Wednesday, March 20, 2013

"Kennedy Catholic" Pitt Delivers Sermon

Every once in awhile WILLIAM RIVERS PITT publicly puts on a very showy display of supposed faith for either political and/or showboating purposes. We already saw Pitt showboating himself as a KENNEDY CATHOLIC upon the death of Teddy Kennedy in which he recited Latin prayers in DUmmieland which he never utters in real life except, perhaps, when on a huge Bukowski's bender. And now that a new Pope has been chosen, the expected Catholic bashing went full force in DUmmieland which led the Pittster into full blown showboating in which he pretends to be indignant about attacks on his religion as you can see in this THREAD, ""Liberal believers are going to be the people who ultimately bring change to their own re ligions." Thus we see Pitt's agenda. CHANGE the Catholic Church from the inside from what it is into something resembling liberal goddess Gaia worship. Rather than just join another religion or declare himself agnostic/atheist, how much more satisfying to Pitt and his fellow leftwing Kennedy Catholics to drag REAL Catholicism down the tubes. So let us now watch the former Catholic school teacher engage in pretend outrage in Bolhsevik Red while the comments of your humble correspondent, wondering if Pitt gave up lint for Lent since withdrawing from brew and cigarettes would be too much of a sacrifice, is in the [brackets]:

"Liberal believers are going to be the people who ultimately bring change to their own religions." - Skinner, from an ATA thread about religious intolerance on DU.

[That was Pitt showboating in his rainbow wig while holding up a sign that says: "Skinner 3:16".]

Very well said, and very true.

[Pitt's analysis of a passage from the Not So Good Book on how to undermine traditional religion.]

So maybe take it easy on Catholic DUers, hey? You're shitting on your own friends and allies, causing hurt feelings, and making DU suck. Dumping on people because of their religion is one of the shittier things one person can do to another. In a great many cases, it means you are also shitting on their heritage as well (see, for one example, "Irish Catholic," understand why the first word comes before the second, and understand why it refers to far more than just a religious faith). I value and appreciate criticism, especially of the Catholic Church - which deserves it in spades - but think before you post. A simple request.

[Translation: "Psst! Don't you get it? Wink! Wink! We can be so much more effective in destroying Catholicism from the inside by PRETENDING to be Catholic. So PLEASE don't mess with our game plan. Amen."]

A DU Catholic

[A DUmmie Catholic? Is that the same as a Kennedy Catholic? Notice how Pitt seems to have a hard time to describe himself as a Roman Catholic. Probably because he is NOT one except for pretend purposes.]

My daughter and son are both atheists. My husband is agnostic theist. I am Buddhist, and my father is evangelical Christian. I stand up to my father in order to defend my children's beliefs all the time. I also stand up to militant atheists as well. I'm just glad my children are compassionate atheists, not militant atheists. Being militant and bullying people does not work. It doesn't work when evangelical Christians do it. It also doesn't work when atheists do it.

[The DUmmie version of ecumenism.]

If you don't agree with the established beliefs of Catholicism, you should not be Catholic. If you choose to identify as Catholic, you are choosing to support those beliefs. There is no gray area here.

[Tell that to Kennedy Catholic Pitt.]

Because no other religion/belief system has ever done anything wrong. How's your glass house, chief? Tell me what you believe, and I'll tell you why you suck. Try me. I can do it, in probably under five minutes. This is called life. Be respectful as you pass through.

[Pitt delivering another faux outrage sermonette. The whole purpose of which is to give himself street creds to tear down a religion he does NOT believe in.]

I'm an apatheist. My thoughts on belief in God: No one has any proof, everyone fights about it, and it doesn't actually seem to impact anyone in the slightest. However, while I prefer to avoid discussing it myself, I will not support or defend any organization which has a history of human rights violations, religious or otherwise, and I don't like it when others are vilified for criticizing the same.

[Apatheist? I'm not exactly sure what that is but it sounds like a non-belief system that Kennedy Catholic Pitt can subscribe to.]

Here is what Francis has said about my people seeking rights. Do you agree with him or not, Will? “Let’s not be naïve, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

[And here is Will's reply:]

I do not agree with him and the tone, tenor and content of your reply is precisely the kind of conversation I hoped to inspire with my OP.

