Awwww, jeeez.....no way I can resist this one again: this video clip (as well as the "Obama Smears" clip) I again dedicate to the same party, namely, Streamlined Racist Helldivers Inc. and their respective Posse. LOL!
And while I'm at it, I think I'll re-post this link (seeing how it's a little more apropo under this clip):
I'm.....I'm....I mean I...I....Ummm.....wellll.....ahhhhh.....
Shit.
That's a good question, Jim-Bo!!
I can't say I rightly know!
Maybe we should see what our resident zealots have to say about it. Personally, the only way we'd get answers (or so I think), is to put her in a petrie dish under a giant microscope, and see what if we can get an answer THAT way, to that VERY interesting question.
So is this a bash on anyone who believes in God? Is America no longer tolerant of others, and their right to freedom of religion? Not to totally single you out Gym, but I'm seeing a pattern here on Glumbert... Politicians apparantly shouldn't believe in God, or they get mocked, but doesn't Obama believe in God? Creationists are mocked, and apparantly completely unworthy of even making rational decisions. Streamlined is mocked for believing the world is 6000 years old. Now I don't know if that's what Streamlined believes or not, but who the hell are you to mock his religious beliefs? Is this the extreme left liberal position these days, all religion is bad, and should be mocked incessantly? Unless its Islam, then we should all be more understanding?
How's this sound? So if Obama don't get elected, he can blame God right? Or would he blame the man putting him down?
I'm going with Podman on this. Obama, McCain, Biden, and Palin are all Americans, whether we agree with them or not. They aren't bitches or geriatric old men. They aren't terrorists. They are US senators or a state governor, and whoever wins, the candidates should be respected.
After this election, we Americans need to give up our political divisions, and unite again. Leftist liberals and Right-wing nutjobs are all Americans. Except Canuck and Bug, they're not Americans.
I'm afraid (wait no I'm not) I'm jumping on this bandwagon myself. As of late, I don't even give a shit who wins, it'll all be the same in the end. More taxes, more deficit, more pork barrel spending, less health care, less money for the middle class (whats left of it), less jobs, less pay, less trust in government, less respect from other countries.
I'm disgusted and embarrassed by what little (and I mean little) men that are being offered up for the top spot. THIS IS THE BEST THIS COUNTRY HAS TO OFFER! We are truly fucked this time around, the classic lose, lose situation.
The debates were a sick joke on us all, the ONLY thing that came of them was more fodder for SNL! What does that tell ya! What I took away from those debates; more lies, more ignorance, more flip flopping, more mud slinging and more cheezy politico smiles, more nervous laughter, more wandering around the stage than I could bear! I'm blind to color, race, religion, left, right, but not yet blind to the blinding ignorance of these two candidates!
Now here's the scariest thought of all....
I have to honestly say, I would be a better leader than these two incompetents! VERY SCARY!
Yes my mood sucks right now, can you tell? More on that later....
I agree McCain is deffinately not my favorite politician. I think the problem here is politicians in general. They suck. That is why Biden sucks a big one, he is a total politician, just like McCain. Palin is the least politiciany politician I have seen in quite some time. It is actually quite refreshing. Agree with her or not she is not up there trying to appeal to everyone by presenting herself as some greasy politician. The only thing people can really attack her on are her convictions, not her two timing or waffling. I respect that. But whoever wins we are probably fucked anyways... haha.
If I wrote in "Miter" on my ballet, I don't think they would know who you are. At least our 2nd ammendments rights would be secure! If you run, can I be your VP?
The best and brightest in America don't want the job of president. Why subject yourself to that scrutiny and criticism, when CEOs can make 100 times what the president makes, without the assasination risk. So we get the best and brightest that $400,000 a year can afford.
But you do sound a bit McCain today. (new saying for grumpy old man) Hope the big C is under control. Myself, I'm actually swinging to where I believe either candidate will do an ok job as president, McCain just slightly better (slightly less bad). If Obama wins, hopefully the republicans in the senate and congress will keep him under check, and we'll get some conservative backlash in 2010 and 2012. If McCain wins, we have to hear "My friends" for 4 years, but we get to look at Palin some more. The McCain - Palin ticket would be far better for SNL!
Miter - You're right about those debates. It was like Kabuki, but without the yelling and wailing.
...and the post game... er post debate report from the various idiotic pundits, giving the highlights and the final score. I guess we are just all kinda getting tired of being treated like children by the idiots who comprise the media in general.
THE POINT, as it t'were, is that MOST who are in the McCain/Palin camp are voting NOT according to fundamental issues or an understanding of them....but rather like fucking medieval peasants, who place their "faith" above ALL else. This stupid broad actually uses whatever misguided "faith" she has as a "christian" to justify her own racism and bigotry, and to condemn others. Whatever belief she has is one thing, and that's a personal one for HER. But when she starts saying that someone has an "atheist" in their family, or that their NAME sounds funny because it's too Muslim-y and because of THOSE reasons you're not gonna vote for them, then you've crossed the border from personal religious beliefs.....into outright fucking stupidity. And judgementalism. And intolerance. And bigotry.
