Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » rpannier Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
rpannier's Journal
Posted by rpannier in General Discussion
Mon Sep 07th 2009, 10:25 PM
I found this at http://www.electoral-vote.com /
They have listed the members of the caucus, the make up of their district, their margin of victory, how the Obama-mccain race turned out and when they were first elected.

Examples:
MS-04 Gene Taylor (D) R+20; 50%; -36%; 1988 (So Taylor is in a solidly republikkan dist +20, that he won by 50% and Obama lost by 36%.

ID-01 Walt Minnick (D) R+18; 2%; -26%; 2008 (Mr Minnick is in a solidly republikkan dist, that he squeaked out a win by 2% and Obama lost by 26%)

AR-01 Marion Berry (D); R+8; 100%; -21%; 1996 (Mr Berry, while in a solidly republikkan district had no opponent at all)

TX-28 Henry Cuellar (D); R+0; 40%; 12%; 2004 (Mr Cuellar is in a even split district that he easily carried, as did Obama)

CA-18 Dennis Cardoza (D); D+4; 100%; 20%; 2002 (Cordoza no opponent, leans Democratic, Obama easily carried)

CA-29 Adam Schiff (D); D+14; 44%; 38%; 2002 (Strong Democratic District, both he and Obama carried easily)

The point of this post is, not all the Blue Dogs have to be members, or be republikkan-light to get elected.
14 members are in districts that have more Democrats than republikkans registered (although some of them are very slightly Democratic +1%)
Some of them ran unopposed - 6
And 7 of them that did have opponents won by 40% or more.

Let's face it. Some of them choose to be obstructionists toward Pres Obama's programs because they choose to be opposed to them -- not because they have to be.

link:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments) | Recommend (+3 votes)
Posted by rpannier in General Discussion
Thu Jul 02nd 2009, 08:11 AM
Germany became the first nation in the world to adopt an old-age social insurance program in 1889, designed by Germany's Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. The idea was first put forward, at Bismarck's behest, in 1881 by Germany's Emperor, William the First, in a ground-breaking letter to the German Parliament. William wrote: ". . .those who are disabled from work by age and invalidity have a well-grounded claim to care from the state."

Bismarck was motivated to introduce social insurance in Germany both in order to promote the well-being of workers in order to keep the German economy operating at maximum efficiency, and to stave-off calls for more radical socialist alternatives. Despite his impeccable right-wing credentials, Bismarck would be called a socialist for introducing these programs, as would President Roosevelt 70 years later. In his own speech to the Reichstag during the 1881 debates, Bismarck would reply: "Call it socialism or whatever you like. It is the same to me."

The German system provided contributory retirement benefits and disability benefits as well. Participation was mandatory and contributions were taken from the employee, the employer and the government. Coupled with the workers' compensation program established in 1884 and the "sickness" insurance enacted the year before, this gave the Germans a comprehensive system of income security based on social insurance principles. (They would add unemployment insurance in 1927, making their system complete.)

************************

Yep, yep,yep...That damned liberal, bleeding heart, Commie, Socialist Otto von Bismarck.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by rpannier in General Discussion
Thu Apr 16th 2009, 11:44 PM
You know you're listening to Bill O'Reilly if the person talking

is defending President Obama by comparing his situation to that of former President Bush

is decrying the paparazzi stalking people in one segment and in the next has his producer following someone onto a public bus or to their kids school asking them annoying and idiotic questions

is accusing an organization like Media Matters for taking what he says out of context after they play a five minute segment of something stupid he says

is claiming that American soldiers brutally murdered German POW's at Malmady

tells us how no one has done more for Veteran's Families, 9/11 Families, Missing Children, Victims of Rape, etc than he has -- yet continually refers to himself as 'humble servant'

decries how low public discourse has become and how irritated he is at the name calling, while at the same time referring to Danny Glover as 'that crazy actor' and Nancy Pelosi as 'Stupid and Dangerous'

