The Comeback Kid
"Wake up calls have been issued and are being received very warmly!!!!!!!!!!
Bushies disapproval ratings..........
Poll Date Approve Disapprove Gap
Fox 11/9 36 53 -17
AP 11/9 37 61 -24
NBC 11/7 38 57 -19
Pew 11/6 36 55 -19
ABC 11/2 39 60 -21
Zogby 11/2 39 61 -22CBS 11/1 35 57 -22Mean ---- 37.1 57.7 -20.6"
Excitedly Yours, Lee Harvey (introducing himself and shamelessly gloating over Bush's low approval ratings in the Nov. 16 commentary section of the post "FYI: What the Democrats Said")
"...Like you, I've been disgusted...Just keep hammering the same line over and over and over because the public already knows it's true: The President is again LYING his failed ass off to the American people....Luckily you radical fascists are no longer an accepted ideology anymore. Every poll has turned, every stone is now beginning to be uncovered and the stench of these neocant's are on the way out, permanently."
(ibid)
"What is so funny and sad at the same time John is that you actually think you are having and winning an argument here. There is nothing to argue about. Everyone with a working brain knows the truth. Only gullible egomaniacs like yourself and Cheney/Bush think you are still fooling(winning) people. It's over man, you argue with no one but yourself now, and claim to win, or "delimb"...By now everyone knows...Everyone knows that... And everyone knows...Everyone knows..."
Lee Harvey (repeatingly speaking on behalf of "everyone" in the commentary section of the November 21 post, "Duhs, a Ditto, a Doy, and a "DOH!")
"Luckily you are a very fast shrinking minority of thought that still worships this administration and believes anything they say."
Lee Harvey (still gloating over Bush's low--but slowly growing at that point-- approval ratings in the commentary section of the November 29 post "I Like Ike")
December 19, 2005:
ABC News/Washington Post poll: BUSH'S APPROVAL RATINGS CLIMB
Bush Ratings:
Terrorism
56% Approve
44% Disapprove
Ethics
48% Approve
49% Disapprove
Overall Job
47% Approve
52% Disapprove
Economy
47% Approve
52% Disapprove
Iraq
46% Approve
53% Disapprove
That's quite a jump, Lee Harvey.
Ouch.
lol
"Drip by drip."
LOL
"Wake up calls have been issued and are being received very warmly!!!!!!!!!!"
LMAO!
Live by the polls, DIE BY THEM, Lee Harvey.
posted by John | 9:00 AM
22 Comments:
He will
Jeff, I do not think so. I think he is going to be remembered as the president that led us into a time when the US will not just sit by and allow its citizens to be attacked with no consequences. I do think, though, that the debate over the Patriot Act is a healthy and good response and must be had. Now, does that make me a "half-fascist"? This ad hominem approach to politics is weary and does not prove or disprove anything. There are those that disagree with you and they are neither fascists nor are they crazy. There are those that agree with you and they are not Communists nor are they crazy either.
I remember the Republicans when the Democrats were in power and demonizing the opposition did not work well then and it does not now. The fact of it is is that this is John's blog and he can write what he wants. If I disagree, then I can choose to write a response or I can choose not to write a response, but calling each other devils is not relevant to whether or not one is correct or is not.
I guess I just had to get that off of my chest. I apologize if I have offended. Why pay a shrink when you can blog eh?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey
Live Vote
Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 18593 responses
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
89%
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
3%
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
8%
I don't know.
1%
Lee Harvey introduces himself to the blog of Republicus by swooping in here like a bat out of hell and in a heckling frisson plasters the walls of the commentary with across-the-board results from the major pollsters, Fox, AP, NBC, Pew, ABC, Zogby, and CBS, gloating and exulting and lol-ing!!!!!! all the way like the spiteful little troll he is, and then commences to stand atop the disapprovals as a "Champion" of "The People" and "Everybody" and "We" and "Us" and "Like you," in the sleazy attempt to marginalize Republicus and imply that he is "out of touch" and "isolated" from the rest of the country, like the "anamolous" Bush Administration itself.
Republicus cocks an eyebrow at the sheer shamelessness--and folly-- of the poll-worshipping demagoguery and then throws back the across-the-board poll numbers in his face after they re-adjust back to very acceptable levels (indicating a full recovery of the base and then some), if only to have him taste his own words, masticate and ruminate on them, and realize what a fool he has been for placing so much stock on transient and fickle polls which go up and down like a cardiograph.
But no! Lee Harvey persists in his childish pettiness and unhingeed obsession and decides to get the last word by selecting a single, blacksheep poll--the notoriously Bush-Bashing MSNBC's-- and use that as the authoratative one which trumps all the others--when it was all the others that he used when he first swooped in here to "prove" that he was the one who wasn't in the distinct minority (20%) who hates Bush and All Things Bush, and furthermore implying that the 1-2% of the Far Left unhinged fringe which "hopes Bush gets assassinated"--like his own disgustiung self--is mainstream!
In other words, he first uses pollsters A,B,C,D, and E to justify his far fringe hate, but then, when A,B,C, D, and E turn against him, he then shamelessly dismisses them and finds pollster F to keep his insanity alive and justified (as determined by the "normalcy" of support group F).
Lee Harvey: F you.
GO AWAY! You're a pest!
Jay-zuz!
The results of this poll are suspect. Who are the people polled? Are they an accurate representation of the public at large? Or do they represent people more likely to dislike the President?
I took a class in college called
statistics. One day we had a disussion in class called "How to lie with statistics".
