the use of nondescript words being called sexist, however.

Stop praying and go take care of yourself, your family, and your neighbors.

False dichotomy (unless, of course, you have a strawman-like understanding of what prayer actually is..).

David Marshall:   Sorry David, but I don’t agree with you.  You have misunderstood Epictetus.  Anyway, I suspect that you will not be convinced by me so let me refer you to  Professor A.A. Long a leading scholar on Epictetus and later ancient philosophy.   May I refer you to Professor Long’s book “Epictetus: a Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life.” (Oxford University Press.)

Page 3.  Epictetus has also been misunderstood because his appeals to theology, which are ubiquitous, have been consciously or unconsciously, read in the light of Christianity.   In my opinion, Epictetus’ deepest ideas are remote from the main Christian message…………………….His ethical outlook includes stark appeals to self-interest, which ask persons to value their individual selves over everything else.”

Page 146.   …….Epictetus, like other Stoics again, will sometimes use language that could suggest a god who is distinct from his creation.   But this is not to be taken literally.” 

Page 146. “Physical nature, not a sacred text or revelation or inspired prophecy, is the Stoic’s guide to the divine.   The Stoics’ outlook on God is this-wordly in the sense that there is no supernatural domain for which we should be preparing ourselves in this life, no ‘end of days’ when lives will be judged.   The life we have now is what requires all of our attention; the only punishment for those who neglect the principles of Stoicism is to “stay just as they are” emotionally disturbed and disconnected.”

This seems to me to be remote from Christian teaching or faith.

I disagree that “shrill” is nondescript. Although the dictionary definition is not gendered, it is almost always applied to women and used in such a way as to discredit them for speaking, while ignoring what they are actually saying. It has been commonly applied to Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Sarah Palin in recent years by people who disagree with them. Considering the history of its use, I would most certainly say that this word does carry with it a sexist connotation, which is why I used it as an example.

If it is normally applied to women, it is due to the fact that in general, though not always, women have higher pitched voices than men, and part of the definition deals with pitch.  I heard Howard Dean referred to as shrill as well after he gave his unfortunate pep speech years ago.      Type “Bill O’Reilly Shrill” into Google and you’ll get  a good number of blog posts and stories in which HE is referred to as shrill.

So, no, while you may consider it a woman-only term, it is not.

I would guess that David Silverman’s rationale for going on the show is at least partly because it is free advertisement for one atheist viewpoint.

Also, Fox viewers who rarely if ever here anyone blatantly question the validity of their religious delusions will get a couple minutes of hearing that. It shatters the taboo whereby believers/doubters/etc. normally feel that they can not publicly question the validity/sanity of religious beliefs. Thus, it can put a tiny crack in the wall of the religious delusions and isolated thinking. It is one step in breaking the spell that religions hold over people.

I did not say that it is a women-only term. Just because an insult has been applied to men as well, does not mean that there isn’t a sexist connotation. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were completely unaware of the stereotype of the “shrill, nagging woman,” but I assure you that it does exsist and that the term “shrill” is often used to demean women by focusing on a physical attribute (their voice) and ignoring what they are saying. Of course, insults that are used against women can also be used against men, it is particularly insulting to associate a man with a negative female attribute, because things that are seen as feminine are seen as lesser in a sexist society, so using a feminine-coded insult against a man is like a double insult. I hope that now that you are aware of the stereotypes associated with the word you might re-evaluate your usage of it.

Actually, in this video David DID make the assertion that their beliefs in god/prayer/etc were delusions (false).  He doesn’t merely say “Maybe the prayers might not work” or “maybe you don’t have a spirit life that exists outside of your body”. Instead, David is polished enough at media soundbites to to come out and blatantly state the facts, as he sees them (and I happen to see them as he does).  

