He feels a lot of things that donât have much basis in reality.
The myth of the victimized, over-taxed, virtuous, and morally superior [m][b]illionaire would be laughable were it not accepted as religious truth by the GOP TeaBaggers.
Honest (if a bit loaded) question: how is Mr. T any crazier than electing someone who takes advise from an invisible person who lives in the clouds on all important political decisions? We havenât elected anyone to top office that doesnât do that - it is basically a prerequisite for that job - why is that OK and this isnât. How is making stuff up on your own any worse than making stuff up with the help if an imaginary invisible friend? Is it simply that so many citizens have an invisible friend so thatâs ânormalâ - well, it is not normal nor sane.
We truly deserve a Trump/Palin ticket to win before we stand even the slimmest of hopes of waking up.
You havenât elected anyone President who claims not to do that. Big difference.
The imaginary friends of politicians always seem to say that what the politician wants is their will. In his book God Knows, Joseph Heller has King David ask the Lord whether he should do something, and the Lord always tells him to go and do it - right up to the point that he gets into a snit with God.
I drank some Tang once. I guess thatâs pretty much the same thing as going to the moon.
While some (like Mr Bush) most definitely seem to believe that the God they pray to is giving them actual tangible political advice, I get the impression that other Presidents make a bit of a show about mentioning their faith and its guidance, given how intensely important those references are to a huge number of Americans.
Clickfodder, powered by clattering outrage engines.
And Bernie Sanders remains persona non grata.
sigh
The assumption/fact that you have to be a practising xtian to get elected is indeed disturbing. And for that matter, we should probably be more concerned about anyone with so little self-doubt that theyâd volunteer to become president. But there are degrees of religiosity, and degrees of egomania.
To compare Trumpâs egomania with an equivalent degree of religious delusion, youâre not talking about someone who casually goes to church on Sundays, youâre talking about Pat Robertson, or the Ayatollah Khomenei.
Sorry your moon experience was so weak. You see, my time is far too valuable, so I had my people bring the moon to me! I made the moon wait in the lobby for a couple years, just to show it how Iâm important and how insignificant our celestial neighbor is. We shook hands, and now that bastard rock owes me a favor. Thatâs why it shines at night â to remind you to buy my musk.
Iâm hoping for Trump/Cain. âPizza and real estate! Together at last!â
You just need to dress it up right.
- Start with some Bernie from really long ago - nothing current or relevant
- Mix in the chance for some of that shweet Amazon affiliate moolah
- Reference a prior post from 3 weeks ago, and, Voila!
I think it only counts if you were going to Space Camp at the time. Itâs the same thing as being a real astronaut, right?
Not all of them are domestic-abusing fascists.
So yes, Iâll take a well-acting Christian any day over a nasty secular person.
That invisible person who lives in the clouds is the most abusive fascist ever though, so not one to look up to nor take advice from.
[quote=âpixleshifter, post:9, topic:65336â]powered by clattering outrage engines[/quote]Why, thatâs beautiful. I shall endeavor to use that in conversation in the future. (Also, excellent name for a band.)
From what I remember of bad 80s movies, yes.
I have to confess, Iâd heard the term âoutrage enginesâ before, I think (it may have been something similar). The term may have come from @shaddack
From me it was âoutrage economyâ. I thought briefly that I invented that expression but a brief googling shown that it is a rather obvious name for the concept.