I am not convinced.
Me neither, Kelly.
Jess, I don't think you understand.
When you say: "Aside from all of that, I think we're too late for impeachment. The only good it may do us is possibly prevent more kicks in the nuts from Bush..." you're speaking practically and proving that you're not overly-consumed with the personal distaste or even contempt you have for Bush over the sincere belief that his policies have been bad for the country, and display rationality in the practical concern of seeing Cheney take over (although that is a concern of those wishing for impeachment, and hence the nigh-equal attention turned to Dick Cheney and attempted implications on criminal allegations, to kill two birds with one stone).
I felt similarly--similarly, mind you-- about former-President Clinton.
But Lee Harvey is way, way, WAY beyond that, and "hopes" the president gets assassinated.
He'd gladly endure a Cheney presidency if the trade off was seeing Bush humiliated and hopefully being the only president to be impeached and removed from office, because it would "justify" his implacable hate.
Actually Republicus, you show yourself to be clueless yet again. I hate Cheney worse than Bush by a huge margin. Bush is nothing more than a pud. When I refer to Bush, I am referencing his name as an administration in whole. As far as his policies jess was speaking about, completely agree, have been disastrous and will take years to fix. As far as impeachment being too late, disagree, the sooner they are out, the sooner we can end this reign of terror and corruption imposed on us and the world and start putting things right again. Phelonius, no disrespect at all, but I not only think you are wrong, I think you are way off as this President being seen as anything more than he is, no better than the thugs who took down the towers....
Now let's correct Republicus all across the board. I am Catholic, practicing one at that. I don't believe in abortion, think it's murder, but do not believe the government or myself have the right to legislate it. I oppose the death penalty, think it's murder. I pray multiple times a day, mainly for the well being of my family and the occassional lottery win :). I am not a pacifist by a long shot, but do believe diplomacy and reason will get us a lot farther than naked unprovoked aggression. I believe in a strong national identity rooted in leading by example, something we are clearly not doing now. I have voted democrat exactly 2 times in my life, opposing Bush both times because I knew him to be unqualified for this position, something he has proved daily.
Republicus chooses to ignore any and all these facts and dismiss me as nothing more than a Bush hater therefore invalid. Insulation from reality is what got us into this mess Republicus, time to snap out of it. There is no article, fact or glaringly smack you in the face reality which will open your eyes because you are nothing more than a bubbled, insulated, blindly biased and brainwashed Bush lover. I can't think of much worse.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey
Live Vote
Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 63745 responses
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
87%
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
4%
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
8%
I don't know.
1%
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10561966/
Spying, the Constitution — and the ‘I-word’
2006 will offer up Nixon-era nastiness and a chorus of calls to impeach Bush
|By Howard Fineman
MSNBC contributor
Updated: 4:01 p.m. ET Dec. 21, 2005
Howard Fineman
MSNBC contributor
• E-mail
WASHINGTON - In the first weeks and months after 9/11, I am told by a very good source, there was a lot of wishing out loud in the White House Situation Room about expanding the National Security Agency’s ability to instantly monitor phone calls and e-mails between American callers and possible terror suspects abroad. “We talked a lot about how useful that would be,” said this source, who was “in the room” in the critical period after the attacks.
Well, as the world now knows, the NSA — at the prompting of Vice President Cheney and on official (secret) orders from President Bush — was doing just that. And yet, as I understand it, many of the people in the White House’s own Situation Room — including leaders of the national security adviser’s top staff and officials of the FBI — had no idea that it was happening.
As best I can tell — and this really isn’t my beat — the only people who knew about the NSA’s new (and now so controversial) warrant-less eavesdropping program early on were Bush, Cheney, NSA chief Michael Hayden, his top deputies, top leaders of the CIA, and lawyers at the Justice Department and the White House counsel’s office hurriedly called in to sprinkle holy water on it.
Which presents the disturbing image of the White House as a series of nesting dolls, with Cheney-Bush at the tiny secret center, sifting information that most of the rest of the people around them didn’t even know existed. And that image, in turn, will dominate and define the year 2006 — and, I predict, make it the angriest, most divisive season of political theater since the days of Richard Nixon.
We are entering a dark time in which the central argument advanced by each party is going to involve accusing the other party of committing what amounts to treason. Democrats will accuse the Bush administration of destroying the Constitution; Republicans will accuse the Dems of destroying our security.
Some thoughts on where all of this is headed:
* The president says that his highest duty is to protect the American people and our homeland. And it is true that, as commander-in-chief, he has sweeping powers to, as his oath says, “faithfully execute the office” of president. But the entity he swore to “preserve, protect and defend” isn’t the homeland per se — but the Constitution itself.
* The Patriot Act will be extended, but it’s just the beginning, not the end, of the never-ending argument between the Bill of Rights and national security. The act primarily covers the activities of the FBI; the sheer volume of intelligence-gathering across the government has yet to become apparent, and voters will blanch when they see it all laid before them. The department most likely to get in trouble on this: the Pentagon, which doesn’t have a tradition of limiting inquiries, and which, in the name of protecting domestic military installations, will want to look at everyone.
* If you thought the Samuel Alito hearings were going to be contentious, wait till you see them now. Sen. Arlen Specter, the prickly but brilliant chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said that the issue of warrant-less spying by the NSA — and the larger question of the reach of the president’s wartime powers — is now fair game for the Alito hearings. Alito is going to try to beg off but won’t be allowed to. And members who might have been afraid to vote against Alito on the abortion issue might now have another, politically less risky, reason to do so.
