Satan/Nostradamus — 2008, Part II
**UPDATED**
I’ve had some trouble with Pollhost.com lately (including the first iteration of this poll, and our Blog Diva poll)…. so I’m revamping this posting to use a new service and to include more candidates based on commenters’ suggestions.
***********
I have been amused over the past several months that in discussions with work colleagues, friends and family — a similar “we-know-for-a-fact” statement keeps coming up. It is the following: “Presidential Candidate X is the Anti-Christ”; followed by citing of Scripture or a prophecy right out of the mind of Dan Brown’s DaVinci Code.
I caught this tongue-in-cheek iteration on Monday at The Huffington Post, implicating Mike Huckabee as The Big AC.
4. No normal American man over the age of 40 loses 110 pounds. It’s not natural.
5. Read this: “And that is why part of me, I confess, wants Huckabee to win. So he can lose. So the GOP can lose – as spectacularly and humiliatingly as possible. If we are to rid conservatism of this theocratic cancer, we need to start over. Maybe it has to get worse before it can get better.”
Who said it? Andrew Sullivan. Have you ever heard of the psy-ops mind trick called “negative psychology”? If Sullivan — a gay Catholic — says he wants Huckabee to get the Republican nomination so he can lose, you can bet your beanie that what the secret cabal of Romish sodomites really wants is for Huckabee to win.
So I figured before I vote next year, I want this topic settled once and for all. Please help!
Thanks!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
29 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Dude, how could you leave out Ron Paul? You know how touchy his cult gets when he gets left off an internet poll
Comment by V the K — December 21, 2007 @ 8:07 am - December 21, 2007
Heh, I’d have voted for Ron Paul in the poll… but only if there were an option for “desperately lonely and bitter old crank”.
Comment by DoDoGuRu — December 21, 2007 @ 9:11 am - December 21, 2007
Now, why bring Jimmy Carter into this?
Comment by V the K — December 21, 2007 @ 9:45 am - December 21, 2007
Let’s see … secretive … enabler … socialist … sounds like an anti-Christ to me!
Yep, I’ve finally found a reason to vote for Hillary.
Comment by Julie the Jarhead — December 21, 2007 @ 10:18 am - December 21, 2007
Wow. Andrew Sullivan is a complete kook… yet he’s still not kooky enough to get the “You’re No Anti-Christ” Seal of Approval from the Huffpo kooks.
What is the world coming to?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 21, 2007 @ 11:01 am - December 21, 2007
Julie the Jarhead,
Let’s see … secretive … enabler … socialist … sounds like an anti-Christ to me!
I can’t tell… are you talking about Hillary or Huckabee?
Comment by DoDoGuRu — December 21, 2007 @ 11:54 am - December 21, 2007
You all have of course seen Hilldog’s Christmas Ad. Makes you wonder if she does her Christmas shopping by stealing someone else’s credit card.
Comment by V the K — December 21, 2007 @ 12:51 pm - December 21, 2007
It is pretty amazing — because everything she’s “giving” other people is paid for out of their tax dollars.
The more you see the Democrats operate, the more you understand why they completely oppose teaching standards in public school. Children who are incapable of doing math or reading are also incapable of understanding that the only place from which Hillary can fund her “gifts” is by taking money out of their pockets.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2007 @ 1:25 pm - December 21, 2007
You left out the obvious one; Willard M. Romney.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 21, 2007 @ 2:30 pm - December 21, 2007
Hillarious post, but I wish Romney was one of the choices.
Comment by MikeInSedona — December 21, 2007 @ 2:40 pm - December 21, 2007
I would ask where Ron Paul was, but that’s been asked. Where’s “All of the above”?
Comment by steveegg — December 21, 2007 @ 2:52 pm - December 21, 2007
The Vote link isn’t working …… I get a message stating I didn’t select and item when I have selected Barack Obama.
Comment by Will — December 21, 2007 @ 7:33 pm - December 21, 2007
My vote is for Barack. The Anti-Christ is supposed to be charismatic. So, for all her faults, it can’t be Hillary.