complains how raising his taxes would result in damaging the economy

compares Media Matters and the Daily Kos to right wing organizations that advocate violence

is claiming the left-wing media is trying to silence people, while telling people he doesn't agree with to 'shut-up'

is telling people that the criticism of the President during wartime is something that needs to be curbed for the sake of the troops, but then either he, or his guest, blasts President Obama

is opposed to boycotts, but then begins a boycott of Pepsi

claims that his boycott of France has been documented as a success by a non-existent French business publication

claims that he and Mr Walsh have done more to fight sexual abuse and help its victims than any other people in America. Then he claims one victim seemed to enjoy it, while the other one was dressed in a way that invited her rape and murder

******
feel free to add your own
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by rpannier in General Discussion
Tue Feb 10th 2009, 11:44 PM
snip
Five hundred thousand dollars — the amount President Obama wants to set as the top pay for banking executives whose firms accept government bailout money — seems like a lot, and it is a lot. To many people in many places, it is a princely sum to live on. But in the neighborhoods of New York City and its suburban enclaves where successful bankers live, half a million a year can go very fast.

snip

Sure, the solution may seem simple: move to Brooklyn or Hoboken, put the children in public schools and buy a MetroCard. But more than a few of the New York-based financial executives who would have their pay limited are men (and they are almost invariably men) whose identities are entwined with living a certain way in a certain neighborhood west of Third Avenue: a life of private schools, summer houses and charity galas that only a seven-figure income can stretch to cover.

snip

Barbara Corcoran, a real estate executive, said that most well-to-do families take at least two vacations a year, a winter trip to the sun and a spring trip to the ski slopes.

Total minimum cost: $16,000. (you can ram your two vacations up your a*s)

snip

A personal trainer at $80 an hour three times a week comes to about $12,000 a year.

The work in the gym pays off when one must don a formal gown for a charity gala. “Going to those parties,” said David Patrick Columbia, who is the editor of the New York Social Diary (newyorksocialdiary.com), “a woman can spend $10,000 or $15,000 on a dress. If she goes to three or four of those a year, she’s not going to wear the same dress.”

Total cost for three gowns: about $35,000.

link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/...

on note: Bite me and F*CK YOU! F*CK your two vacations, your chauffeurs, your personal trainer, your galas and parties, your private schools and your tutors.
Live like real people.

This tidbit in the story really pissed me off:

Does this money buy a chief executive stockholders might prize, a well-to-do man with a certain sureness of stride, something that might be lost if the executive were crowding onto the PATH train every morning at Journal Square, his newspaper splayed against the back of a stranger’s head?

and Candace Bushnell can go F&CK herself
Read entry | Discuss (33 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by rpannier in General Discussion
Mon Jan 19th 2009, 12:36 AM
237 threads in Latest Breaking News linking us to the only 3 stories mentioning the appointment

6 threads linking us to the posters personal website, that then links us to the 3 stories mentioning the appointment

146 threads “Recommend MY Post" if you think it’s great that skinner has been appointed by Obama.

15 threads of outrage claiming that Obama had appointed Skinner to silence his critics on DU

7 threads claiming how brilliant it was of Obama to appoint Skinner, thus silencing his critics on DU

20 threads claiming this is proof that Obama is a real liberal/progressive

20 threads claiming it’s proof Skinner is DLC

10 threads from people irritated that Skinner wasn’t more outraged over the Warren Invocation at the Inauguration

10 threads from people irritated that Skinner didn’t support Obama enough over the Warren Invocation at the Inauguration

10 threads from people who are irritated that Skinner took too neutral a stand on the Warren Invocation at the Inauguration

3 threads from people who are angry that Skinner used the Warren Invocation at the Inauguration to try and get people to donate to the Food Bank

4 threads from people wanting to know if Skinner can get them tickets to the Inauguration