[And when a liberal says "conversation" they really mean DO IT MY WAY!!! And now another sermonette from St. Will the Pompous:]

I am a straight white male, and can only begin to guess the depth of your personal feelings regarding the Church's teachings on homosexuality. I, personally, abhor those teachings, as I abhor their rampant misogyny, pederasty, authoritarianism, and everything else the Church definitely represents. But the Church is not just those things, disgusting as they are. Catholics believe that salvation is achieved by faith and good works. The faith is where you find so much of the filth...but the good works are there, too.

[For Kennedy Catholic Will the faith is where you find the filth. Such is his declaration of "faith."]

Liberalism has existed for centuries. Where is the change?

[A lost sheep seeking guidance from St. Will.]

Liberation Theology. Look it up.

[I did, Will, and this is the quote from WIKIPEDIA: "Latin American Christian communism is a strong trend within liberation theology..." aka COMMUNIST theology. Be careful what you wish for, Will, or this liberation (communist) theology could end up nationalizing your trust fund payments.]

Locking, despite my misgivings, as per the near unanimous vote of the gd hosts. Sorry Will. I think this makes du dysfunctional.

[Sorry, Mr Moderator. I think DUmmieland was dysfunctional from the get-go.]

Saturday, March 09, 2013

HUffies React to Maduro Becoming ILLEGAL President of Venezuela

Imagine if, upon the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, that the Secretary of Commerce Henry Wallace was ILLEGALLY sworn in as President rather than Vice President Harry Truman simply because Roosevelt had designated Wallace as his successor. Of course, such an action would have been universally protested because it was clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. However, that is pretty much what just happened in Venezuela. The Venezuelan constitution states that upon the death or the exit from office of the President that the Speaker of the National Assembly, NOT the Vice President, becomes president. However, because Hugo Chavez designated his big, lumbering, vice president, Nicolas Maduro, as his successor, the Chavistas have ILLEGALLY declared him the president rather than the National Assembly president, the tiny, wiry Diosdado Cabello. Anyway, I was curious as to the reactions of the DUmmies and/or KOmmies to this very clear Chavista violation to the Venezuelan constitution. Guess what? It was such an embarrassing move that both the DUmmies and KOmmies are NOT commenting on it at all. Therefore, I had to check out the slightly more reasonable HUffies (only a bit more reasonable because divergent views are not automatically tombstoned) as you can see in the reactions to this story, Nicolas Maduro Sworn In As Acting Venezuelan President, Succeeds Hugo Chavez. It will be fascinating in the future to find out the reactions to this illegal presidency from not only the DUmmies and KOmmies but also from other leftists such as Sean Penn and Jesse Jackson who attended the Chavez funeral in Caracas as he was prepared to be embalmed for his crystal tomb ala Lenin. So let us now watch the HUffie reaction to the new ILLEGAL president of Venezuela in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, anticipating more entertaining leftwing excuses for the ILLEGAL power play, is in the [brackets]:

Nicolas Maduro Sworn In As Acting Venezuelan President, Succeeds Hugo Chavez

[Make that ILLEGALLY sworn in.]

CARACAS, Venezuela — Nicolas Maduro was sworn in Friday as Venezuela's acting president, using the occasion to launch blistering attacks on the U.S. as well as the political opposition, which objected that the ceremony violated the country's constitution.

[How dare they point out that my ILLEGAL act is ILLEGAL!!!]

Late President Hugo Chavez designated Maduro as his successor before he died Tuesday of cancer. Maduro had been Chavez's vice president.

[Ironically, if Chavez had gone to the USA instead of Cuba for treatment, he would probably still be alive instead of smelling the sulfur.]

The country's 1999 constitution says the National Assembly speaker becomes interim president in the event of a president-elect's death or inability to be sworn in. The constitution also says a presidential election should be called within 30 days.

[I gotta be wondering if part two about an election will also be violated.]

Opposition leader Angel Medina said earlier Friday that the opposition would boycott the swearing-in ceremony, and the vast majority of opposition legislators did not attend. Former U.S. presidential candidate, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, attended the ceremony as did Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa.

