Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to ratings.
(Pat Robertson)
Picture by: dunno source Caption by: Redshirt_X via Advanced Lol Builder
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous That one kinda looks like a cat. | Dude… come on!!! Next »
Fear leads to anger.
» 301 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
MrsQ Of Philly quick… on Better Than Coffee Whatever on GREECE Whatever on GREECE Whatever on Has This Certain Ring to … SuzyQ on Better Than Coffee itsybit on Better Than Coffee itsybit on CNN is the New Amen MrsQ Of Philly on Better Than Coffee itsybit on Better Than Coffee itsybit on Hero’s Shawarma 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
I Has A Hotdog: I should get a sainthood, or something...
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
Sun Salutation
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Run in with Monorail cat
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Stealth Level: Over 9000
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Dog Sings Along to Dexter Theme Song
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Surprised Pup
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Out of the Rain
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
I Don't Give a Damn About My Bad Reputation
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
I'm Having a Constant Emergency
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
MAYBE AT LEAST SPELL DEUX CORRECTLY NEXT TIME???
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
Make a M**a F**ka Say DAMN!
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Cobie Smulders (Maria Hill) Totally Looks Like Jill Valentine
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Someone to Watch Over Me
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Pewter Wars
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
Streetfront View
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Wait! people still watch that a-hole? Oh and Fox News has highest ratings therefore it must be hate (cut y’all off at the pass
)…. giggity giggity …
Eh. Not even Fox News can trump Robertson in terms of pure hate.
I’m still in awe people watch this nut job. HE is why the Repubs need to get rid of the Christian Right…. Let them form the Jebus Party or something.
I agree completely. Dude, the CHRISTIANS need to get rid of the Christian right. He’s bringing us all down. Do you know how hard it is to mention being Christian when so many people have a stereotype of THAT guy?
THANK YOU!!!
YOU’RE WELCOME!
SHE WASN’T THANKING YOU!!!!! WAIT, WHY ARE WE YELLING????
Oooo..sorry. Got a little excitable. I also feel very strongly that good Christians get grief because of the likes of Pat and others like him.
Damn right.
I’m not Christian and even I agree with that.
MOSTLY BECAUSE YELLING IS FUN!
Wow, just realized that that looks awkward. Sorry.
Cosign Rando. Pat Robertson is one of the biggest douchebags on the face on the planet. Almost the ENTIRE TBN & 700 Club staff are douches.
I made one also but can’t link it at work. I’ll do it later.
Unfortunately, that requires accepting and internalizing the “Christianity = hate” message pushed by the anti-religious bigots on the left. No, there must be a better way to communicate that this guy isn’t mainstream without throwing every Christian under the bus.
It’s not the hate message, it’s the “moral” issues. If the right wing Christians were to just embrace the little government aspect then fine so be it, but instead it’s the gay marriage, abortion, gays in the military, censorship on TV, etc….. Some Christian Groups are as bad as liberals about being in my living room, not thank you.
Are you objecting specifically to people who want to bulk up the government to enforce additional morality, or more generally to religious people with morals, under the assumption that they’re going to get into government sooner or later?
Just ducking in to say if ILPB is talking about the government legislating morality, I’m with him 100%.
If people don’t like gays, then….don’t be gay. Or something. Good lord this Monday is sucking.
Morality is overrated.
The previous over the latter, but as we know there’s many in the Republican party that pander to the previous and the men pictured above.
well, i think it is obvious that the problem is not people with morals. I have morals. The man who likes peanut butter has morals. Even the esteemed reverend pictured above has morals. The problem is that all of us have different “morals”. Sure, we have a few that are pretty universal that you could figure out from simply considering what it takes to live in peace with those around you (i.e. murder and thievery are morally wrong[although robertson, being clearly insane, does not care for either of these so much]), but all the peripheral parts of morality are far from universal and are, in many cases, logically inane. If not believing in a particular deity is immoral and there is more than one of these deities, then everyone is considered immoral by someone. Is prostitution really immoral? Biblically, yes, logically, it is an act between two consenting adults and there is nothing morally wrong about it. Morals are, in large part, subjective opinions. The problem occurs when people in power attempt to use their position to force their particular morals on the rest of us through legislation. It is especially disturbing when the prohibited “immoral” activity has no impact on anyone besides the consenting adults involved in the act (e.g. gay sex[illegal, along with blow jobs, in most southern states still], prostitution, gay marriage). In a free society, a prohibited act requires a victim who has been unduly deprived of life, liberty, or property. If none of those have happened the constitution gives no power to the government to regulate those activities. A TRUE conservative seeks to minimize the power of government over both the economy AND over its people to just the bare minimum, clearly outlined in the constitution as protecting the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of its people and providing for a national defense. THATS IT. If you tell people who they can marry, you are not a conservative. If you tell people what drugs they can put in their own body, you are not a conservative. If you give the government the power to ignore habeas corpus when it suits its interest, you are NOT a conservative. Be a true conservative: keep the government out of your wallet (except for national defense) and out of your bedroom.
P.S. I think everyone(including the “anti-religious bigots on the left” (i.e. me)) knows Pat Robertson doesn’t represent Christians in general. Never-the-less, the likes of Sarah Palin and George Bush are not far from this man in terms of zeal and stupidity and they are supported by the votes of millions of Christians. Drop the religious zealotry and republicans have a platform I can stomach. We have way too many taxes and way too much spending. We don’t just need a balanced budget. We need a smaller one too, but so long as the republican party is ruled by people that make Pat Robertson LOOK like the mainstream, they will never win my vote as I prefer a bloated government bureaucracy to an evil theocracy.
Pat Robertson doesn’t? Hmm.. I’ll have to go back to my evil drawing board.
That’s not conservativism, that’s libertarianism. Which is fine — if you want to be a libertarian, be my guest — but moving the goalposts is cheating.
What you’ve stated here is actually a pretty good example of what I’m getting at. We can agree that religion, as such, has no place in politics — so no throwing people in jail if they sleep in Sunday mornings, no forcing businesses to shut down five times a day for prayer, etc. But you’ve gone much further, declaring that the opinions of a religious person must have only come from religion, and therefore have no place in politics — in other words, religious people have no place in politics. (Except, presumably, for your faith of choice.) To be blunt, that’s bigoted and wrong.
True, morals do come from many different places. But trying to justify legislating one’s morality using religion is wrong too. I think you and I could agree there, Dhoti – one must produce a logical justification that is not religion based.
*moves goalposts and runs away giggling*
*Spikes the football, and starts doing a victory shuffle*….hey, where’d the goalposts go??? awhh, dammit *shakes fist* CHARRROOOO!!!!!!
