Ben Carson

Ben Carson Isn't the First Politician to Have Odd Ideas About Pyramids

Compared to these concepts, Carson's theory is downright banal.

|

The new frontrunner in the Republican presidential primaries has a theory about the pyramids:

Books like this were ubiquitous in the supermarkets of the '70s.
Warner Destiny

Ben Carson stood by his long-held belief about ancient pyramids in Egypt, that they were used to store grain, rather than to inter pharaohs.

Asked about this Wednesday, Carson told CBS News, "It's still my belief, yes."

The subject came up when Buzzfeed published a 1998 commencement speech delivered by Carson at Andrews University, a college founded by Seventh-day Adventists.

"My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain," Carson said. "Now all the archeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs' graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big if you stop and think about it. And I don't think it'd just disappear over the course of time to store that much grain."

In the same speech, he went on to say, "[W]hen you look at the way that the pyramids are made, with many chambers that are hermetically sealed, they'd have to be that way for various reasons. And various of scientists have said, 'Well, you know there were alien beings that came down and they have special knowledge and that's how—' you know, it doesn't require an alien being when God is with you."

CBS does not appear to have asked the candidate precisely which scientists support the alien theory.

It would be easy to go into a tizzy about this, but really, Carson's comments are almost comforting, relatively speaking. After a season of hearing Trump talk about his worldview, a little kookiness about ancient Egypt is practically benign. At any rate, I don't think for a moment that Ben Carson will be elected president next year, so I'm not going to expend a lot of energy worrying about how such ideas might affect the ways he'd exercise power.

Instead let's ask a historical question: What other prominent politicians may have believed bizarre things about the pyramids? Two jump to mind.

Step 1: Enter their universe via my dupe, Henry Wallace. Step 2: Weirdmageddon!
Disney Channel

First there's Henry Wallace, one of FDR's vice presidents and a member of the Roosevelt and Truman cabinets. (Still later, he would edit The New Republic and run for president under the banner of the Progressive Party.) A devotee of Theosophy and other building blocks of New Age thought, Wallace was the man who persuaded the president to add the eye-in-the-pyramid symbol to the country's currency, thus giving ammo to everyone out there who thinks the Illuminati control the money supply.

During his presidential campaign in 1948, one of Wallace's most incisive critics was the left-libertarian writer Dwight Macdonald, who wrote a brief book about the candidate called Henry Wallace, the Man and the Myth. "Wallace dabbles in astrology and can draw a horoscope," Macdonald mentioned at one point. "He is quite familiar with the theory that the future can be predicted from certain markings on the Great Pyramid."

I realize, of course, that "quite familiar with" is not a synonym for "believes." There is room for a little interpretive ambiguity here, especially since the story is being filtered through the acid pen of one of Wallace's foes. We are on firmer footing when it comes to an earlier politician, Ignatius Donnelly, who served as Minnesota's lieutenant governor from 1860 to 1863, graduated from there to the U.S. Congress, and much later became active in the Populist Party, which nominated him for the vice presidency in 1900. Donnelly was also the author of several books of proto-New Age speculation, including 1882's Atlantis: The Antediluvian World, which includes this passage:

"…for soon the pyramids my people have planted across the globe will all EXPLODE!"
Marvel Comics

Were not the pyramids of Egypt and America imitations of similar structures in Atlantis? Might not the building of such a gigantic edifice have given rise to the legends existing on both continents in regard to a Tower of Babel?

How did the human mind hit upon this singular edifice—the pyramid? By what process of development did it reach it? Why should these extraordinary structures crop out on the banks of the Nile, and amid the forests and plains of America? And why, in both countries, should they stand with their sides square to the four cardinal points of the compass? Are they in this, too, a reminiscence of the Cross, and of the four rivers of Atlantis that ran to the north, south, east, and west?

I have never found it puzzling that more than one culture would build structures that are smaller at the top than the bottom—surely the reverse would be more of a mystery—but many people think it's a conundrum, and Donnelly has been influential among them. Next to that, Ben Carson's grain theory is downright banal. I hate to ask this, but…do you think you could amp up the weirdness a bit, Dr. Carson? I know you've got it in you.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

472 responses to “Ben Carson Isn't the First Politician to Have Odd Ideas About Pyramids

  1. Just because the U.S. didn’t collapse because FDR’s vice president was a whack job, doesn’t in any way call into question the wisdom of giving whackjobs power.

    Sure some whacky ideas are less harmful than others. Look at the damage Gore did with his whackjob belief that there will be runaway global warming and contrast it to to much more benign impact Reagan’s tolerance for his wife’s belief in astrology.

    The problem is that often you can’t predict the damage a particular whackjob belief is going to cause. For example what is the 7th Day Adventist position on a very popular evangelical belief that Israel’s establishment is a precondition for bringing about the rapture? What prophecies do they believe in regarding the end times?

    1. I don’t think Gore actually believes that, he just believes in making money off of it.

      1. I don’t think the vast majority of Democrats believe any of the bullshit they’re peddling.

        1. (by which I mean politicians)

    2. Um, how was Truman a whackjob? Sure, he made a dumb, sentimental decision about Israel, but I’m not sure anyone could have foreseen how badly that would turn out.

      1. The article is talking about VP Henry Wallace, not VP Truman.

        1. Oops, thanks.

      2. Truman had a pretty scary side to him. There are letters he wrote to his wife while fighting in the trenches in WW I, where he argued for genocidally exterminating the entire “German race”. I don’t recall whether he was willing to spare innocent children or if he wanted to spit German babies on American bayonets for great justice.

        1. I’d like to think that “thoughts expressed to loved ones while engaged in trench warfare” would have some sort of statute of limitations.

        2. I have some trouble criticizing anything that anyone said while in the Argonne in 1918, especially anything regarding woodchippers and krauts.

        3. Sounds like Washington to me.

          He’ll save children, but not the British children

            1. *joins in rising chorus*

        4. Context, how does it work?

        5. truman was a visionary. he knew the germans would be back.

          1. Bet he wasn’t betting on them as Europe’s only sane man, though.

      3. he made a dumb, sentimental decision about Israel, but I’m not sure anyone could have foreseen how badly that would turn out.

        The ‘dumb’ decision being what recognizing Israel? Oh yes that turned out horribly. NO PART of the ME should be civilized or a reliable US ally.

        1. Um, they are not our ally, but they do expect us to be their ally. This has been explained to you before.

          1. You don’t understand the difference between ‘explaining’ and ‘stating’. What you did was the latter.

            Thank God for Israel. They are the reason Iraq and Syria didn’t get nuclear weapons, which is the reason ISIS and other crazies don’t have them. They were, if what I have heard around here is correct, very helpful in the Cold War.

            1. The Israelis initial buddy-buddy pals were the French. It was the Americans and Soviets in 1956 who ended the Suez Crisis, basically told Israel, Britain, and France to take ball and go home.

              The Israelis were the original nuclear cheaters. All the verification/inspection theater one sees with the likes of the Norks and the Carpet People today was first invented for the Israelis. Fascinating history there with the Kennedy Administration.

              The 60’s though saw evolution of the Fifth Republic and the wider Cold War, resulting in United States as Israel’s primary benefactor, and France on its way to becoming an Islamizing Palestinian sympathizer. One can see that change in Israeli armaments in their wars – they were flying Mirages in 1967, it was Phantoms and A-4’s by Yom Kippur.

          2. Dunno, during the Cold War, they were an excellent source of intelligence on capabilities of Soviet-made weaponry and tactics, at least the export version. If you take Cold War seriously, having someone harvest a new generation of your opponent’s military hardware every decade or so is very, very handy…

            1. The only things Tonio takes seriously are 1) Soconz and 2) how horrible it is that a part of the ME is civilized and the Joos weren’t wiped out in the region.

        2. I’m not sure anyone could have foreseen how badly that would turn out.

          Interesting question, actually.

          Was the batshit, genocidal/homicidal reaction of various Arab and Persian peoples/governments to a Jewish state, a reaction that would only get more and more deranged over the decades, foreseeable?

          Discuss.

          Keep in mind, that that there were longstanding Jewish communities in most of MENA that were more or less tolerated at the time Israel was founded, so the slavering anti-Semitism that has become a hallmark of MENA politics was not necessarily prevalent when Israel was founded. Naturally, those Jewish communities have all pretty much ceased to exist since Israel was founded.

          1. The anti-semitism was there and could not tolerate non-oppressed Jews.

      4. Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry.

        That’s pretty wacky.

        1. You misspelled fascist.

          1. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    3. I shudder to imagine what damage Gore could have done if elected president.

        1. At least he doesn’t have the gall to jet around in his luxury yacht.

      1. I bet it would have been practically indistinguishable from what we got with Bush.

        1. Nah, the press were willing to attempt to hold Bush to account. Gore would have given us Bush’s performance, with their proud trumpting of how awesome it was.

          So, basically, Obama.

          1. Maybe. It took a while for the press to give much scrutiny to Bush on the “war on terror” stuff, though.

      2. I know. We wouldn’t have even had that sweet war in Iraq. What a clown!

        1. Actually we would have. Gore had quite a hard on for Iraq.

        2. The Iraq that his predecessor, and former boss, bombed anytime he needed the media’s attention to focus elsewhere?

          That Iraq?

      3. I still believe the Gore could enter the race if/when Shrillary implodes (either over Bengazi or Email). I also think that is probably the reason Joey Joe Joe Jim Bob Shabadou Biden decided not to run. My conspiracy is that Gore is jockeying to be the white knight of the Democrat party.

        1. I keep thinking this as well. Gore swoops in when Hillary finally encounters the scandal-cock that even she cannot swallow. Its out there, somewhere.

      4. I shudder to imagine what damage Gore could have done if elected president.

        Yeah, Gore totally would have adopted an appeasement policy toward the Atlanteans. Prince Namor is never satisfied, though. He’d just bide his time before attacking the surface world.

    4. Yeah, wacky ideas about evolution or the pyramids are nothing compared to every democrats belief in central planning, wealth redistribution and global warming.

      1. ^^^^THIS^^^

    5. Seventh-day Adventists do not believe that Israel’s establishment is a precondition for the return of Jesus. Adventists believe in a literal, visible, audible, and non-secret return of Christ at a future point in time that only God knows. There are Biblical prophecies out of a reading of Daniel and Revelation that quite clearly point to the current time as very close to the return of Christ. Adventists believe that the Bible is very clear that at Christ’s return, the dead who have been judged by Christ to be His followers will rise from the dead and they along with those alive at Jesus’s return who Jesus has claimed as His will ascend to Heaven. The wicked at that point in time shall be slain. There is no hell of torment for that is not the character of God but the wicked are destroyed.

      John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosover believeth shall not perish but have everlasting life”. That famous text states essentially states that non-believers will perish and so that rules out a hell of everlasting torment.

      I do not see how any of that affects politics but is the interpretation of the Bible that the Adventists have.

    6. Seventh Day Adventists don’t believe in the rapture.

    7. Hell, the evangelical’s beliefs in the Wars on Women, Gays and Drugs should be enough to get them life sentences. Then you include how much damage these beliefs have done to the republican party as well as the country and I wouldn’t rule out the death penalty as being too harsh for them.

      Maybe we can pawn them off on Putin??? Not hardly huh?

      IT’S ALL OVER FOLKS! And the socialists won.

  2. The fact that Carson doesn’t have a team of experts constantly telling him “How not to look stupid and crazy” baffles me.

    These people are spending millions running for the presidency. Yet carson is answering questions about *the pyramids*?

    God must want Hillary because he’s itching to wipe the slate clean again. its the end times, people!

    1. It’s pretty evident that it’s inevitable that a corrupt sociopathic crook like Hillary will eventually end up in the oval office. It’s just a matter of when.

      If she were to keel over dead from a stroke this evening, none of the incentives and institutional forces that vomited a creature like her to the surface of the political cauldron will change. Similar scum will similarly rise.

      1. “”If she were to keel over dead from a stroke this evening, none of the incentives and institutional forces that vomited a creature like her to the surface of the political cauldron will change. Similar scum will similarly rise.”