[Will some reporter out there actually perform an act of journalism and ask Jesse Jackson if the Maduro presidency is a violation of the Venezuelan constitution? Okay there is more to this news story but the most important part has been presented. Now on to the HUffie reaction...]

I see no violation of the constitution as of yet. As vice he takes control just as ours would in the US. I am just glad the poor and middle class are empowered thanks to chavez. So whoever ends up in charge will have to live up to the high expectations of the people. People first over profit. Occupy wall st would be proud. Hopefully venezuela will remain 5th most happiest place to live or better. Hopefully the US hits the top 10 some day. This will be impossible as long as money is allowed in politics with no limit.

[A HUffie moron who confuses his constitutions since the Venezuelan constitution clearly states that the president of their National Assembly assumes the presidency when the former president enters the Gates of Hell.]

the vice president does not take over if the president dies or is not able. you may want to read the venezuelan constitution.

[A voice of reason corrects the moron.]

Violation of their constriction is clear....the Natinal Assembly Speaker is to be sworn in per ther constitution...not the foreign minister/former bus driver.

[Hmmm... I wonder if any DUmmie making this point will be tombstoned. Of course, this is a subject as yet too embarrassing for them to address.]

Yes, how terrible that they have less poverty in Venezuela than in the US, that there are less children on the streets and going hungry and that their elections have been recognized as freer and fairer than those in the US. Terrible thing Socialism. If you only knew what it was.

[Thank you for verifying that there are brainwashed HUffies.]

that is TOTALLY untrue JOHN....I have a home next door in COLOMBIA.....I know FIRST HAND how poor venezuela is.

[I actually was in both Colombia and Venezuela a little over a year ago. Despite being oil rich the infrastructure was falling apart in Venezuela. For example, it is almost impossible to drive more than a block without coming upon large potholes (huecos). I remember one pothole being big enough to swallow a small car. Paint everywhere fading, buildings crumbling, and even filthy royal palms. Yes, I always assumed royal palms everywhere were majestic. Well, they are when the the trunks are WASHED but just about all the royal palms I saw in Venezuela were filthy. Then when I crossed the border from Venezuela to Colombia, a "miraculous" transformation: smooth roads, well-maintained buildings, and majestic CLEAN royal palm trees. The town of Cucuta in Colombia was vibrant with happy shoppers. Oh, one bit of criticism, the casinos in Cucuta SUCK. I mean the 20+ year old slot machines just took your money with almost no payouts. Also the casino atmosphere was like the inside of an ordinary grocery store. However, in general Colombia with its more free enterprise system was superior in every way to crumbling Venezuela.]

Since this President-designate is acting against the Constitution of Venezuala, that should be enough for the UN to get together and impose sanctions.

[From the UN? Don't make me laugh!]

Just what Venezuela needs, another song and dance con to take their money.

[Chavez scammed about $2 billion for his personal fortune and Cabello about $1 billion. No wonder the infrastructure in Venezuela is falling apart. The Chavista thieves have stolen their oil wealth.]

Hmm..let's see, the interim president is actually the head of the National Assembly, accoridng to the Venezuelan constitution, yet they had Marduro "sworn in" as the acting president, in violation of the constitution and their courts say nothing. Believe me, Venezuela hasn't been democratic for 14 years. Even if they do hold a sham election it will simply just be a coronation.

[I can't wait to hear what excuses our liberals come up with to defend Maduro.]

Amazing how a country can be controlled by one party and their allegiance to not giving up power at any cost. It will be an interesting thing to watch this so called democracy for the next couple of months. It's apparent Hugo's people will not go down easy.

[No matter how the election goes, the Chavistas will claim they won. Of course, they also control the ballots.]

He has neither the charisma nor the gift of gab necessary to maintain a cult of personality . The Ides of March blow strong in the South . This should be amusing .

[Speaking of the ides of March, Maduro better not turn his back to Cabello. Chavista vs Chavista.]

Meet the worlds newest Billionaire while he works to help the poor in Venezuela


So typical of an authoritarian, socialist dictatorship. Keeping Chavez stuffed and under glass to be gawked at by his followers is an effort to keep him alive in their minds if not in fact. This is idol worship at its worst.