" They are US senators or a state governor, and whoever wins, the candidates should be respected."
Nicely put. And THAT has been the exact message that Se. Obama has been preaching, that whole idea of "unity". Unlike Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin who have sunk into the fucking gutter with every smear in the book at him, and then who have the nerve to say "Oh there are pockets of REAL America that agree with us!". Huh??? Like, fuck right off.
Anyways....I digress.
This broad is a fucking deluded, racist zealot-nutjob. And if ANYONE can point out why I'm wrong.....please do.
P.S.
Gen. Colin Powell endorsed Obama, for the reasons stated above. A man with slightly more honor than Sen. McSame.
Oh...and Helldiver fucked up his "We're all Americans speech". He came off sounding more like a KKK leader who says "Aww, shucks, we wuz only kiddin'."
No.
I think I'll let a DECENT and INTELLIGENT REPUBLICAN put it a MUCH better way:
"I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, 'Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.'
"Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim; he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian.
"But the really right answer is, 'what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?' The answer's 'no,' that's not America.
"Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?
"Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, 'He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
"I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards -- Purple Heart, Bronze Star -- showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old.
"And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn%u2019t have a Christian cross; it didn't have the Star of David; it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life." %u2013 Colin Powell on Meet the Press, October 19th, 2008
Sooooooo...I think we'll put THAT issue to rest...ok, torture-lover?
Thank you for proving my point, haha. You KNOW you KNOW more than me even though you do not KNOW me. Like I said, its hard to argue with an omnipotent being.
And why should I have to defend my views on Palin? I havent made any blanket statements claiming to know everything that motivates her or her supporters.
C, keep in mind: I am from the country that once claimed to be the master race...
The woman in the vid you posted is just plain stupid and should not be allowed to breed.
Helldiver: Feel free to practice any religion you like as long as you are not bothering me with it. But when you start publicly talking bullshit like the creationists do (streamy is one of them) you should not expect any respect or mercy from me.
Palin is just plain stupid and uneducated, the stereotype of the ingnorant US American that is so much despised around the world.
HD - If a faith is practiced in private and for the congregation then NOBODY in America has a problem with it, but when it touches governance of everyone outside the faith, then it becomes fair game as to whatever praise or criticism that may be flung its way.
And because religion is not bound by the constraint of provable fact, then neither are the criticisms, or praise.
The founding fathers of America knew from history that the only outcome of mixing governance and religion is violence and persecution. They knew as we know that religion has NO place in governance, and hence the very first amendment to the bill of rights is the separation of church and state.
History is a wise teacher if one is willing to accept it.
Deep breath
Cminus- you are shameless. Your bigotry knows no bounds.
I see you now know why people would be voting for McCain. Wait, MOST OF THEM! It takes blind hubris to make that kind of statement with absolutely no irony. Further, you judge Palin's Christianity...something you have no earthly clue about, either her or Christianity. Then, you end your asinine post with HER being the bigot. You really are a miracle.
Pods- You, like may here, are absolutely wrong about our founding fathers and their views of religion and government. It was never, ever meant to be simply a private matter. Ever. Read Jefferson and Adams on what they belive is the best type of leadership and what it means to be a moral nation.
"THE POINT, as it t'were, is that MOST who are in the McCain/Palin camp are voting NOT according to fundamental issues or an understanding of them....but rather like fucking medieval peasants, who place their "faith" above ALL else. "
What the fuck do you know about why people would support McCain/Palin? You are so far left, and such a republican bigot, that you can't even imagine someone supporting McCain/Palin, without being some kind of religious zealout, inbred redneck, racist, nazi. In short, you are extremely narrow-minded, which makes you a complete dumbass. I could throw out the opposite comment, that only socialist are voting for Obama, but see I actually recognize that would be wrong and innaccurate. You can't see past your own propaganda anymore.
"But when she starts saying that someone has an "atheist" in their family, or that their NAME sounds funny because it's too Muslim-y and because of THOSE reasons you're not gonna vote for them, then you've crossed the border from personal religious beliefs.....into outright fucking stupidity. And judgementalism. And intolerance. And bigotry. "
I would agree, but Palin never said those things. I admit some mis-guided republican supporters have pursued this reasoning, but they've been shouted down by other McCain supporters consistantly. Like there aren't any nutjobs on the left? When you're no longer one of the fucking stupid, judgemental, intolerant bigots, you'll be qualified to comment on this.
"This broad is a fucking deluded, racist zealot-nutjob. And if ANYONE can point out why I'm wrong.....please do. "
In America, we have this belief in innocent until proven guilty, so I would say the burden of proof is on you. Where do you have any proof of Palin's religious zealotry or racism? You don't, you're just smearing yourself, like you just accused the McCain compaign of doing so dishonorably. Obama doesn't need to smear, because he has good little Obamatons like yourself to do his dirty smearing.
