|Hooper_X - 2008-09-11 |
Why doesn't the AP ask me for my opinion about Sarah Palin? It's about as well formed as this guy's.
maybe they thought they were asking character Will Hunting on what he thought of the real world politics taking place at the moment.
Well, technically William Goldman wrote over half of Goodwill Hunting, but asked his name to be removed from the project because he hated it so much.
This is a possibility.
It's actually not true.
Only because no one is well informed about Sarah Palin, that's the problem (OK one of the problems)
|Desidiosus - 2008-09-11 |
A really bad Disney movie is an extremely accurate assessment.
|IrishWhiskey - 2008-09-11 |
Sarah Palin is f***ing Matt Damon.
|MrBuddy - 2008-09-11 |
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." -Abraham Lincoln
Even when Matt Damon is trying to make serious statements he's still entertaining.
|Cleaner82 - 2008-09-11 |
There is nothing more useless than a celebrity espousing their liberal-ness, but it is kind of nice that his terror mirrors my own.
|Caminante Nocturno - 2008-09-11 |
The problem being that most people don't seem to understand that reality is not like a bad Disney movie, or are violently determined to make it into one.
|Billy Buttsex - 2008-09-11 |
Replace "Palin" with "Obama," then replace "hockey mom" with "affirmative action college applicant," then replace "believes dinosaurs walked the earth four thousand years ago" with "believes in Great Society social programs" and you have the same feeling Republicans have had with Obama since the beginning.
You liberals deserve every bit of this.
Replace "creationist science" with "major security risk as we become less competitive in the world economy," replace "affirmative action college applicant" with "guy that didn't have any money," replace... wait, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.
You conservatives deserve every bit of this.
What? Seriously, are you ok?
the ideas of government taking an active roll in peoples lives came directly out of the business abusing the wage earners and not being able to do anything about it. in fact progressives or what you call "liberals" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries are directly responsible for the following:
-The citizens voting Senators into office (17th Amendment)
-Reducing the workday from 14 hours
-Women's right to vote (19th Amendment)
-Child labor laws (out of which schooling came)
-First consume protection laws: Meat Inspection Act, Pure Food and Drug Act.
I don't know, perhaps you prefer eating sausage rejected for import by Europe because it has grown moldy, then ground up again and resold to Americans?
Also we have the National Park system because of progressives. Specifically because of Theodore Roosevelt, whom his part the Republicans, did not like at all. He was put on the ticket with McKinley to give him a do nothing position (get rid of him) while boosting McKinley's chance at a second term with a war hero of the Spanish-American War.
Your analogy doesn't work, Buttsex, for reasons I know you have absolutely no response to.
Palin herself referred to herself as a "hockey mom", as if it were a badge of honor. Obama, on the other hand, never used such a trite and simplistic way of eliciting jingoistic American feelings from people, so it would only work if he had called himself, say, a "hockey dad."
This "affirmative action" comment is extra funny, as Obama got a merit based scholarship based on his exceeding as academics.
Meanwhile, both McCain and Bush both got into their prestigious institutions despite an abysmal academic record (bottom of his class and D student respectively) due to their elite family connections.
Yes, Republicans used to be the party of environmentalism. Republicans gave us National Parks, National Forests and the Environmental Protection Agency, for which our wilderness lovers have everything to thank. That's just one of the nice things they have abandoned on their long decline into fundamentalist insanity.
Way to stick it to us Billy, laugh it up and fuck your country over. You can gloat the whole way down.
Here's a fun quiz for you morons.
Which is more insane?
a) Palin: "I believe the world was created 4,000 years ago because it says so in the bible."
b) Obama: "I believe Jesus Christ is the son of God, but I refuse to accept the validity of books of the bible he relies on to claim godhood.
Yeah, that's not even close to being a difficult question. A.
Its not only possible to have faith without accepting every word of the Bible literally, but its how the overwhelming majority of the world's people and churches view it. Only an extreme fringe think its necessary to count generations in the Bible to reach a number that tells you the age of the earth, or that Revelations will happen as stated with dragons and whores everywhere.
So you guys think it's completely sane to consider someone the son of God, but not believe the stuff he says is the word of God?
My point is that they're both equally "insane," and for you to single Palin out as being different is retarded. Either Obama is lying, or he's equally "nuts."
billy, no retort on the fact progressive-ism aka liberalism has provided much of what you take for granted today?
That's a loaded question, Billy. One bases their belief system on that book; the other believes it as a source of faith, but doesn't think the whole fucking universe exists by its precepts.
Also, fuck you.
I'm trying to remember the part of the Bible where Jesus says the world is 4,000 years old, but having difficulty...
And not sharing the same interpretation of the Bible as Billy Buttsex, Sarah Palin and Pat Robertson isn't a diagnostic for insanity. Quite the opposite in fact.
Simon666: I completely agree with everything you said above, and I think classical progressives deserve much appreciation for the things they've done. However, this doesn't legitimize the policies of the Left today, as they're almost entirely against democratic (meaning, pertaining to democracy) and Christian values that capitalism and liberty depend on. So in short: yes, no need for a retort.
