I am still hoping that this is a joke. However, according to Gawker and other sites, the Trinity Broadcasting Network is airing a series called Bibleman for children. In the video below, Bibleman appears to fight New Yorkers in a talk show setting.
Unlike Hamas, Bibleman does not espouse violence and hatred like Hamas’ many ventures into children programming, click here.
Indeed, Bibleman wears “shoes of peace” as well as a “shield of faith” and “belt of truth” as shown here in his dress sequence.
I checked, this seems real, click here.
However, the armored Bibleman appears to be fighting the force of evil in New York in what the bloggers have called the “Bibleman v. the New York Jew” episode.
I am waiting for the League of Religious Justice with Bibleman, Torahdude, and Koranguy fighting atheists around the world. For a funny trailer for a video game on Bibleman v. a protester, click here. It is still better than the homicidal children shows on Hamas television.
Whatever happened to Gilligan’s Island? It wasn’t particularly educational (beyond learning how a brilliant scientist could make a radio out of a coconut but a simple boat). Yet, the most one developed was a crush on Mary Ann (before her recent arrest of course).
For the Bibleman episode, click here
Hello. I don’t generally feel anything until noon; then it’s time for my nap. Help me! Please help find sites for: Paid at home computer job training. I found only this – computer engineer job entry level. Hair replacement, fishes are a different crème feedback soundtrack. Hair replacement, despite different years, the cord injured the hormone still also, traveling a wedge-shaped, other breaker choice to their common eleven time. :confused: Thanks in advance. Oma from Britain.
May I just say:
“oy.”
Don’t tell this to anyone but I think I saw Bibleman and Cypher in a gay pride march last night. Of course I was disgusted because they were each holding a football and Leviticus said touching the skin of a pig is an abomination (unless you are sitting in swively chairs). I was going to protest but I was afraid Bibleman would take out after me with his light saber and I had forgotten to bring my shield of glory. So I just had to enjoy the parade.
DW:
Pollyanna you are not. Like you, I suspect that a loathing of Hamas is anon’s motivation, hence my reference to a “one issue guy” in a previous post. I agree that he is a passionate advocate and that is what makes the discussion interesting. I do not think him old enough to have voted for Clinton, but a little embellishment is expected. All in all, I hope he returns too. He certainly is willing to research and defend his views and that is the saving grace for me regardless of his argument style.
Mespo,
Yes, it is the truth of it that we learn to approach the world with more kindness and more wisdom as we get older. I am definitely not the audacious firebrand of my younger years. It just saddens me that our dreams didn’t come true. When both you and I were coming up, there was this dominant feeling that the future of the country involved more openness, more civil liberties, more rationality and humanism. And for a while it looked like that was going to be the way things worked out.
But then came the Counter-revolution and our two conservative economic royalists, Reagan and Bush II have set this country back fifty years and they would, if they could, have set it back 30 more…when their world, built on inequity, ended. Worse, they have made a marriage of convenience with socio-religious-nativist forces of reaction and that too has added the slide backwards.
It is so sad to see our country slip further and further behind the civilized industrialized world, with our population neutralized and in the thrall of propagandists and political marketeers. With science despised and new religious zealots looking for enemies to stigmatize.
Anon may be a product of this new age and perhaps does not question its values: he/she may never have seen the alternative, nor knew the history that led us to this present pass. But this is all rank speculation. Anon may be older than either of us!
What puzzles me about today’s fire fight is this. Not that you two tangled…I have seen a lot of that, and as such set-to’s go, this was pretty mild. It was that there was a glaring inconsistency in Anon’s self-portrait. He announced that he had voted for Clinton, Gore, Kerry and was now vigorously supporting Obama.
Yet his initial comments seemed more typical of the type we see on Powerline and LGF and other such sites…it was passing strange….
My hypothesis is that he/she is as advertised, but also a strong supporter of Israel and as such might have a deep loathing for Hamas, the source of so many murders and senseless slaughter. If that is the case, and I suspect it is, he/she is not here to trash liberals or anything else of the agenda of Niblet and his ilk, but only to attack the defenders, in however removed a sense, of an organization much-despised in that country.
If Anon returns, and there is no reason he/she shouldn’t and be welcomed at that, I hope there won’t be any further fireworks between you. It seems that with your vigorous styles you may actually become friends and jointly defend the salon from the REAL crazies out there.
DW the Pollyanna
DW:
Thank you for the rational response to anon. He is obviously a youthful poster bent on the last word in the argument and that is fine. In youth, I too believed my words did not matter and that I could say or do anything to anyone with impunity. With experience, that foolishness left me and I suspect it will for anon too. He is certainly bright and passionate, but a tad perplexed when confronted with obvious facts and well established legal concepts. He is certainly entitled to that now. What concerns me is when I see a shipwreck like that waiting to happen, that a shot be fired over his bow. That has been done. If he heeds it fine, if not, I suspect we will see the debris floating by as both of us have many times over our lives.
deeply worried,
I appreciate your posts, both the content and the tenor.
And I appreciate your interest in fairness, especially as it applies to this case, especially since that has been a plank of the defense, in all its incarnations. And I think sometimes it has been a real issue, and sometimes it has been just rhetorical.
I’m heading out to dinner – but I want to address some of your points first:
But the question is open whether he needs to be.
I’m not saying he “needs” to be, nor am I saying he “should” be. That is up to him.
I am just observing, as you have, that he has not been. Despite mespo’s fevered contentions, stating that he has not been is not “libel per se” and does not constitute an allegation that Prof. Turley has acting in any way unethically.