* Arguably the most interesting — and influential — Republicans in the Senate right now are the libertarians. They’re suspicious of the Patriot Act and, I am guessing, pivotal in any discussion of the NSA and others' spy efforts. Most are Westerners (Craig, Hagel, Murkowski) and the other is Sen. John Sununu. He is from New Hampshire, which, as anyone who has spent time there understands, is the Wild West of the East Coast. All you have to do is look at its license plate slogan: “Live Free or Die.” It’ll be interesting to see how other nominal small-government conservatives — Sen. George Allen of Virginia comes to mind — handle the issue.
* For months now, I have been getting e-mails demanding that my various employers (Newsweek, NBC News and MSNBC.com) include in their poll questionnaires the issue of whether Bush should be impeached. They used to demand this on the strength of the WMD issue, on the theory that the president had “lied us into war.” Now the Bush foes will base their case on his having signed off on the NSA’s warrant-less wiretaps. He and Cheney will argue his inherent powers and will cite Supreme Court cases and the resolution that authorized him to make war on the Taliban and al-Qaida. They will respond by calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already hauled forth no less an authority than John Dean to testify to the president’s dictatorial perfidy. The “I-word” is out there, and, I predict, you are going to hear more of it next year — much more.
Thank you, Jess, for encouraging him to march back in and put his cloven-hoof I mean foot down and harumph out a manifesto which he apparently thinks will redeem him and give him a standing ovation.
"Actually Republicus, you show yourself to be clueless yet again. I hate Cheney worse than Bush by a huge margin."
WOW.
"Bush is nothing more than a pud."
Who you "hope gets assassinated."
What do you "hope" happens to Cheney, then?
That he's tied down next to a crawling nest of army ants and have honey poured on him?
"When I refer to Bush, I am referencing his name as an administration in whole."
Right. Bush and the "neocants," the "fascists in the absolute sense of the word."
"As far as his policies jess was speaking about, completely agree, have been disastrous and will take years to fix."
Jess didn't "speak about" any specific policies.
Which ones are you talking about?
"As far as impeachment being too late, disagree, the sooner they are out, the sooner we can end this reign of terror and corruption imposed on us and the world and start putting things right again."
lol
"They" aren't going anywhere for three more years (at least).
I certainly don't share Jess's dislike--if not contempt--for the administration, but I commended her for thinking in practical terms, for reasoning that if Bush goes, Cheney is stepping in, which indicates that her reasoning faculties have not been totally demolished by over-the-top propaganda.
You, however, Lee Harvey, are obviously so obsessed and hatefully vindictive AND unhinged that you seem to think that "The People" are going to "rise up" and not only demand the Impeachment of President Bush, but also the incarceration of Vice President Cheney, Secretery of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Bolton, *etc.*
You think like a French peasant brainwashed and riled up by Robespierre and Marat types at *The Nation* or Moveon.org, and that a complete overthrow of the existing order and across-the-board guillotining is not only "justified," but feasible.
"Corruption?" "Reign of Terror?"
God save us all if your sneering,malicious, vindictive, murderously-thinking, CORRUPT AND TERRORIZING type ever win the day politically.
What are Lee Harvey's reasoning processes if not corrupt?
Repuiblicus has cumulatively spent hours unraveling twisted and tangled knots of logic.
What is rushing in here again and again with bombs strapped to his chest and killing himself each time by the righteous retaliation of Republicus?
Is not that the mentality of a fascistic terrorist who cannot win but is so determined to make the other lose that he will cause as much strife as possible out of sheer spite?
Yes.
And what's this, "Putting things right 'again?'"
Right, "The America Lee Harvey Remembers."
(see the June 19 post "The America We Remember" to understand how imbecilic he is for saying that)
"Phelonius, no disrespect at all, but I not only think you are wrong, I think you are way off as this President being seen as anything more than he is, no better than the thugs who took down the towers...."
Yes, "no disrespect at all" ("AT ALL!") but James is "wrong" and "way off."
Republicus himself does not respect opinions that he deems to be "wrong," no less "way off," and makes that plain and argues why.
Lee Harvey thinks that President Bush is "no better" than Mohammed Atta and his gang, and that, by logical extension, Cheney is worse by a "huge margin."
And yet Lee Harvey has the sheer STUPIDITY to call James "wrong" and "way off."
I told you, James. He's UNHINGED.
"Now let's correct Republicus all across the board."
Yes. "Let's."
"I am Catholic, practicing one at that."
lol He's LYING. He must be. He's doing a "Me-Too-Like-Ike" vis-a-vis religion to "prove" that he doesn't hate Christianity (the same way he used "Me-Too-Like-Ike!" to "prove" that he isn't the kind of bleeding heart liberal Ike had nothing to do with).
"Practicing Catholic?"
Do you even know what that means?
Lee Harvey, you have SERIOUS intellectual--if not spiritual-- problems.
You attack and demonize the American Protestant Religious Right as "theocrats" on par with Jihadists who try to "tyrannically impose" morality because you are self-evidently a theophobic secularist--if not satanicaly driven.
That's been established. Republicus has proven that, by your own words and obsessed fixations.