My field goal went wide. I has a sad.
*tackles WebilT* *steals ball and runs off*
Hee hee.
*sells overpriced beer, hot dogs and nachos*
only $8 at Fed Ex Field.
I didn’t see that, but my concentration on walls of text tends to wane here and there. If he’s saying that, then I agree with you completely. But I didn’t get that impression. Although I would question putting an extremist of any given religion in a position of political power just because so many would want to make their religious beliefs law.
Dhoti: Libertarian is the break off of Conservatism. Conservatism used to believe in small government, less intrusion, etc… then the morality set in and we lost the ball.
And the goalposts.
The goal posts aren’t lost, just misplaced.
*starts kicking footballs everywhere* I’m gonna keep doing it until I get a field goal dammit!!!!!!
Hey Rando Brown! I’ll hold this football here while you run up and kick it!
Oh fvck you, Lucy!!!!!
LACES OUT!!!!! LACES OUT!!!!
You’re forgetting your history. Conservatism traditionally also focused on the integrity and smooth functioning of society as a whole. Pity you’re in such a hurry to jump on the “hurr durr Bush sucks and religion sucks” bandwagon — you’re missing the point.
Speaking of bandwagons, hows that “i’m always right and everyone else is wrong” wagon treating you? Stay on it while you can, it doesn’t feel so great when you’re forced off by logic.
Well, that would require you to bring some logic to the party, fuzzball…can you do that, or are you just going to passive-aggressively troll?
Nice. I like the passive-aggressive accusation. This is a Lolz-comment-board not some kind of conversation between me and you. Just as i have to read every comment you make, you have to read mine. If anyone’s trolling it’s the person constantly arguing, and never actually listening.
and by the way, the logic you asked of will come from yourself, not anything i was offering
So, let me get this straight — you know that I’m arguing and not listening, because I don’t agree 100% with whatever you have to say? LOL! Night, kid…I wish I could live in your world…
it’s like I’m sitting here playing cards with my brother’s kids or something you nerve wracking SOB
::does not envy the next babysitting of WicketsET’s nieces/nephews::
::thinks it over, raises hand::
Could I just be trampled by elephants, please?
don’t hate. it’s the best “Tombstone” quote in the whole movie.
“Don’t hate”? Wha? I thought that was the intention of the quote . . . I mean, is he sayin’ it to people he likes?
He’s saying to people that he HAS to respect even though they are dim witted.
I think there’s a big difference between Christians and the Christian Right. And that’s the distinction that needs to be made to help the Republican Party, as well as mainstream Christians.
Concur, the problem is the Republicans tend to try and woo the Christian Right, sort of like the Dems try and woo the many different liberal organizations and Labor Unions. Whichever side woos the centrists should win continually (unless you a fvcktard in office for 8 years who ruined your chance at a centrist President, who was a ‘tard and tried to pander to the Christian Right).
Well, to be honest, both parties seem to gravitating further away from the center. It seems like neither party is trying to get the center at all, but are trying to attract the fringe. I guess because the fringe tells to yell louder than the center and gets more attention.
The sad thing is that the Politicians don’t really need to do that uch pandering. There’s no way a Socialistic person is going to vote Republican, and no way a far Righty is going to vote Democratic. The only difference for the dems are y’all have WAY too many choices. Only contention we really have as Repubs is the Libertarian party. Y’all have Socialists, Communists, Green Party, Independents
Hardcore socialists and communists are the fringe. Most of us on the left realize that socialism and communism are too impractical to work in this society on a large scale. Bits and pieces are okay, but a wholesale socialist or communist government would be a catastrophe. Nice in theory, harsh in practice. Good for smaller countries, or possibly even on a state by state basis. Anyway, what I’m getting at is that they don’t really have a voice. Even those of us on the left who like that sort of thing shrug our shoulders at them. And is a reason we roll our eyes at the right for calling us all socialists and communists. We’re NOT trying to create a socialist government. Just mixing a few ingredients to the messed up pot that is our government. So they don’t count. Essentially, the biggest factors are Democrats and independent lefties.
Green Party takes a few from the Dems.
But don’t look now, we’re having a civil discusion, no sarcasm, no name calling…… quick turd breath say something socialist…
Okay. You don’t want universal health care, so you want to see people die. HA! Not bad, huh?
Oh, and Green Party gets taken even less seriously than the socialists & communists.
I like the Green Party.
Besides Hippies are too lazy to vote…
Wait, wait… it wasn’t bad but….
” You don’t want universal health care, so you want to see POOR people die.” There fixed that for you to make it perfect.
Oh, you’d like to think so, wouldn’t you? But what about those in the middle class who don’t have insurance? Ha! Got ya there!
@Rando ^^^^ The Progressive Party – pretty much a green party minus Nader – in Vermont has done quite well since the early 1990s.
Looked them up. That’s interesting. If I lived in Vermont, I’d have to find out more. I like how their website says they don’t take donations from corporations.
Somehow I resent being implicated as leftist fringe and the fact that we aren’t taken seriously… We have both a left and right wing, and generally attempt to appeal to the centre. Just because the European versions tend to be primarily populated by barking moon bats, and environmentalism tends to be associated with left-wing environmental extremists (there are right-wing environmental extremists too… take the unabomber… please) doesn’t mean that’s the way Green has to look everywhere.
I have voted Green Party in the past.
In my opinion, that’s a false dichotomy, and one that makes it far too easy for left-wingers and anti-religious bigots to marginalize their political opponents solely on the basis of religion. No free-thinking person should stand for it.
Put it another way — is the Christian Right composed solely of extremists like Robertson, or of anyone who, say, thinks their church shouldn’t perform gay marriages?
Dhoti: I think that we can agree (well Rando can’t b/c he likes the Reps fvcking up) that the Christian Right like Robertson and his followers, plus those who go out and protest about Gay Marriage, should not be panderred to by the Republicans. As soon as the Republicans got away from “Small Government, Big Defense” and got into “Morality” we lost the center and the bubble. I agree with Rando on this one, maybe if he said Radical Christian Right.
I think ReligionIsDumb in his dissertation up there nailed it. Legislating morality is against the Republican belief of hands-off government. It’s hypocritical to say “we want the government out of our wallet” but then say “we want the government telling us how to live.” And people know that, and they don’t like it. And it’s ripping the Republican Party in two. And I think the small government thing, despite being thrown around the Republican Party still (like what I heard from CPAC), is really little more than rhetoric. I don’t think they’re really behind it anymore because they want control and control costs money. I think BOTH major parties are more okay with big government than they let on.
In short, I agree with ILPB.