As for your second point, and this is another reason (just one of many, actually) why Mespo’s posts are laughable – I have not said/claimed that this blog post will make any difference in the outcome of Dr. Al-Arian’s case. I don’t think that prosecutors in the Eastern District will bother to read Prof. Turley’s blog, and to the extent they do, I doubt they will ever cite it in court proceedings – that Dr. Al-Arian’s attorney is on the record as being against extremist hate speech, of which his client has a history of engaging in.
It is, however, undercutting Al-Arian’s (and, by the way, much of his previous legal team’s) public positions that this type of behavior is completely understandable as a direct result of the actions of others.
I’m glad Prof. Turley doesn’t feel that way. It is too his personal credit. It does, however, knock down a part of the Al-Arian narrative, which has been present not just throughout his legal proceedings but when he became the object of media attention. That has no bearing on whether or not Al-Arian gets held in contempt again, or not, and I have not stated that it would.
I noted the inconsistency, to which Mespo – for whatever reason – took great offense and chose to get insulting (resulting in my tone towards him/her) – and then delved off into some fantasy land about accusations of unethical behavior, libel per se, defamation lawsuits, etc…
As I have said before, it is to laugh.
Have a good night.
Anon, I think it is the case that Mespo (and I also, but less knowledgeably and articulately) share a dislike of posts that attack Professor Turley unfairly. (I say “posts” and not “posters”. I admire your abilities to hold up your side against a very tough opponent)
Your post to Professor Turley seemed to me in overall tenor a bit unfair (I am a classic FDR liberal and worry about fairness a lot!) But it was subtle. On first reading, you were simply making a facial challenge of inconsistency. In later posts, you deepen the initial challenge and give the consequences of weakening the case as a likely outcome.
First the facial challenge of inconsistency. You are correct. Professor Turley isn’t globally consistent here. But the question is open whether he needs to be.
Can’t one represent a member of a group and simultaneously write a piece critical of that same group? The defense of the member on a specific issue is not contingent on approval of the group as a whole. There is no linkage. I would LIKE it if Professor Turley’s clients uniformly belonged or were associated with groups with high social approval rates: say Quakers or Episcopalians, but alas that’s not possible.
Your second, strong position of asserting that Professor Turley is undercutting his client could conceivably be correct in SOME administration of justice scenarios we could envision. But in the specific, particular scenario that Al-Arian is in, I doubt that it makes an iota of difference in the outcome of the process that the above thread essay was penned. And that is why Professor Turley, who is a seasoned defense counsel, thought it safe to write it.
I really think that this whole argument could have been boiled down to the initial challenge, but arguments, like events, get out of hand.
.
By the way, I really do appreciate the response you gave me before. It helped my understanding of the issues.
If you do not understand that the lawyer who “undercuts” his client in his case is committing an ethical breach, and that you by making such a assertion against Prof. Turley are calling him unethical, I fear we are operating in two different realities.
Yes, me in the real world, and you in some strange world unto yourself where an understanding of legal ethics is not necessary.
Look, if there are two (or more) attorneys representing a single client (as happens with frequency), and they disagree over either a legal strategy and/or p.r. strategy, but they choose ultimately to go with one (whether better or worse, each having its own degree of benefits and/or liabilities), as they ultimately must, that doesn’t mean that the other strategies not chosen (both legal or p.r.)are unethical, because they would be worse. Or that the one chosen, if it backfires, is unethical.
Telling a lawyer – who’s blogging publicly! (you really are daft if you think public statements of bloggers who happen to be lawyers are not open to criticism) that they’re undercutting positions held by his client and his clients supporters are somehow actionable – amazing! And not in a good way, in a sad way.
Ill-advised and/or counterproductive does not equal unethical.
Please tell me you are not a lawyer. Or a law student.
You’re “reality” is highly confused, sir/madam.
I know you have some problems in clarifying your position.
No, I don’t. You just have difficulty with reading comprehension and enjoy projecting views onto others. Not atypical in people who like to condescend without fully understanding the situation.
you would be learning quite a bit in the next few months about the law of libel per se.
Wow. Trust me, that won’t be a problem. I imagine Prof. Turley is now embarrassed by your “help.” What a joke. That threat is laughable. It’s interesting to see where certain people go when they get desperate.
I imagine Prof. Turley, however, can handle criticism of his public positions – on something as minor as a blog post – without thinking that it constitutes falsely accusing him of having committed a crime, engaged in behavior constituting failures of moral terpitude, being inept or having a social disease.
If you need more proof of this assertion I suggest you consult the Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Please. There is nothing in there to address the fantasies of a whiny hysteric.
And by the way, I am not kidding.
Oh my god. Well then, that’s certainly bad news for you.
Impugning the reputation of a lawyer? Oh no. That never happens. Ever. Even if it’s only you that imagined that this is what has happened.
Again, you must be kidding. I hope so. However, since you assure everyone you are not, that’s really, really sad.
The really ironic – and tragic – thing of all this is that you, a supposed and imagined paragon of “free speech” are trying to stifle criticism by threatening legal action.
Classic. Embarrassing, but classic nonetheless. Wow.
anon:
If you do not understand that the lawyer who “undercuts” his client in his case is committing an ethical breach, and that you by making such a assertion against Prof. Turley are calling him unethical, I fear we are operating in two different realities. I know you have some problems in clarifying your position, but if this is your intention and I were the affected attorney, you would be learning quite a bit in the next few months about the law of libel per se. Perhaps this is the reason for your moniker. While you may enjoy your invective, you should realize that you are directly impugning this man’s professionalism and reputation. If you need more proof of this assertion I suggest you consult the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. And by the way, I am not kidding.