3 threads about how cute Skinner is

2 threads from people who claim the name ‘Skinner’ proves he enjoys hunting, killing and gutting small furry animals so this should disqualify him

2 threads from people who are sure this is the unseen hand of EarlG trying to seize control of the DU, by getting Skinner the job, thus forcing him to relinquish his ownership of DU

2 threads claiming he can’t take the position because the Constitution specifically prevents anyone from being considered for a position in the national government if said person owns, or ever owned, a political website

2 threads from people who heard rumors that he knew someone in elementary school with the last name Rumsfeld and shouldn’t this disqualify him

And 1 thread titled “Who the f*ck is Skinner?”
Read entry | Discuss (15 comments) | Recommend (+8 votes)
Posted by rpannier in General Discussion: Presidential
Sat Oct 04th 2008, 06:37 AM
1. In 1960, Kennedy only won one western state in the Continental US: Nevada. (He won Hawaii, but that's not continental and he won NM, but I think NM is part of the Rocky Mtn states)

2. Since 1960, West Virginia has voted for the Democratic nominee 8 times

3. From 1968 to 1984, Oregon voted Republican in every Presidential election.

4. 1972 and 1984 are the only two times (since 1960) that Hawaii voted republikkan

5. Between 1960 and 1996, New Hampshire and Vermont voted for the same person for President in every election

6. Since 1960, Massachusetts has voted republikkan two times -- Both time reagan

7. Since 1960, Alaska has voted Democratic one time -- LBJ

8. Since 1960, Minnesota has voted for the Democrat, every time except one -- 1972

9. 1964 was the first DC-election (Where DC was it's own region)

10. Mississippi has voted Democratic one time since 1960 -- Jimmy Carter

11. Since 1960, Washington and Oregon have voted the same way in every Presidential election except one -- 1968. Oregon voted Dem

12. The only two Democrats to win Colorado were Clinton and LBJ

13. The reddest southern state since 1960 - Virginia (1 time voted Dem)

14. The Bluest southern state -- Arkansas 5 times voted for the Dem

15. The Bluest New England States have been Massachusetts and Rhode Island (Dem 10 rep 2)

16. The Bluest Western State is Hawaii with Washington in 2nd

17. Since 1960 the states of Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming and Idaho have voted for the same person (1964 was the only time since 1960, they voted Democratic)

18. Since 1964, the person who was awarded Ohio got the Presidency every time. (1960 Ohio went for Nixon)

19. Since 1992, the republikkans have won only 1 northeastern state total (2000 NH)

20. Clinton won LA, AR, KY, TN and MO both times

link:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/elec...
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments) | Recommend (+1 votes)
Posted by rpannier in General Discussion: Presidential
Fri Feb 29th 2008, 01:57 AM
In 2006, Sen. John McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving "feedback" on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he now opposes the measure.

McCain said before the war in Iraq, "We will win this conflict. We will win it easily." Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was "probably going to be long and hard and tough."

McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.

McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as "an agent of intolerance" in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans "deserved" the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell's debate coach.)

In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending "dirty money" to help finance Bush's presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

the LTTE can be found at:
http://www.qconline.com/archives/qco/displ...

on note: The letter is NOT mine
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by rpannier in General Discussion
Wed Feb 27th 2008, 10:29 PM
To the tune of: The Man on the Flying Trapeze

He lies on the air
With the greatest of ease
His stories are garbage
And he is a sleaze
His behavior's obnoxious
He's like a disease
and the truth he has taken away

He talks about values
But these he does scorn
He harasses his colleagues
With fa-la-fel porn
He's still on TV
And this we all mourn
He betrays our country - the sleaze

He'd change all the facts
Like Rove with the war,
His words are unhinged
Like a drunk in the bar. (I know war and bar don't rhyme)
Perhaps he's a pervert
Describe him a louse,
But the freepers they watch just the same.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by rpannier in General Discussion: Presidential
Wed Feb 06th 2008, 10:35 AM
I think the thing (for me) that is the most disappointing about Edwards withdrawal (other than I supported him) is that when it was a three-person race people seemed a little more civil and lot more thick skinned.