"Gen. Colin Powell endorsed Obama, for the reasons stated above. A man with slightly more honor than Sen. McSame."
Wow, more honor that McCain? That's quite a statement, and one you don't have enough honor to make. I can understand Powell being extremely mad at Bush, for being the deliverer of the WMD speech to the UN. He's making the same mistake as you, thinking McCain is the same man as Bush.
"Except Canuck and Bug, they're not Americans."
"Funny how he singled out you and I, huh Bugster? "
This was intended as a joke, not a slur. Fact is, you're Canadian and Bug is German. Certainly nothing to be ashamed of. As foreigners, you don't have to worry about uniting Americans after this election. You have the luxury of being as divisive as you want, without doing any clean-up and healing afterwards.
"I guess the torture-lover don't figure we're a part of his Master Race. "
WTF is that supposed to mean asshole? I've already stated I don't support torture or racism. You're just trying to smear me, because I make more rational arguements than you. Smearing has always been your tactic, and for you to criticize any politicians smear tactic only makes you a hypocrit.
"He came off sounding more like a KKK leader"
And you come off sounding like the local communist party leader. Guess its a matter of perception. But you have yet to provide any justification for calling me a racist, other than I support McCain/Palin. I realize in your world, that's enough, but that's just not enough for me. In your world, anyone who disagrees with Obama, must be a racist. Because in your eyes, Obama's message is just so perfect, and McCain's just so evil, that to disagree with Obama must make you racist. Well I got news for you shit-for-brains, I can dislike Obama's message all I want, its still a free country here.
"I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, 'Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.'"
Neither McCain or Palin has ever said Obama is a Muslim, and McCain himself corrected a supporter, who called Obama a Muslim. But why would you support Obama being a Christian? Surely any such thoughts make him a religious zealot nutjob! Keep going oh great smear one.
"But the really right answer is, 'what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?' The answer's 'no,' that's not America. "
I agree. I have never said Obama is a Muslim, nor would I care.
"And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn%u2019t have a Christian cross; it didn't have the Star of David; it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life."
A true American hero. America is called the great melting pot for a reason. We've had American heros that were Christian, aethist, Jewish, Muslim, Budhist, native American, Japanese Shinto, you name it.
"Sooooooo...I think we'll put THAT issue to rest...ok, torture-lover?"
Go hug a fucking terrorist, preferably one with a suicide bomb.
"She's a fucking idiot, ok? "
Compared to Canuck's incredible genious, that we should all bow down to and worship.
"If a faith is practiced in private and for the congregation then NOBODY in America has a problem with it, but when it touches governance of everyone outside the faith, then it becomes fair game as to whatever praise or criticism that may be flung its way. "
Well its certainly ok to disagree with someone's religious beliefs. And you certainly don't have a right to interfere with others worshipping as they please. Mocking others for their specific religious beliefs is certainly rude, and can lead to anti-Jewish, or anti-Muslim, etc. behavior. Mocking just any religious thought altogether, I think shows some kind of aethist superiority smugness, that I personally find disgusting, elitist, and disrespectful. Even though I'm not very religious, my parents are, some of my friends are, and I just don't see how my non-religious belief is any more correct then their religious belief. I don't believe in creationism, I'd be fine arguing that with Streamlined. But you won't hear me insult his thinking on it, as I wouldn't insult Canuck's socialist rants if he wasn't smearing me first.
"The founding fathers of America knew from history that the only outcome of mixing governance and religion is violence and persecution. They knew as we know that religion has NO place in governance, and hence the very first amendment to the bill of rights is the separation of church and state."
And I fully support that, but the reality is, every president in the history of the United States has at least pretended to believe in God, McCain and Obama included. Its tradition. That doesn't mean religion influences their political decisions (although something like abortion may certainly blur this line.) If the founding fathers were not religious men, why is God mentioned in the declaration of independence? I don't like seeing belief in God used to win votes, I do believe politicians have a right to be religious. Should they shut the hell up about their personal religious beliefs? Probably, but lots of voters feel its their right to know.
"Helldiver, what do you mean, "America is no longer tolerant"? When were we tolerant to begin with?"
I think America is still vastly more tolerant of religious beliefs than almost any nation on Earth. You can be any religion you want in America, and if you keep it to yourself, it won't get you any ill will. If you choose to preach, you potentially open yourself up to ridicule.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, [the people, in the 1st Amendment,] declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
Jefferson did not have a hand in the authoring of the Constitution, nor of the 1st Amendment, but he was an outspoken proponent of the separation of church and state, going back to his time as a legislator in Virginia. In 1785, Jefferson drafted a bill that was designed to squash an attempt by some to provide taxes for the purpose of furthering religious education. He wrote that such support for religion was counter to a natural right of man:
"... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
"........I couldn't give a flyin rat's ass if murdering terrorists are tortured..."