[Are there skilled taxidermists in Venezuela?]

Saturday, March 02, 2013

Lousy Freeper Troll speaks truth to DUmmies!

Every once in a while, a LOUSY FREEPER TROLL!!! is so artful that he can infiltrate a DUmmieland thread and actually string together a series of conservative posts before he gets himself banned. This is what we have today from DUmmie/LFT liberal_economist, who discombobulates the DUmmies here in this THREAD started by genuine DUmmie samrock, "They should not be called entitlements.. they are earned benefits!!"

What DUmmie liberal_economist does that so upsets the DUmmies is to expose the real basis of socialist wealth redistribution, i.e., that basically the government steals your money from you by force and redistributes it to people who have not earned it. That is the cornerstone of the whole Democrat Party program for the last 80 years. They don't like to admit it, but it is what it is. And DUmmie liberal_economist tells it like it is.

So let us now watch DUmmie liberal_economist SPEAK TRUTH TO DUMMIES, which causes the DUmmies to get all shook up, in Bolshevik Red, while the commentary of your humble guest correspondent, Charles Henrickson--rapidly approaching his sixtieth birthday on March 7, putting him that much closer to collecting a small fraction of the benefits he actually has paid for, many times over--is in the [brackets]:

They should not be called entitlements.. they are earned benefits!!

[DUmmie samrock demands a retitlement! He doesn't like the "E" word. It sounds too liberal, and honest liberalism doesn't sell well.]

Every time I hear some one from our side use the term entitlements I just want to slap them aside of their head and say.. NO!!!

[See the violent rhetoric from DUmmie samrock!]

I PAY SS tax.. I PAY into medicare.. These are earned benefits..

[So should only those who PAY for them GET them? That would be fair, wouldn't it? And you guys are all about fairness.]

Do no use the other-sides language.. Sheesh..When we will learn words have meanings..

[You are about to get a lesson in the meaning of the word "earned," DUmmie samrock. DUmmie liberal_economist is on his way.]

Entitlements also refer to benefits that are not 'earned' such as medicaid. . . .

[DUmmie Freddie Stubbs gets the truth-ball rolling, anticipating the arrival of DUmmie liberal_economist.]

They are called entitlements because we are ENTITLED to them because we earned them.

[Even if we haven't earned them.]

I disagree, its not earned benefits. How do you define 'earned'? If i work all of my life to earn my own income does that mean that when i retire or get injured or unemployed that i now have earned the right to a portion of someone elses income?

[Hello, DUmmie liberal_economist! I see you are carrying a big bag of truth to unload on the DUmmies. Please proceed . . .]

its easy to define' earned' as the individual working to earn their own income and property. Its much more difficult to define 'earned' as the individual retiring to earn someone elses income and property.

[At first I was going to award DUmmie liberal_economist a Kewpie Doll, which he has richly earned for this Brief Moment of Mental Clarity. But then, as liberal_economist went on, and I noticed his post count (33 posts), I saw we were really dealing with a LOUSY FREEPER TROLL!!!]

the government uses force to entitle you to another individuals property. I say government uses force because its true. Suppose i disagree and i say 'no, i dont want to give you or the government my income or property', they will send agents to come and take it, to use violence if i resist, to use jail if i resist, and ultimately kill me if i continue to resist, all to take my property against my will, to give it to you, or someone else who feels they have earned whats mine.

[Exactly! The Truthometer is hitting 100%!]

this is purely a philosophical point. full disclosure so nobody accuses me of being some crazy libertarian randian.

[No, I accuse you of being a LOUSY FREEPER TROLL!!!]

i fully support SS, i make 34k a year, and without it, id have no retirement at all.

[So either you ARE a Lousy Freeper Troll, or else you are a DUmmie who is content to steal money you haven't earned but at least is honest about it.]

but it is a complicated issue morally, do i have the moral right to use government force and violence to take other peoples property for my own benefit. i dont know.

[I think you DO know, DUmmie liberal_economist, but you're providing yourself a cover so you won't get tombstoned. Let's see if it works . . .]

You seem a bit might want to work on that.