Now where did those dark clouds come from?
I believe that was 18th Gate to Hell. ILPB and Rando agree, now if Ivan comes in agreeing, and we throw in Dhoti….. I believe we have opened the final gate to hell and Satan will walk the earth. But don’t worry we still have Chuck Norris.
Oooooh, I wouldn’t worry about that happening. LOL
Not to worry. You know my feelings on religion.
Forgot to change my name on the laptop. It becomes more appropriate every day.
Hubby’s uncle looks like Chuck Norris. I kid you not. He even has a black belt in Karate.
But does he have the living beard?
Uh.. *runs off to see if Uncle Chuck has the living beard*
I’m not convinced that the Republicans were ever the party of “morality”. That’s obviously the message the left is putting out there, based on the Rove strategy of courting Christians. But courting Christian voters is not the same thing as courting morality — at least I don’t think so.
That’s why I didn’t ask about gay marriage protesters, because it’s easy to paint the people who protest as fringers. (See Tea Party protesters on the right and anti-Israel protesters on the left.) I’m more concerned that, by accepting that characterization from the left, we’re smearing “uppity Christians” (defined as Christians who don’t keep their opinions entirely to themselves — see mabsba’s definition of “my right not to be bothered”, I think it actually makes the point pretty well) as the “loony right”.
I think the party that goes on about traditional family values comes off as the party of morality. The party that courts those who want to rub their morality in everyone’s faces sounds like the party of morality.
I think I see what you’re saying about the stereotypes of Christianity, and that it’s a small step between wiping our hands of just the extremists and wiping our hands of all Christians. With some of the more extreme anti-religious people, that’s a legitimate concern. But overall, it’s not that fine a line.
You mean like how Democrats rub greenwashing and gay marriage in everyone’s faces? Yeah, they really suck.
So, what, you’re defending Christian extremists now or is it just a chance to take a shot at Democrats? I’m not sure where you’re going with this.
Whichever way you are going, he’s going to be going the opposite direction. Not a hard trend to follow.
I’m just pointing out how “the good guys” aren’t above rubbing their morality in everyone’s faces when it suits their purposes. I thought it was pretty self-evident, actually.
Who are “the good guys” and who is “everyone’s faces”? It’s not as self-evident as you thought.
No, you’re just a little slow on the uptake because you’re trying to read and troll at the same time.
Yeha, lurd mookiee.
And the semantics battle begins. Gay marriage isn’t about morality. It’s about people’s rights. And the environment is about saving the planet, which isn’t about morality.
If you actually thought about it for a minute, instead of reflexively whining or stonewalling or complaining about how discussing it is pointless and annoying or whatever you’re deciding to do now, you’d realize the underlying motivations are precisely the same.
It should be intuitively obvious that a group of zealots trying to force their particular interpretation of gay marriage on all of us is no different than a group of zealots trying to force their particular flavor of religion on us, or a group of environmental zealots trying to force their particular beliefs on us. It’s all about having faith that certain things are right, certain other things are wrong, and people must be forced to think and act like you believe.
Okay then. If you’re gonna be like that, I’m walking away. I’m too tired to battle through mudslinging with you. You wanna declare victory this time, go ahead. I’m too tired to care.
Every time I post lately, there you are, like a bad rash — whining about how I’ll never listen to you, or that it’s pointless to even answer, or how I couldn’t possibly change my mind because of what you say. Again. And again. And again.
Obviously you’ve given up on being logical and rational and civil, and you just want to play the poor, pathetic victim. I have no idea why.
Put up or shut up. Your whining is getting annoying; either start acting like an adult again, or don’t, and just go away.
Your choice.
Who wouldn’t reasonably quit talking with you. All you do is say “no” and then insult people. It’s pathetic.
“Greenwashing”? I’m not sure what you mean by that term. Like the green movement in some evangelical Southern Baptist churches?
It’s when they baptist you in green water.
What if you’re allergic to algae?
I googled it. He means the Democrats are trying to make a buck off of promoting the environment.
Close — I meant exploiting BS environmental “gains” for the purpose of gaining political power. Throwing around bogus morality for political points, in other words.
Do what now?
Greenwashing?
My mother was friends with some of those folks who voted Republican for the ‘morality’. Oy. They saw Bush II as ‘their president’, and figured he would ban abortion and gay anything, and bring about the start of the second coming. Unfortunately, I kid not. Their mother saw my mother (Episcopalian) as a ‘righteous pagan’. And she was the most open-minded of the group.
While the distinction between Christian Right and mainstream Christians is a bit subjective, I think there are definitely examples of pretty obvious extremists. I think those who want legislate religious morals tend to be on the extreme side, for instance.
The difference is rather clear if you ask me. Those willing to push legislation based on their religious beliefs are the “fringers”. Anyone else is just voicing their opinion; even if it’s offensive to some these people are harmless.
It would seem harmless, but some of those people voicing their opinions tend to be rather influential and influence people into voting for their religious beliefs.
Point taken, but there’s really nothing we can do about that unless we’re willing to 5h:t all over the Constitution.
No one asked you. Sorry. I had to. *giggles madly and runs off*
I was curious about the etymology of the term Christian Right. Falwell used the term ‘religious right’ to describe himself for some time until it began to be used in the pejorative sense by those that disagreed with him.
Apparently 15% of Americans associate themselves with the Christian right in public opinion polls.
wikipedia tells all -click
No, he specifically said “The Christian Right”, not the Christians. I took that to mean the telling screaming people like this guy, not the normal Christians who do normal Christian things.
Personally, I don’t understand why the Republicans seem to do so much pandering to them, it just makes the lefties nervous. I also don’t understand why the Democrats do so much pandering to the crazies we have on our side, because that makes the righties nervous. But, like I think Rando said, it’s because those people yell louder.
You know you’ve fvcked up as a Politician when the center is out protesting.
I know!
The crazies are louder so there appears to be more of them than there really are. Also, they tend to be more defined in their demands. Politicians go for numbers, not ethics, so the crazies are instantly appealing to them.
Hmmm.. Maybe “understand” is too strong a word..
And the crazies can be depended on to vote, if you go their way–which is how some survive the primary season. *sigh*
once upon a time they did have their own party – it was called the moral majority with jerry falwell as the leader. it was pretty much regarded as a fringe group until a certain former actor turned governor wanted to play in the white house with mommy’s psychic. after 8 yrs of a alzheimer president, parts of the moral majority were eaten by pat robertson’s political machine, known as the christian coalition…
Go on. Pull my finger….
… and apparently to most Pundit Kitchen posts.
This is brilliant, and sooooooooooooooo true. Without hate this racist jerk would be peddling Bibles in redneck country and we would have never heard of him.