        Sure. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t flush the current floater down whenever possible

      2. I would argue that what replaces her might be much worse.

        1. “”what replaces her might be much worse“”

          Well, if you operate on the assumption that she is simply the current mortal incarnation of some timeless evil being… well, yes, there’s always that possibility.

          That said, it is generally prudent when faced with that sort of thing to KILL IT WITH FIRE, and let someone else deal with the re-run

        2. “I would argue that what replaces her might be much worse.”

          I hate that I agree with this

    2. The fact that Carson doesn’t have a team of experts constantly telling him “How not to look stupid and crazy” baffles me.

      And that’s honestly the biggest reason he’s clearly not qualified.

      1. Probably.

        Either it means he’s not willing to take advice, or he hires people who think his crazy shit is *A-Ok*

        Still = I’d vote for him ahead of either of the Blue team free-stuff-floggers

    3. The fact that Carson doesn’t have a team of experts constantly telling him “How not to look stupid and crazy” baffles me.

      Maybe he does and he ignores them.

      1. Or I could refresh.

      2. at some point, you have to differentiate between serious questions and ones that are pointless to answer.

        1. Carson not only cannot (or will not) differentiate, if he doesn’t know the answer, he’ll just make something up.

          1. Do you really want a President who says he doesn’t know the answer to something?

            1. If i have to have a president, yes.

    4. I saw a poll yesterday (I know, I know) showing Carson beating The Hildebeast 60/40.

      I will take a pyramid nut over what we have now or The Hildebeast any time.

      1. At least he wouldn’t be able to get anything done.

    5. The fact that Carson doesn’t have a team of experts constantly telling him “How not to look stupid and crazy” baffles me.

      Not me. Its the plastic, programmed candidates that are being tightly managed by consultants that are getting their asses handed to them.

  3. I’m more concerned about politicians with odd ideas about the big government and a benevolent State.

    1. True; the economic creationism that infects both the Democratic and Republican parties is incredibly destructive.

    2. Like Carson?

      1. He sure isn’t my first choice – but there are several with far wackier economic ideas in the running.

        1. That’s about as low of a bar as bars get.

          1. Some of these people are trying to jump the low-bar, some are playing limbo

            1. I think it’s pretty clear that most, if not all, of the current candidates are working feverishly to dig a tunnel under the bar.

              1. THOSE TUNNELS WERE USED TO STORE GRAIN, SERIOUSLY

  4. NO, FUCK YOU, CUT SPENDING!

    1. Would Jesus cut spending?

    2. “But, But we can’t! Don’t you realize what a grain storage pyramid costs these days?”

    3. Just stopping it from increasing would be good.

    4. Public works like the pyramids provided good, well paying jobs for thousands of working class Egyptians. We need more pyramids and more federal spending, not less as you and the Koch brothers would have it.

        1. Good God this is imperial-scale derp.

          Yet the more I thought about it, the more I started to think that actually, building the Death Star would be a great idea. It would have massively beneficial economic effects for employment, output, science, technology and so forth. Any civilization that can build such a thing is both immensely powerful, and immensely skilled.

          Because the building of the thing is what brings about the technological and material wealth to build it, right?

          So why would I think that committing to spend vastly more than global GDP on a single project that nobody in the market is demanding is a good idea? Well, on a potentially infinite timeline, such a huge figure becomes more and more affordable as we go further and further into the future.

          Yeah, unless we expend all our wealth-creating industrial power building up a pointless vanity project, in which case the monstrous thing gets even more expensive as time goes by.

          1. In order to avoid misallocating capital like the Soviet Union and other command economies, government’s capacity for extra stimulus is only the resources that the market has let sit idle.

            Thank God, finally someone is going to direct those idle resources to productive uses, unlike what entrepreneurs or investors do now which is to forego profits and destroy capital by letting them rust.

            Eventually, projects on the scale of the Death Star may become not only economically viable but a valuable contribution to humanity.

            This is the string-pushingest theory of economic production since Marx put pen to paper.

      1. What about the crumbling Sphinx infrastructure? Why not invest in that? It is always about the pyramids with you guys.

        I wonder if the proggie Egyptians would counter arguments back in the day with “but what about PYRAMIDZ!!!” or “why don’t you go live in Kush if you don’t like hauling stone blocks up to the top of the pyramid?”

        1. “I WAS living in Kush, and then you enslaved me and made me come here to build pyramids!”

          1. You put your cartouche right there on the social contract! Don’t be bitching now.

            Remember government is us all pulling a 2.5 ton block of stone around together

            1. Well… some of us have to be the slaves, and some of us have to be the overseers with the whips, and some of us have to be the pharaoh giving the orders from the top. We all do our part!

      2. If I remember my ancient history courses, this was a going theory twenty years ago. Pyramids were built by villages sending labourers, who were fed and housed at government expense, as a way to reduce pressure at home after planting and harvesting season, rather than working slaves to death.

        1. It makes sense that the pyramids were built by semi-free citizens than by slave labor. After all none of the hieroglyphics show a pharoah with a monocle, do they?

          1. Yeah, there couldn’t have been slaves, capitalism hadn’t been invented yet!

            1. And there were no Southern white men in ancient Egypt, either. Those were the only slaveholders ever ever.

              1. This whole thread is the reason I keep coming back here.

          2. Hard to say when they always walk sideways. There could be a monocle on the other side.

        2. Psychos.

          Everyone knows they were built by alien, one-eyed gnomes with hhhhuuugggge cocks.

          1. I thought it was the Gua’uld

            1. We never got to see their cocks, so…

              1. There are so many layers to this conversation, I don’t know if this is just building off of Rufus’s comment or if it’s an A+ reference to Jaye Davidson and the Crying Game.

  5. Didn’t Hitler have odd ideas about the pyramids?

    1. Wrong question.

      1. Yeah, but Hitler did have a lot of bizarre ideas – not only about race, but also a lot of new-agey psuedo-spiritual ones.

        1. No. Wrong phrasing.

          You know who else had odd ideas about the pyramids?

          Do I have to do everything?

          1. It was actually somewhere between a snark and an honest question. I know he had some strange ideas, but I don’t know the specifics.

            1. Believing the earth is hollow, and people live inside it is strange?

              SCIENCE DENIER!

            2. Well, he was into scat pyramids

        2. And mandrake roots.

    2. Well, he thought Rommel might be able to reach them, then carry on till he met Japanese in India…

  6. OT: See what Kareem has to say about Ben:

    http://time.com/4096962/ben-ca…..americans/

    Just…. wow.

    1. Well he would be terrible for Black Americans… just as he would be terrible for all other Americans.

      1. Wassamatter? You ain’t on the drug war gravy train?

    2. “it would definitely not be good for African Americans to have a president who flounders helplessly in office because it would perpetuate the stereotype that blacks can’t be effective CEOs, quarterbacks and leaders.”

      LOL

      Wait, he’s not kidding.

      1. I know. The level of UN-self-awareness is awe-inducing.

        That, and Jamarcus Russell did more to discredit blacks as quarterbacks than Ben Carson could ever hope for…

        1. Not really sure whether this is a SELF-awareness issue.

    3. “But Carson’s opposition to science doesn’t stop there.”

      For the record, Kareems best evidence of Carson’s “Anti-Science” attitude were his impolitic view on the Gayness.

      Because everyone knows the Science of Homosexuality is so well-established.

      next is global warming… and of course, the “97% MOTHERFUCKING SCIENTISTS”-stat being the only “fact” anyone is willing to muster to prove anything

      (all its used for is to say, “I’m on their side!” without saying what that side *is* and why it differs with any specific points someone makes)

      1. Yes, yes, Gilmore, we know that The Gays(tm) are the source of all Socon problems. If only those icky gays would go away.

        1. “yes, Gilmore, we know that The Gays(tm) are the source of all Socon problems.”

          Who said that? I was responding to Kareems’ claim that Ben Carson is “Anti Science” for being less than stellar on gay-issues.

          Last I checked, gay politics wasn’t a “Science” issue at all. Unless you were about to drop some on me?

        2. Also =

          you’re suggesting that pointing out “stupid things Kareem says” = Homophobia on my part?

            1. Again?

              Then what was your first point? because you seemed to be pretending i was making some personal claim about gays…. rather than pointing out that calling Gay Politics a “science” issue was retarded

        3. …what?

      2. We may not know everything about how gayness works, but I’m pretty sure we know that Carson gets it very wrong.

        1. This seems terribly lacking in self-awareness.

          “We don’t know the science, and we’re not even real clear on what Carson thinks about the psychology of gayness, but goshdarnit, we know he’s wrong!”

          1. No, I think it is pretty obvious that Carson’s remarks about homosexual activity in prison proves that being gay is totally a choice is wrong.

            Not sure how my “self-awareness” comes into it.

            1. Well, there is certainly a component of choice in acting on any latent desire of any kind, sexual or otherwise. If by “gay” he means “engages in sodomy with other men” (implied by his example vis a vis prison), instead of “boy who likes boys”, then he has a point and this is completely up to the person, regardless of whether the choice is benign or not. The same could be said of, say, being an alcoholic or a regular coffee drinker, regardless of one’s personal enjoyment of either beverage.

              It’s a confusion of morality and science to conflate the two issues.

              1. ^THIS^

                Is a great point. In a similar fashion, Christians (in general) view Gay behaviors in the same fashion as adultery with someone you are not married to, having sex with children, and some other things. The question of whether you are born with any or all of these inclinations is simply a discussion of HOW you are tempted into sin. Overcoming temptation is redeeming, uplifting, and blessed. Resisting the uge to engage in these behaviors is to resist temptation.

                BEING Gay is not sinful. BEING Tempted to screw your neighbor’s wife is not sinful. Even being tempted to screw your neighbor’s children is not sinful. Failing to resist these temptations is sinful.

                It is one of those things that makes the comparison between racism and “discriminating” against Gays stupid. No one discriminates against someone for being Gay. Until you “out” yourself how would they know? You “out” yourself based on behavior.

                Black skin on the other hand is not a behavior you can control. Racists do not discriminate against Blacks because they do something, but because they are Black.

                1. And those views are still retarded.

                  1. yes, but their retardedness isn’t based on anything to do with “Science”

            2. Is “Gay” defined by whether you are willing to have sex with men when there are no women available, or is it defined by “I prefer men to women?”

              Those seem like very different questions to me.

              1. *notes that Bubba clearly is the gayest thing since gay came to Gaytown*

              2. The latter is the more common meaning, I think.

      3. Well, so you say, Gilmore, but are you NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT certain of that?!?!?!?!?!?!

  7. It’s certainly not one iota more wacky in any way than a belief in Keynesian economic theory.

    And a whole lot less dangerous.

    1. + 1 Carson/Krugman 2016 campaign button

    2. Depends on whether wackiness is a normative judgement or has some absolute measure. As wrong as they might be, I’m not sure “wacky” is the way to describe very mainstream beliefs like Keynesian economics.

      1. Hmmm, “wacky” seems generous to me. Some of my choices would be stupid, insane, ignorant, and lazy.

        1. Point is, I don’t think “wacky” applies at all. You aren’t wacky if you agree with a large part of the population, no matter how wrong or stupid your beliefs.

          1. I hope that’s sarcasm, because something not being stupid shouldn’t be defined by a popularity contest…

    3. Another bullseye for Gilbert.

  8. I think this latest meme is designed to let careless viewers conflate Dr. Carson with the pyramid-alien theorists.

    I mean, “Carson has strange theory about pyramids” is a more attention-grabbing headline than “Carson thinks Joseph from the Bible built the pyramids to store grain.”

    The latter strikes me as highly implausible, but it’s something a biblical literalist – say, a Seventh Day Adventist – might believe. According to Genesis 41, Joseph foresaw that Egypt would have seven “fat years” of abundant harvests and seven “lean years” of famine. So the Pharaoh made Joseph, in effect, the Prime Minister, and Joseph collected the grain that was gathered in the “fat years” and “laid up the food in the cities.” Then he fed the people with the grain during the seven years of famine.

    1. It doesn’t say what kind of buildings the grain was stored in, but since “Joseph gathered corn [grain] as the sand of the sea,” the granaries must have been freakin’ huge, if you take the story literally. The pyramids, being freakin’ huge, would thus, to someone like Dr. Carson, be good candidates for the granaries. (the cities surrounding the granaries would presumably have deteriorated since Joseph’s time).