"You're damn right I said it, and I'll say it again!"
Recognize those words, fuckhead? And now I'M "smearing you"?? Oh gawd. NOW YOU sound like fucking McSame and Palin.....never owning up to what you fucking say, and always blaming OTHERS for the stupid shit that bursts out of your own sewer-gate. You make me wanna fucking vomit. And yet AGAIN....you missed the POINT of the clip I posted above. Like, fuck man, do even READ anything that's written anymore??? I'm outta big, black magic markers, y'know.
Listen, torture-lover-supporter......you've already shown yourself to be a lop-sided nitwit, ok? The broad IN THAT CLIP was a FRUITCAKE, ok?? Get over it.
And SHE represents the very base of the GOP....got that?
Here's spme quotes as far as your most recent question goes:
Canuck, I did say that, but I already explained it was a flippant remark on my part, leading into explaining McCain's strong anti-torture fight. You're taking my remark out of context, as liberals are trained.
I want to clarify for the record, and be very very clear: I DO NOT SUPPORT TORTURE. I DO THINK YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE!
Who cares about Bush's religious beliefs, he's on his way out. I see no connection between Bush and McCain, or Bush and Palin. You're trying to paint them with the Bush brush, as is Obama's only strategy to deflect from his glaring lack of experience.
And are our liberal champions trying to deny Palin her right to practice her religion of choice, in the privacy of her own church? Are you supporting the Spanish Inquisition in America now? Just pulling some of that radical over-reacting Canuck reasoning on you.
I believe she had a minister from an African nation, where they strongly believe in witchcraft / evil, and she was humoring the guy. I would like to see the whole thing in proper context. But I don't hear the media asking her straight out if she believes in witchcraft. If it is wrong for Palin to believe in witchcraft, then why the earlier indignation even if Obama was a Muslim? let me answer that for you, its because you're a fucking hypocrit! Have a nice day.
While the leaders of the industrialized nations are VERY far from perfect....at least I can with certainty that they're at least above THIS sort of fucking nonsense.
Which is why IF she does win......she will be a laughing stock on the international stage.
HD - "And are our liberal champions trying to deny Palin her right to practice her religion of choice, in the privacy of her own church? Are you supporting the Spanish Inquisition in America now?"
Some clarification is needed. It was the Christians that tortured and murdered the non-Christians, via their political dominance of Europe, not the other way around.
I hate jumping in late, but C- is such an easy target.
I see your anti-Christian bigotry is also boundless. In the name of consistency, would you apply your feeble scrutiny to BHO's church and the not-so-Reverend Wright? Sincerely, Canuck...over the past year I have heard nothing but fear and insults about GWB and his religious beliefs...ridicule, hatred and cut-downs for being a religious nutjob and zealot. Why not for BHO? Where's your principled outrage over his 20 years in this church and their hatred for whitey and America as a whole?(I use the word principled loosely.)
The answer: You are a bigot. Uncritical, unthinking, hate-filled bigot.
Were you remotely honest, you would fear more a candidate who hailed from Wright's congregation versus a VP nominee whose pastor prayed for protection against witchcraft.
Pods...good points from Jefferson. Still much of the context is left out, presumeably not on purpose. He, like many others, were speaking of the Federal government's roles and not the states'. Further, funding social programs that have a religious tie or organization is not in any line of thinking "respecting the establishment" of a religion. So, when a Pres. suggests funding successful anti-drug, prison, etc programs through the Fed gubment, it is not necessarily unconstitutional. Thank you for taking a comment out of context and extrapolating to nowhere. Where are all those unconstitutional programs fro the zealot GWB?
You said "It was the Christians that tortured and murdered the non-Christians, via their political dominance of Europe, not the other way around." No, not really. That needs some clarification, too, Pods. It was the State that did those things. Spanish Inquisitors were appointed by the STATE, not the church. The church does not have clean hands by no means, but only a simpletons view of history has one faulting the church first. The church's largest fault was allowing itself to be an arm of the State. Our founding fathers' wisdom was, in part, to protect churches from losing their social prominance to the State. (Explains pretty well how the different states had such differing views of the role of the church AND the continental Congress' difficulty in creating a federal government.)It says so in the language used in the Amendments..."Congress shal make no law..." NOT "The churches will not have such-and-such power."
"........you would fear more a candidate who hailed from Wright's congregation versus a VP nominee whose pastor prayed for protection against witchcraft."
ROTFLMFAO!!!!!
NO....I repeat....absolutely NO...comment from me, here.
Podman, I wasn't making a point about who was responsible for the Spanish Inquisition. I know it was Christians (or Christian pretending monarchs) the first go round.