But THEN you try to "prove" your Christian "credentials" by boasting of being a "practicing" Catholic-- the very institution which gave "organized religion" a bad name, reigned over the Dark Ages of scientific inquiry, presided over Inquisitions which would make McCarthyism look like a Boyscout Jamboree, launched wars and imperiously gobbled up territory almost as fast as Alexander the Great, and established "The Holy Roman Empire" which lasted longer than half a millennium and compelled Martin Luther to post his 95 Theses in Wittenberg and the Pilgrims to come here BECAUSE THE ROMAN CATHOLICS WOULDN"T ALLOW THEM TO THINK INDEPENDENTLY OF CHURCH DOCTRINE.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Lee Harvey has insidiously implied and outright accused the Religious Right--"empowered" by the Christian Jihadist (whatever) Bush-- of establishing the very environment-- HERE, TODAY-- that the Roman Catholics imposed on Mediaeval Europe, and then, to "prove" that he's not really a little secular satanist, moronically brags:
"I'm a practicing Roman Catholic!"
Tell me, Lee Harvey, did you go to Catholic mass on Thursday, December 8, for the Holy Day of Obligation?
Did you go on December 12 to pay (yes, pay) devotions to Our Lady of Guadalupe, like a good "practicing Catholic?"
When was the last time you went to a Catholic Church?
When was the last time you went to church at all?
Republicus himself is a theist and respects some aspects of Roman Catholicism (when it's not molesting children) and is pleased with the character of the new Pope.
The point here is that Lee Harvey is a LIAR.
It's a "Me-Too-Like-Christ!" shtick to put you off-guard to his true theophobic secularism.
Most everything he says is nonsense but is said for effect and, most importantly, concealment.
"I don't believe in abortion, think it's murder, but do not believe the government or myself have the right to legislate it."
You don't think the government has the "right" to legislate what you believe is "murder?"
So you stand idly by and say nothing when your sociey is commiting millions of "murders?"
Republicus wouldn't go that far. "Murder" is a legal term.
Republicus believes it is simply the killing of human life, but would not go so far as to call the women who had an abortion and the doctors who practice them "murderers."
Do you "think" Whoopi Goldberg-- who had, like, I don't know, a half dozen abortions?-- is a mass murderer?
No? Why not?
You self-righteously harumphed that you think abortion is "murder."
But how can it be "murder" when it's legalized by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, anyway?
And for you to do nothing but preach self-righteous platitudes about what you consider to be "murder" is itself illegal when you could at least call the authorities about your knowledge of the "murders" being commited at the neighborhood abortion clinic.
Why is Republicus wasting his time and compromising his dignity by condescending to argue with such a sophomoric simpleton?
Only because he--the simpleton, Lee Harvey-- provides Republicus with an excellent opportunity to dissect and showcase the mind of the Bush-Hater as one NOT to heed (or be taken seriously, for that matter).
But he--Republicus--is getting sick and tired of being obsessively stalked...
"I oppose the death penalty, think it's murder."
You're illiterate, Lee Harvey.
It can't be "murder" if it's sanctioned by Law.
Anyway, Lee Harvey's self-righteous "pro-Life" declarations are meant to win sympathy for his bleeding heart humanitarianism, but it's a false compassion.
It is certain he felt rage for the "anglofascist" execution of brutal, unrepentant murderer Tookie Williams...
...but then he "hopes Bush gets assassinated."
Next:
"I pray multiple times a day..."
To who?
Republicus prays to the porcelain god every morning after St. Patrick's Day.
"...mainly for the well being of my family and the occassional lottery win :)."
You don't pray for your neighbors or even your enemies (the latter of which Republicus must confess having difficulties praying for in all earnestness), but for you and your own and material windfalls?
Is God some kind of fairy godfather?
Republicus hasn't heard such saccharin devotions since he heard a caller request a prayer for a new refrigerator on some televangelist channel.
Pray for your family's well-being, of course, but remember this: God is not a sucker.
You reap what you sow.
"...since I am not a pacifist by a long shot..."
Obviously. The most rabid among the "antiwar" crowd--like you-- are most evidently NOT.
"...but do believe diplomacy and reason will get us a lot farther than naked unprovoked aggression."
Here is a man who--BY HIS VERY BEHAVIOR HERE, BEFORE YOUR OWN EYES-- proves that he himself "believes" in and practices "diplomacy" about as much as he "practices" Roman Catholicism.
Behold this "naked, unprovoked aggression" Lee Harvey HIMSELF demonstrated when he FIRST charged into the blog of Republicus, uninvited and unannounced:
"Freakin hypocritter."
Those were his first two words.
Yes, very "diplomatic."
Very "reasonable"--if not illiterate.
But this humanitarian, compassionate, pro-Life, diplomatic and reasonable Ambassador of Good Will continues introducing himself thusly:
"...Clinton in your eyes is the devil himself, yet how convenient of you and your criminal President to invoke his name as justification for lying to the American people, leaking classified info and excusing Cheney/bush for being the most corrupt America hating pussies they truly are. You are pathetic in your complicity."
Anyway, next:
"I believe in a strong national identity..."
Is he serious?
"Strong national identity?"
Like BASIC KNOWLEDGE of our history and system of government, respect for our customs, value systems, government institutions--LIKE THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE MILITARY ON A MISSION--and even the flag?
President Bush restored ALL of those things.
Liberals like Lee Harvey calls it "fascism."
Next:
"I have voted democrat exactly 2 times in my life, opposing Bush both times because I knew him to be unqualified for this position
Did Republicus accuse him of always voting Democrat?
Has Republicus condemned fellow Americans who are life-long--and loyal--Democrats?
Notice that Lee Harvey didn't vote FOR Gore or Kerry, but AGAINST Bush.
By contrast, although Republicus likes Senator Bob Dole and respects him, and wanted him to win in 1996, he was not inspired enough by him to go out and vote at all.