I was fond of the Those About to Rock reference one.
I concur….. Or OZZFEST here I come!!!
The Force is not so strong with this one
I remember a similar quote from FFX.
Jimmy Swaggert was better, while getting his rocks off with hookers. Pat might improve if he took the Swaggert example to heart. He looks like it’s been a looooong time.
He’s fine. He gets off to his own hatred all the time. It’s a long constant hate-gasm for him.
*hurk*
Mental images charro did not need..
*passes the mental bleach*
*scrubs vigorously*
Scrub all you want. That one will stay with you forever. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!
Well, Swaggart was related to Jerry Lee Lewis. Guess showmanship runs in the family. And pervy-ness.
Yuk, this is too true to be funny.
Oh, I dunno…picture him thinking that in Yoda’s voice and it’s hilarious. (YMMV.)
lmao. ok the yoda voice totally makes this one.
But I don’t like associating Yoda with such a prick…. can we like change it to Jar Jar Binks or something.
Then you’d end up with something like “God loves meesa…and yousa will be damned!” and that’s just no fun at all.
Yeah but neither is associating Yoda with Pat Roberston… I’d rather associate Bush to Hitler, Obama to Stalin, Ukrainian Stewardesses (with GREAT legs) to Sweidsh military chicks, Belgian Flag with a German flag, Chilian Falg with Texan Flag….. I mean come on… associate crap with crap..
*is ashamed to share the last name with above pictured nutjob*
I promise we’re not related!
**looks into Cpt Wow’s family tree** Nope don’t see the douche bag root… however there is the booty shaking on a table root….. **eyes Cpt Wow leeringly suspiciously**
*shakes her booty on a table*
It’s in my ‘jeans’!
*joins Wow on the table* Me too, we must be related!!
Nucky Robertson and Wow Robertson. Who named you people?
No, you misunderstand, my name isn’t Robertson, I just have booty shaking jeans which would make us related. Sheesh!
genes, not jeans.
Those too
*takes her genes off and dances on the table*
EWWWWWWWWWW! No one wants to see that!
I do!!!
Are you sure? Once she starts gene-stripping, who knows what we’ll end up with!
Pfft. You gotta be more specific then. Now get back to that booty shaking!
*shakes booty some more* Jeez, slave driver!
Huh. Cpt. Wow Robertson. Never saw it coming.
When she was young she played Cops and Roberstons….
*giggles and keeps dancing on the table*
“Avra Kedavra”? What happened to “Abracadabra”? Was there a Meeting of the Magicians this year and I missed it? I thought it was in Syracuse in September!
nao… i’m buying you the harry potter series for your birthday!
*mumbles* only person on the planet who doesn’t know what avada kedavra is…*continues mumbling*
**raises hand** Dat der umm Harry Potter books force da der dum sorcery on me and my kin. Da devil be in dem books. Actually no interest, even less in Twilight.
HP is so so so so so much better than twilight. the stories actually have plot and there are repercussions for almost everything that happens. JKR kills characters when it fits the story rather than creating some new mythological crap just as a cop-out.
twilight is like candy. you know it’s bad for you but every once in a while you’ll read/eat it anyway… and you’ll usually regret it later too.
harry potter is more like meat and potatoes… a good solid meal but you can’t live on it entirely. you have to expand your reading beyond that. but for a generation of kids who grew up as harry grew up they were fantastic books. i still really enjoy them and they’re fun for the most part.
My wife practically forced me to read the first one. The other 6 just kinda came naturally. Despite being marketed as kids books, I really don’t think of them that way.
i reluctantly read the first one because it was a “kid book”. and then i was hooked. i read it when only 1-3 were out… then i pre-ordered every single one of the last 4. my book 6 came early and i’d almost finished it by the actual release date… i was so happy!
My wife used to work for Scholastic, and they gave everyone book 4 for free when it came out. My wife got majorly dorked up when she dressed our kids up for either book 5 or 6′s midnight release.
**shakes head at Rando** what’s next dressing as Master Chief for Halo 38 Release?
Dressing kids is one thing. That still counts as “cute.” I’m not into cosplay myself. I have limits. *preorders next Halo game* What? I still want the game.
i was a douche… i cried at the funeral in 6. and was pretty upset over some of the deaths in 7…… some of those characters were so well developed and then one swish of a wand and they were just GONE! it was imperative to the story to kill them off… but it was still sad. and you just wished some of the more less like-able characters would bite it rather than the beloved ones.
book 4 was good. the end of it was REALLY good. it was pretty awesome in the movie too… ralph fiennes is just too good at creeptacular!
4 was good, 5 was dull until the end, 6 was awesome but a bit of a shocker, and 7 was killer from beginning to end. I never really liked 2, as it seemed rather insignificant until book 6. 1 & 3 are pretty good, though. You can almost split the series into 3 sections: the earlier lighter books (1-3), the transition book (4), then the darker, more sinister books (5-7).
JKR Killed off my favourite twin! Yes. I had a favourite between the two twins. *goes to comfort George*
i was avoiding mentioning a twin death for those who haven’t read the story yet. but yes, he was my favorite too. she also killed off my favorite newly-wed parents…
Shorty, I bawled like a baby at the funeral in 6 and then pretty much cried for every death after that. My only complaint for the last book was the frickin’ pages and pages of them travelling and looking for the horcruxes. Seriously, that so could have been slimmed down a bit.
I live ‘up north’ near Alnwick Castle which was used as a location for the films. It was always fun when a new book came out – not that ‘I’ ever got childish though . . .!!
Ok, that really does say happy hooker.
creaturefeature, are you making rugs?
. . . erm well – YES! it’s the rugs and summer sweaters – YES that’s it – that’s right!
All innocent – nothing sleazy going on here!!
*whew – think I got away with that*
Hmmm…what are your prices…uh, for the rugs, that’s it! And the sweaters!
Depends on the size of the job . . .
I’m actually really ticked off at future generations as far as HP goes. THEY don’t have to wait years for the next book. *grumbles*
yeah and one of the HP books came out the same day as i had tickets to LOTR in concert… directed by freaking howard shore! i think it was HP7. the concert was like 3 hours long and it was pure hell knowing the book was sitting in my car in the parking lot for when i got home. all i wanted to do was read it and see what happened! but i also wanted to focus on the concert b/c it had never before seen sketches and storyboards and other stuff like that…
You think you had it bad? I had to wait until for my wife to read the whole thing before I even got to touch it. Fortunately, it only took her like a day or two to read, so it wasn’t that bad.