Meanwhile, I wholeheartedly, 100% agree with you that the “burden of proof” generally lies with those that assert the something DOES exist. Classic example: If I said that I have a real, live, pink unicorn on my head right now, the burden would be mine to prove such an extraordinary assertion (not your burden to falsify it, even if you blatantly questioned my sanity, which you should in that scenario).

David never got to make the point that THEY have no basis for their god/prayer beliefs. But he didn’t need to, it was implied/understood from his assertion that they were delusional beliefs. 

When I think of “shrill” as a slur in the theist/atheist debates, I usually assume someone is talking about Richard Dawkins, since that is the person in this arena that I most often heard it applied to (wrongfully so, in my opinion).

Google search for: shrill “richard dawkins”
and you will get over 84-thousand hits.

If you are praying, you are not, at that moment in time, taking care of anyone.

Such a waste.

That was a point I was disappointed he did not make,  if their god couldn’t stop the hurricane, what was the point of their prayers? 

Considering the way they attacked him, I thought he did a good job. He seemed to be the only one that could keep calm and actually consider the points made.

Ibis3, Thanks for policing the world. Dont you wish we soon invent a brain plugin to read people’s thoughts,and then you can police them to a greater extent? We will be one with the god freaks then.. punishing people for thought crimes. Thou shall not covet..

Okay, that finally does it! After more than two years in the Atheosphere, I finally give up. Why, you might ask… Well, there is the severe whiplash injury from furious daily shaking of the head at the inanity of the godbots. What is worse is the 400+ $ bill for pain medication that I had to take to shake of the effects of repeated face-palming and even double-face-palming. But when I was diagnosed with a severe concussion after seeing videos of the presidential canditates of the Republican Party, and then this piece of repulsive stupidity, I knew something had to change. Thus, I will only watch fluffy puppies henceforth!

Those people are idiots. Silverman is incredible for putting up with them.

To be fair, “God might not exist, and personally I don’t think God exists” is definitely not the line that Dave Silverman takes. He’s pretty candid about his views being the objective truth and says that people who do believe in a god are delusional. 

Maybe we should just stop using gender-specific insults and instead just call assholes of either gender “assholes.”  ;-}

I really don’t understand why David keeps allowing himself to be soiled this way.

A few months from now, news will be slow…

Varney: “Headaches. We all get them from time to time, but what do atheists do when they get a headache? Well, our guest tonight is David Silverman, president of American Atheists. So David, what do atheists do about heaches?

David: “Well we take a Tylenol or aspirin, drink plenty of fluids, and rest. . . . . . But we don’t pray! Praying doesn’t help head…”

Varney: “But that’s mockery! How can you just sit there so smugly mocking they way millions of decent, moral, law abiding, patriotic, God-fearing Americans respond to their headaches?! You can’t just say that, it’s just your opinion! Not a fact! Blah blah blah blah, rant rant rant rant, pontificate pontificate pontificate pontificate, straw man straw man straw man straw man, pious indignity, pious indignity, pious indignity pious indignity, posturing of moral superiority posturing of moral superiority posturing of moral superiority posturing of moral superiority, . . . . . . .”

David: (thinking to himself behind his now-famous open-mouthed WTF expression of incredulity.) “Why do I keep falling for this? Hmm. Maybe I should really re-think this whole helping-Fox-News-promote-its-own-righteousness thing.”

Er seems to me that the news gets pushed out of the way in favor for “how’s Brad Pitt’s armpit hair doing . . .” Journalism seems to be a thing of the past because it’s all about selling commercial time

You know what? My initial post was referring to the part of the post where Hemant said, “While watching that, I had all kinds of nasty words running through my
mind to describe the female panelist… but I won’t mention them here.
Because that wouldn’t be very nice. And the feminists would slaughter
me.” I was just offering a helpful hint for insulting women without incurring the wrath of feminists and I got completely dog-piled and derailed. Considering that Hemant and rrlane both live in the US, I think it was fair of me to use US-based examples. My post was directed at people who give a shit about what feminists think, if that’s not you then don’t take the advice!