Now that Edwards is gone it seems to me that the dam burst and it's become more aggressive and more personal, both in what is written, but also in how people take what others write.

1. I have had 'run-ins' with people in the past where one or both of us took something the other person wrote as a personal attack and then discovered one or both of us misunderstood what the other person had written.
Sometimes things that are written sound unoffensive to the writer because they understand what they mean.
My suggestion (for what it's worth) don't take something personal unless it's so obvious that it is...
For example: It's kind of hard not take, "You're a f**king stupid, moron who knows nothing!!!" as anything but personal.

2. I can't count the number of times I've seen "The Obama Cult" or "Hillbots" scrawled in someone's post to describe supporters of the other side. There's nothing wrong with people getting behind their candidate and supporting them.

3. The number of posts I've seen that basically read "If ... gets the nomination we're gonna lose in November."
This is politics and politics is always very fluid. What people are thinking now can often change in a few months, if not a few weeks or days.
The number of posts that said we were never going to win in 06 were endless as well. But here we are with a majority in both houses.
And with all due respect to your psychic abilities, "After you've picked the winning numbers in the powerball twice then I'll choose to believe you ability to see into the future. Until then -- I'm not convinced."

4. Try letting people enjoy their moment. God knows if someone posts how happy they are that their candidate did well, 1/2 of the responses are going to try and criticize/attack the OP.

5. As to criticize/attack, it would be nice (IMLHO) if people could cool it when someone endorses the other candidate. When Ted Kennedy and Maria Shriver endorsed Obama, I saw some rather nasty responses. One referred to Ms Shriver as 'flat face.'
And likewise, when someone posted Joe Wilson's letter in support of Clinton you got, "Who the hell is he?" "Still trying to hold on to his 15 minutes of fame."
WTF people??? The best we can do when something happens we don't like is resort to name calling and trying to belittle people who are on our side.

6. We are the Party of Jackson, F.Roosevelt, Truman and John F Kennedy. We are the inheritors of the progressive political legacy of the previous four mentioned along with Jefferson, Lincoln and T. Roosevelt and we are spending our time arguing over meaningless drivel like "Did Clinton refuse to shake Obama's hand?" or "Did Obama refuse to shake Clinton's hand?"
Who f**king cares???!!! The media??? Your friend at work??? Your neighbor??? Fine. Take it up with them. I have always assumed we are smarter than that. That we are better than that.

7. The number of people who have posted, "If ... wins, I'll never vote for them." "If ...wins I'm voting for a third party." and "There's no difference between (Democrat) and (refucklican)." is rather silly.
If you honestly believe that then you believe that Al Gore would have selected Alito and Thomas for the Supreme Court and that Gore would have ordered the invasion of Iraq because that's what people told me 7 years ago when they said they wouldn't vote for Gore -- There's no difference. (These people would be friends of mine -- stupid friends of mine <and Yes, I still tell them to their face that they were stupid>
Yet, I'm sure 18 months from now, these same people who won't vote for Obama or Clinton will be here bitching and moaning because Mc Cain has ordered the invasion of Iran or AJ Stevens has retired and McCain has chosen some Regents University graduate for the a spot on the court. Chances are, they'll be screaming the loudest.

8. Please spare us the histrionics of "Good-bye DU. I'm leaving you forever because it's too mean here."
You wanna go, fine go. But please spare us your sad tale of how evil and terrible the rest of us are. How we are cruel to your feelings and have no respect for you as a person.
In addition, please spare us the "Skinner!!! Please do something about all the mean people here."
We are not children (although many of us, myself included, act like it sometimes) and Skinner is not our mommy. Grow up.