We actually bought two hardcover copies of Deathly Hallows the day it came out so that my son and I wouldn’t kill each other over a single copy!
I refused to read it, not because it was a kids book (seriously, that never stops me), but because it was popular, the year before book 7 came out I finally agreed to read it, but said I would wait until the last book came out so I didn’t have to wait between books. It was totally worth waiting.
I REFUSE TO BE SUCKED IN!
*sucks Charro…………….in*
Me, too! Je refuse. I have two (count ‘em: TWO) of Stephen Brust’s Vlad Taltos series books to read! Between all my computer time and eating and sleeping, how will I have time to start anything else?
You obviously need to give up the sleeping, d’uh.
I never read the Harry Potter books, although we listened to them on audio during road trips. Fairly well written, I thought.
conversation for conversations sake.
do you get the same out of audio books that you do out of paper books? I don’t really have a lot of audio book experience. The one book we started on a road trip we never finished, but i think that was because it was a Tom Clancy book and turned out more sleepy than interesting.
It depends on both the book and the narrator, some books lend themselves better to audio format in general. A really good one is Max Brooks ‘World War Z’. The book is one person interviewing people who have survived the zombie apocalypse so the audio book has the author reading the narrators part and different people reading the parts of each interviewee.
Another factor is whether or not you like dramatizations, or just straight readings, some books (like the above example) use different people to read different parts which not everyone likes. Also, you can get abridged versions of many books, if you don’t have time to listen to the whole thing or the author was paid by the word and tends to carry on
Hmm. It’s a good question. We discuss it a lot in my book group because often there are people who have done both.
I’m old enough that I’ve been listening to audio books that I first read decades ago, so in that case, it’s about equal.
For first time ‘reads,’ sometimes the audio can be better, especially true in cases where the narrator does great regional accents. “BEowulf” was amazing on audio. A lot depends on the narrator. Apparently one author who narrated her own book was absolutely dreadful, a very slow, drawling reader that made at least one person get the regular book and read it. lol. My sister often selects her audio books by the narrator. (You can usually search that way on a library system.)
I think I remember books better that I actually read, but even that depends on what I’m doing while listening. I don’t usually listen while driving except on road trips. It’s the house crap that I do while listening.
For me it’s really about time. I try to read everything my son reads, plus I often have to read books for work. A lot that I want to read is not on audio, so listening to what IS on audio frees up more time to read those. (FOr some reason the four volume set of “The World of Mathematics” from 1959 is not on audio. Imagine that.)
I enjoyed the audio versions of the Timothy Zahn “Star Wars” novels. They were read by Anthony……crap, went blank. The guy who played C3P0. *sadly hands over geek card*
with a daily commute like mine i could probably absorb a book or two a week. My regular morning talk show isn’t really doing for me anymore, and the Hannity 4 hour block is too entertaining for me to just put a CD in. I need to get some audio books, i;ll start with Max Brooks ‘World War Z’, sounds pretty awesome.!
I don’t have a ‘commute,’ per se. When I go TO work (ie when I am working elsewhere than home), it’s usually only 10-15 minutes, not really long enough to listen to something. Also, the tape deck broke in my car. Now it’s just a tape recycling device.
@mabsba I think i’m in love.
Beowulf, check
house crap, check
four volume set of “The World of Mathematics”, check!!!!!!
on a serious note, reading everything your son reads is one of the most extraordinary easy plain as can see ideas of parenting i’ve ever heard. read together, what a concept. so do you take this into middle school, and high school reading material, possibly into college? if nothing else you re-educate yourself and/or learn what the ebil gobernment is brainwashing our children with. that was a joke, and so is this *innocent singing children* Barrack Hussein Obama, Barrack Hussein Obama* i’m rambling, but very hopeful.
i should of quit right before, “on a serious note”………. my sarcasm does not come through well
My son is actually a junior in a private precollegiate HS, hence the Beowulf. I think people are such morons as parents sometimes. Your teenager doesn’t talk to you? What interests do you share? Anyone can read the books their kid gets. Also means you can help with homework if needed. I don’t play his video games, except for Spore. I’m not very good at it, but he’s willing to play it with me, so I play it.
I always get eaten.
The math set was my dad’s. I inherited all his math books. (No one else wanted them, lol.) I don’t usually read his history books as he’s usually using them, but he explains to me all the fascinating details of such things as people need to specify WHICH French revolution (they had at least five), the Romans didn’t persecute Christians (not any more than any other group), etc.
Sarcasm = okay. If I think someone’s being rude, I will just say “Excuse me?” and let them explain. It’s hard to always be clear when you’re typing.
well it’s really when i hit the “ebil government” part that the sarcasm kicks in, but after reading the whole thing i realize it’s kind of hard to tell if i was being sarcastic the whole time or what…thats why i mentioned it. i really do think reading with or what your children read is a good idea, regardless of their age.
Well, I prefer NOT to assume that someone meant to be rude. Besides I’ve read enough of your posts to get the general tone.
BTW, I think Twain would be awesome to listen to on a commute if you found a good narrator. (Sorry, I do deal with a lot of teenagers. It tends to creep into my language. OMG, you know.
)
the first book i really feel in love with was Twain’s “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court”. I was in high school and grounded for 3 months. We had an open pasture behind our house in Lubbock, TX. The grass and weeds were tall enough that i could not be seen from the house. I found a spot were i could read and smoke cigarettes and not be bothered. Twain’s “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court” was originally a school assignment but i finished it weeks before the class had. Sadly Dean Koontz is the only author in the last 5 years that i’ve read and actually kept me turning the pages like i did back in the day. I say sadly because i know a lot of people think Koontz isn’t a great writer, but he seems to work for me.
I read Koontz’s “Good Guy” and I wasn’t really impressed with him, I liked his vocabulary usage and the banter the characters had, but the over plot just had to many holes and the characters just didn’t really come alive to me. Also, lately, he has been obsessed with his dead dog. I think he’s written three or four books just about her (including one that was written by her after she died). I know people can get really attached to their pets, but I think the man needs some serious counseling at this point.
Okay, I don’t think I’ve read Koontz (which is oldspeak for I can’t remember), but I love Twain and I love the author my son found, Terry Pratchett. I think he has a lot of Twain’s type of humor, and the writing is excellent.
I haven’t read any of his new stuff. It’s been several years since i picked up a book for recreational purposes. Your criticism is sort of why i say that “sadly” Koontz is the last author i’ve read. i will not hesitate to say that the books i read, in my opinion, were entertaining and enjoyable for me. same reason i liked “The Hardy Boys” and the “Fantastic Four”. I don’t read like i used to when i was younger. Now i just hate everything.