Just to clarify, “shrill” is indeed an issue for many feminists:

“The use of the description of a woman’s natural vocal range as a
disparaging adjective is a textbook example of gender-coded language
that has been around for a long time. Another common, derogatory term
used is “shrill.” This type of language is demeaning, misogynistic, and
reminiscent of the Victorian era.”
http://www.thenewagenda.net/2009/06/16/sexist-blogger-margaret-carlson/

“It’s a strange experience to be attacked in virulently misogynistic
language by a woman. I’m used to ‘shrill’ and ‘rant’ and other
gender-coded terms.… ”
http://bitchmagazine.org/article/hard-times

“Sexist Remark: Calling a woman politician loud, shrill, unattractive, or pushy.”
http://www.stopsexistremarks.org/learning-to-effectively-respond-to-sexist-remarks-getting-started/

…and if you wish to avoid being “slaughtered” by them, avoid using it. If you don’t give a shit what they think,  carry on.

There’s a number of reasons why I’d think David does it.
1) If he didn’t, they’d find somebody else who would.  I’d much prefer the sucker Fox brings on to at least be capable of responding coherently to their points.  If not David Silverman, then they’d find somebody of their own making.
2) It’s possible, now more than ever, to have your world’s inputs be filtered by source.  I freely admit that I don’t watch Fox News, because they play fast and loose with objective truth.  If you are a conservative Christian, you can do all your socializing through church activities, your casual information gathering through Conservapedia, your news through Fox, your children’s education through homeschooling with Christian materials, etc.  It’s possible to effectively seal off everything else but the worldview that you want; what David is doing is forcing his way into that, trying to burst that bubble (blocking out that atheists exist).
3) Taking the confrontational approach can get some people on the road to questioning their beliefs, at least according to PZ Myers.  If nothing else, being the ‘brash, confrontational’ atheist who doesn’t back down helps shift the Overton window on atheism.  The ‘extreme vocal’ atheist takes gruff, making just the ‘vocal’ atheists more acceptable.
4) It gets American Atheist’s name out there.  Like the articles about “ZOMG An atheist billboard eleventy-one!”, this helps drive publicity and awareness to his organization.

I’m kind of late to this conversation, and I can’t read through all the comments. What ones I do see are generally defending Silverman. I just… I don’t like the way he handles these interviews. And I cannot in good faith blame Fox here. And I hate Fox. A lot. But, Silverman is not good at choosing vocabulary, and he comes off as antagonistic. I realize there is this defense that, well, atheism is inherently offensive to people of faith, and I agree that this mentality exists and that it is highly faulty, but that is not what is going on here. He calls them delusional with little provocation.  His “can God stop the hurricane” argument is immaterial to the topic at hand. Its a great argument for discussions on morality of belief, but its out of context here. The point of the segment was about “What do atheists do in a crisis?” and he started to answer, and allowed himself to get pulled away into a petty “god doesn’t exist” type of argument that never had a future. Some of this is Fox being Fox, but most of it was not. 

I’m starting to wish someone a bit more eloquent were representing atheists on Fox. I think they like this guy because they’re good at making him look bad and he takes the bait. I admire what he does for “the cause”, and he’s really good at articulating his arguments objectively. I just don’t think being argumentative, concise and objective is what is needed, you need someone diplomatic, persuasive and eloquent. You beat Fox by not stooping to their level. He tries, I really get that he does, but I think he causes more damage than he helps.

This ain’t misogynistic, but thanks for crying wolf about it.

You’re joking, right?

Every time I hear that it makes me think of PZ. LOL.

I would say to the people on those links the same thing I say here.  The word has no inherent sexual denotation or connotation, and it is used very frequently to describe men (thousands of times in just one reference, per Peter Mahoney).  The complaint falls flat because evidence of the word’s usage does not bear it out.