      To link the Pyramids with the Bible is hardly unusual in America. Consider those movies where the enslaved Hebrews are forced to work on the Pyramids.

      I think the media, though, is deliberately trying to insinuate that Carson is one of those pyramid power aliens-built-the-pyramids types.

      (I remember my Dad getting me a plastic pyramid which some New Age company was selling as a way to focus “pyramid power” and make objects sharper – I think Dad wanted me to do my own research and find out it was BS).

      Why not ask politicians if they believe in pyramid *schemes.* That would be of more contemporary relevance.

      1. I would find it easier to believe that the pyramids were built with the help of aliens than believe they were massive silos.

        1. Yeah, the Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat version of the headline is probably better clickbait than aliens.

        2. Actually all the pyramids were built at the instruction of and with the supervision of the Predator aliens as their hunting preserve for acid – blooded serpent type aliens.

          As per the documentary AVP.

        3. Yeah, I don’t see any reason to think that they would be silos. They are mostly solid rock. Not exactly an efficient storage thing.

      2. There is no evidence the Jews were ever in Egypt at all. It is just as wrong as believing aliens did it.

        Not that it is relevant to whether he should be president (other than it showing his lack of judgment by not shutting up about it).

        1. There is no evidence the Jews were ever in Egypt at all

          Lolwut?There were plenty of Jews in Egypt in antiquity, for roughly as long as “Jew” as a category has been historically coherent (roughly, iron-age founding of the kingdom of Judah), and plenty of archaeological evidence for such. Hell, lots of the minor and major prophets consist of bitching about the Jews who chose to voluntarily emigrate to Egypt during the captivity. Asking whether there were Jews in bronze-age Egypt (probably what you meant to say) is roughly on par with asking whether there were Dutchmen living in the kingdom of Frisia; the question is itself ignorant. It is perfectly valid to note that the ancient Frisians were the predecessors of the modern-day Dutch, and that any number of peoples in vassalage to ancient Egypt (or admixture of same) may very well be the ancestors of what came to be known as the iron-age Jews.

          Your statement is not only wrong on its face, but also idiotic in its most charitable interpretation — and certainly exploration on Jewish origins in an Egyptian vassal people is in a different category altogether than a Chariots of the Gods-style hypothesis. It really is obnoxious how little thought is applied by the “I fucking love science” people to actual history and science of the middle east, but par for the course.

          1. How would antiquity be relevant to Exodus and the building of the pyramids?

            Let me be more clear then, there is no evidence whatsoever for Exodus.

            1. Oh, c’mon, Pathy, the bible says so. That settles it.

            2. The pyramids are not mentioned in the Torah whatsoever, regardless of what later extrapolations were made by 21st-century readers about Jewish involvement in their construction. The historicity of the Exodus account as related by the Torah has nothing to do with this question.

              1. The historicity of the Exodus account as related by the Torah has nothing to do with this question.

                But it’s that very historicity that Carson bases his whole belief on.

              2. It has everything to do with the question because the question was who built the pyramids and for what purpose. Eddie stated that:

                To link the Pyramids with the Bible is hardly unusual in America. Consider those movies where the enslaved Hebrews are forced to work on the Pyramids.

                And I said that that view is just as wrong as the people think Aliens did it.

                1. It’s not “just as stupid”.

                  One view requires taking a religious text hyperliterally AND assuming that the pyramids were built by Jews.

                  The other view requires taking a religious text hyperliterally at its most implausible parts AND assuming that the pyramids were built by aliens and that all other events described were the result of aliens, while disregarding the main explanation offered by these religious texts for their implausible bits.

                  The second has a few more chains that require substantiation, and the view that Jews or their ancestors built the pyramids (while extremely likely to be wrong), is still far more probabilistic and requires less improbable inferences than the idea behind Chariots of the Gods.

                  1. Trouser,

                    The Old Testament does not claim the Jews built the Pyramids. People think that because of the movies. But people think a lot of wrong things about history because of the movies.

                    1. I made that point above. Even so, the popular belief about the pyramids being built by aliens is still less stupid than the Chariots of the Gods thesis, since it requires less unexplained logical leaps.

                      Apparently, despite being far from a Old Testament literalist or a Carson supporter, this observation is exactly the same as wearing a Carson 2016 pin while burning the nearest university’s collection on ancient Egypt for the glory of Christ.

                  2. But sound equally as stupid to me. At least the lack of evidence for Aliens can be explained away by hand waving about the aliens being so advanced they could cover up their tracks.

                2. Just to be clear, I was wearing my media studies hat, analyzing why the media likes to cover this issue and use headlines like “weird pyramid theories.”

                  They know they couldn’t get much mileage by saying “retard hick candidate not only believes the Bible, he’s a fundamentalist about it, like other Seventh Day Advantists!”

                  That’s what the people in the media believe, of course, but they know it won’t exactly turn their audience against Carson.

                  So they write about his pyramid ideas and use headlines designed to remind people of the Chariots of the Gods stuff.

                  And that’s because they know that aliens are seen by the public as weirder than the Bible.

                  Maybe they’re both equally weird, but you won’t persuade your average voter by saying that outright.

                  1. And to be even clearer, I know the Bible doesn’t say the Hebrews built the Pyramids, or that the Pyramids were Joseph’s granaries.

                    I’m saying that such ideas are more likely to come from Biblical literalists than from people who don’t take the Bible literally.

                    To people like Carson, the historical Joseph built what must have been huge granaries all over Egypt. Logic would suggest that those buildings are still around, so the Pyramids look like good candidates.

                    There’s flaws in this reasoning, but you wouldn’t find a *non*-literalist coming up with such ideas, because he’s not necessarily going to accept that Joseph’s granaries even existed at all.

                    1. And I *don’t* know where Joseph’s granaries are, or whether he literally built them.

                    2. Somebody needs to point out (to Carson, and perhaps to others) that the Pyramids would make damn poor granaries. I’ve been in a couple of them (they are tourist attractions after all) and the interior spaces are really VERY small.
                      I have mild claustrophobia, and both the Great Pyramid (the big one next to the Sphinx) and Khufu (an older one in Saqqara) triggered it.
                      They have very narrow and low entrance corridors (I had to crouch to walk down into Khufu, and my thighs ached for several days afterwards), and the rooms in the center are not much bigger than my living room.
                      Joseph would not have been able to store his massive grain collection in the pyramids, unless there were some of quite a different design which no longer exist.

                  2. To be clear, there is no evidence for Exodus whatsoever, whether the pyramids were involved or not.

                    1. I’m talking about what the media is doing, and why. I think the media agrees with you, they simply don’t want to dissipate their influence by saying it openly.

                    2. And Joseph is in Genesis, not Exodus.

                    3. Well there’s no evidence of Genesis either. It doesn’t matter whether the media agree or not. And frankly there are plenty of American christians who accept Genesis and Exodus as allegorical, which you should too, being a Catholic and all. It really isn’t controversial.

                    4. See my 2:46 post above.

                      “It doesn’t matter whether the media agree or not.”

                      It matters when they’re trying to throw out shiny objects to distract their viewers and affect elections.

        2. There is no evidence the Jews were ever in Egypt at all.

          Maybe you mean Hebrew

          The term Jew refers to members of the tribe of Judah who lived in Judea, were taken captive by the Babylonians and allowed to return home by the Persians. Jews were (mostly) Hebrew, but Hebrews were not necessarily Jews.

          1. No I meant the account in Exodus (or as Eddie was saying the belief that slave Jews/Hebrews built the pyramids based on a misreading of Exodus). It is pretty apparent from context, Eddie (who I was replying to) knew what I meant.

            Anyways, I already corrected my inexactness above for those who don’t get context.

      3. The latter strikes me as highly implausible, but it’s something a biblical literalist – say, a Seventh Day Adventist – might believe.

        Oh, good, that’s reassuring, and here I was worried he was out of touch with reality or something.

        1. Why do I set up these responses?

          1. Let me put it this way – to people like yourselves and the media, the Bible is as silly as any alien theory.

            But the broad masses are more likely (statistically speaking) to be more comfortable with the Bible than with aliens.

            So if the media wants to persuade its viewers that Carson is a weirdo, it has to link him to alien theories, instead of just snickering about how silly he is for his Biblical focus.

          2. Because you crave the abuse, Eddie. It is known.

            1. Wait, Eddie’s in Opus Dei?

              1. I don’t recall him ever saying, but I assume he either is or aspires to be.

      4. Not much room inside the pyramids.

        1. This. I was under the impression that the pyramids did not have a lot of internal space, relative to their mass.

          I have not googled to confirm.

      5. Except what the pyramids are like on the inside is well known mow. They are well stacked piles of stone blocks with a very small amount of usable space inside relative to the exterior dimensions.

    2. The location is identified in Exodus 1:11 ? Pithom and Ramses. That’s in the Nile Delta on the eastern side.

      1. Ah, thank you – that seems to refer to where the Hebrews did their forced labor.

  9. Are Carson’s views on pyramids any more odd or incorrect than Hillary’s views on economics? Moreover, people have been noting the similarities of pyramids in the ancient world for a long time. Thor Heyerdahl, when he wasn’t sailing around in his reed boat, wrote whole books on it.

    I don’t think what Carson is saying is so much odd as just him talking out of his ass and speculating, which is something we all do. If there is a criticism to be made from this, it is that Carson lacks the intellectual discipline necessary to hold high office. If you are President, you can’t just talk out of your ass about any subject in public the way a private citizen can. As President, you are forever representing the office and the country and just can’t do the same sorts of things that regular people can. When you look at these stories about Carson, they all raise that single issue. Carson is a very good man and has a lot of good qualities that you would want in a President. He does not however seem to have the kind of temperament and discipline for the job.

    It is not enough to be smart or even to be right. To be a good President you have to be a performer and have the stamina to be one pretty much all of the time. Carson doesn’t seem to have that.

    1. To be a good President you have to be a performer and have the stamina to be one pretty much all of the time.

      I think you meant porn star, not president.

      1. There are more than a few similarities between the two jobs.

        1. Depending on who’s catching…

          1. We all know who is the country in that scenario…

      2. I think he’s saying that Carson is no Obama on that whole ‘articulate and bright and clean’ (for a colored boy) thing Biden was talking about.

        1. No. I am saying Carson is not a politician. He might actually be a normal person.

    2. Re: John,

      Are Carson’s views on pyramids any more odd or incorrect than Hillary’s views on economics?

      That’s an interesting question but here’s a better one: what are Carson’s views on Economics?

      Because you and I know that Hill-Rod’s views are pretty much in tune with the rest of the Democratic party: Interventionist policies coupled with high taxation rates. But who knows exactly what Carson believes? I can’t say.

      1. That is a good question. I am not sure to be honest. Whatever they are, unless Carson is embracing pyramid power as a way to boost nation GDP, it is very difficult to imagine them being any worse than Hillary’s, which seem to consist entirely of ways for her and her cronies to loot the entire country.

    3. “Are Carson’s views on pyramids any more odd or incorrect than Hillary’s views on economics?

      Hillary’s ideas on economics (as well as Obama’s and Sanders’) are much scarier than Carson’s views on the pyramids.

      Also, I suspect Carson just misspoke about “scientists” and aliens. In 1998, I doubt he expected to be running for President. They must have had to dig pretty deep if all they could find was a quip from a commencement speech he gave at an Adventist university 17 years ago.

      The same people who are horrified to hear that Carson at one time thought the pyramids were built to store grain are probably also horrified to hear that Carson believes that Jesus is coming back to save the world at the end of time, too. The man’s a fundamentalist Christian who believes in the Bible. If you’re going to make fun of his religion, by all means do so, but they really should do so explicitly. Anyone who thinks being a genuine Protestant Christian should disqualify someone from holding the office of President should come out and say so.

      1. P.S. Has anyone asked Obama about his beliefs as a Christian? Does he believe in the Bible? Does he believe that Paul was struck blind? Does he believe that Jesus turned water into wine, walked on water, and raised the dead?