@mabsba my first Koontz book was “Sole Survivor”. Before Koontz, i loved Stephen King and Micheal Crichton. but Koontz took me to a place in between those two writers, between crazy fiction and realist fiction and Koontz throws in some real supernatural stuff like esp, leaving one’s body, aliens, and reincarnation.
I’ve i were trying to persuade you to like Koontz, which i’m not….wink, wink, … I’d tell you that for a first book “Sole Survivor” is a great introduction to Koontz fictional reality.
I’m trying to finish a book my son’s friend gave him, then we’ve also been reading Tamora Pierce’s books and trying to decide who in RL the different ethnic groups in her books represent and the symbolism of magic. Now he’s on Catch-22, but fortunately I just re-read that, so for once I’m ahead (sort of). Yay. My current audios are some of Christie’s mysteries. I think my list is making me tired. I will ask hubby about the Koontz book; he’ll know if I would like it.
Bedtime. Two kitties have to go for annual vet visits in the am.
Good night, and i hope your cats don’t pee in your car (from experience).
I need to read more. I hate that the only authors I can really talk about enjoying are (in this order) Dean Koontz, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C Clark, Micheal Crichton, Stephen King, Mark Twain, The Hardy Boys, and Marvel Comics. I know there’s so much more out there. I’m kind of excited to go buy a book tomorrow!
I love the Tamora Pierce books. I started reading them back in middle school and now I wait every year for her new book. I’m told her books are very similar to Mercedes Lackey but I’ve never read any of hers. Another series you and your son might like is Westerfields “Uglies” quartet. It’s really good, but as one of my coworkers says, it is very poorly marketed, it doesn’t look like something that would be appealing to the type of people who read that genre.
Wicket: You should definitely read Terry Pratchett, he’s a great author and has a wonderful sense of humour, though I don’t know how any of his audio books are.
I’ll second the recommendation of Terry Pratchett, with the note that I don’t “do” audio books.
But . . . . it’s a kids’ book. You can’t expect me to read young fiction, can you?
Sheesh.
After reading all of the above . . . I guess you can.
Maybe.
As long as you don’t tell anybody.
Actually, although they’re all categorized as kids’ books, the writing and the subject matter gets pretty mature by the last book. (Not “mature” as in a bunch of sex, “mature” as in “concepts that are way over the head of the average 10 year old.”)
Also, good childrens’ novels generally make good reading for adults, too. It’s not like sitting down as an adult and trying to re-read Nancy Drew or Babysitters’ Club and wondering how in the HELL it kept your attention when you were young.
I don’t know what avada kedavra is…
It’s a spell from Harry Potter that kills instantly. /geek
Damn you Rando! I was remaining willfully ignorant!
What has been learned can never be unlearned.
*rings the Bell of Truth*
Cheese comes from cows.
*rings Bell of Truth*
Miss Lippy’s car….is green.
*rings Bell of Truth*
Actually, it’s white.
*rings Bell of Truth*
Billy likes soda.
*rings Bell of Truth*
This milk could be our milk.
Sideburns would rather have a beer.
*rings bell of Truth*
That’s assault, brothah.
*rings Bell of Truth*
I don’t remember who said it but, after this moron’s remarks about Haiti someone pointed out that if he had been accused of being a Christian in ancient Rome he would have been set free for lack of evidence.
^ What he said. For damn sure.
LULZ!!
Robertson-Palin 2012!
You’re dismissed….
*gags chad and tosses him into a straight jacket*
Move along, nothing to see here…. just some wingnut.
*hangs chad from a coathook by his straitjacket*
Oooh, look! A hanging chad!
you owe me a new vanilla frappuccino. it tastes like crap through your nose….
A hanging chad? Well, that means his vote doesn’t count.
How about no, you crazy dutch bastard???
Get some new material man… already been used… I award you no points, and may God have mercy upon your soul.
But I love that line. And ERIC’S PREGNANT! He’s gonna be a soccer player. Yes he is.
Nucky we need to get Eric to realize he’s gonna be a hockey player. Soccer is for wussies!!!
Hockey is an expensive sport to play, and after last night, I doubt any Canadian is gonna help any American in the slightest when it comes to hockey.
You do realize that paying all that medical bills for constantly getting beat up by the girls for playing a girl sport does get expensive… OH WAIT you’ll have Nationalized Health Care by then..
USA USA USA USA USA USA USA Hockey… Miller was da $hit. Ok I take back my making fun of US Hockey.. and I shoulda had more faith in them. I’m just used to our team sports dissapointing, Baseball, Basketball, Women’s and Men’s hockey last time.
I thought the same thing, dude. Most of us did. It didn’t help that they didn’t look that good against the Swiss in their first game, but boy have they found a groove. And Miller stood on his fvcking head last night! My FB status asks the question, is it too early to start building a statue in his honor? On paper, the Canadians should’ve wiped the floor with us. But the Americans played with real grit, and the Canadians played without discipline. And Brodeur was downright human last night too.
And my kids don’t play soccer. I was quoting Billy Madison, smart ass. The fact that my name is Eric doesn’t really help. And yes, I get that line quoted at me quite a bit. LOL
Well…..Eric Is pregnant….Er…Mrs. Eric anyways.
Women’s basketball would have made you all happy…if you could have found it!
Psst…..Rando, baby Nucky can play soccer. S’okay with me. My son (this is so hard to admit) hates hockey and is a huge soccer fan/player. *wipes tears from her eyes* On the bright side, he’s eyeing the moguls as something he’d like to try.
Push him down a bumpy hill, then see if he wants to try the moguls. That sh!t looks downright painful. I’ve never been on skis in my life, and I intend to keep it that way for the rest of my life.
My son is not particularly athletic. My daughter probably could play hockey. She has that aggressive mentality, and somehow got a more athletic build than, well, anyone in our family. Again, it’s expensive though.
One of my daughters played hockey for a year; I suggest getting your daughter into it early if she’s interested. It was very challenging catching up with kids who’d been playing for several years when she tried it at 13! (She loooooved it, too….unfortunately it’s not a hugely popular sport in our area, so the following year she would’ve had to start playing with the high school kids, it’s coed, and she’s about my size. Figured she’d be sitting on the bench all season if she didn’t get body-checked down to 2 dimensions.)
@Rando–kids-size second-hand hockey gear is easy to find if you look for it!
Viking Gal, the moment when she first put on her pads and jersey and looked at herself in the mirror and exclaimed “I look like a SUPERHERO!” was awesome. She’s a very quiet girl, and it was so good to watch her getting out there and doing something aggressive.
The gear is only part of the issue. The cost of joining a league is insane.