If you don't like what someone posts:
Ignore it.
No one says you have to read everything other people post

If you don't like them:
Put them on ignore.
No one says you have to tolerate people you don't like.

This is a website, not a work space or a classroom. It's easy to ignore and avoid people.

In conclusion, if you hate what I've written feel free to tell me so, feel free to ignore me, or put me on ignore.

Read entry | Discuss (1 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by rpannier in General Discussion
Mon Jan 21st 2008, 10:50 PM
Today, President George Bush issued a signing statement that disqualified all 5 Democratic Candidates from running for the office of president. Citing national security concerns, he stripped the five candidates of their US citizenship until a full hearing could be convened.

According to Administration spokesperson Dana Perino, "The President has set a January 10, 2009 date for the hearing."

When asked what that does to the Democratic field, Ms Perino responded, "This is not a problem. The President has talked to both Romney and Huckabee and they have agreed to run for the Democratic nomination, while Mc Cain and Guliani will run as Republicans."

When an AP reporter asked what gives the president this authority? Ms Perino replied, "That is classified and the President has ordered that it be sealed for fifty years."

Another reporter asked what this decision does to Sen Obama and Sen Clinton's status as US Senators.
Ms Perino explained, "If they're not citizens, then they obviously cannot be Senators. The President has spoken to Alan Keyes and he has agreed to represent the state of Illinois in the Senate. The President has spoken to Fred Thompson about representing New York and he has said he needs the day to consider it."

When asked why Fred Thompson, Ms Perino, "Well, he was the DA on Law and Order. Law and Order takes place in NYC. So that is good enough for the President."

Another reporter asked whether or not choosing new Senators wasn't the prerogative of the Governor of the state. Ms. Perion, "We are at war with Islamic-radical, Islamo-fascists. The President has used a signing statement to give him the power to choose US Senators."

When asked about this development, Senate Majority leader Reid said, "We are working on a carefully crafted non-binding resolution condemning the Presidents actions. We hope to have it finished by October."

When asked about investigations into the legality of the Presidents actions and possible impeachment proceedings both Sen Reid and Rep Pelosi said, "We were not elected to investigate and impeach. That would be divisive. The electorate wants us to come together in bi-partisan unity."
Read entry | Discuss (3 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by rpannier in General Discussion
Mon Jan 21st 2008, 05:17 AM
The Republicans believe in the minimum wage — the more the minimum, the better.

Republicans don’t like people who talk about depressions. You can hardly blame them for that. You remember the old saying: Don’t talk about rope in the house where somebody has been hanged.

Richard Nixon is a no good, lying bastard. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he’d lie just to keep his hand in.

Nixon is one of the few in the history of this country to run for high office talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time and lying out of both sides.

A bureaucrat is a Democrat who holds some office that a Republican wants

Herbert Hoover once ran on the slogan, “Two cars in every garage”. Apparently the Republican candidate this year is running on the slogan, “Two families in every garage”.

These polls that the Republican candidate is putting out are like sleeping pills designed to lull the voters into sleeping on election day. You might call them sleeping polls.

In case you didn'tknow...These are quotes from Harry S Truman

Here are some quotes not slamming republikkans

Any denial of human rights is a denial of the basic beliefs of democracy.

I do not understand a mind which sees a gracious beneficence in spending money to slay and maim human beings in almost unimaginable numbers and deprecates the expenditure of a smaller sum to patch up the ills of mankind.

There isn’t any doubt that a woman would make a good president. They make good senators, good member of the House of Representatives, and have held other important offices in the government of the United States.