Lee Harvey has accused Republicus of "thinking Clinton is the devil himself," but Republicus was not filled with so much vindictive hate as to waste his sacred vote for the sake of spite.
Unlike Lee Harvey, who admits he did just that.
Twice.
And Lee Harvey "knew (Bush) to be unqualified for this position" back in 2000?
He was the popular, twice-elected governor of Texas.
He was around politics his entire life.
He wasn't "unqualified."
The man was born to be president.
"...something (i.e. being unqualified) he has proved daily."
Inversion. President Bush has well-demonstrated his qualifications and his competence in leading the country through a barrage of difficulties, some of which were of his own making but many of which were NOT and MOST of which were EXAGGERATED well-beyond belief in order to create difficulties when there should be none for the sake of petty partisanship.
He has proven himself quite adept at weathering severe political challenges and crises.
Next:
"Republicus chooses to ignore any and all these facts..."
That's another lie. Republicus has not ignored any of "these facts." He has went well out of his way and given Lee Harvey the attention and time he does not deserve solely for the sake of showing his people--if they haven't figured it out for themselves-- that Lee Harvey's ideas of what constitute "facts" are highly subjective--if not dubious, OR OUTRIGHT LIES.
"...and dismiss me as nothing more than a Bush hater."
What "more" are you?
A "practicing Catholic?"
What would the Pope think about your shamelessly avowed "hate" for the duly-elected President of the United States of America who--LOL--won 52% of the Catholic vote--nationwide--against John Kerry's 47%--WHO'S A CATHOLIC HIMSELF!
In Ohio alone--the Florida of 2004--Bush carried Ohio Catholics by 10 percentage points — 55 percent to 45 percent — over Kerry.
"The change in the Catholic vote was crucial to the margin of victory," said Virginia State Senator Kenneth Thomas Cuccinelli II, of Centreville.
Well, Lee "I'm-A-Practicing-Catholic!"-Harvey?
What have you got to say for your sorry self?
What would the Pope think of your
"hope to see Bush assassinated,"
Lee Harvey?
What do YOU--a "practicing Catholic"--think of the Pope's ecclesiastical status as being the Supreme Christian Authority on earth?
Don't you hate the Religious Right's stand against same-sex marriages?
Of course you do. You hate them for standing up for the sanctity of marriage.
Don't you think the Pope would agree with them on that issue?
Of course he would, and does.
Did it occur to you that "The Religious Right" you spit venom against is not just comprised of Protestants, but also of TRULY practicing Roman Catholics?
Why do you think Bush won the majority Catholic vote?
What would the Pope think about your "belief" that abortion is "murder" but then washing your hands of it and saying the government should do nothing about murder?
And yet, Lee Harvey self-righteously declares: "I am Catholic, practicing one at that."
What does that mean, on second thought?
Like just about everything Lee Harvey declares in the blog of Republicus, it means nothing but shallow conceit or is uttered defensively for political effect (after Republicus ACCURATELY described him as being, quite literally, "satanic").
He's like former-President Clinton making sure he appears in every Monday morning edition of the newspapers, emerging from Sunday services at church, piously toting a Bible and holding his wife's hand, defensively for political purposes, because he was accused of being hostile to the Religious Right and detrimental to the promotion of "family values."
So he was saying, "Look! I'm a practicing Christian!"
One such photo-op for piety was on an Easter Sunday...
...that he ended impiously by adulterously "breaking eggs" with Miss Lewinsky (if ya know what I mean).
Adultery is a BIG no-no.
But that's the kind of "practicing Catholic" Lee Harvey is.
His declaration here was a Clintonian photo-op.
Republicus doesn't care if Lee Harvey--or former-President Clinton, for that matter--is pious or impious.
What ignites the wrath of Republicus are poseurs pretending to be something they are not, and Lee Harvey--like former-President Clinton-- is NOT pious.
He judges Republicus. He throws stones at Republicus. He curses the moral sentiments of the Religious Right--and rages against the political power they have righteously earned by coming together and VOTING.
But forget all that.
He's a "praying man!"
So what more are you than an unhinged, nonsense-spewing Bush-hater driven by nothing but spite and vindictiveness against a man--and a movement--you hate?
"Insulation from reality is what got us into this mess Republicus, time to snap out of it."
The mess is your own mind. You're a basket case.
I feel dirty having to wade through that sewer of illogic and the writhing snakepit of psychological defense mechanisms that are used as your best offensive weapon.
"There is no article, fact or glaringly smack you in the face reality which will open your eyes..."
Projection. Republicus has SLAPPED YOU IN THE FACE MANY TIMES yet you remain blind to your own self in the mirror.
And what's this: "There is no article..."
Republicus has diagrammed the nature of some of the "articles" Lee Harvey comes barging in here with his arms full of and begins plastering the walls with.
He thinks they're gospel truths. They're not. Their political hit-pieces, many of them cleverly spun by sophistries, some written by smarmy, snot-nosed punks with a political axe to grind (like Lee Harvey himself), and all of them utilizing low-level rhetorcal tactics and techniques.
They're anti-Bush propaganda, they're crap, but Lee Harvey thinks his "articles" are the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth.
They're political drugs, and he tries to push them on everyone else.
"...because you are nothing more than a bubbled, insulated, blindly biased and brainwashed Bush lover. I can't think of much worse."
Yes, behold the "diplomat" and *animal rationale.*
Anyway, Lee Harvey very offensively sniffed "Let's correct Republicus across the board," and then prattled about his "practicing Catholocism" and pro-Life sentiments and how he "prays everyday" and how he believes in a "strong national identity" and "ME-TOO-LIKE-IKE!"