My point is that with the atmosphere of anti-religious thought here and elsewhere, and the intolerance to others religious beliefs becoming more and more prevalent, that America's freedom of religion is becoming endangered. (Much more so than any fucking polar bear.) The new modern American Inquisition is coming, and it will be led by the aetheists against anyone religious, kinda like Stalin did.
So keep bashing right-wing religion (and only right-wing), you can become a part of the new American Anti-Religion Police. Don't ever believe your constitutional rights can't be taken away.
How can you (not just Podman) support a religious nutjob candidate like Obama for president? No doubt he'll be praying for the rapture to come, with his hand on the nuclear football! (Well it sounds reasonable when applied to Palin.)
HD- "The new modern American Inquisition is coming, and it will be led by the aetheists against anyone religious, kinda like Stalin did."
Perhaps you're right about that, but what would cause it to happen? Its blow back from all the proselytizing to those who JUST DON'T WANT IT.
Why is it MORE correct to force religion on me, than it is to JUST LEAVE ME ALONE? I have been approached by mail, by TV, by E-mail, in the Mall, on the street, and even on my own doorstep.
I have NEVER in my entire life, EVER been approached by an atheist peddling atheism!
"How can you (not just Podman) support a religious nutjob candidate like Obama for president?"
Personally he is way too religious for me, and I don't think religion should be a test for being the POTUS, but it is. Has atheism ever been the test?
It seems to be a requirement to be a christian to become the president of the USA.
How about knowing the principles of economics and diplomacy?
As for the growing resentment against religion: The sooner we get rid of superstition the better. It is your own business if you want to pray to some imagined god, but it is definitely not acceptable if you are trying to force that on other people, or try to rule other peoples lifes based on your interpretation of an old book of doubtful origin.
They don't get that "freedom of religion" ALSO means "freedom FROM religion"......something that the God-fearin' folk can't accept around here.
I've told these yahoos many, many MANY times.......if you want to live under a RELIGIOUS leader who will base his decisions on RELIGIOUS grounds.....then move to fuckin' Iran, and live under an Imam or an Ayatollah. I mean it. Get the fuck out, and take your book of fuckin' Aesops Fables with you. If you want a POLITICAL leader, in an unbiased position of authority who will make impartial, sound decisions for the betterment of the nation as a whole.....then stay.
See, this is all the fucking Pilgrims' fault.
And who were they? A bunch of religious nutjobs (Quakers, Puritans, others who called themselves who-the-fuck-knows-what) who were TOO nutty, even for England at the time, and were forced to get the fuck outta Dodge City. Folks THERE, had had enough of their crap, and told'em to hit the road. Next stop?: Plymouth Rock.
And then they killed a whole bunch of Indians, after they got there, 'cuz they were HEATHEN savages, who did not REEBUKE WEETCHCROFT IN DA NAME OF JEEEZZUSSS; and the ones they didn't kill with their blunderbusts, they finished off by giving them some great diseases.
And then they had their first Thanksgiving.
The end result, of course, is what you see today: religious zealots running rampant, trying their damndest to weave their superstitious nonsense into not only the political landscape....but into any PERSON who decides to run for public office.
AH REEBUKE YOU, IN DA NAME OF SARAH ANT JEEEZZUSSS!!
Well its not. The religious believe its their God given destiny to grow the flock and all that bs. I tell the bible-thumpers to get lost when they come to my door, but I do it politely. (Especially them Jehovah witnesses, who make their teenage kids wear suits on hot summer days, and preach to complete stranger. I feel sorry for them.)
"Personally he is way too religious for me, and I don't think religion should be a test for being the POTUS, but it is. Has atheism ever been the test?"
Good question. Has there ever been an honest aethist running for president? We only seem to get the faithful or liars.
"It seems to be a requirement to be a christian to become the president of the USA." Pretty much. Romney's Mormonism sure didn't fly. When Kennedy got elected as the first Catholic, that was as important a milestone as Obama will probably soon set.
"How about knowing the principles of economics and diplomacy?"
Well judging from Bush Jr., those are not requirements for president, just nice to haves.
"As for the growing resentment against religion: The sooner we get rid of superstition the better." Well no one should force religion on anyone. (try saying this out loud in the middle east) But you Europeans are probably leading the whole anti-religion push right now. Maybe with good reason, considering the crusades and all. But any pendulum can swing too far in either direction, as Stalin did.
"They don't get that "freedom of religion" ALSO means "freedom FROM religion"......something that the God-fearin' folk can't accept around here. "
Canuck made a valid point! Yaaaa!!!! I knew you could do it!
Except lots of God-fearin folk just give up and let your soul burn in hell. These might be the lazy God-fearing folk that don't care as much about their fellow man. A true believer should try to save your soul, its the only decent thing to do, can't blame them for their beliefs, and having the balls to stick to their convictions. You should maybe be honored that somebody considers your soul worth saving. Hence why I'm never rude to bible-thumpers, I just shoe them away.