        If not, why doesn’t he believe those things? Isn’t he a Protestant? Doesn’t he believe in the Bible? Obama falsely claiming to believe in the Bible seems like a bigger story than that a self-professed Christian actually believes in the Bible.

        1. Of course not. That would be racist. How about we ask Obama’s views on Black Liberation Theology. He did attend a church run by an acolyte of the theology for 20 years or whatever it was. Surely the most erudite man in the world developed a few thoughts on the subject over the years. Right?

        2. Obama’s big religion moment was being corrected by George S in talking about “my Muslim faith.”

          George: you mean your Christian faith

    4. Are Carson’s views on pyramids any more odd or incorrect than Hillary’s views on economics?

      Definitely more odd. Hillary holds some pretty mainstream economic views. Probably similarly incorrect.

      1. Fair enough. You hit on my problem with this entire issue. It is not that I don’t think Carson’s views here are a bit crazy. I do. It is that I can’t understand why these views are considered crazy but things like thinking making everyone buy health insurance is the way to lower health care costs or that endlessly running a federal budget deficit is the way to increase national wealth are considered not just reasonable but the only acceptable public position.

        The entire political and media class has gone bat shit insane and somehow I am supposed to be worried about Carson having some goofy views about ancient Egypt. Really?

        1. “Crazy” is defined as “socially acceptable.” It has nothing to do with rightness or wrongness.

          1. What if Carson vehemently claimed that Ely Manning was the greatest quarterback who has ever played? If you are not a football fan, let me assure that claiming Ely Manning is the greatest quarterback ever is just as counterfactual and goofy as anything Carson is saying here. Would you care? Would anyone except maybe a few rabid NFL fans care? No.

            Carson’s opinions on ancient Egypt are no more relevant to his fitness for office as his opinions on the NFL. Yet, somehow we take his opinions on Egypt more seriously. Why? Is history a subject that reveals character more than sports?

            Unless these beliefs are somehow shaping his views on subjects that matter (say for example he planned to solve world hunger by building pyramids to store grain), I just can’t see why I should care about this. I really can’t.

          2. “Crazy” is defined as “socially acceptable.”

            Not really – an entire society can be crazy.

    5. “…lacks the intellectual discipline necessary to hold high office. If you are President, you can’t just talk out of your ass about any subject in public the way a private citizen can.”

      It hasn’t hurt Obumbles. It might make people like us gag, but his sycophants have only become more devoted.

    6. This is why you have surrogates to spout crazy shit on MSNBC.

  10. Granaries, uh, yeah, sure. Granaries with very little interior space per volume. Granaries with no easy way to get in or out. Granaries which also doubled as tombs.

    1. Yeah the granary thing is pretty sketchy. There really isn’t a great deal of room inside any of the pyramids. That being said, the assumption that they were all tombs (the Giza pyramids in particular) isn’t exactly ironclad either. There’s plenty of room for debate there. I’m pretty sure we have very little solid idea of what purpose they actually served. Of course whatever purpose it was doesn’t really matter a whole lot to modern society. If you think they were tombs, granaries, built by aliens, or whatever, it has pretty much nothing to do with your ability to be president.

      1. No, the sketchy part is that Carson thinks that because Joseph was mentioned in the Bible to have built a large granary, then that large granary must still exist. And because the pyramids still exist, then the assumption that the pyramids are the large granaries is valid.

        It’s like a tornado of stupid ripping apart the small town of your brain.

        1. He can believe that the pyramids were ancient cotton candy machines for all I care. If he’s going to be president, I’m much more concerned with what he believes the role of the president is, how government is supposed to work, separation of powers, constitutional war making authority, and so forth. Someone’s religious beliefs, all of which are somewhat based on fantastical thinking, mean absolutely nothing to me.

          1. This isn’t about religious belief, it’s about the basic application of simple logic. And that is some fucked up thinking.

            1. Maybe it is, but it still has nothing to do with him being president. There are plenty of other relevant things he’s said to focus on, and yet the emphasis is on his opinions as to the purpose of thousands of years old stacks of stone?

              1. Well, no one seems to want to focus on the real reason Carson vs. Hillary will ensure Hillary in the White House: his views on abortion. Because so many people on here share them and refuse to understand or even grasp that they sound nuts to most voters.

              2. For you, maybe. For others of us it’s a question of basic judgement and fitness. Do you really want someone with those views to be able to launch a nuclear strike?

                1. His views on the pyramids have nothing to do with his ability to launch a nuclear strike. I’m not voting for Carson because I think his view repugnant on many other issues. But pretending that any of the other candidates are any better because they think the pyramids were tombs instead makes them any better is confusing to me. I’m baffled as to why pyramids are so much more worrying to you than believing the government can solve all the world’s problems.

                  1. I’m baffled as to why pyramids are so much more worrying to you than believing the government can solve all the world’s problems.

                    All the candidates, with the possible exception of Rand Paul, believe the government can solve all the world’s problems.

                    1. Exactly my point.

                  2. Whoops. One too many “makes them any better”s.

                2. Someone could then ask if you want someone that bleeds, or once used to bleed, for 5 days out of every months and goes bat shit crazy, but never dies, in charge of that nuclear strike button, if we are going to play that stupid game…

            2. Thinking that the Bible gives you any accurate historical knowledge about ancient Egypt (or anything) is bad enough. Thinking it supports his ridiculous theory on they pyramids is even worse. And neither of these things speaks well of his ability to make critical judgements based on facts.

              1. It’s not like the Bible is a complete work of fiction. There are plenty of references in there to actual verifiable historical events. There’s also a bunch of stuff that is highly dubious, but if the guy wants to believe that there actually were huge granaries and maybe the pyramids are them, why does anyone care? I’m pretty sure that if you really dug deep you’d find presidential candidates who have a lucky pair of socks, have a four leaf clover somewhere, believe in ghosts, or whatever. All of us have silly beliefs if you go deep enough.

                1. Why does anyone care about anything?

                  I happen to think that people who base their beliefs about history on a questionable reading of a religious text probably don’t have very good judgement about other things as well. But mostly I care because it is an interesting thing to argue about.

                  1. But mostly I care because it is an interesting thing to argue about.

                    Finally someone gets it.

                    1. If I wanted to have a meaningful impact on real-world politics, I wouldn’t be wasting my time here arguing about the religious beliefs of an oddly popular novelty candidate.

                2. +1 Hittite Empire

        2. the sketchy part is that Carson thinks that because Joseph was mentioned in the Bible to have built a large granary, then that large granary must still exist

          You mean, sort of like how scholars have attempted to identify participants in Homer’s Iliad? Yep, definitely sketchy to take a written or oral account as a source for extrapolation about physical events.

          *Mind, Carson’s theory is sketch — but for the reasons given by Tonio rather than a fairly standard type of speculation within historiography.

          1. Scholars and archaeologists have investigated the oral account in Exodus (and then written down centuries after it supposedly happened) and found it lacking.

            Other parts of the Old Testament have matched up, at least in part, with other evidence but not that one.

            1. I agree that, if the Exodus happened, it happened in a very different way than what’s literally recounted in the OT.

              What is obnoxious is that these opportunities are always taken as an opportunity to attack practices and histories that are wholly conventional and which line up with taking the Biblical narrative as factually accurate. (It’s particularly galling from people who claim to “love” science and history, and yet seem to know nothing about the state of these things in relation to any claim which might smack of the religious.)

              Categorical rejection of *everything* written in Scripture is at least as stupid as categorical rejection of *nothing*, and there is nothing inherently illogical (especially from the layman perspective unaware of previous attempts) in taking as a given that a generally reliable work (which is the case with much of the Biblical narrative from kingdom times onwards) should be examined on its other points, as well.

              1. ^This.

                The Bible consists of several genres of literature which are read differently. Many parts are to be read symbolically, allegorically, and/or metaphorically. Few Christians, even, know enough about it to read it correctly. I doubt any Atheists do.

                The flight from Egypt is revisited many times throughout scripture, in various ways. God leading his people out of captivity is repeated over and over. The story is meant for the subconscious, not the rational conscious part of the psyche. There is no good reason to take the story for a modern history, nor is there any excuse for dismissing it outright. To take it literally is to misunderstand it–but so is dismissing it.

      2. The pyramids were the early-day version of government stimulus spending/full employment/infrastructure building programs – and notice the Egyptian kingdom lasted for thousands of years. Pretty good record for a pyramid scheme, I’d say. And Memphis, Tennessee built a pyramid and they got a NFL team. (They made the mistake of building a small pyramid so they only got the team for one year and it turned out to be the Tennessee Titans, but still.) What more proof do you need of pyramid power? And then you’ve got the food pyramid – are you seriously suggesting food has nothing to do with your ability to be president? We need more pyramids in government, not fewer! (Or less, if ENB has anything to say on the subject.)

        1. The Memphis pyramid is now a Bass Pro shop

      3. “the assumption that they were all tombs (the Giza pyramids in particular) isn’t exactly ironclad either. There’s plenty of room for debate there. I’m pretty sure we have very little solid idea of what purpose they actually served”

        Would love to see a link to a reputable group that posits that the pyramids are something OTHER than tombs.

        1. What is your definition of reputable group?

    2. if they double as tombs, you reduce the theft factor. Who wants to crash the spirit world, amirite?

      1. Considering that almost all of the tombs in Egypt got pretty heavily looted over the last 3000 years, apparently a lot of people.

        1. I think most of them got looted not too long after they were made. I don’t thin fear of the spirit world ever did much to discourage grave robbers.

        2. And when you have something of that size and known purpose it rather invites looting.

      2. Apparently that wasn’t too effective because Tutankhamen’s tomb was the only one that wasn’t completely looted.

        1. I would like to point out that the Valley of the Kings is not pyramids. I agree that there is almost zero evidence that the Giza pyramids were tombs for Khufu, Khephron, and Menkare. As a matter of fact only one cartouche was ever found in any of the three and it has dubious origins.

          Granaries? No.
          Tombs? No.
          Religious Objects? Tall Buildings? Aliens?
          All three of those have a higher probability that the first two.

  11. “it would definitely not be good for African Americans to have a president who flounders helplessly in office because it would perpetuate the stereotype that blacks can’t be effective CEOs, quarterbacks and leaders.”

    *makes motorboat noise, falls down stairs*

  12. If there is a criticism to be made from this, it is that Carson lacks the intellectual discipline necessary to hold high office. If you are President, you can’t just talk out of your ass about any subject in public the way a private citizen can. As President, you are forever representing the office and the country and just can’t do the same sorts of things that regular people can. When you look at these stories about Carson, they all raise that single issue. Carson is a very good man and has a lot of good qualities that you would want in a President. He does not however seem to have the kind of temperament and discipline for the job.

    This is pretty well put. I’d quibble about him being a very good man; he’s done a lot of good work, but he also admits to having done some pretty awful things. I’d strike the ‘very’, I think. But aside from that quibble (which I admit is debatable and could generate a fierce 100 comment feces fling-fest easily) , I think this is likely correct.

    An alternate theory is that he has decided that since he knows will be painted as wacky to give grist to the mill that doesn’t make him look scary but as a courageous straight-shooter who has some weird but harmless ideas.

    1. but he also admits to having done some pretty awful things.

      I heard something where he was talking about having violent rages in his younger days. Like when he was having a minor argument with a friend, snapped, grabbed a knife, and tried to kill his friend. He attempted to stab his friend, but his friend’s metal belt buckle took the blow. He struck with such force that it broke the knife. Needless to say, his friend ran away. This was him telling the story, not someone trying to smear him. Look it up.

      1. Well, at least he found a line of work that lets him work out his need to cut things constructively.

        Though it makes me slightly concerned about what he’ll resort to if he ever reaches the oval office…

      2. I had not heard that sarcasmic. We haven’t had a President which no shit violent tendencies since Andrew Jackson. That story is straight out of Andrew Jackson’s life, except Andrew would have killed the guy.

        I really don’t care about his youth. Whatever his issues he seems to have overcome them. The guy became a surgeon.

      3. You don’t understand. He just got memed by One True. He couldn’t help himself.

      4. I say the mere fact that he was in “Stuck on You” QUALIFIES him for President!!

  13. Bernie Sanders says we should expand Medicare to cover everybody–and you think Carson is crazy because he said the pyramids were built to store grain?