Republicus doesn't need "correcting" from you, Lee Harvey.
He hasn't made any unwarranted assumptions. He asked for answers. Several times, all unanswered.
He didn't ask whether you belong to this or that religion or denomination. He doesn't care how many times a day you "pray." That's your business.
He simply identified and pointed out that you are hostile--satanic/adversarial--to the American Religious Right.
You can say "I'm a practicing Roman Catholic!" and "I pray everyday!" all you want.
What has that got to do with the demonstrated fact that you are hostile--satanic/adversarial--to the American Religious Right?
Republicus didn't ask what your positions are on abortion or Capital Punishment.
But since you yourself volunteered the information, it was incumbent on Republicus to destroy the charade.
Republicus never asked whether you "believe in a strong national identity."
But since you volunteered that to "prove" something, Republicus was compelled to shoot that one down, as well.
So what is Republicus being "corrected on across-the-board?"
Do you think you can spew whatever nonsense you want here and get away with it?
You are sadly mistaken, *monsieur.*
Lee Harvey has already said that President Bush is "no better" than the 9/11 hijackers.
That statement speaks for itself.
Republicus will ask again (for the fourth time? He lost count):
1) Would you consider yourself a "liberal?"
No rationalizing, explanatory essays.
Just "Yes," or "No."
(and while you squirm and struggle with the "buts" and the "howevers" and "on the other hands" perhaps you can gain for yourself a little understanding on the draconian nature and unreliabilty of poll questions, you poll-worshipping freak)
2) Do you think that the United Nations is the supreme moral political body on The Planet Earth and that the United States
should be subservient to its edicts?
YES or NO.
3) Do you equate the American Religious Right with the Taliban?
4) Do you think the American environment--air, land, and water quality--is all around WORSE today than it has ever been, because of President Bush's policies?
YES OR NO.
5) Do you think that this is "The worst economy since the Great Depression?"
YES OR NO.
6) Do you think administrative lapses vis-a-vis emergency management in the wake of hurricane Katrina were class and race-based?
That's enough for now.
Yes or No.
Can you follow those instructions?
Or do you have to be a little fascist and plaster the walls here with more "articles"?
P.S. Notice how Lee Harvey is rendered mute on other posts regarding a wide range of subjects but jerks up and starts to convulsively vomit when President Bush is showcased.
I lahv it. I haven't seen so many liberals lose their minds since the Reagan Era.
Once again you have proved nothing to anyone but yourself. What is so laughable and yes still sad is that you, by your own egomaniacal insulated reasoning skills, think you have actually proved me wrong because you have spoken. I am not a Catholic, not practicing? because you say I'm lying? lol, you are clueless, lol, amazing that you can justify your thoughts and words with no basis in facts or reality. LOL.LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOl. OMG. And yes I par the far right extreme religious fanatics, whether Christian, or Islamic, or LDS or Buddhists, don't care who-GASP- as one in the same. Each want to kill off each other. Sorry, that doesn't fly with any God I was ever taught about through 17 years of sunday School, bible study and 4 years of theology classes, not to mention Mass everyday but saturday until I was eighteen and left home.. Unhinged, Republicus is someone who is so blinded to truth, so unwavering in their own ego and ignorance, that when they speak, they actually believe it to be truth to all. Get over your self. You are wrong. You have not delimbed me, disarmed me, or proven anything I've come to believe wrong. I prefer to live in a factual based world, it's pretty nice out here, open your door sometime other than saturday night and check it out.
Bush is a liar and a criminal, that as far as I'm concerned is fact, and they pretty well bear themselves out. It's gonna get interesting..
You know, I've told you this more times than I care to remember. The world is not as cut and dry, black and white as you try and make it. Your reasoning does not stand in the face of reality.
"Once again you have proved nothing to anyone but yourself."
Don't be too sure about that.
But if so, that's good enough for Republicus.
Quite frankly, your concern about what "anyone" uninvolved in the argument might be thinking other than what the host your stalking is thinking is disgusting and proves what you're all about.
"What is so laughable and yes still sad is that you..."
That's good. Stick that concealed knife into the character of Republicus by calling him "laughable" while simultaneously playing the sensitive humanitarian and pitying poor Republicus. :(
Yes, even though you're maliciously telling anyone who's listening that Republicus is "laughable," you, for one, can't laugh too hard because you feel "sadness."
Gawd. With pity like that, who needs hate?
You're neither laughable or pitiful. You're disgusting.
"...by your own egomaniacal insulated reasoning skills, think you have actually proved me wrong because you have spoken."
Republicus hasn't "actually" proven you wrong because "he has spoken."
He proved you wrong period.
Everyone knows that.
Right, everyone? ;)
"I am not a Catholic, not practicing? because you say I'm lying? lol, you are clueless, lol, amazing that you can justify your thoughts and words with no basis in facts or reality. LOL.LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOl. OMG."
You're heckling laughter speaks volumes.
You're a fool.
Republicus gave MANY reasons as PROOF that you are LYING, and even said WHY you are LYING.
"And yes I par the far right extreme religious fanatics, whether Christian, or Islamic, or LDS or Buddhists, don't care who-GASP- as one in the same. Each want to kill off each other."
"Par?" typo for "pair," Republicus presumes?
Well, extreme fanatics are extreme fanatics.
You're an extreme, Bush-Hating fanatic.
You belong to a cult.