Well, don’t think soccer is cheap. My nephew is a senior, and my sister and I were talking about college costs and she was figuring probably $5K this last year just on soccer. And that’s not for any extra coaching fees, just his HS team and his one other team. I’m not sure if we figured in the gas at that point; I accidentally hung up on her. lol.
I don’t know how much it is there, here one of the main reasons it was expensive is that there is only one venue in over 100 miles with facilities and they knew they had a seller’s market. Ice time ain’t cheap, especially with a monopoly. And, yes, all games were either road games for us or for the opposing team. Do it anyway if you can, it’s really a great sport for kids!
Oh, definitely not knocking it, just trying to point out that all sports seem to be expensive nowadays. One of my husband’s colleagues had a daughter who was seriously into hockey; she ended up in a HS in a different state because there’s not a lot of hockey here. BUT she received more than one full ride college scholarships as a top female hockey player.
I don’t ski, LOL. Hopefully, he didn’t inherit my knees, otherwise, he’s hooped for anything that involves jumping, running, walking…….heehee
There’s nothing wrong with Soccer. It’s a great sport, and nothing about says “girly man” or “wvssy”. I’ve played league Basketball, intramural Baseball, and lots of league Soccer. All sports have tactical differences so i won’t touch on that. But by far, Soccer is more aggressive and physical demanding than either Basketball or Baseball.
This isn’t an endorsement for baby Nucky but to quell some of the “girly man” statements; broken bones are to Soccer, what broken teeth are to Hockey. Hardly a sport for the timid, the weak, or the squeamish.
wicket likes soccer. *snicker*
Et tu Rando!!!
Soccer is for the true hard-a$$es! No helmets, no pads except for the ankles. You are totally exposed, unlike those hockey and football wienies!
I thought it was rugby that was for the true hard-a$$es?
Do a youtube search for “soccer injuries” and you get about 2,500 results and each one is no less painful to watch than the last. i cringe everytime i see a knee turn backwards or a bone sticking out someone’s sock.
But Diss is right, soccer doesn’t have the hard-@ss trophy, that has to go to rugby. Those guys are tough!
Rugby Union is the game for real hard-@$$es; Imagine playing American Football, but without the helmets and body armour!
Sorry, dude, I’m a hockey fan all the way. I’ve never gotten into soccer, but if you like it that’s cool. Most of the planet except us Americans like it, so we’re a little outnumbered.
Contrary to popular belief, soccer is the number 1 sport for the youth of America. Not exactly sure why it gets such a bad reputation amongst adults. One theory is that FIFA refuses to put in TV timeouts during their televised games, in other words there’s not very much money in making the sport any more popular than it already is. Basically 45 minutes of no commercials, then half-time, then 45 more minutes of no commercials. Not surprising that it hasn’t “made it big” in America.
and Rando, i know you didn’t say anything bad about the sport and were just kind of making a funny. Some of the statements by ILPB got me on the defensive. Similar to how people say “band nerds” or “computer geek” like they are bad things…i was both by the way, and apparently i’m a “soccer wussy” too. I know, for the most part, it’s all in good fun; but sometimes it’s not and someone has to stick up for the little guy, or the minority in this case.
Wicket, part of that may be an age thing. There certainly were NO soccer teams when I was growing up. I don’t dislike soccer, but I don’t follow it (but I don’t follow most sports). It’s only been the last few decades that soccer was available everywhere, and it’s fought a constant uphill battle for money and resources against football (and other established sports, but mostly football).
I think it’s popular for kids because it’s perceived as being safer (not actually true) and cheaper, which is definitely true for younger players. After all, you can have a soccer team in every park. You only have football teams at schools with football fields.
Wicket: Played soccer up until **soft voice** Jr High and swimming took priority…… In HS I was that rarity Football, Swimming, and Sprinter in Track (190 lb White guy sprinting, you should have seen the looks I got). However there was a healthy rivalry between our guys soccer and guys football (wierdly enough the soccer guys got the cheerleaders we got the girls soccer team, odd!!) I respect soccer, it’s just SOOOOO boring, and like NASCAR 99 minutes of the SAME thing and 1 minute of action. No offense mate, and yes Rugby or Australian Football are the shiznitz in tough guys.
Isn’t that the democrats’ dream candidate coupling?
Yes it is, but on the off chance that they actually win (due to the feelings towards Dems right now) then I wouldn’t want to live in that country. Remember no one gave Clinton a chance, even Reagan was somewhat an underdog. Let’s not risk it. Plus do you REALLY want to listen to those debates and/or commercials for four months.
Meh, I wouldn’t hafta listen. ;p
“Vote Palin/Robertson…or you really are going to hell.”
Dems commerical: “A vote for Palin/ Roberston is a vote for all to go to hell.”
Yeah, it’d be the Republican version of Kerry/Edwards.
Yeah but I pray we ain’t stupid enough to do the “Anybody but Obama mantra”, plus the media hates the conservatives so they won’t push so hard for candidates and turn off the American public.
Besides if Kerry/ Edwards had won few things would be going on:
1) New VP b/c Edwards would def have been ousted by now.
2) We’d be out of Iraq and Afghanastan, however Iraq would now be part of Iran and Afghanastan would be renamed Al Quedastan.
3) The Republicans would have congress already.
4) Obama the semi-socialist wouldn’t be in office now, so MLK’s dream would have to wait until Condy decided to run.
5) Did y’all really want Herman Munster in the White House. (Plus he was kinda an a$$ at the airport one day, thought he didn’t need to take off his shoes, unload lap top {aid’s}, etc….)
1) I’ll give you that one. Edwards is pure sleaze.
2) Now, you don’t know that, and honestly, I wish we had our hands out of the middle east altogether. It’s always gonna be a nasty area, and it shouldn’t be any of our business. And if there wasn’t oil there, it WOULDN’T be any of our business.
3) God, I hope not. Just because the Democrats have power for a couple years doesn’t mean the country is automatically gonna swing back to the right.
4) Hmmm…that’s probably true. Although Obama would’ve gotten a chance to run in 2012.
5) No, we didn’t really want him in there. Thus the vote for “Anyone but Bush.” I mean, seriously, a rotten pumpkin should’ve been able to beat Bush in ’04. The fact the Bush won again, and more easily than in ’00 (I’ll be good and skip the election-was-rigged theories) said a lot about what kind of candidate Kerry was. We just figured he couldn’t f it up any worse than Bush had.
Rando:
1) WE agree again $hit it must be a Monday.
2) A weakened Iraq would be prime for one of two things: Iran take over or another Sadam to take over. There’s no way we can get out of the Middle EAst anymore, even if we get away from oil, b/c of somewhat of our melding, the radicalism in the area, there will constantly be terrorism against Western Culture.