"I've told these yahoos many, many MANY times.......if you want to live under a RELIGIOUS leader who will base his decisions on RELIGIOUS grounds.....then move to fuckin' Iran, and live under an Imam or an Ayatollah. "
Not the same thing as America. In Iran, all true power comes from the lifetime appointed Ayatollah. In America, true power comes from the majority elected representatives of the people. If those representatives are elected because of religious beliefs, then that is part of the representation we get. But no president seriously makes political decisions based on religious beliefs, even Bush Jr. doesn't do that.
"See, this is all the fucking Pilgrims' fault. A bunch of religious nutjobs (Quakers, Puritans, others "
Now what's nutty about ridding your town of all the evil witches in your mist? Well, maybe that was just European tradition.
"And then they killed a whole bunch of Indians, after they got there, 'cuz they were HEATHEN savages"
Well, frankly the Indians were killed for a whole bunch of reasons, mostly because they were in the way. The Heathen savage thing just helped the killers sleep better at night. Kinda like the Muslim fanatics murdering us Infidels now. No guilt, its our duty to God.
"The end result, of course, is what you see today: religious zealots running rampant, trying their damndest to weave their superstitious nonsense into not only the political landscape....but into any PERSON who decides to run for public office. "
Seperation of Church and State only goes so far. The truly religious believe their leaders need to share their religion, to lead properly, hence the politicians pretending to be religious to win votes. But no politician generally overdoes it, for fear of scaring away the aethist vote.
So in Canada and Germany, do politicians openly proclaim their religious beliefs or lack of them?
....."In America, true power comes from the majority elected representatives of the people."
Okay....soooooo.....if a Candidate A decides to run for POTUS and says to "the people":
"Hi! I'm an atheist! I may not believe in Yahweh, but I GUARANTEE YOU.....I shall be able to execute my duties in an impartial manner as C-in-C, and as your President. I shall also be the most competent political leader you have ever had, and I will restore RESPECT and INTEGRITY to this Office, both domestically and internationally. Thank you."
NOW........will "Candidate A" have a FAIR and EVEN shot at being elected in the United States of America, by its citizens currently? He is also SQUEAKY-CLEAN as far as his past and background goes.
HD - "Except lots of God-fearin folk just give up and let your soul burn in hell. These might be the lazy God-fearing folk that don't care as much about their fellow man. A true believer should try to save your soul, its the only decent thing to do"
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! That is a Theocratic viewpoint based in a single sectarian faith.
The American thing to do, is to leave other Americans to their OWN FAITHS and BELIEFS, and leave them alone, to interact with THEIR maker, not yours.
I only wish these Christians would really understand what FREEDOM of religion means. ALL Americans should be free to walk the street, read their mail, step out their door, shop at the mall, or move about the free land without being assailed by Christian propaganda.
But as they say, "They answer to a higher power", so they don't have to obey the laws of America. When they come to my home they have to pass the entrance of my development that has many large signs stating "NO SOLICITING OF ANY KIND PERMITTED ON THESE PREMISES", but they don't have to obey the laws, wishes, and boundaries of the residents here. They only answer to their LAWS, which reside in THEIR FAITH!
Here is another personal observation. I have never been approached by ANY other religion in America, by any methods.
Never have I been approached by a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, or any other non-christian faith. So don't worry about the Christians in America HD, they are WAY ahead of the other faiths on ignoring peoples personal freedom of religion.
HD, in Germany religion is not much of a topic in elections, not even in the catholic states in south Germany. It is still present and the conservative party here is the CDU (Christian Democratic Party) with their Bavarian branch CSU (Christian Social Party).
Sometimes some religious stuff crops up, like when abortion is the topic, but the majority of politics is at least not prominently religious. And no higher level politican would get the crazy idea to bow to the wishes of religious fanatics.
Though there are some really strange things regarding religion here. Like the christian churches get their member fees collected via the state tax system. Also there is religion as a mandatory course in schools unless the parents decide not to have their children participate in this, in that case the kids go to an ethics course.
I think that the churches should care about collecting their money and getting subjects for indoctrination on their own. Maybe such laws will be passed in the next couple years.
Late to the party, as always.
Only going to address a few things here.
C-: Freedom of religion is not freedom from it, nor does it include freedom from it. The Founders did not want to subjugate God to the State or vise versa. They learned this from the state-run religion of the Catholic church and the church of England. You see, the church did not take over the state, it was the other way around. (with the willing participation of the church's heirarchy)But, that does not mean it is stripped from public discourse (as that might violate another right: Speech.) or even public influence.