[One DUmmie telling another DUmmie that they seem paranoid. Feel the irony.]

[DUmmie liberal_economist responds . . .]

do these older people have the right to my income? do i have the right to other peoples income when i retire? if i do, its important to note that these rights are based entirely on the use of government force and violence, do i have the morally right to someones income and to kill them or lock them in jail if they resist surrendering it to me? if you say yes, then. . . .

[If you say yes, then you are a Democrat.]

whats the moral arguement, its complicated to me.

[Another attempt at tombstone-proofing by DUmmie liberal_economist.]

I'm in favor of a Government that has a constitution that begins with the words "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare. . . ."

[DUmmie OldDem2012 trots out the OldDUmb misinterpretation of the "general welfare" clause.]

Somehow, I think you may have stumbled on the wrong board. Read the terms of service: Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).

[Only left-wing wingnuts need apply.]

the general welfare in the consitution doesnt mean what you think it means. . . .

[DUmmie liberal_economist is hitting on all cylinders.]

Entitlement comes off as a weak word.. the republicans use to say look.. those guys want the government to give them stuff.. well earned benefits say we earned these..

[DUmmie samrock comes back with his "Don't use the 'E' word" spiel, which has been totally lost by this point.]

how could you earn something belonging to someone who youve never even met? if youre only entitled to what youve personally earned, then whats the point of the SS tax at all? it just gives you whats already yours, its a wash. so what you really mean is youve somehow earned someone elses property and are entitled to it by the use of government force.

[DUmmie liberal_economist comes back with a truthload.]

atleast thats the other sides arguement it, and i dont have the philosophical answer to it because i'm not sure there is one.

[And the cover.]

No I earned the money that I pay as SS tax and medicare tax..the government invests it.. so when I retire I get to use those funds.. same for medicare taxes.. by investing my funds I have earned the right to get them back when I retire.. or need them for medical expenses ( from medicare taxes)..

[If you earned the money, DUmmie samrock, why can't you invest it on your own? What right does the government have to take it away from you, just to give it back to you?]

you did earn the money that 'you' payed into he SS tax but have you earned the right to others money?


do i have a right to a portion of your income? if you resist and say no do i have a right to send a government agent to your home to beat you, take you to jail, or to kill you if you resist, do i have a right to take your property whether you like or not just because the government made some law giving me the authority to do so? is such a law even just?


Honestly, I think you are WAY off target here. And perhaps on the wrong website.

[Honestly, honesty is not permitted in DUmmieland.]

no. i already said i support SS, without it id be screwed when i retire. . . .

[DUmmie liberal_economist, if indeed he is not a LFT, is saying this: "It's immoral, it's stealing, but I need it." Diogenes, I think you can call off your search. We have found the honest DUmmie.]

its actually pretty Fked up. . . . its a simple fact that SS money is property of the federal government, and not us, and they claim they have the primary entitlement to our income, and we're left with whatever they decide to leave us.

[Never has one man poured so much truth into one thread in DUmmieland. This has got to be a record.]

You are neither liberal, nor an economist.

[Go on, say it: He's a LOUSY FREEPER TROLL!!!]

I am glad you put this person in place. I exchanged a few words with him/her and got the same impression. . . . I will remember the "liberal_economist" moniker.

[It's not working, liberal_economist! Prepare for tombstoning!]

I have worked for over 50 years and paid into the Social Security system and I am ENTITLED to those benefits.

[Well, good for you. But what about those who HAVEN'T paid in for over 50 years? Are they ENTITLED? And what if you start taking out of Social Security and Medicare MORE than you paid in? Then you ARE taking money that somebody else paid in. Or what if you pay in for 40 years, just shy of retirement, and then you drop dead of a heart attack? What happens to the money you earned and paid in all those years? Can you will it to whomever you wish? . . . Wait, I see smoke startting to come out of your ears. This thinking business is overloading your circuits.]

if you do not surrender your property rights to the government simply because they have made some law declaring that you do so, is this tyrannical?

[C'mon, liberal_economist, you know the answer to that . . .]


is this not technically the definition of theft? the taking of another persons property without consent. is it moral to do this? can some people vote to taken away the property rights of others?

[Yes, we can!]