You know that being an American is more than a matter of where your parents came from. It is a belief that all men are created free and equal and that everyone deserves an even break.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments) | Recommend (+2 votes)
Posted by rpannier in General Discussion
Tue Dec 25th 2007, 08:54 PM
"I could express my Faith in shorter terms. He who loves the Workman and his Work, and does what he can to preserve and improve it, shall be accepted of him." -- letter to Thomas Jefferson, 18 June 1812

"Now, my Friend, can Prophecies, or miracles convince You, or Me, that infinite Benevolence, Wisdom and Power, created and preserves, for a time, innumerable millions to make them miserable forever; for his own Glory? Wretch! What is his Glory? Is he ambitious? Does he want promotion? Is he vain? Tickled with Adulation? Exulting and tryumphing in his Power and the Sweetness of his Vengence? Pardon me, my Maker, for these aweful Questions. My Answer to them is always ready: I believe no such Things. My Adoration of the Author of the Universe is too profound and too sincere. The Love of God and his Creation; delight, Joy, Tryumph, Exultation in my own existence, 'tho but an Atom, a Molecule Organique, in the Universe; are my religion. Howl, Snarl, bite, Ye Calvinistick! Ye Athanasian Divines, if You will. Ye will say, I am no Christian: I say Ye are no Christians: and there the account is ballanced. Yet I believe all the honest men among you, are Christians in My Sense of the Word." -- letter to Thomas Jefferson, 14 September 1813

"We have now, it seems a National Bible Society, to propagate King James's Bible, through all Nations. Would it not be better, to apply these pious Subscriptions, to purify Christendom from the Corruptions of Christianity; than to propagate those Corruptions in Europe Asia, Africa and America!" -- letter to Thomas Jefferson, 4 November 1816

"Checks and Ballances, Jefferson, however you and your Party may have derided them, are our only Security, for the progress of Mind, as well as the Security of Body. Every Species of these Christians would persecute Deists, as soon as either Sect would persecute another, if it had unchecked and unballanced Power. Nay, the Deists would persecute Christians, and Atheists would persecute Deists, with as unrelenting Cruelty, as any Christians would persecute them or one another. Know thyself, human Nature!" -- letter to Thomas Jefferson, 25 June 1813
Read entry | Discuss (3 comments) | Recommend (+1 votes)
Posted by rpannier in Editorials & Other Articles
Tue Dec 25th 2007, 08:30 PM
If one looks at Presidential history since the beginning of the 20th Century, they'll fail in taking back the White House in 2012.

1896: William McKinley, re-elected 1901
1901: Theodore Roosevelt replaces the McKinley after Mc Kinley is assassinated. re-elected 1904
1908: Taft was not re-elected, but there were three people running and he probably would have been had Teddy not chosen to run
1912: Woodrow Wilson. Re-elected in 1916 (although he probably won through vote tampering)
1920: Warren Harding Died in Office
1923: Coolidge replaces the deceased Harding. re-elected in 1924
1928: Hoover. Lost in 32
1932: Franklin D. Roosevelt elected, re-elected 36, 40, 44 Died in Office
1945: Harry Truman replaces FDR who died in office. re-elected in 1948
1952: Eisenhower elected. 56 re-elected
1960: John Kennedy president.
1963: LBJ replaces Kennedy. Re-elected in 1964
1968: Nixon elected. 1972 re-elected.
1974: Ford replaces Nixon. Loses to Carter.
1976: Jimmy Carter elected. 1980 loses to reagan
1980: Reagan elected. Re-elected 1984.
1988: George Bush elected. Loses in 1992.
1992: Bill Clinton elected. re-elected in 1996.
2000: george bush president. 2004 back in the White House (although, like Wilson, he was elected and re-elected through vote tampering)

Since 1896, only 5 sitting Presidents have failed to get re-elected. And of the five,
Only one lost under less than extraordinary circumstances -- George Bush I

Taft lost with two Republicans on running.
Hoover lost because of his mismanagement of the Stock Market Crash
Ford lost after the Nixon resignation and pardoning fiasco and yet the election was still fairly close.
Carter lost with the economy struggling and the Iran hostage crisis weighing him down.
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by rpannier in General Discussion
Thu Nov 08th 2007, 10:25 AM
Just thought everyone might like to be reminded (and would like to remind other people) of the idiotic, outrageous and dangerous comments made by this modern day huckster.