    Hillary Clinton wants to make $350 billion in financing for colleges available–to keep the price of college down.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hi…..c-service/

    If we’re going by crazy, I’ll take the pyramid guy.

    1. There is that. But why would you think that Hillary believes any of what she says? She’s more evil than crazy.

    2. Yes.

      Because one of those beliefs is an opinion and the other is a provably wrong fact.

      If the Pyramids were built to store grain then they would have required large open storage rooms inside of them and they would have required easy ways to bring cargo in and out of said rooms. As the Pyramids lack both features it is easily demonstrated that they were not built as huge storehouses.

      The fact that Carson has held to such an easily proven false theory for so long does not speak well to his mental stability

  14. CBS does not appear to have asked the candidate precisely which scientists support the alien theory.

    Uh…. Charles Fort?

      1. Nope, not a scientist, either.

    1. Uh…not an actual scientist. I can find nothing indicating any specialized scientific training.

      1. OH YEAH, HOW ABOUT LEONARD NEMOY?!?!?!?!?! OR ROD SERLING?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

        /In Search Of…

  15. When Ayn Rand was casting about for a textbook whack job politician to serve up as an example in 1947, Henry Wallace immediately came to mind. Today, Ben immediately comes to mind, along with Chrisly, Huckleberry, Ted y Marco, Jeb Clampitt… In fact, the only non-impostor GOP candidate I can think of who doesn’t belong in a straitjacket is Carly. London bookies, unimpressed by gerrymandered polling, still put their money on Mrs Clinton, followed by 7 whack jobs then Carly. Now, can we get back to the libertarian platform and candidates?

    1. Hihnfected Hank-taminated

  16. First there’s Henry Wallace, one of FDR’s vice presidents and a member of the Roosevelt and Truman cabinets. (Still later, he would edit The New Republic and run for president under the banner of the Progressive Party.)

    But he wasn’t a socialist. No!

  17. The Stupid Party’s ‘other Trump’: still better than Trump.

  18. Hillary being a dumbshit doesn’t make it OK for Carson to be a dumbshit.

    It’s just as stupid when shrike covers for Obama using the same illogic.

    1. Truth.

      Problem is, we will once again have to choose between a dbag and shit sandwich, and it will come down to who is the least insane.

      1. You don’t have to choose, I sure won’t be.

        1. Then you’re choosing to let others choose for you.

          1. Yeah, just like accepting the non-existence of a deity is really a religious belief. Not choosing is really choosing!

            1. Not choosing is really choosing!

              yes, it is. Even Rush (the band) said so. Passive decisions are still decisions.

              1. Even Rush (the band) said so.

                Oh well, case closed then!

                1. I see humor is lost on you. Not making a choice is still a choice.

              2. That is one hell of a weird appeal to authority.

              3. “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice”

                The choice is not to decide. Which is a reasonable choice when all of the other options are terrible.

                1. all I’m saying, Zeb. It didn’t seem that complicated.

            2. Bzzzt false equivalence. One is an intellectual question; the other is a choice between overlords. Apply yourself.

          2. How so? Me not voting doesn’t mean someone else gets an extra vote in my stead. In any case, all the electoral votes from CA go to team blue anyway, so my vote really doesn’t matter.

            1. No, but you’re making the votes of other people slightly more powerful.

          3. Then you’re choosing to let others choose for you.

            No, you are choosing to let others choose while you sit out. No one gets to vote for me if I don’t vote.

            1. but by default, they ARE voting for you as the outcome of their decision also impacts you. You are certainly free to vote your conscience or not at all, but sitting it out does not inoculate you from the result.

              1. That happens whether or not I vote.

            2. There is no ‘sitting it out’.

                1. No there isn’t. If you don’t vote, you still live with the consequences of the election. And it does matter as indicated by the differing fortunes of California and Texas.

                  1. If you don’t vote, you still live with the consequences of the election.

                    Which is why I don’t vote. And how many times do we have to point out that we live with the consequences regardless of our vote?

                    1) I vote for Clinton
                    2) I vote for Carson
                    3) I vote for Homer Simpson
                    4) I don’t vote

                    Clinton wins the election. How is the world any different in each scenario?

                  2. If I do vote, the outcome is the same and I have to deal with the consequences of the election.

          4. They will whether I vote or not. Duh.

        2. This.

        3. I probably won’t either but the point is that all of them are nucking futs. I understand that the pyramid stuff is wacky but Sanders talking economics is wackier and arguably more dangerous. Hillary talking how she ignores federal law at will is WAYYYY more dangerous than some silly pyramid views.

          1. It doesn’t matter who is more wacky, they are all wacky enough to be undeserving of a vote. And really, when did we ever have a president who didn’t ignore federal laws and the constitution? Hillary can only be so blatant about it because shes realize that presidents have been able to get away with it for so long.

      2. There will be multiple candidates on my ballot.

    2. Come on SugarFree, pick a team!

      1. TEAM NOT AN IDIOT: It’s such a low bar to hurdle.

        1. Even Sweet’n’Low can hurdle it, and he’s got the ‘beetus!

    3. “Hillary being a dumbshit doesn’t make it OK for Carson to be a dumbshit”

      I reject your OK/Not-Okay false-dichotomy, and point out that the “What someone is a dipshit ABOUT” is far more important than the total-dipshit score.

      We’ve had plenty of dipshit presidents = all that matters is that they not be crazy about the important things.

      Carson’s crazy view of the pyramids et al is effectively meaningless compared to Sander’s crazy view of basic economics, or Hillary’s crazy view about foreign policy, or expanding the authority of the state into just about everything.

      1. Given that some of the biggest defenders of Carson on this board can’t tell you what he believes about economics, it is a staggering assumption to state that a person will irrational beliefs about things that are easily verifiable facts has rational beliefs about economics.

        1. It’s not a matter of defending Carson, it’s a matter of keeping to the parts that matter. I don’t give a shit what he thinks about the pyramids. I care what he thinks about, for instance, economics.

          Ben Carson on Budget & Economy

          Some good, some dumb, but nothing as stupid as what comes out of Bernie or Hillary mouth.

          1. Two quotes from NewsMax vaguely praise the free market (like everyone but Sanders does,) and two from his book, one of which is not in the power of the President to do unilaterally and the other a paean to government regulation.

            1. That’s a start. There are other statements as well. It’s wrong to say he doesn’t have any specific ideas about say, the economy.

              I’m not saying that he’s the guy I’m voting for, but I am saying I don’t give a shit what he thinks about the pyramids in comparison to more important issues.

              1. If it was just the pyramids it wouldn’t matter that much. But combine that with the trying to kill a friend, his other questionable applications of logic and the fact that he can’t seem to admit when he was wrong on simple factual things, he’s not someone to praise, or even tolerate.

                Just because Sanders and Hillary are utter pieces of shit shouldn’t oblige anyone to excuse Carson or Trump’s nutty bullshit.

                1. Even if it was just the pyramids, since when did mocking politicians’ idiocy become a no no? They should all be mocked relentlessly.

                  1. It is not a no no. Mock all you want. That doesn’t mean it is important.

        2. “it is a staggering assumption to state that a person will irrational beliefs about things that are easily verifiable facts has rational beliefs about economics”

          Who’s making assumptions? Google is your friend

          *bonus points for biblical reference in talking about taxes

          1. Oh, a 10% flat tax? The one that he already says you have to probably be 20% to work.

            Well, I’m convinced he’s Milton Friedman reborn.

            1. ” I’m convinced he’s Milton Friedman reborn.”

              Who was claiming that? You seem to act like people here are CHEERLEADING the guy for simply pointing out that the current criticisms about fucking Pyramids are comparatively meaningless… no matter how bizarre.

              whereas his relative views on issues that actually matter are in fact *less crazy* than ones floated by the “other” leading contenders.

              e.g. – Trump’s going to arm-wrestle china into economic submission, Sanders belief that ‘too many deodorants is a sign of decadence which the state must reign in, Hillary’s insistence that job-creation is the product of regulatory agency growth and increasing the cost of capital…. etc.

              His relative vapidity and lack of substance is actually a virtue by contrast. which is the only point anyone has made, despite you pretending this is a big CARSON 2016 love-in

              1. How about because if this nutbar is the nominee, there will be a constant drumbeat of yokels on here insisting that I vote for him?

                1. No one has ever insisted you do anything, snookums. You protest too much

                  1. OK, just forget the vote McCain nonsense. And the vote Bush before it. Yup. I just made up all those year-long tantrums.

                    1. Oh, look. Someone is doing it on this very thread:

                      Like it or not, the question put before the American people is likely to be: “Are Hillary’s stupid ideas about how the economy works dumber than Carson’s creationism?”

                    2. Relax SF. You and I (and most here) know that he has less than zero chance of getting the nomination. This early game BS is just that. Full of hyperbole and insanity. Eventually the GOP will settle on a milk toast left liberal candidate like they have the last 30 years.

                    3. Eventually the GOP will settle on a milk toast left liberal candidate like they have the last 30 years.

                      We all know this. I’m more fascinated in the craven lengths some people will go for their TEAM.

                      There’s no one I’d let get away with being this dumb. No one. If my beloved father came back to life and said this I’d gently tell him he’s an idiot.

                      If any candidate of any other party said this, everyone defending Carson would shit themselves laughing at them. But he’s GOP, so it’s all OK.

                    4. Shall i get the fainting couch? let me fan your brow.

                      I fail to see what your point is other than “you dislike other people debating the relative merits of people you despise as a whole”

                    5. It’s like you dial your IQ down for certain threads. You’re all normal for a while and then “Ah-ha, here’s a thread I can act like a stupid redneck on!”

                      Don’t think I’m the only person to notice this.

                    6. You haven’t ‘noticed it’s so much as ‘made it up’. There is nothing ‘red neck’-ish about Gilmore’s points here.

                    7. Cytooxic,

                      I’m sorry to inform you that the position of resident mind-reader has already been filled. Fuck off back to Canada.

                    8. What the fuck are you talking about now? Maybe you should take your sippy cup and have your afternoon nap because you are getting really stupid in this thread.

                    9. What the fuck are you talking about now? Maybe you should take your sippy cup and have your afternoon nap because you are getting really stupid in this thread.

                      Do you even have a point? Are you rushing to Gilmore’s defense? Carson’s? Whining about me not liking Carson? Do you have a sad?

                    10. ” “Ah-ha, here’s a thread I can act like a stupid redneck on!””

                      Lol

                      That’s what i’ve been doing?

                      What’s so ‘redneck’ about thinking that Ben Carson’s pyramid-speculation is politically meaningless?

                      Tonio already seemed to imply i was homophobic for some shit that doesn’t make any sense….what exactly above have i said that forces you to throw me in the Redneck camp? Quote, please

                      Its not like i’m running around arguing that this country needs a real Jesus Man in the white house whose goin to stick it to all them communists and fags by banning electric cars and latte-shops

                    11. Also = Ad hom isn’t exactly the hallmark of the MENSA member, professor

                    12. SugarFree is one of the “2 Kewl 4 Skool” poseurs that love pop-culture references, sometimes funny diversions, and pretending to be way more clever than he actually is.

                    13. SugarFree is one of the “2 Kewl 4 Skool” poseurs that love pop-culture references, sometimes funny diversions, and pretending to be way more clever than he actually is.

                      I think someone isn’t getting the attention he feels he deserves. Poor little guy.

                    14. Ad hom isn’t exactly the hallmark of the MENSA member, professor

                      Neither is not knowing the difference between an ad hom and an insult.

                    15. Yes, you’re very sophisticated because you called me a redneck. What exactly provoked that, again?

                    16. Yes, you’re very sophisticated because you called me a redneck. What exactly provoked that, again?

                      I’m sorry I hurt your feelings.

                    17. Its not “feels” bro, its called dodging the point while pretending you’re the clever one.

                    18. “An ad hominem …is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly.

                      When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized”

                      I said =

                      – “I fail to see what your point is other than “you dislike other people debating the relative merits of people you despise as a whole”

                      You said =

                      – “”It’s like you dial your IQ down for certain threads. You’re all normal for a while and then “Ah-ha, here’s a thread I can act like a stupid redneck on!”””