Deo: a source of faith in WHAT? In God? In his interactions with mankind? On a Christ-based worldview? That all relies on one thing: truth and factual statements about spirituality. Come on... you can't be that retarded.
Irish: Jesus referenced the fall of Adam and said he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. The purpose of the law? Combatting man's sin so they can get closer to god. Sin came from where? The fall of Adam in the garden of Eden. It's true that he never mentions the exact date of the earth's existence, but the book of Genesis is very clear that God created Adam, spoke to him, and cursed him after Adam purposely disobeyed. Without that, there is no Jesus.
I'd run to vote for an openly atheist candidate that didn't handle believers with kid gloves.
The two are not equal at all. You don't understand Christianity Bill, because you have this puritanical crap shoved down your throat. Fundamentalism isn't Christianity, it's a bastard offshoot of Christianity. I spent the better part of a decade in Catholic schools, and never once did I hear that everything in the Bible was literally true. The idea that to be a good Christian you have to swallow it all down at once with a big gulp is utter horseshit and it's one of the biggest myths regarding Christianity in our time.
To say, "The word of God as spoken by man is spiritually but not always literally true," is not the same as "I will defy common sense by stipulating that cavemen rode dinosaurs."
Billy, there are mountains of evidence CLAIMED by CHRISTIANS to be created by GOD which point to the Earth NOT being 4,000 years old but in fact about 4.55 billion.
So I guess a moldy old book trumps observable testable evidence then like radiometric dating.
Shorter Billy Buttsex: HUGLAGHALGHALGHAL COCKS
("Shorter" concept courtesy of Sadly, No!)
I love the part in the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus says how much he hates evolution and that God made bananas to be eaten by Men in a Neo-Calvinist way because bananas are straight and can be peeled. Christ was really on top of things, and I mean things other than crucifixes and mounts.
baleen: "What? Seriously, are you ok?"
seriouslyuguys: "I'm fine, why do you ask."
Something is not right here.
I just realized that happened in the conversation! Haha!
What a successful troll Billy Buttsex is.
Doin's a transpirin'! Fraudin's a' formulatin'!
Dear Mr. Buttsex,
I'm on a law review, and calling the editor of the Harvard Law Review an "affirmative action college applicant" is one of the most ignorant motherfucking things I've ever heard. You don't get pity points for being a darky or whatever dumbfuck theory you came up with about how Obama didn't really "belong" there, you racist twat. It's a flagship institution that gets cited by the Supreme Court rather frequently, they do take it a little seriously.
Getting on to a law review is an anonymous process, everyone is assigned a number. You have to beat out 90% of the competition (which is already the overachievers) in a ridiculously grueling write-on competition that takes place, ha ha, immediately after your ridiculously grueling 1L finals.
Then if you want to make the jump to editor in chief you damn well better get a perfect score on all your assignments and write a SOLID comment, otherwise you won't even be in the running. And of course, you will be doing all of this in your spare time, which law school students are famous for having tons of.
I wish I could describe what being an EiC is like, but I honestly have no idea other than that it's a whole other level of suck. You did such a good job you get to doublecheck everyone else's work, every horrible little detail, and make sure it's all put together properly. Remember, a lot of people are watching, don't blow this. It does look nice on the resume, though. Valedictorian is a chump by comparison.
But hey, it was just Harvard, no real competition there. I'm sure it's basically the same as getting a BA degree in communications or journalism or whatever the fuck from the University of Idaho.
PS. Remember: you are ALWAYS this wrong. About everything.
And now I say something
"books of the bible he relies on to claim godhood"
Awesome, so you've never been to church either.
Billy, every moment you are not setting yourself on fire, you are doing something wrong.
please people, get the score right, Billy Buttsex has already trollmitted to hating all black people no matter what they accomplish, because STATISTICS! say theyre all murderers and rapists.
theres no reason to argue him on anything related to the presidential race because his fictional personage would rather vote a convicted pedophile into office provided that he was white
|theSnake - 2008-09-11 |
How is this left unsaid by everyone in the media up until Matt Damon was interviewed about his political opinions?
|mouser - 2008-09-11 |
On second thought, after re-watching this, I would take out 1 star because there ain't no car chases and explosions. Boo!
|dancingshadow - 2008-09-11 |
Matt Damon hates Hockey Moms.
|1394 - 2008-09-11 |
|Frank Rizzo - 2008-09-11 |
Im scared shitless that republicans will win
|simon666 - 2008-09-11 |
HarrietTubmanPI: are you in my geology class?
Nope. I haven't taken a geology class in a couple of years.
|anotherdeadhero - 2008-09-12 |
I thought Democracy was majority rules. New plan, outfuck the republicans.
|Lothar - 2008-09-12 |
If I wanted to watch stars rant about Republicans, I'll watch network TV.
Also, Matt Damon stole the idea of "Good Will Hunting " from MEEEEEE!!!!
|klingerbgoode - 2008-09-16 |
This is the top result on youtube for Sarah Palin.
It's also the second result!
|Richmond - 2008-09-27 |
+1 for the potentially glorious stealth tag
|Gwago - 2008-11-21 |
Ironically, he's just as vapid as Palin when he gives an interview.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|