Meanwhile, you're implying that Bush--and entire denominations of Evangelicals and other "Red State" Christians who Bush appealed to-- is an "extreme religious fanatic" along the lines of Islamic fanatics: terrorists.
You said that Bush is "no better" than the 9/11 terrorists.
That's extreme, fanatical thinking.
BTW, you shouldn't separate "LDS" from "Christian."
Latter Day Saints are Christian.
"Sorry, that doesn't fly with any God I was ever taught about through 17 years of sunday School, bible study and 4 years of theology classes, not to mention Mass everyday but saturday until I was eighteen and left home."
Oh. Forgive me, Padre, for I have sinned.
What the HELL does that have to do with you blurting out "I'm a practicing Catholic!" in the present tense?
You are NOT.
Do you think that a "hope that a POTUS gets assassinated" flies with "any God" you were taught in Sunday school?
"Unhinged, Republicus is someone who is so blinded to truth, so unwavering in their own ego and ignorance, that when they speak, they actually believe it to be truth to all."
No he doesn't. YOU do.
"Get over your self. You are wrong."
Yes. Lee Harvey is so blinded to truth, so unwavering in his own ego and ignorance, that when he speaks, he thinks it to be truth to all.
Republicus is "wrong," because Lee Harvey said so!
Lee Harvey is a Sophist. For him, in the final analysis, "The Truth" is "The People's" perceptions.
That's how his political type operate. That's why polls are so important to them, and why they try so hard to altering perceptions by spinning words and telling as many of "The People" as possible what to perceive (while accusing the opposition of doing just that, of course).
Don't believe your eyes! Republicus hasn't repeatedly horsewhipped Lee Harvey in the public square for being such a subversive scoundrel, only to have him return promptly the next day, bend over, and say "Thank you sir may I have another!"
No, it's not that! Don't believe your own eyes and common sense! Let Jeff EXPLAIN what is actually going on, YOU IDIOTS!
Yes, he's worried if "people" are taking notice of the sound beating he's receiving from Republicus.
"You have not delimbed me..."
Why? Because you say so? You're totally delimbed. You're just a yapping head.
What do you call a guy with no arms and no legs trying to swordfight Republicus?
Lee Harvey!
"...disarmed me, or proven anything I've come to believe wrong."
Yes, Republicus has. You don't think so because you're "blinded to truth, and unwavering in your own ego and ignorance."
But somewhere in there, you know it's true, and that's why you can't walk away (even if you had any legs left).
"I prefer to live in a factual based world, it's pretty nice out here, open your door sometime other than saturday night and check it out."
It is nice out here. The country's not doing bad at all aside from your crowd telling everyone that the Bush Adminstration has destroyed it.
"Bush is a liar and a criminal, that as far as I'm concerned is fact, and they pretty well bear themselves out. It's gonna get interesting..."
lol
Oh gawd, here he comes again:
"You know, I've told you this more times than I care to remember. The world is not as cut and dry, black and white as you try and make it."
Republicus does not recall being told that by you even ONCE.
And doesn't think you can find yourself saying it anywhere.
Which is probably why you "can't remember."
The mind of Republicus is multi-faceted and well-textured with nuance.
After your crowd attacked the President for his "Manichaean" outlook with his "Good vs. Evil" characterization of the War on Terror, it is YOU and your crowd who spent the last four years being precisely that, only insisting that it is the Bush Administration--not the ruthless, murderous, religious fanatic terrorists and Middle Eastern despots-- who are cut-and-dry pure evil.
"Your reasoning does not stand in the face of reality."
Right. And yours does.
Wow,you just continue to astound yourself don't ya.
Jess, he's beebn bashing others faiths and how they practice it in several posts now.
That's part of what underlies his hate.
He's a snake, and he's tricked you with his histrionics, hysterics, and theatrics.
Happy holidays.
"Wow,you just continue to astound yourself don't ya."
Actually, the astonishment was towards you, initially.
But you're figured out.
Jess, let's not confuse feelings with what's going on here.
Jeff has called us idiots for being patriotic, for our stand with the religious right, and for all the other things with which we stand firm on.
He lumps all who disagree with him as idiots.
From the very beginning he stormed in here with alarms going off..sounding the alert. Fire! Fire! Fire!
John has been barraged with a stream of harrassments from this guy almost daily.
I applaud John for his courage to stand up for what he believes to be right.
Thank you, John.
PS: John, I also appreciate you comment about LDS being Christian.
Jess quoted Republicus:
"When was the last time you went to a Catholic Church, when was the last time you went to any church?"
"You are a liar, you belong to a cult"
Then:
"WTF, John, where do you come off making these type of accusations? It's one thing to bash someone about their opinions and political standpoint, but to bash their faith, and how they do(not) practice it?! That's really not cool."
The first quote was in response to his declaration that he was a "practicing Catholic."
He could have said "I'm Catholic," but he felt compelled to qualify that as being a "practicing" one.
That does not ring true, and Republicus explained why he was very skeptical of that.
Lee Harvey apparently thinks that childhood and adolescent Catholic schooling qualifies him as a "practicing" Catholic today.
It does not.
Also, you conflated my accusation that he is a liar with the belief that he belongs to a cult, and linked that with the discussion of Catholicism, concluding with your own accusation that Republicus was "bashing his faith."
If Republicus understands you correctly, he was not--as you concluded--equating Catholicism with a cult (although it has been called such by others).