3) It’s pretty much a fact. In the modern era no Democratic President has held and or maintained same number of seats in Congress during the mid-term elections.
4) After eight years of Dems, the public would probably go back to Repubs in the White House, especially if the economy was like it is now. (I don’t think a sitting President can do much to make an economy tank as much as it has, however he/she can hinder it’s recovery).
5) Really Kerry not fvck stuff up. He’s just as liberal if not more so than Obama, and you see how America loves liberalism in the White House.
2) Perhaps wishful thinking on my part. I hate seeing Americans dying trying to restore order to an area that has been fighting since the beginning of time. It’s never gonna work.
3) But somehow we always get power back again…which just means the American people are fickle. They think they want Republicans in charge, then decide that sucks. Then they put Democrats in charge, then decide that sucks. If either party was worth a damn, they’d be able to hold on to power for more than a few years at a time. Neither side ever has power long enough to actually do anything they want to do.
4) Well if Kerry was elected in ’04, it’s unlikely lightning would strike twice, so you’re right, it’d be President McCain right about now, barring a miraculous change of events from the previous four years (Kerry prevents the economy crashing down somehow, not likely to happen obviously, or he suddenly developed a personality…any personality at all). But, if the economy tanked as it did anyway, McCain would be knee-deep in the same sh!t Obama is right now. And frankly, I don’t think McCain is competent enough to handle it any better than Obama did, except he wouldn’t have had health care reform overshadowing it his first year.
2) I agree but the perfect storm occurred. Bottom line two cultures warred a long time ago, grudges were created, radicalism took over. The problem is that one side wouldn’t mind “ending it” however it’s a vicious cycle. Don’t know if you saw the movie The Kingdom, but it delves into that.
3) No it’s just that the American people don’t want one party in power too long, they complacent. Or one party deviates from the centrists ideals. It’s a pendulum in all countries with a very limited party system. The problem is Americans don’t really want anything done, just don’t fvck it up.
3) You can’t place your conservative mantra on America as a whole. Possibly your statement would be more all encompassing by saying that “Americans really want something done, just don’t fvck it up in the process”. That would be more inclusive of both sides of the political spectrum.
Look at the polls anytime “change” in invoked in Congress. It’s not a conservative mantra, it’s a “people fear change” mantra.
we could probably go back and forth on this one. Polls can say a lot of different things depending on how the questions are formed. Not to point out the obvious but the most important poll that says America wants change was a Presidential campaign the promised change, and then was elected. I definitely want change, seems like the Republicans are praying for a change, albeit they are different forms of change, but to say that Americans don’t want change isn’t really a true statement. that’s all i was saying.
Vote charro in 2016!
And Nucky for….um, Charro, what was I going to do for you again?
Ambassador to Canadian relations… ie Youth Hockey Program lead.
No, she was going to be one of my czarinas.
That’s right, I was going to be the czarina of boobie flashing!
Charro in 2012.
I can’t run in 2012 unless they pass an Amendment on that 35 years old to be Prez thing.
Rando/Charro 2016!
Rando: Unless you change your platform to Kate Beckinsale clones clad in Underworld Outfit to all Peanut Butter likers, then I’m sorry I just can’t get past the socialism thing…. sorry.
All hail our mermaid and Canadian overlords
World peace in 2012
On a Bright note it was rather nice to see an Aussie girl smash the Americans in the halfpipe at the olympics yesterday
Go Aussie girl!
Time to lay off the drugs, Chad.
…because when your in the wolf pac your just to SWEEEEEEETTTTT!!!!!
Hmmm….. instead of the simple-minded two-minute-hate, it would have been better to make it funny.
I mean … C’MON!! Look at the fingers! No “Satan” refs? NO HEAVY METAL? Seriously?
It’s like that Itchy & Scratchy where they never get to the fireworks factory!!!!
Dude, there are about 250 captions about metal or “rock on.” I like this one. I thought it was pretty clever.
But it associates Yoda with Pat Robertson….. made my inner geek cry. Still consoling it.
More like the anti-Yoda.
seriously, this is just Darth Sidious perverting yoda’s words as he speaks to a young annakin skywalker.
And considering Pat’s son is following in his footsteps…that works a lot better than you’d think.
Nooooo! Luke isn’t supposed to join the dark side! Pat’s son is supposed to rise up and destroy him or at least turn him to the light side again.
His son is supposed to rise up, turn Pat back to the side of good just before his death and kill Pats lord and master. Satan I think.
Nah Darth Sidious is Pope Benedict XVI, haven’t you seen the resemblance yet
And even I, a good jewish boy, don’t believe the Pope is crazy enough to endorse very much that Pat Robertson has to say
as a jew you killed Christ…. get him!!!!!! **picks up flaming torches and looks to see only Mel Gibson, men with no hair in combat boots, Pat Roberston, and Jerry Falwell behind** Umm sorry wrong audience ** puts down torch and backs away slowly**
“However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being.But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C,” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.” [Senator Barry Goldwater]
Case closed. Well not quite yet. Keep they religion to thy self. And hands off the altar boy.
Pat Robertson doesn’t get handsy with alter boys; that’s the Pope. Pat Robertson just tells the alter boys they’re going to Hell for being dirty little boys.
*tents fingers*
Dirty Little Boys. Excellent.
Just don’t “alter” them. I mean, that’s cruel. What is this?! Anne Rice’s “Cry to Heaven”?
Probably. She did jump the shark to religious fiction after all….
OK, maybe her writing CAREER “jumped the shark”, but really, the phrase means you’ve stuck with the same thing too long–same series, same whatever–you’re out of good material.
I think she has good material still in her, she just switched from “Happy Days” to “Lenny & Squiggy take the Vatican”.
Not to pick nits or anything.
You haven’t said anything about saving the boys from being altered, though! Save the boys’ balls!
Followed by the other 6 billion people…pretty much everyone except him. I thought it was great in Family Guy when everyone was taken in the rapture except Robertson & Jerry Falwell.
That mantra doesn’t seem to be working very well for Olbermann…
The comment points out that fear gets ratings, and then you point out that Olbermann has bad ratings. Seems like he’s doing it right.
Anyone with the name “Scott Thong” should not have a kitten as an avatar.
Ditto.
Pat Robertson …
Robert Pattinson…
….O.o
o.O… dab llems i
Dude, no one went there with the totally metal ‘horns’ he’s flashing! That’s okay. I just did.
AWESOME!!!!! Dude, i can’t believe no one else went there.
flip the name add letters-Rob Pattinson!