Comment by cme — December 21, 2007 @ 8:08 pm - December 21, 2007
#13 that’s hysterical. My guess was Hugo Chavez…but he’s not allowed to run……yet. If Hillary is elected, will we have to hear that cackle for 4 or 8 years….good God. That will be punishment for any number of our sins.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 21, 2007 @ 10:34 pm - December 21, 2007
Nah. Nobody will have the testicles to ask her hard questions. And if they did, there’s always the patented Harold Ickes defense: “I can’t remember”.
The question is, do we want a president suffering from and debilitated by CRS?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 21, 2007 @ 10:43 pm - December 21, 2007
Vera’s confused – I thought Cheney was Satan and Rove was the anti-Christ?
Or was it Bush was Satan and Cheney was the anti-Christ?
Or maybe Reagan was the anti-Christ and Nixon was the devil?
Or Fox news is the devil and Rush was the Anti-Christ?
Or Ann Coulter is the devil and John Bolton was the anti-Christ?
Hmmmm…I need a new scorecard and a fresh martini…
Comment by Vera Charles — December 22, 2007 @ 4:28 pm - December 22, 2007
Watch the trailer for Hillary: The Movie
http://www.hillarythemovie.com/trailer.html
Comment by Vince P — December 22, 2007 @ 5:37 pm - December 22, 2007
#16 – Slightly o/t Vera, but I saw this clip and immediately thought of you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hFb-vepuM8
Enjoy it and Merry Christmas!
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — December 22, 2007 @ 10:10 pm - December 22, 2007
What?
No Hate-mas greetings from Ian or ghillie? It just won’t be the same without it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 23, 2007 @ 12:30 am - December 23, 2007
Pete, darling – an instant classic! Too funny! Reminds me of ….me!
Merry Christmas…
Comment by Vera Charles — December 23, 2007 @ 10:16 am - December 23, 2007
#20 – And Happy New Year to you and yours! Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got drinks piling up my desk and a stack of pills I haven’t even opened yet.
(Apologies to Megan Mullaley of “Will & Grace” for stealing that line.)
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — December 23, 2007 @ 4:29 pm - December 23, 2007
When, exactly, did Sullivan become a traitor? I remember him being someone I would go to for some sanity. Recently (or maybe not so recently), he’s as loathesome as any Kos/Huffing nut. What a shame he feels he has to pander to the left, because of his sexual preference. It’s truly stunning how some people have lost sight of what’s important.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — December 24, 2007 @ 11:39 am - December 24, 2007
The Sullivan switch happened in 2003 I think.
Comment by Vince P — December 24, 2007 @ 12:18 pm - December 24, 2007
Methinks Ms Sullivan’s dementia is illness-related, if you know what I mean.
Pity, too – he used to be my favorite blogger until after he weirded out.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — December 24, 2007 @ 3:52 pm - December 24, 2007
24: oh my!
Comment by Vince P — December 25, 2007 @ 4:13 pm - December 25, 2007
I believe the date of Sullivan’s switch was something like 2/4/04. Or 4/2/04. Something with 4s and 2s. The significance is that it was whatever date when Bush came out for the FMA.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 26, 2007 @ 12:13 pm - December 26, 2007
P.S. And not that Peter’s theory is wrong. Just saying the FMA was what “flipped” him.
Actually, Sullivan has (by his own account) been on HIV meds a long time and his HIV is under control. But, some studies have found that *the meds themselves* degrade the brain’s higher functions (complex rational thinking) with long term use.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 26, 2007 @ 12:16 pm - December 26, 2007
Sorry, I got it. Per GPW, the magic date 2/24/04.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 27, 2007 @ 4:59 am - December 27, 2007
Here’s one of the contradictions (doubtless there are many) at the heart of Hillary’s candidacy:
If she’s “experienced” because of her 8 years as Bill’s co-President, then shouldn’t the 22nd Amendment apply to her? And if the 22nd Amendment really doesn’t apply to her, then she really wasn’t co-President, so where does she get off citing her White House time as Presidential “experience”?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 29, 2007 @ 1:54 pm - December 29, 2007