You continue to assert that decisions based upon religious grounds are somehow theocratic. This is completely illogical...on two grounds. Theocracy means official state-sponsored religion governs the populace...NOT that a country's leadership might pray or even refer to morality to best make decisions. Second, and by far the most important thing...there are no other grounds for laws beyond appeals to morality, either directly or indirectly. In the USA and the West, for that matter, those morals are grounded in Judeo-Christian values and mores...of which, you are a beneficiery. Charity, kindness, care of the poor, laws against murder, theft...you name it...Judeo-Christian heritage. These things did not appear out of nowhere nor did the Founders arrive there through common sense alone. Since you do not believe in a God as the Creator of all things including what is right and wrong, you are left with a shifting and wholly subjective view of what is right. You may change it anytime. Killing innocent babies...ok because my choice trumps its right to life. Sending troops to Bosnia to kill people...ok because oppressed and abused people need our help, just not in Iraq. Forcible theft...wrong unless done by the government to pay for someone else's life. But, even these examples are subject to change provide the circumstances do.
Seriously, C-...Pilgrims to America...forced out of England? You are a moron. They killed a bunch of Indians? You continue to baffle the intellect. So much stupidity to correct, but I am too limited to monosyllabery. Please, please, please read just a little more history, C-.
Pods...HD is correct that "God-fearin folk" are compelled to attempt to save the non-believer's soul. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, theocratic about that. (You, like C-, don't know what a theocracy is.) Bringing you the message of Jesus would then require you to willingly accept or willingly reject that message. How is that theocratic?...which would not care one wit for your soul, just the domination of a state or country.
Why is religion the one thing you think you have a right not to be subjected to in the course of your day? Is it because you hate God/Jesus? Hate Christians? Don't believe in Jesus? Would you wish to enact a law to prevent people from being assailed by Christian propaganda? Careful, that violates Christians' (who might come to your house, buy billboard space, put on a TV/radio show, give a presentation at school, etc) right to the same speech as anyone else.
Solicitation laws generally address those who directly ask for money in exchange for something, unless stated otherwise. That is why it is lawful for someone to come to your apartment/home and attempt to share their faith with you. (I know, I know...they probably come from a big church that just takes money from the poor and ignorant. Well, just don't let them in. If this gets your dander up, you, not John McCain, has an anger problem.)
You have not been approached by Buddhists or Hindus because their faith is not one that prescribes man's falllen nature and, ergo, does not require a Savior. Their faith does not suggest that they evangelize. (I have always found that curious, as matter of charity, that they would not wish their type of salvation onto others.)
Islam has historically had a few methods of "evangelizing"...forced submission being the most popular. However, in America there are many outreach programs. Just different tactics.
Many people have compulsions, but we have reason and morality to restrain us from forcing our actions on others. Pedophiles have compulsions, but I don't want them near my kids. Murderers have compulsions but I want them restrained... And I guess Christians have compulsions, and I don't want them on my property.
"Why is religion the one thing you think you have a right not to be subjected to in the course of your day?"
Not the ONE thing but one of many infringements on my right to worship as I WANT, and not as some other group or individual wants. If for example someone is a atheist, then I would expect that they have the FREEDOM to be a atheist. The point is that Christians don't get to decide what is best for everyone else, anymore than an atheist can glue atheist literature to my door, as the Christians do.
You see this is the very point, I believe in FREEDOM, and I guess Christians don't.
"Is it because you hate God/Jesus? Hate Christians? Don't believe in Jesus?"
Why do you have to make a discussion about personal freedom about hate.
"Solicitation laws generally address those who directly ask for money in exchange for something..."
I guess your definition of solicit is different from Mr. Webster's.
SOLICIT: 1 a: to make petition to : entreat b: to approach with a request or plea 2: to urge (as one's cause) strongly 3 a: to entice or lure especially into evil b: to proposition (someone) especially as or in the character of a prostitute 4: to try to obtain by usually urgent requests or pleas
"Buddhists or Hindus because their faith...does not suggest that they evangelize. "
Very enlightened faiths, and older than Christianity, and with a much higher moral standing on 'the self'.
I don't think an honest atheist has much of a chance running for president of the US, but its never been tried, so I can't really say. Maybe people would appreciate a candidate free of all religious bullshit? This doesn't mean religious faith is a requirement to be president, but it helps. And in a close election, every little bit counts. There are definately some voters that would never vote for an atheist, no matter how wonderful he was otherwise, just as some won't ever vote for a black man. In fact, an outright atheist might get attacked as the anti-christ. Its so much easier for a slimy politician to just pretend to be religious, whenever the occasion fits. Its worked for 200 years, and I don't see this changing anytime soon.
Romney was a mormon, and he lost the republican candidacy. But he did come very very close, and he wasn't much of a Republican. Came from Mass. a very liberal state, history of flip-flopping, and no military experience. I think had he had some real republican credentials, his mormonism would have been overlooked. I liked him better than McCain actually. At least he would be strong on economy, and there would be no age issue.
"WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! That is a Theocratic viewpoint based in a single sectarian faith."
Ok, I'm just giving my opinion why you shouldn't get all offended when someone tries to save your soul. I'm only speaking from a Catholic background myself.