                      Which seems to me to have completely avoided my point

                      …and instead transitioned to, “GILMORE STUPID, GILMORE REDNECK” as a replacement for trying to actually defend against that observation.

                      I’ve mentioned 3 times here = no one is trying to convince you of Carson’s merits.

                      A few people are simply pointing out that these particular criticisms about his Pyramid goofiness aren’t exactly some kind of Slam Dunk that forces all thinking people to run to the hills and disavow participatory democracy as hopelessly flawed.

                    19. no one is trying to convince you of Carson’s merits

                      And I say that’s pure, squishy bullshit. John, Ken Shultz and few others are doing exactly that.

                      I took a whole lot of other people being idiots out on you. That was wrong of me. I really am sorry.

                    20. “I say that’s pure, squishy bullshit. John, Ken Shultz and few others are doing exactly that.”

                      I was going to say, “well take it up with them, then”

                      “I took a whole lot of other people being idiots out on you’

                      “Don’t think I’m the only person to notice this.” 🙂

                      Well at least I can get back to fixing my pickup and delivering that moonshine now.

                    21. “Don’t think I’m the only person to notice this.”

                      We talk about you behind your back, on our secret cool kids message board.

                    22. We talk about you behind your back, on our secret cool kids message board.

                      I don’t care about the “cool” but the “kids” part intrigues me.

                    23. I don’t care about the “cool” but the “kids” part intrigues me.

                      Of course you don’t. The cool kids have the self esteem to not get into your panel van. Try kids from a broken home.

                    24. It worked on your kids. I have the Kiddie Kavorka.

                    25. I appreciate the thought

                2. That is a very weak and crybaby-ish reason to not want Carson as the nominee. There are many much better reasons.

                  1. Cytoxic,

                    No one here wants Carson as the nominee. There are however a few of us here who could tolerate Carson as the nominee because it would cause people like you so much butt hurt.

                    1. “There are however a few of us here who could tolerate Carson as the nominee because it would cause people like you so much butt hurt.”

                      Yes, and those people are retarded and immature. Normal people who aren’t imbeciles have better things to do than ponder the butthurt caused by possible GOP nominees as opposed to the policies and electability of those nominees.

                    2. No Cytoxic, you are just funny and nuts and we take a perverse pleasure in your butt hurt. Carson would be better than Hillary and Obama and no worse than some of the rest of the GOP candidates. And listening to your butt hurt about how “the other” managed to win the Presidency would be entertaining.

                    3. Carson would be better than Hillary and Obama and no worse than some of the rest of the GOP candidates.

                      Citation needed. They’re all fucking scumbags. Why should I vote for any of them?

      2. Is “all of metaphysics” an important thing?

        1. “”Is “all of metaphysics” an important thing?“”

          Not unless your personal god is a sworn enemy of his god.

          If you don’t have a god at all, its sort of a moot point. What basis do you have to judge the relative merits of any religion if your fundamental belief is that they’re all wrong? (as mine is)

          If you’re of the view that ANY religiosity should disqualify a person for public office… I think you’re in the wrong country

          1. If you’re of the view that ANY religiosity should disqualify a person for public office… I think you’re in the wrong country

            Is there a right country for that?

            1. France?

              Hitler?

            2. Sadly, the Soviet Union failed, so you’re going to have to wait for the next revolution

            3. China? Cuba (or are nominal Catholics allowed)? Used to be more pre-1990.

        2. If Carson claimed mankind was descended from aliens who colonized the planet 15,000 years ago but pledged to end the drug war and cut the size of the federal government in half in four years, you wouldn’t vote for him? I sure would. And if you would, then what difference does his or any other candidates views on metaphysics make?

          1. I guess I would have to figure out whether I believed he would do what he said, or that what he said meant what I thought it meant, considering he was nuts.

          2. In Carson’s case though we know that won’t happen from his own words precisely because his personal views dictate his political views.

            1. Yeah, that is true of Carson and every other person on earth. But your personal views are not the same thing as your metaphysical views.

              If my hypothetical candidate claimed he was going to end the drug war by calling in the mother ship, then no I would not vote for him. The point is not what the views are. The important thing is how do those views then dictate your policies.

              For example, someone could really believe in the power of faith to heal the sick but unless their national health care program consisted of a national prayer program, that wouldn’t disqualify them from being President.

          3. I look at it this way: If Carson were great on everything else, but had wacky religious and historical beliefs, I’d ignore the wackiness. But he is not good on other things, so his ridiculous beliefs only make it more clear that he is unlikely to revise or reexamine his bad positions. All by itself it may not disqualify him, but it’s not completely irrelevant to making judgements about his qualification for office.

            1. If he is not good on the things that matter, then you shouldn’t support him. Either way, his views on the things that don’t matter are still irrelevant. Think about it Zeb, if his views on this were perfect, would that cause you to forgive him being bad on the things that matter? I wouldn’t think so.

              1. Sure. I wouldn’t vote for him in any case because of his views on things that matter. But I think this sort of thing speaks to his general ability to consider things rationally and make good judgements.

      3. Well, a good indicator of whether their craziness will affect their job if president is if they question the reporter on the relevancy of the topic. But none so far have declined to discuss something and even seem to think that making the personal the political is a good attribute to have. To be fair I find almost everyone I know is like this. It seems to be related people’s concept of morality.

        When Ron Paul was running, who’s deeply religious and still has fringe ideas of his own, was asked about how religion affects or helps them as president, he was the only candidate on stage in the 2012 debate to say that he doesn’t wear his religion on his sleeve and that the question isn’t relevant to how well the president would uphold the oath of office and obey the Constitution. That kind of personal characteristic is really the only way you’d know.

        1. So the only example you could cone up with was a guy who writes racist newsletters in his spare time?

    4. No it doesn’t. Of course Carson being dumb on a subject that has no relation to the job of being President is a lot different than Hillary being stupid or down right evil about every subject that relates to the job of President is an important contrast.

    5. You just want to pretend that you’re aloof and above it all!

      1. Did you pee on our bathroom rug?

        1. That was water drip from getting out of the shower. I think so at least…

          1. Probably shouldn’t have eaten all those olestra chips you found in that time capsule from 1998.

            1. *clenches in pain, just thinking about that*

              THANKS FOR NOTHING, X!

              1. Yeah, “may cause anal leakage and underwear staining” is just not a sentence you want to see in the snack aisle at the grocery store.

    6. “Hillary being a dumbshit doesn’t make it OK for Carson to be a dumbshit.”

      Carson’s belief that the pyramids stored grain doesn’t impact me or public policy in any way.

      Hillary wanting to spend $350 billion in taxpayer money to provide cheap financing for college–in an attempt to keep the cost of college down impacts me directly. In fact., that same stupid thinking will probably impact everything she does with spending.

      1. Well thank goodness I’m not going to vote for Hillary then.

        Oh wait… since I think Carson is a deranged moron, I have to vote for Hillary. There’s only two possible choices, right? And I HAVE to vote for one, right?

        Also, not voting for Carson is just like voting for Hillary, right?

        1. there will be two main choices and likely some others ones. You are not obligated to vote for any but one of the two primary options will win.

        2. “I HAVE to vote for one, right?

          No.

          What’s odd is that you have strong opinions about any candidates at all if you’re so proud of your abstinence from the process.

          1. So not vote for a DEM or a GOP is the same as not voting at all?

            1. There’s always Vermin Supreme

              1. He’s my guy. I already brush my teeth every day, so he really gets where i’m coming from, you know?

              2. Or Almanian.

        3. “Oh wait… since I think Carson is a deranged moron, I have to vote for Hillary. There’s only two possible choices, right?”

          Like it or not, the question put before the American people is likely to be: “Are Hillary’s stupid ideas about how the economy works dumber than Carson’s creationism?”

          Why wouldn’t we bring up Hillary’s stupidity, as well? Not bringing it up would be irresponsible.

          1. Yeah, no one here every brings up Hillary’s stupidity and evilness. How irresponsible of us.

            No one ever defends Hillary, but there plenty of people who show up to defend the various idiot Republican candidates.

            1. Yup. If Hillary said this about pyramids, the yokels would be howling for her blood. But Carson does it and he gets a pass because GOP.

              Both assholes.
              Both idiots.

              1. You certainly are reliable in your point-dodging ability.

              2. If Hillary said this about the pyramids, I would point out that what she says about how the economy works is even dumber than that.

                I’m the one who coined the term, here, that “What Obama says on TV everyday about how the economy works is dumber than creationism”.

                And this is an election year. The American people will probably choose between these two candidates. Yeah, I think everything about the frontrunners is a point for comparison in an election year.

                1. The only thing dumber than creationism is excusing it for the sake of politics.

                  1. Oh no!

                    The belief that it would take a mind of infinite wisdom and intelligence to create the universe and everything in it isn’t anywhere near as stupid as the belief that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party have the infinite wisdom and intelligence necessary to optimize our economy.

  19. The people who are going after Carson because of his religious beliefs now are the same people who went after Carson for saying that he wouldn’t vote for a Muslim.

    Present company excepted…maybe.

    What they don’t seem to understand is that Carson rejected voting for a Muslim because he questions Islam’s appreciation for the separation of church and state.

    What they don’t seem to understand is that they’re exposing their own bigotry.

    1. if the rationale for opposing Islam is that the faith pretty much equals the govt, but you do not view christianity that way, where’s the bigotry? Seems Islam is not too separate in most places where it is the majority faith.

      1. I didn’t say Carson is being a bigot.

        I said the people who are saying that Carson shouldn’t be President because of his religion are being bigots.

        1. okay…I may have mis-read that.

      2. It is a fair question to ask any Christian running for President, “where does your loyalty lie, to your faith or to the country?’ Or if they are a Catholic “to the Pope or to the country?” If the answer isn’t the country, they should not be President. If Carson committed a wrong here it was assuming that every Muslim would answer those questions “to the faith”. And maybe that is wrong but it doesn’t seem like an unreasonable guess.

        1. “where does your loyalty lie, to your faith or to the country?”

          How can any Republican running for president possibly answer that? They would be condemned by large parts of their base either way.

          1. I don’t think so. All you are saying is that you understand that doing what is best for the country is part of the job even if that includes doing things that are against your faith. Waging war is considered by many to be unChristian. But no one who refused to do so should ever be President. The response is, “I will do what I think is right for the country as best as my conscience will allow”. Everyone, even atheists has a conscience and indeed we want the President to have one.

          2. Which is exactly why the question should be asked.

        2. I suspect Carson would say we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

          Adventists do believe the government is going to turn against them (and all good people of all other religions, too) at the end of time. I’m sure Carson would like to believe that he would stand by his faith even if the government threatened him with death.

          Regardless, Carson’s point about Muslims wasn’t an example of religious bigotry. He doesn’t think Muslims believe in the separation of church and state–so knowing nothing else about a Muslim candidate, he wouldn’t vote for a Muslim.

          I wouldn’t vote for someone who doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state either–no matter whether they were a Muslim or some other religion. And I’m sure that’s what Carson was trying to say in his response to a pointed question about Muslims.

          Carson’s point was to defend the separation of church and state–not to justify rejecting Islam in favor of Christianity as the right religion for government. That point seems to have been lost on almost everybody.

          Anyway, when people say that Carson shouldn’t be President because of his faith, they’re being bigots, and if they’re the same people who went after Carson for saying he wouldn’t vote for a Muslim, then in addition to being bigots, they’re also being hypocrites.

          1. I will say this. The separation of church and state as we have it in the First Amendment is a Protestant thing. James Madison, who wrote the First Amendment, credited Luther with showing him the way.

            http://tinyurl.com/qegpurf

            So it gets a little complicated. I wouldn’t vote for a candidate who didn’t believe in the separation of church and state, and I don’t think of myself as a religious bigot because of that.

            That being said, freedom from establishment and free exercise together–that’s a Protestant theological thing. Some of you may not a agree that this country was framed on a Christian foundation, but the separation of church and state is a Protestant thing.

