I never said I wanted them to have dialogue in the movie...just for them to get naked and fuck each other for my enjoyment. While I do agree with you in that I do find their stupidity makes them much less attractive (Bachmann is not at all good looking anyways), just given who they are would make for a good fuck flick.
“Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion.” Joseph Campbell
The bad news is that Pat isn't allowed to tell us what God said; in the words of the great prophet himself: "I'm not supposed to talk about that so I'll leave you in the dark".
It must be so frustrating for poor ol' Pat, if God just let him talk then come November people would know that he was a true prophet of God rather than thinking of him as a lying sack of crap.
However, God has permitted St. Pat to share God's opinion on Obama:
“Your country will be torn apart by internal stress, a house divided cannot stand. Your president holds a radical view of the direction of your country which is at odds with the majority,” Robertson stated, reading from notes he had purportedly taken in his discussion with God. “Your president holds a view that is at odds with the majority, it’s a radical view of the future of this country, so that’s why we’re having this division.”
Is it just me, or has God's literary style declined somewhat since he wrote the Book of Job? He sounds less like the Almighty and more like a peevish talk radio host.
In fact ... has anyone ever seen God and Rush Limbaugh in the same place at the same time?
quote:One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
It's a pity god didn't tell Greorge to try something else first, before using force. It's also a pity god didn't tell him that Sadam didn't have WMD's.
I think Jefferson or George Washington would have rather strongly discouraged you from growing marijuana, and their techniques of dealing with it would have been more violent.
What's really remarkable is that this may well be the first time ever that anyone has mentioned Washington, Jefferson, and marijuana in the same sentence without pointing out that the former grew the latter.
Didn't Newt claim to have taken money from Freddie Mac in his capacity as a historian rather than in his capacity as a lobbyist? Well now would be a good time to give it back.
While most conservatives worry about abortion and gay marriage, Rick Santorum has found some rather more widespread evils to struggle against ... contraception and consensual sex.
One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country ... Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘Well, that’s OK, contraception is OK.’ It’s not OK. It’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [Sex is] supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal and unitive, but also procreative.
Incidentally, does that mean that he's against blowjobs too? I think we should be told ... and there goes the male vote.
As for that other great contemporary evil, consensual sex ...
And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.
Whether he is suggesting that we become a nation of celibates or of rapists is unclear ...
... oh, OK, he must mean gay consensual sex, though he doesn't say so. Perhaps he doesn't know what it means ... perhaps he thinks that "consensual sex" is something especially dirty that Them Queers do.
But I don't see why his arguments don't apply to straight sex too. If I have the right to that, don't I have the right to heterosexual bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery? If not, why not?
After all, if you think about it, the slippery slope starts with giving rights to heterosexual couples. Because they had a right to marry, gay people wanted it; and when we told the government to keep out of straight people's bedrooms, the gay people wanted the same. Straight rights are the slippery slope to gay rights, which as we know are the slippery slope to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery, none of which happened before homosexuality was legal.
Sick Rantorum recently opined that states have the constitutional authority to ban contraception and sodomy: if that state's residents don't like it, they can move or vote out the legislators responsible.
Quite aside from the lack of the former increasing the practicality of the latter, I think, akin to what Dr A has suggested about Perry, that Rantorum fails to realize that sodomy includes all sexual acts other than procreative sex, without regard to the gender of the participants.
Or perhaps he does: like the dog in the manger, he can't be eaten, and neither can anyone else.
If you asked Romney about banning blow jobs, he'd probably reply, "What? What?" The entire GOP field is comprised of men who appear desperately in need of a blow job.
Maybe, in tribute to their nativist 1850s forerunners, they will become known as the Blow-Nothings.
I'm trying to visualize a campaign logo. Okay, now I'm not.
"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."