1.The Lord had proclaimed: "It will be a year of sorrow and bloodshed that will have no end soon, for the world
being torn apart, and my kingdom shall rise from the ruins of it." (1980)

***We all remember God's brief return in 1980. He ruled for 1000 days and went back to Heaven. Or something like that.

2. The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. And that's what's been happening. (1981)

***Considering what Jefferson and Madison had to say...I'm not sure how he came up with his interpretation

3. Robertson "predicted that Russia would invade Israel in 1982 and that there would be a worldwide economic
collapse in 1985." And it says he "predicted that U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller would be elected president in 1996."

***We all remember the glory years of the Rockefeller Presidency.

4. I am not bound by any case or any court to which I myself am not a party.... I don't think the Congress of the United States is subservient to the courts.... They can ignore a Supreme Court ruling if they so choose. (1986)

***And people wonder why he failed the Bar exam

5. Individual Christians are the only ones really -- and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him. (1986)

6. I never said that in my life ... I never said only Christians and Jews. I never said that. (4 days later in 1986)

7. For example, Robertson says God told him: "I have chosen you to usher in the coming of My Son." God expounded: "I'm going to let you usher him in. Now, where do you usher in the Coming? You usher in the Coming where He's going to come." (1986)

8. Many observers say that AIDS is the hammer and gun of the homosexual movement, an effective vehicle to propel the homosexual agenda throughout every phase of our society. (1990)

9. You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them. (1991)

10.. Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." (1993 Interview with Molly Ivins)

***I'm sure the Gypsies in Europe might strongly disagree

11. I think "one man, one vote," just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights.
(1992)

***In case you're confused. Marion is explaining why WHITE votes in SOUTH AFRICA should count more because they're the minority.

12. Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, they were members of the Church of Satan. (1993)

***It's probably significant that the Church of Satan was formed by Anton Szandor LaVey in the 1960's.

13. The public education movement has also been an anti-Christian movement... We can change education in America if you put Christian principles in and Christian pedagogy in. In three years, you would totally revolutionize education in America. (1993)

14. These socialists, and they're in there now, starting with the President and his associates ... they want to squeeze out religion because if people read the Bible, they can't be enslaved. You'll never have a socialist government where everybody's Christian. (1994)

15. These girls are not stupid. If you want to pay them five hundred, six hundred, seven hundred, eight hundred dollars a month, or whatever it is, to have a baby, they'll have babies. And if they'll stop paying them, they'll stop having babies. It's that simple. It's not heartless, it's not cruel, it's an intelligent use of money. (1995 on Welfare Mothers)

16. People For the American Way were founded by the creator of Archie Bunker. Do we want Archie Bunker determining what the United States Senate votes for? (2001)

***Amazing how he twists that one.

17. In what has become an annual tradition of prognostications, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Tuesday God has told him that a terrorist attack on the United States would result in "mass killing" late in 2007. (2006)

***Time is running out Marion

18. In May, Robertson said God told him that storms and possibly a tsunami were to crash into America's coastline in 2006. Even though the U.S. was not hit with a tsunami, Robertson on Tuesday cited last spring's heavy rains and flooding in New England as partly fulfilling the prediction. (2006)

19. God considers this land to be his. You read the Bible and he says 'This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No, this is mine.' ... He was dividing God's land. And I would say, 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the E.U., the United Nations, or the United States of America.' God says, 'This land belongs to me. You better leave it alone.' (2006)

20. If anybody understood what Hindus really believe, there would be no doubt that they have no business administering government policies in a country that favors freedom and equality.... Can you imagine having the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as defense minister, or Mahatma Gandhi as minister of health, education, and welfare? The Hindu and Buddhist idea of karma and the Muslim idea of kismet, or fate condemn the poor and the disabled to their suffering.... It's the will of Allah. These beliefs are nothing but abject fatalism, and they would devastate the social gains this nation has made if they were ever put into practice. (His book: New World Order)

***betcha didn’t know the Ayatollah Khomeini was a Hindu did ya? That’s what you get when you listen to God’s messenger pat.

