Say Anything Blog

Well, whaddya know?

For a change it’s Democrats trying to kiss the boots of the ultra-right so called ‘evangelical christians’.

I guess you could say the GOP doesn’t have a corner on it anymore?

I bet Robertson invited him on simply to demonstrate how fake the Democrats are about religion.  The only time they find religion is when they have been f*ing around on their wife and want a religious leader to come out and defend them (Billy Boy).  Or when they need a “Reverend” like Jesse or Al to fire up the black vote.

It is about as real as their support for the troops.  And we see what they think of the troops via Murtha.  No one is buying it and hopefully guys like Ralph Nader will further splinter off the athiest vote from the new “mainstream” Democrats like Howard Dean.

Jay Leno had a good one the other night.  He mentioned Pat Robertson saying ‘I think I heard from God’.  Jay said, “Thinks he heard from God?  You mean he drifted off while God was talking to him?  Now that’s bad.”

"Evangelical Christians” is capitalized just like “God” and “the Bible” are capitalized.  When you cannot even spell appropriately, it further demonstrates how the Liberals approach the “right wing nut jobs” and the “Jesus Freaks”.  And they think we are stupid.  The Christians don’t vote their values and can be persuaded by false promises and empty rhetoric.  Sorry, Diane, but we are not a voting block (Republicans, not Evangelicals of which I am not one) that is persuaded by the BS of Howard Dean.  The only people that are “religious” and are persuaded by the false promises and abortion on demand of the Democrats are Reverends like Jesse Jackson.

So if the country was so dissatisfied with the Republican values and Bush’s job approval was in the toilet and Democrats were going to win based on their agenda and their plan for America, why are they pandering to the Religious Right, Diane?  Seems that the Secular Humanist, Abortion on Demand message is what the Dems should be pushing because it is a winning formula that America wants.  Isn’t it?

I capitalize when it’s appropriate and these people don’t act like Christians, so I don’t capitalize the word when speaking of them.

So if the country was so dissatisfied with the Republican values and Bush’s job approval was in the toilet (it is)

and Democrats were going to win based on their agenda and their plan for America, why are they pandering to the Religious Right, Diane?

For the same reason the GOP panders to them.  I thought I already said that.

You don’t get to be termed Christian just because you go to church, watch the 700 Club and own at least one Bible.

And he will ask them:
“Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do the things that I say?”

Oh, but Bill Clinton gets to claim to be Christian when Billy Graham defends him after he was getting blowjobs and lying about it?

And John Kerry gets to be called Christian, too.  How come all the Dems want to be respected by the Christians?

And if you show contempt like that to the “Evangelicals” and 700 Club viewers, why is Howard Dean pandering to them?  No, they support many of the Republican policies like smaller government, Marriage protection, and ending of Abortion.  The Republicans don’t pander.  These folks have the same agenda as the Republican Party in many cases.  So again, why was Howard Dean there?  To win elections.  Why do Republicans hang out with these ignorant 700 Club viewers?  Because the Republican Party’s values align with these folks.

So is Dean lying or being genuine when courting these folks’ support?

He’s being as genuine as Bush, that’s for sure.

I have great respect for true Christians; almost none for christians who support and promote warmongers.

What is the Democrats’ proposal for dealing with the impending insolvency of Social Security?  How about Medicare, which is projected to run out of money in less than a decade?  Any serious Democrat proposals there?  How about the War on Terror?  Any substantive proposals on actually winning there?  The economy?  What options do the Democrats propose to sustain the current recovery and perpetuate economic growth for all those “undocumented workers” they’re so eager for us to take in?

But I’m being “unfair” here, of course, so let’s lump it all together.  What serious policy proposals or legislative initiatives have the Democrats offered to solve any of this country’s more serious problems?

The silence is deafening.  And so long as that is the case, so long as the Democrats show that think that no specific proposals or policy alternatives are better than actually admitting publicly exactly what they would do or what it is they stand for, then there is little more to Dean’s appearance on the 700 Club than there was to his infamously stupid remark about “…white folks in the South who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag decals in the back.”

The Democrats are still the party that stands for style over substance, fluff over foundation, and hypocrisy over any sort of heartfelt values.  Until they can offer some sort of concrete alternatives or initiatives, then everything else is merely a partisan charade.  And most Americans know this only too well.

Relax bat one.

The Republicans have no “real” plan to save Social Security.
You don’t put serious stock in someone bent for somethings destruction to save it.
What next, hire al Quaeda to save America?

As for Dean, when did he push people to get an abortion?
As someone who is pro-choice, that’s just plain wrong to me.

Finally, if Pat Robertson and his ilk met Jesus, they’d have him thrown in jail for being a subversive.

diane says, I have great respect for true Christians; almost none for christians who support and promote warmongers.

Like God? Didn’t he flood the Earth and doesn’t he turn away or damn sinners not fit for His Kingdom? To be consistent, you’d have to call God Himself a “warmonger” diane.

Otherwise, why would Howard Dean be appearing on the 700 Club?

Maybe they were just having a Leg-Press tournament.

The Republicans have no “real” plan to save Social Security.
You don’t put serious stock in someone bent for somethings destruction to save it.

Want some cheese with that circular reasoning?

Cripes man, you have holes big enough in your logic for Kirstie Allie and Michael Moore to waltz through together.

And I noticed, as did many other Americans, which party was attempting a dialog on Social Security, and which party applauded when the failure to find a solution was admitted.

Maybe they were just having a Leg-Press tournament.

Now that would be interesting.

Then they could try a screaming contest.

My money is on the ArchAngel Robertson.

Robert said, The Republicans have no “real” plan to save Social Security.

How do you “save” a pyramid scheme? It’s impossible without sustained and forever continuing population and employment growth.