The "cult" Republicus was referring to is the implacable cult of far-Left fringe Bush-haters, which--aside from unsolicited personal information on frequency of daily prayers and Sunday School attendance and the token "Merry Christmas"-- is the only religious influence Republicus can discern emanating out of Lee Harvey.
"Also, I don't think that you interpreted Jeff's feelings on abortion and capital punishment correctly. He says that he feels when the acts are committed, that person is being murdered. And actually, to some degree, he's absolutely right."
Yes. Understood. But it is not--by definition--"murder," which is a legal term.
Lee Harvey is fast and loose with the English language and thinks it's suitable to throw loaded words around like "murder" for hyperbolic, theatrical effect, as in "Bush is a mass murderer."
Republicus is not perfect, by any stretch, but tries to be careful with the words he uses.
If they are inapropos or even a solecism, point it out, and he will stand corrected.
But we're not talking football here. We're talking about the President of the United States and the business of the republic during wartime.
They're srious matters, and Republicus won't stand for a hysterical partisan hitman unhinged by personal hate to spew his venom on this blog.
Republicus further contrasted Lee Harvey's "pro-Life" sentiments for fetuses and convicted murderers alike with his murderous utterance: "I hope Bush gets assassinated," the point of all that being that he says what he wants with no consistent basis with what he said yesterday.
This is because he's an emotional man who can't control his passions and blurts out things on impulse without thinking them though.
And that's why he sets himself up for discrediting and an embarrassing mouthful of his own distasteful words.
"That's one thing I could never understand. CP is one man killing another. Abortion is one person killing another. I agree, John, both are sanctioned by the state, but what does that have to do with Jeff's FEELINGS?"
Jess, I HAVE SIMILAR FEELINGS. I didn't like Bush's insouciance--even jocularity--about Capital Punishment at all.
But giving precedence to FEELINGS over rationality is the very folly of the bleeding heart liberal, and, again, compells them to blurt things out that don't make sense.
It's a residual "If it feels good, do it" ethos of the 1960's, and it's ALWAYS susceptible to hypocricies, contradictions, and disastrous political policy, usually well-intentioned, but short-sighted as it's primary purpose was to make the liberal legislators "feel good" about it.
Take the welfare state, for example. Even though it seems to have had the best interests of disadvantaged Americans in mind, it ended up destroying entire populations of American minorities.
Sure, Lee Harvey can preach about how he thinks abortion and CP is "murder," but is what is Republicus supposed to make of the murderous comment "I hope Bush gets assassinated?"
(why do you think he calls him "Lee Harvey?")
"And how, precisely, does that make him illiterate and a simpleton?"
The illiteracy comment referred to his reckless use of the English language and the serial solecisms and hyperboles meant to be taken seriously.
It's illiterate. "Murder" is defined as an "UNLAWFUL" killing.
It would be nitpicking if not for the demonstrable FACT that Lee Harvey says such things in such inappropriate ways with outrageous frequency.
And yes, you can feel that abortion or CP are "murderous," but Lee Harvey didn't say that was how he "felt" about it.
He said he considered abortion and CP--as well as combat fatalities in wartime--to be "murder."
That's over-the-top. It's irresponsible.
They all involve the killing of human beings. Period.
Go from there. Don't saddle them with the criminality of a cold-blooded murderer.
"Back to the sactioning, if that's the case, how come when some coke user guns down his supplier, it isn't sactioned by the state? It's the same damn thing. One person killing another. It's all wrong."
Yes. Agreed. All of it.
"I'm very surprised, John, I really didn't think you could ever carry something like this as far as you have."
Jess, this is MY blog. HE'S the one who keeps bombing the place and trying to get the last word in. How many times have I told him to just go away?
He himself said he would chill until after Christmas or something in a recent post. I blessed him and sent him on his way.
He came back THE NEXT DAY with new articles of Impeachment!
"And while I still respect (barely) your opinions..."
Yeah. Thanks a lot.
"...and I'm not too mad at you..."
:)
"...please, in the future, be careful of what you accuse folks of."
I AM careful! I explained why I made the accusations on a point-by-point basis.
"Unless you have a photograph of Jeff at a KKK meeting or downing a Warlock's coat, or have followed him all over and videotaped him, please don't call him a liar about his faith."
Jess, he is NOT a "practicing" Catholic! Do you know what that means?
Republicus does not "practice" his own Faith to the extent of what he understands a true practitioner to be engaged in, which involves, at the very least, weekly church attendance, and wouldn't pretend he is a "practicing" devotee for the sake dispelling WELL-FOUNDED accusations that Lee Harvey despises the American REligious Right!
"Just as I have a right to believe what I do(not), he has the same right to follow (or not follow) whatever he chooses, and practice it in a manner he sees fit."
ABSOLUTELY. AND THE SAME GOES FOR THE PRESIDENT AND CHRISTIAN RED-STATERS WHO PEOPLE LIKE LEE HARVEY GRUMBLED--NOT TOO LONG AGO AT ALL--THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO HELP DETERMINE A PRESIDENCY, AND CERTAINLY HAVE NO RIGHT TO "IMPOSE" THEIR BELIEFS ON ANYONE ELSE, WHEN ALL THEY ARE DOING IS FOLLOWING AND PRACTICING A FAITH AS THEY SEE FIT!
We're not talking about Middle Eastern Islamicists here, either.
But Lee Harvey refers to them as such.
What more can I say?
"Happy Holidays to both of you."
Thank you Jess. You too.
You're welcome, Kelly.
Trust me, Republicus is no paragon of Christian piety or virtue, but he knows who's being persecuted here.
Post a Comment
<< Home