            It’s just grown bigger than religion and become part of the wider culture–like the Golden Rule. Gay atheists condemn Christians for not doing unto others (on gay marriage) as we would have done unto us–without irony. They believe in the Golden Rule even though they condemn its source in the culture. Anyway, the separation of church and state is like that, too. I can say I wouldn’t support someone who doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state (which is a point of Protestant theology) without being a bigot–because the principle has grown bigger than religion and become part of the wider culture.

            1. I will say this. The separation of church and state as we have it in the First Amendment is a Protestant thing.

              Kinda-sorta. If you look outside Western Europe till about 17th century, it’s remarkable just how odd relationship between Catholic Church, Kings and nobility is. Unlike Church in any country that was influenced by Eastern Roman Empire (Russia is the best example), there was always genuine tension between Church and State, down to Pope excomunicating Emperors who kept on ruling for years after (shit, first time the idea of taking arms to expunge sins is mooted by a Pope, it’s about 20 years before the first Crusade, because he’s having problems with Holy Roman Emperor). Anglican Church is more of a standard world-wide model, with Church being an arm of the State, and thus subordinate to the King (literally, where Boss of Church is just one of the jobs King/Queen of England has).

              1. You can trace the separation of church and state all the way back to the New Testament–and find implications further back than that in the Old Testament, too.

                However, our modern formulation of the separation of church and state–as we have it in the First Amendment–is a Protestant thing, traceable to Luther’s theology.

                1. I’m not big on New Testament (sorry, guys, Christ is kinda dull), so only separation I remember is “give Caesar what is Caesars”, with which Russian Orthodox Church would have no problem. Now, the whole story of Saul, that’s a proper Church vs State conflict, which is why I always thought Saul got a bad rap. Ironically, David, who was expected to be puppet for the Church, ended an independent ruler just as much as Saul, complete with tyrannical moments.

                  1. Yeah, God was really disappointed with Israel for wanting a king.

                    There are other pure expressions for church/state separation in the New Testament.

                    Jesus’ response to the question of who among the disciples would be Vice-President was that his kingdom is a heavenly kingdom.

                    We don’t say “kingdom” anymore. We say “government”.

                    Apparently God doesn’t do government on earth. We’re supposed to control ourselves.

                    Seems radically libertarian, doesn’t it?

                    1. The separation of church and state probably has its roots in the Catholic Church’s independence from secular authority (when convenient for them, at least). They were semi-sovereign (not counting the actually sovereign Vatican) for centuries.

                      They were perfectly happy to be the Official Church of the State, of course, which is the core of the Establishment Clauses’ prohibition, but they also wanted the State to keep its mitts to itself as far as what the Church was doing more or less internally.

                    2. James Madison disagrees. Also, Two Kingdoms Doctrine is foundational Lutheranism related to their Law and Gospel concept.

                      Certainly, the First Amendment, as Madison wrote it, took its cues from Luther.

                      “I received . . . the copy of your address . . . . It is a pleasing and persuasive example of pious zeal, united with pure benevolence, and of cordial attachment to a particular creed, untinctured with sectarian illibreality. It illustrates the excellence of a system which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations. The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurperers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.”

                      —-James Madison, author of the First Amendment

                      http://tinyurl.com/qegpurf

                    3. This is our modern conception of the separation of church and state, as framed in the First Amendment by Madison, with both freedom from establishment and free exercise. Madison attributed this conception to Martin Luther.

                      If there were any direct antecedent to this, it would be the English government taxing Puritans, et. al., to support the Anglican church.

                      Regardless, we’re talking about a Protestant point of doctrine here. This is like Priesthood of Believers. This is like sola scriptura. This is like righteousness by faith. These are things taht define Protestantism. Separation of church and state may mean different things to different Protestants, but its modern conception, inspiration, and its framing in the Constitution, were all Protestant.

    2. The same people who objected to Carson saying “he would not advocate for a Muslim running this country” would have a stroke if some evangelical Christian were elected President.

      1. They’re certainly being hypocrites.

        I chalk it up to something like the “uncanny valley”.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

        The more something is like us, the more we like it–up to a certain point. Beyond that point, familiarity breeds contempt.

        They’re letting their hatred for the devils they know dictate to their reason.

  20. This biblical nonsense is way nuttier than ancient alien theory. Vote for the Orange Guy from Ancient Aliens!

  21. I cannot muster a single fuck to give about Carson’s or any other presidential candidate’s views on the pyramids

  22. Too bad this has to be a TEAM tug-o-war, because I’d love to parse Carson’s pyramid nuttiness. It’s gloriously insane.

    1. Who is parsing this? I am not. Since when is saying “who cares” parsing. You are just butthurt that everyone isn’t acting shocked and shitting themselves with outrage.

      Yeah, I really don’t give a fuck what any of the candidates in either party think about the pyramids of Egypt. I really don’t and I can’t find the will to do so. I guess that just makes me a team red shill or something.

      1. You are a world champion of missing the point. It’s like you find the point, decide the 180 of it and that’s what you post. It’s really quite amazing in an incredibly stupid way.

        Read what a wrote and try again. Or don’t.

        1. Yes, I misspoke. We are not parsing. You are right. No one cares. Why does that make you so butt hurt?

          And how is this a team tug of war? No one from team blue is even on this tread?

          1. It’s TEAM GOP vs. TEAM NOT-GOP, the latter of which should be everyone on here. The constant “take of bite of this shit sandwich, it’s slightly less runny” is getting old and there’s still a year left.

            But my point remains… outside of politics, the pyramid thing is pretty fascinating. I mean, it’s a really deranged belief and he doubled down on it. But because of politics, I’m supposed to ignore it. (Look at all the people who have told me just that.)

            1. “take of bite of this shit sandwich, it’s slightly less runny”

              The point of the people you claim are saying this is that it’s actually a much less worse shit sandwich than Hitlary. I am not necessarily agreeing with this point, but that is the point. The things you say might be so much more interesting if you’d actually engage that instead of pretending everyone who doesn’t agree is a GOP plant.

            2. First, read my post on the topic. I flat out say that the fact that Carson likes to talk out of his ass on these kinds of things probably makes him unfit to be President. And we all know everything I write is just a big shill for team Red. So, I am not really seeing how there is much team GOP shilling going on.

              Second, a lot of the pyramid stuff is crazy. But I think it is reasonably possible that they were not built exactly as and for the purposes that mainstream historians think they were. I would not shock me at all if some seemingly outlandish theory about them turned out to be true.

              1. Are Carson’s views on pyramids any more odd or incorrect than Hillary’s views on economics?

                That’s the first thing you say. Which is a deflection.

                My whole point is that dumb is dumb no matter who it’s coming from. Hillary’s views on anything are immaterial to what Carson thinks unless you are trying to make Carson seem more palatable in comparison.

                I actually don’t care that people are doing that. I care that when I point it out, I’m told I’m not supposed to care about Carson being nuttier than a squirrel’s asshole.

            3. “”But because of politics, I’m supposed to ignore it.””

              No one is trying to convince YOU of anything.

              If you’re happy ignoring mainstream politics and standing on the sidelines, *more power to you* Kudos! have a pina colada and enjoy.

              Yet the problem seems to be that you think everyone else is supposed to join you, because….

              …..well, you never really get around to the “because” part….

              …You just sort of whine that viewing *any* candidate as Less Shitty than the obviously Super Shitty candidates is Wrong.

              And when someone asks *why* this is wrong, you huff and puff and assert that they must be rednecks, yokels, and intellectually/culturally inferior beings.

              Which is just so cute and lovable.

              1. Which is just so cute and lovable.

                Wow. I cut you pretty close to the bone, didn’t I?

                The why is that if I wanted to hear the slurping of GOP cock, I’d go to some other website.

                1. “I cut you pretty close to the bone, didn’t I?

                  We can do this all day, but i’m already bored

                  What’s funny is that no one seems to be talking about “the GOP” except you.

                  If Carson were a Democrat with the same views, I’d probably think exactly the same thing about him = Not as Retarded as Trump/Hillary/Sanders.

                  1. What’s funny is that no one seems to be talking about “the GOP” except you.

                    Sorry for being able to remember the past and read between the lines. When no one urges the libertarians on the board to vote GOP in the coming year, I will apologize profusely.

                    1. “read between the lines.”

                      i.e. Strawman the shit out of everything? Its much easier to defend yourself against the invisible rednecks than actually respond to criticisms

                    2. I haven’t seen criticisms. I see excuses being made for a dipshit because he might be slightly less dipshitty than some other dipshits.

                    3. “” I see excuses being made””

                      Because our country needs a strong Pyramid Policy?

                      If you had a particular candidate in mind that people should support, do share.

                    4. If you had a particular candidate in mind that people should support, do share.

                      It’d be nice to see half the energy being put into defending Trump and Carson into backing Rand Paul, but, you know, he’s not getting the nomination.

                      Because our country needs a strong Pyramid Policy?

                      Yeah. All these people defending Carson aren’t thinking of the general election at all.

                    5. “It’d be nice to see half the energy being put into defending Trump and Carson into backing Rand Paul, but, you know, he’s not getting the nomination.

                      I bitched throughout the summer that Reason was effectively writing-off Rand entirely following his shitty first-debate.

                      And then they spent 50 or so articles on Trump instead.

                      i have no idea why they’d do that. Clicks? I don’t get it. He deserves some coverage at least. what little there has been has been generally negative…

                      …While at the same time there have probably been a half-dozen pieces about how Sanders “isnt’ all that bad” (as long as you don’t pay attention to the economic ideas he’s been spouting for 20 years)

                      FWIW, i think people are *still* too down on Rand and there’s plenty of potential for a shakeup. People really don’t pay any attention to things until weeks before the election.

            4. No, you’re missing the point. The reason a libertarian would not like to admit this into regular political discourse is because it is irrelevant and the requirement that a candidate be a conformist on various cultural doxologies inevitably make it more difficult for a libertarian to run for elective office. For better or for worse, libertarians tend to attract outsiders with unconventional views on a variety of topics — any one of which could be used to undermine their campaign for reasons outside of governing philosophy or competence. We have a smaller pool from which to select our candidates and thus it is in our interest (and frankly, in keeping with libertarian ideas regarding pluralism) to expand the window of acceptable lawful “wrongness” wrt mainstream behavior. If a libertarian polyamorist or Millerite ran for President, I would like for his libertarianism to be the basis on which he’s judged rather than his polyamory or religious views. The latter should be relevant only to himself, and the only way to get to that point is to insist on it for all others, as well.

              1. So I’m supposed to excuse dipshittery because a dipshit who is a libertarian might have a shot at an office one day?

                How about we find a libertarian that is not a dipshit?

                1. Have you ever been to a Libertarian Party convention?

                  1. No, and for the reason you suggest.

                    1. OH, AND I SUPPOSE YOU WILL BE BASHING AUGUSTUS SOL INVICTUS NOW?!?!?!

                      *huffs and stomps off*

                    2. No, come back. I love the sun, little darlin’!

                    3. Rand Paul’s problem isn’t a lack of coverage on Reason.

                      He’s a tweener. He isn’t iconoclastic enough to get the kind of coverage The Donald gets. He isn’t dignified enough to get the serious consideration of a Bush.

                      He should have run for governor in Kentucky. Most people just see him as a Tea Party rabble-rouser. But there isn’t a big Iraq occupation to rail against like his father did.

                      In a crowded field, you have to either be the loudest blow hard or the most dignified. He should have run for governor in Kentucky.

                    4. If Rand Paul were at the top of the field, this thread would have been about Aqua Buddha rather than whether the pyramids were built to house grain.

                    5. “In a crowded field, you have to either be the loudest blow hard or the most dignified.”

                      You know what you get for being the most nuanced?

                      You get squat.

                      You get to live in a van down by the river.

                2. How about we find a libertarian that is not a dipshit?

                  Because “not a dipshit” varies widely. For me, that includes not being refried Richard Dawkins. For you, it implies not being a god-botherer. Both of us would consider a biblical literalist somewhere on the spectrum of “wrong” to “plain dumb”. And on it goes. When the public gets into it, we’re stuck arguing stupid shit that has nothing to do with the job. IMO, libertarians are the best qualified for the job, and can only start to look worse once superficial considerations are made part of the political discourse. These discussions can only be unproductive for our own candidates.