An extra added marion 'pat' robertson bonus:

Can't find the quote from this idea from 1984. But I remember when he put forth this idea:
Robertson suggested that special church tribunals could be called upon to discern if a believer had in fact received an authentic word from God which compelled him to break a civil law. According to Robertson, if this church tribunal did determine the believer had in fact received an authentic message from God -- how they could reach this conclusion without issuing God a subpoena wasn't made clear -- then, Robertson said, the church tribunal would have the civil authority to provide the believer with immunity from prosecution."

***Needless to say, if you killed a doctor that performed abortions, probably killed a gay man because he smiled at you, etc. then God probably told you to kill them.


As an added bonus in 2005, he compared the plight of Christians in the US to Christians in Nrth Korea. In North Korea they murder Christians and people of other faiths in quite horrible ways.
I don't remember reading about those things happening in the US

Read entry | Discuss (9 comments) | Recommend (+5 votes)
Posted by rpannier in General Discussion: Presidential
Fri Sep 21st 2007, 01:08 AM
1. Is the continual failure in Iraq the result of the incompetence of the president aided by the toadyism of his party or was this catastrophe pre-planned by the administration in order to secure Iraqi oil?


2. None of you have addressed the issue of health care providers refusing to provide certain types of treatments that the patients' doctors recommend. Is this because a) You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about -- which one can glean from Guliani's idea of tax breaks for health care as the solution, 2) That you have received thousands-to-millions of dollars from the health care lobby, so thet's who you've chosen to be responsive to, 3) You're so removed from the lives of everyday people at the middle-to-lower end of the economic spectrum that you just don't care?

3. Follow up to number 2. In the event you do get elected (God help us all) and you do hock your fantasy health care plan to the public, what are you going to do about health care providers who cut off people because they get too sick and therefore, sut into their billions of dollars in profits. Are you going to do nothing because you are receiving millions in funding from lobbyists or are you going to pretend that isn't a problem (because for you it isn't)?

4. Health Care question again. You say 'Socialized Health Care is bad and provides a lower quality of care and service.' So you're saying that our seniors, service members and their families are receiving piss poor quality of care because they are receiving government provided health care?

5. Follow up to number 4. Why do you hate the troops?

6. Follow up to 4 & 5. Why do you hate seniors so much?

7. The standing of America in the international community has dwindled badly over the past 6 years under the (ahem) leadership of george w. bush to the point where people in countries that have always, for the most part, liked America and Americans don't. Why do you think this has happened and what are you going to do about it? (other than do nothing -- I mean)

8. Many on stage have said they support using torture to get information from a terror suspect. Here's my scenario for you, a small nuclear device has been planted somewhere in NYC. It is set to go off in a matter of a few hours. You have caught the suspect, it's a christian fundamentalist who planted it to protest legalized abortion in NY State (similar to Eric Rudolph at the Olympics). Will you approve using torture to extract information from this religious terrorist in order to save millions of people or not?

9. To all but Ron Paul. Do you support keeping the troops in Iraq because you hate the troops and want to see them dead or because you're afraid that if they came back and told us what was really going on in Iraq, no one with a conscience would ever vote republikkan again?

10. On a scale of 1-10, 1 being an abysmal failure and 10 being a monumental catastrophe, how would rate the situation in Iraq and the effect your being elected would have in exasperating the situation?

***************************
Faux news is not the only one that can frame questions.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments) | Recommend (+2 votes)
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
StarStarStarStarStar
StarStarStarStar
HOUSE PASSES HEALTH CARE BILL!!
78 recs : By tomm2thumbs
I do not support this bill
76 recs : By AllentownJake
StarStarStar
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.