@font-face {
font-family: “Times New Roman”;
}@font-face {
font-family: “Arial”;
}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 14pt; font-family: Arial; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }

Imagine how differently this interview would have gone if
David had not fed them any of the lines about prayer or god, etc. that
they were eagerly waiting to instantly pounce upon. Imagine instead that he
only answered their questions:

Varney: “So David, what do atheists do when facing a
hurricane?”

David:  “We
prepare. We get food, water, batteries, everything

we’ll need, and we help our families, friends and neighbors
to prepare as best we can.”

(awkward silence)

Varney: “. . . . Uh, so you don’t prepare in some
spiritual way?”

David: (blandly) “No.”

(awkward silence)

Varney:  “.
. . . Well, . . . that seems impoverished to me. I think you live an
impoverished life. ” 

David: (blandly) “Oh.”

(awkward silence)

Varney: (beginning to sweat, realizing this interview is
bombing)

“Well… harrumph,  how, how do you feel about my saying that??”

David:  “I
feel fine. Are you feeling alright?” (ignoring any response, David turns to the camera) Everybody! Get prepared! Have
food, water, batteries, everything you’ll need, and help your family,
friends and neighbors to prepare as best you can!” (then he
turns back to Varney with a bland,
expectant smile)

(awkward silence)

Varney: “. . . . Uh, okay, well… (glancing off camera
for help from

his producer) I guess that uh, is all the time we have for
this.  We’ll be back after these messages.”

(extra long string of commercials followed by another news
item) 

David would have come across 100% sensible and caring,
Varney would have come across 100% lame stuffed shirt, and Fox News would have
come across 100% boring.

People who believe in a god and talk to it and think it talks to them, and who think it’s responsible for everything they like and its antithesis is responsible for everything they don’t like *are* delusional. But it’s one thing to believe that and quite another to say it on national teevee without getting slammed in a set-up “discussion.”

I go on about it because I don’t appreciate language being hijacked by the thin skinned.  

You came on lecturing people on how OTHER people would take their words, and you have the audacity to claim others are acting superior? 

And PZ has developed a bit of an eye-twitchy reaction to it. (It’s apparently a bannable offence.)

Hell, I just use that as the default setting, anymore.

That’s why so many addicts end up being religious nutters — they’re not “cured”, they’ve just shifted the addiction from being focused on Drug X to being focused on religion.

I’m sure there *are* calm-voiced female Christians out there, but FOX, for some reason, seems not to have their contact details.  The one they DID get hold of was a pretty much textbook example of what I imagine a screeching harridan to be like.  That’s to take nothing away from Stuart Varney being a pompous English git.  And I’m English.  I know one when I see one.

The first time I saw Dave Silverman I was distinctly uneasy about this guy being like the de facto spokesperson for atheism, but I am SO glad we have him.  I love that guy.  He takes a hard and unapologetic line against theism, and he’s very firm and unyielding in the face of rank nonsense.  I’m not surprised he said “we prepare!” when asked that initial question – he is a consummate preparer; every time I’ve seen him he has ready answers for absolutely everything.

I also love how this little five minute segment was like a full debate on the efficacy of prayer in microcosm.

“Prayer doesn’t work.”
“Yes it does!”
“Could god stop the hurricane?”
“No.”
“Then he’s not all powerful.”
“But prayer makes people feel better!”
“So does heroin.”
The end.

FOX: somehow finding a  way to link Hurricane Irene with Atheists. Ah’ America.

Holy Shit Yet  another example of Christian mocking of anyone who is not of their ridiculous beliefs.  It is shows how the God Virus is affecting the United CHRISTIAN States of America. The way it is going America will soon be a nation of brain dead bible thumping idiots and the Country will become a poor Third World Nation

Silverman is straight-up, honest, and hard-hitting, which is exactly what FNC pretends to be about. If you’re watching FNC with a receptive mind, you’re already probably the sort who is swayed by loud, possibly antagonistic arguments. I think he’s not stooping so much as tailoring his presentation to the audience at hand.