You don’t put serious stock in someone bent for somethings destruction to save it.

So therefore the Republicans can never have any ideas on how to prolong the Social “Security” scheme because they ultimately want to dismantle the pyramid scheme part.

Sounds like you’ve already closed your ears and are ironically asking for more.

What next, hire al Quaeda to save America?

What’s next in your argument? Another non-sequitor to top off more circular reasoning?

Finally, if Pat Robertson and his ilk met Jesus, they’d have him thrown in jail for being a subversive.

Now you’re speaking for Jesus. Anybody elses mouth you’d like to insert words into? Just asking…

As someone who is pro-choice, that’s just plain wrong to me.

Robert,

Tell me again, please about the difference between being “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion.” Is there a difference?  Is it something like saying you support our troops, but abhor the killing and the violence?

That your side is so consistent in its dismissive attitude toward the problems I listed only proves my point.  You may disagree with the Republican proposals on all of these issues, but until your side actually manages to offer some sort of believeable policy alternatives no one is likely to take you very seriously.

Actually, the Republican plan is the only way to create real social security for retirees.  The present plan is a scam and a ripoff of the taxpayers.  Econ 101

diane says, I have great respect for true Christians; almost none for christians who support and promote warmongers.

likwidshoe on May 31, 2006 at 10:55 PM

You really need to understand the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament, lik.  So do Gene Redlin and alot of preachers.
They are two covenants.  One old which has been obsoleted and the new one which has taken its’ place.

Most people here shouldn’t be concerned about Social Security not being there for them.  They think everyone should be self-sufficient and bail themselves out of anything and everything without any government input, kind of like Katrina.

Hey, you can always get a job at another of your favorite causes, Wal-Mart.

“Hello and have a great day here at Wal-Mart” or whatever the heck they say at the door before you stick on some soda a fat kid spilled on the floor.

The whole point of reforming social security is to make it a self-sufficient program.  Get it?  That can only happen by what people call “privatization”.  It’s really just an intelligent way of preparing for retirement.  If we had done it right in the Thirties, we wouldn’t be worrying about a lot of things today.

diane says, You really need to understand the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament, lik. So do Gene Redlin and alot of preachers.
They are two covenants. One old which has been obsoleted and the new one which has taken its’ place.

I’ll pass. I’d rather not read about the “warmonger” God who sends “His Children” to eternal Hell if they misbehave. Only an evil “warmonger” God would do such a thing, right? Just following your logic here…

And I’ll look into the differences between the Olde Testament and the New Testament when the topic interests me (it currently doesn’t) or if there is a large contingent of Christians who want me dead for being an infidel (there isn’t). Unless or until one of those things happens, I’ll care little about the intricacies of Christian thought.

diane says, Most people here shouldn’t be concerned about Social Security not being there for them.

Right. We should just be expected to pay in for life and then not recieve our own money back, sans interest of course. Great logic there!

Leftie logic.  Don’t you just love it?

There’s an oxymoron if there ever was one, robert.

GIGO

diane says, Most people here shouldn’t be concerned about Social Security not being there for them.

likwidshoe on June 1, 2006 at 12:37 AM

Well, you’re supposed to be ignoring me, but I’ll respond anyway.

That was tongue in cheek..obviously.  See, y’all are so darn inconsistent.  You preach independence and self-sufficiency, but what we pay into SS is used up really quite quickly; certainly not enough to support us for as long as most seniors are living these days and what they are projected to live in the future (into the 100’s).

You are just all mixed up here.  That simple.

Be consistent, man.

You want people to swim their way to safety in a hurricane (plural ‘you’ here), but you want to ‘free’ Iraqis instead of letting them fight for their own freedom if they wanted to.

And so it goes, on and on and on

Well, you’re supposed to be ignoring me, but I’ll respond anyway.

That was tongue in cheek..obviously.

I am? Says who?

You preach independence and self-sufficiency, but what we pay into SS is used up really quite quickly; certainly not enough to support us for as long as most seniors are living these days and what they are projected to live in the future (into the 100’s).

Get some new material lady.

The difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion.

Pro-abortion is being in favor of abortions.
i.e. “Everone should have one, shit everyone should have at laest 2.”

Pro-choice is being in favor of choice (to have or not have an abortion, to use one’s seatbelt while driving or not, to smoke or not to smoke, to use drugs or not use drugs, etc).

Now to my point, when did Dean push anybody to get an abortion?
Did this person (or persons) actually have one because they were being pushed to by Dean?
-------------------------------------

Those with a problem paying into Social security with no guarantee of getting it back, you must hate auto and health insurance unless you get in a car accident or get sick.

Robert: “Pro-choice” is a euphemism for unrestricted abortion on demand, with no restrictions. 
I have a choice in auto in health insurance; the govt picks my pocket for the SS pyramid scheme.  See the difference?

We don’t have a choice in paying SS tax.

Re Howard Dean and the laundry list of liberal causes you accuse him of subscribing to, you need to do some fact checking. Guess what? He does not subscribe to ANY of the positions you mention (based on his issue positions during the 2004 Presidential campaign). Anybody who actually knows
anything about Dean’s record and positions realizes that his thinking is to the RIGHT of Kerry. Examples: he was against gun control, he was for the death penalty. He did not want drugs legalized - he wanted the CDC to test marajauna to see if it had medicinal benefits for cancer patients and if so then maybe it could be prescribed (by doctors) in pill form. On gay marriage, he agreed with Kerry - they were pro civil unions (legal rights) but against gay marriage and the gay-marriage Constitutional amendment because they don’t want the government telling religious institutions who they can or can not marry.  You’re just making this stuff up to prove your point. Sorry, it’s not working.