  23. Everything that needed to be said about this was covered in half a dozen comments.

    I just finished washing my jeep in preparation for another trip to tx so I haven’t had time to look around. I found brisket on sale for $1.49 / lb and I am bringing a huge one to my brother’s house. Yum.

    Someone post some OT good stuff.

    1. Agreed. I just got back from hockey and am having trouble giving a fuck about anything.

      Here, have a kitty picture.

      Gonna smoke that brisket?

      1. 2 3lb pork bellies from the asian market
        rub with copious amounts of salt, pepper and garilic to taste
        smoke at 225 for approx 5 hours.
        – feel free to use the Texas crutch or the oven at the end. 3 hours of smoke should be enough.
        Internal temp 170
        let rest AT LEAST 30 min, if not a whole hour.
        slice, anywhichway, place skin side down in cast iron skillet until the skin explodes into pork rinds.
        eat, drool, make sounds like Homer Simpson

      2. I am going to hand it over to my brother. No one does a better brisket than he does. My wife put cajun rub on it already, he will sear it saturday morning and then smoke it for about 12 hours. I will spend that time getting drunk and then eating it.

        Sunday we will be putting up deer stands.

        1. Sunday we will be putting up deer stands.

          Your username, it is appropriate.

        2. Sunday we will be putting up deer stands.

          Whereabouts you hunting, Suthen?

    2. The wife and I went hiking at Shenandoah National Park last weekend. Fantastic weather, great views. On the drive back, we passed a “Dukes of Hazard” themed restaurant in Sperryville, Virginia. It was a largish mobile establishment, didn’t have a bathroom, and mostly served deep-fried stuff. It was surprisingly good. What struck me as most odd about the place was that it was a total shrine to the Dukes and was selling hundreds of different pieces of Dukes of Hazard merchandise, old and new.

      It was as though that whole “Erase the Confederate Flag from History” affair from earlier this year had completely missed this place.

      1. Until you just outed them. Way to go!

      2. To be fair, Sperryville isn’t exactly on the cutting edge of any cultural trends.

        1. Yeah, it was nice to find somewhere that appears to be completely oblivious to the derpery going on over the Twitter.

          1. Of the 16 people who live there, only two even have dial-up.

    3. Why wash the Jeep before a trip?

      Why wash a car at all?

      Asking as a lazy, cheap Californian.

      1. I wash it, scrub the windshield with steel wool and then rain-x it, checked and inflated the tires, checked all fluids and topped them off etc.

        I also keep a pump, fire extinguisher, fuses, oil and antifreeze, cables, a tool box, tire kits, tow chain etc etc in it.

        I drive my wife around in that jeep, it needs to be safe. Keeping it in tip top shape has saved us at least once, and all the troubleshooting supplies have gotten a few other people out of a jam too.

        1. Add to that that the speed limit in tx on small roads, some with no shoulder, is 75. You need a good car.

        2. I used to treat my windshield with rain-x, but now I use their wiper fluid. Works great, assuming you actually use it to clean the windshield every once in a while. My wife doesn’t, so I put the cheap stuff in her car.

    4. Hold on a sec. Let’s bring this back on topic. Did you know that that brisket came from a cow that fed from the grain of the grain of the grain… that was stolen by pyramid grain-robbers?

      1. Begat, dude. Begat.

  24. It does seem as if the media is vetting the Republican candidates a lot more than the Dems. I mean, after that phony email scandal blew over, next to nothing.

    Has there been a single negative story on Bernie and some of his old, batshit crazy beliefs like how most women fantasize about being raped?

  25. If you’ve got a pyramid – you didn’t build that.

    1. Nope. The greys did.

      1. SSSSHHHHH, DAMMIT!

        *tightens foil hat*

  26. CBS does not appear to have asked the candidate precisely which scientists support the alien theory.

    This guy. Assuming the top scientists from the History Channel count, that is.

    1. There really should be more talk about how the History Channel is basically 24/7 conspiracy theories, half of which involve aliens in some way, and the show Vikings. There is pretty much no actual history on the multiple channels they have.

  27. OT: I used to enjoy The Truth About Cars, but it’s getting pretty weird.

    See if you can make any sense of this:

    We Need Another Ralph Nader To Save Us From Ourselves

    I couldn’t.

    Also from TTAC, a lesson in incentives:

    Incentive Money Gone, Electric Car Sales Have Dried Up In Georgia

    1. To be safe at any speed, it’s clear that automakers should be held to a higher standard to reduce human interaction or increase driver attention.

      It’s like he doesn’t understand liability insurance costs.

      WE NEED TO REGULATE STAPLERS BEFORE WE ALL START STAPLING OURSELVES.

      1. *clack*

        “AAAAGH! TOO LATE!”

      2. A friend of mine stapled his dick to his leg a couple of months ago, so, yeah, maybe so.

        *bought a new pneumatic staple gun and was unfamiliar with it. He pressed the wrong end to the target and then leaned into it and pulled the trigger. While he told me the details I listened and kept a poker face. When he was finished I waited a few seconds and then asked: “Did it make you jump?”

        Then I broke down laughing to tears.

        1. I rent out equipment for a living. To be honest, that’s not the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of someone doing with a power tool, but it’s close.

          1. Yeah, I’ve almost put a running circular saw into my leg twice.

    2. It is quite irony of a site called “truth about cars” calling for another Ralph Nader, a man who got famous by telling lies about cars. There isn’t a single honest word in “Unsafe at Any Speed”. Every single claim Nader made was later dis proven. And as a side note, auto fatality rates had been dropping every year since the 1920s and were, on a fatality per mile driven basis, in 1966 a fraction of what they had been in the 1920s. But without government regulation, our cars would never have gotten safer. We all know that there is no better business model than killing your customers and no one in America even knew that cars could be unsafe or made purchasing decisions based on safety until the government showed them.

      1. We all know that there is no better business model than killing your customers…

        Aw, come on. Everyone knows that businesses would kill customers and employees alike if they could get away with it. All food and drink would be poison without the FDA, all workplaces would be dangerous without OSHA, and the entire earth would be polluted without the EPA. Heck, before the Department of Education there weren’t any schools. Everyone knows this.

  28. Meh.

    I’m more offended by the stupid shit Obama says – e.g. Christians/Muslim historical relativism, stale left-wing populist economic rhetoric, careless on his comments about race etc. – than I am about someone who hasn’t been nominated to his party yet.

    Moreover, was the media this diligent in scrutinizing candidate Obama? And when some did, it was shot down as being ‘unfair’ and ‘racist’.

    Yet here we are a black man running and they go after him.

    /puts finger to lips.

    I wonder why.

    1. Yeah, this is just loopy. “Islam has always been part of the fabric of America’ is downright insulting.

      1. Wasn’t Patrick Henry a Muslim? John Jay, too, IIRC

        1. Original spelling for Jay/Hamilton/Madison series of articles was “Faed Ar Al-Ist Papyrus”.

        2. They were Moslem Deists.

      2. I forgot about that one. Thanks John. Now I am pissed. I can actually feel the heat coming off of my face.

        Goddamn I hate that fucking piece of shit.

  29. Come on read a book. erich von daniken has been writing about aliens and the pyramids since the 70s.

  30. WHYCOME U DONNO WUT WAS IN THEM PIRAMID MORANS

    1. Take it easy Scro…

  31. I heard a theory that, contra the popular image of hundreds of slaves dragging huge blocks of stone up ramps, the Egyptians just pulled up sand for each level, then swept it away when the pyramid was complete.

    1. That would mean they were dragging huge blocks of stone up . . . a big sand hill.

      I think that would be a hell of a lot harder than pulling a huge block of stone over almost anything else.

      1. I don’t remember the particulars…I know that if I had been pharaohs, I would have had them use the nukular steam shovels that the kindly aliens offered to us.

      2. They started at the top and worked their way down.

  32. OT: hearing a report now on the hospital bombing in Afghanistan. Jesus Christ that is horrible. First that I am hearing that after the bombs went off the people fleeing the burning building were machine-gunned.

    Where is the international tribunal naming Obumbles as a war criminal and calling for his head?

    Also, some CIA asshole just blamed the DWB for the bombing because they treated a few wounded Taliban.

    1. First that I am hearing that after the bombs went off the people fleeing the burning building were machine-gunned.

      It wasn’t bombed. It was shot up from a Spooky gunship. We were discussing at the time what the armament on the Spookies is these days. But, their armament includes automatic weapons. So, “being machine gunned” and “being shot up by a Spooky” can be one and the same.

      Was the report you heard that they were being machine-gunned from the ground? From helicopters?

      1. Their armament includes those multi barrel miniguns that can fire about about 3,000 rounds per minute.

  33. Looks like the current gen of AC/130’s have ditched all of the guns save for a single 30mm cannon.

    Since it is a single barrel canon I don’t know that it has a high enough rate of fire to be confused with a machine gun

    1. A 30mm cannon is what the A-10 uses. It is so large the plane was designed to fit around the gun.

  34. ” you know, it doesn’t require an alien being when God is with you.”

    That has got to be the single greatest quote by a presidential candidate.

    Aliens help us all.

  35. So I just stumbled across Carson’s original statement in a 1998 commencement address. I didn’t get the sense that he thinks it’s important why the pyramids were made.

    He was using Joseph as an example of the importance of thinking big and planning ahead. He admitted he was the only person who speculated that the pyramids were granaries.

    1. Hey, that’s interesting.

      I’m halfway through – but he’s done the Joseph part.

      And the media buried the lede.

      Imagine you find a speech a Presidential candidate made back in 1998. In this speech the now-candidate says that he admires Joseph in the Bible as someone who thought big. The candidate summarizes the story thus: Sold into slavery, Joseph still thought big, became the best slave he could be, ended up running Potiphar’s household, went to prison and became the best prisoner he could be, then ended up as what Carson called the prime minister of the most powerful country in the world. And as prime minister, Joseph was able to think big and *save the world* with his Big Thinking.

      OK, then, *that* is interesting.

      But the media want to follow the shiny object of the pyramid theory, which Carson admitted was his own personal theory, contrary to what others believed.

      I’m more interested in the idea that Carson, that far back, was talking about admiring a guy who thought big, became the leader of the most powerful country in the world, and saved the world.

      1. But at least libertarian magazines will avoid the pyramid pile-on and instead focus on the fact that a leading Presidential candidate has a physician’s savior complex? I mean, it might indicate an ambition for big, bold, “world-saving” actions to be taken as President.

        Or you could make the Chariots of the Gods jokes instead.

        1. Here’s what I think – the media’s favorite candidates tend to have messianic aspirations, and they see their candidates as messiahs, so that a Presidential candidate suggesting that he has a world-saving Joseph as a role model simply doesn’t seem worth reporting.

          There are plenty of media-backed candidates who have messianic ambitions without the excuse of being savoir-complex-having brain surgeons.

          In fact, since Carson believes specifically in a Savior who *isn’t* Ben Carson, then there are limits to his potential megalomania.

          But these media-backed candidates with their “politics of meaning” and such, what external restraint on their megalomania do *they* recognize?

          1. I think there are two types of Christians. One is just a person who humbly prays for the opportunity to be a vessel of God’s beneficence.

            The other thinks he is hot shit because God favors him with importance.

            I am cool with the first type.

            I think it is important to remember that even Moses got bitch slapped by God for being arrogant. If Carson is in line with that, then I think it is a-ok that he is inspired by Joseph.

            I think I heard 12 sermons on the topic this year and they were all about forgiveness and trusting that God will use your hardships for good.

  36. Anyone that far out in left field should be disqualified from politics. Of course, that applies to 95% of ALL politicians… many of whom believe in magic and superstition (with most calling it “religion”).

  37. Carson on economics — Prohibition works. It keeps people from what is Prohibited.

    Another version: Police Power can solve medical problems. – Say. Isn’t he an MD? Well he just failed the MD test.

  38. so the pyramids don’t represent a pharaoh’s penis?

  39. No, Ben Carson isn’t the first, he’s just the first in this particular election cycle.

  40. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ———- http://www.4cyberworks.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.