And I do think there’s something to be said for the straight-forward approach. Trying overly hard to be diplomatic (especially when the “other side” isn’t) looks cowardly, and in a format like this it compares negatively with the other speakers. He’s not throwing out insults, he’s not arguing with ad-homs, he’s simply speaking the truth in a simple manner and starting to do a very very good job of sounding like the voice of reason amongst nutjobs. Hopefully if anyone watching was in the questioning state, they’re leaning further towards rationality now.

Who says you can’t pray while doing stuff? (unless you’re assuming that prayer requires certain rituals / psotures / locations etc. ?)

He could have just answered the question. There was no reason to bring in the subject of prayer at all. It was not relevant.

Capisce — “Got it”, or “understood”.

Actually, although I can’t speak for anyone else, the only reason I think there are more feminist wingnuts than other groups is because I go on the internet, and actually come across them – including some that post on this very site. Of course, when I find feminists in real life, I find that the ratio of nuts to feminists decreases.

Oh, I don’t have much to do with the ‘patriarchal media’. I virtually never watch television, never listen to radio, and – don’t read much in the way of newspapers.

Also, I wonder if I made up a word called ‘masculinist’ and defined it as equality between both sexes… would you feel comfortable calling yourself it?

I suspect not.

Similarly, the very construction of the word ‘feminist’ prevents it ever being a neutral term.

Personally, I just stay gender neutral and say I am pro-equality.

And, unfortunately, Dave would never have been invited back again, and they’d have invited someone in (or made one up) who would get really confrontational.

I think (although I’m an outsider looking in not being American) that you need someone who’s willing to play the FOX News game – you just have to make sure you play it well. 

Having worked as an EMT who has seen far too many fires caused by unattended candles, NO I’m not joking.

My facebook news feed was full of status updates like: “An earthquake and now Irene? is it the end?!” To which I replied: “No. No it isn’t.”

Just found this site, and I really like it.

I don’t think this interview with David was good for the cause of Atheism.  He was definitely trying to get a reaction, and it worked.  “Invisible man in the sky” may be an accurate description of God, but it doesn’t help when it is thrown at Christians right out of the gate.  I think David looked bad in this clip and did a disservice to Atheism.  If he’d stuck to his story and let the other panelists look like idiots, that would have been better.  In the end, from my perspective, David looked just as bad as the rest of them.  That means that for the typical Fox viewer, he looked like the Anit-Christ.

“I had all kinds of nasty words running through my mind to describe the
female panelist… but I won’t mention them here. Because that wouldn’t
be very nice. And the feminists would slaughter me. ”

Hermant, Please don’t say things like this and then, in other posts, talk about how the atheist community needs to be more inclusive to women and recognize the sexism within it. You are being dishonest and hypocritical.

This is where religion DOES hurt.  The Toronto Start quoted a Barista (why?) comforting a client by saying “There’s nothing you can do, it’s all in Gods hands.  There’s nothing you can do.”

Anybody who believes that and leaves it in god’s hands fails to help themselves.  Anybody who does board the church windows and get candles doesn’t really believe prayer will help them, so what’s the point? 

Oh. My. Dear. God. !!!! The expressions on his face were the best part. 🙂 He was like, WTF????? Yeah, they just invited him to harass and verbally beat up on him….

“Every single person on that screen was a moron.”

That’s how I feel about blog comments. I couldn’t read past that statement.

For someone asking if Fox is a business channel – yes, they have a separate channel called Fox Business Channel. Stuart Varney’s been a business reporter for a long time, going back to CNN’s earliest days in the 1980s.

I’ve always thought he was a stuffed shirt even then. IMHO, he fits right in with all those at The Ministry of Truth at FoxSpin.

Who was the woman on the show?  She was an embarrassment

That whooshing sound over your head wasn’t a low flying airplane.

This comment is as random as Pinkie Pie.

I ♥ your avatar! 🙂