"The American thing to do, is to leave other Americans to their OWN FAITHS and BELIEFS, and leave them alone, to interact with THEIR maker, not yours. "
I agree American tradition conflicts with what some religions belief. Have you never had a Jehovah Witness show up on your doorstep? Some feel its their religious duty to save you, some don't give a shit. There is nothing unconstitutional about asking someone to join your religion, so long as it doesn't have government sponsorship.
"I only wish these Christians would really understand what FREEDOM of religion means. ALL Americans should be free to walk the street, read their mail, step out their door, shop at the mall, or move about the free land without being assailed by Christian propaganda. "
So should we have laws to arrest any Christians spreading the word? Seriously, do you want that? If you ask them to go away, do they do so?
"But as they say, "They answer to a higher power", so they don't have to obey the laws of America. When they come to my home they have to pass the entrance of my development that has many large signs stating "NO SOLICITING OF ANY KIND PERMITTED ON THESE PREMISES", but they don't have to obey the laws, wishes, and boundaries of the residents here. They only answer to their LAWS, which reside in THEIR FAITH!"
Have them arrested for trespassing. That's perfectly within your rights.
"Never have I been approached by a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, or any other non-christian faith. "
Well how many Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus do you suppose are in your area, compared to the number of Christians?
Podman, I think you're maybe overreacting. But maybe its worse where you live? Southern state? I live in Minnesota, and very few push their religion on you, except my own parents.
Bug, so in Germany, no seperation of church and state? I think America has you beat on this one.
I completely agreed with Streamy, up until "Since you do not believe in God..." I think all people can be moral, know right from wrong, and make good moral decisions regardless of religious beliefs, or none at all.
I don't think atheists go to war thinking its ok to kill people, and they can just as easily be haunted by their actions. In the military, the chaplans pray for the troops before any battle, knowing full well they're about to kill people. Are these military chaplans somehow religious prostitutes? I never thought so, they do what they can. Is it ok for a truly religious man to pick up a rifle and kill someone? That's up to the individual I guess.
Somebody killed all those Indians. Maybe not the Pilgrims directly, but certainly more than a few God-fearing folks helped whack those Indians.
"Is it because you hate God/Jesus? " Well Canuck will say he can't hate what he doesn't believe exists. "Hate Christians? " Yup. Downright bigoted against them.
"Would you wish to enact a law to prevent people from being assailed by Christian propaganda? Careful, that violates Christians' right to the same speech as anyone else. "
Absolutely right. We probably shouldn't round up them Christians, and send them to camps either. You have a right to be free from Government required religion. But free citizens have a right to their free speech, and you have your right not to listen. The KKK has their right to free speech, as does Reverend Wright, as does Farrakhan, etc. You don't want the government curtailing anyone's free speech, period. However, I have no problem with the government curtailing where permits are allowed to express your free speech.
Look at those Rev. Phelps assholes, that protest at funerals of American soldiers, and say God hates fags. Lovely people. They do have their freedom of speech, hateful as it is. However, I belief the families should also have some freedom from that hate speech, and the protestors should be restricted to outside oh... 100 miles or so from any funeral.
HD - I guess when it comes to religion, you and I are fairly in agreement.
And yes I am VERY passionate about freedom. It not just a word with me, and anyone who has the temerity to infringe on anyone's freedom because of their personal beliefs, and even using God as an excuse to infringe on those rights I get very upset.
It will always be so with me, because I cannot stand by and watch even a tiny fraction of my freedom to be chipped away. I think of the thousands and thousands of people military, and civilian who have died to give me the freedom I have, and I will not allow their sacrifices to be dishonored.
Pods...Solicitation laws, not the word solicit. You have not been too trite thusfar; please don't start now. If you disagree with what I said about laws, ok.
People coming to your door to witness their faith have generally not been covered in solicitation laws...generally.
Not too interested in firing up a protracted discussion about specifics of history, just to say that it is often portrayed as one-sided and partiuclarly vicious, the founding of this country. From the arrival (pick your landing and decade, Jamestown or Plymouth) to the revolution to the Civil War and beyond, our expansion(of which, I and everyone else here in the USA is an heir) is routinely portrayed as monolithically imperial, monolithically barbaric, racist, sexist, bigoted and unwarranted.
Case in point...C-'s dismissive portrayal of the Pilgrims killing the Indians. Probably more to it than that given that the Pilgrims were not gun-toting soldiers (Miles Strandish being the exception), but were farmers, masons, etc...many with their wives and kids. Their first Thanksgiving, although not the start of the tradition, was shared with the Indians, by the way...which they hadn't yet killed.
Anyhoo...just some thoughts on the nature of bigotry.
These two links are total crap. You take a loony bin ladies views and act as though this is the view of all Republicans. As for the second link, what 81 year old says "dude"? CAN YOU SAY PROPAGANDA?
Its always good to have your voter fraud allegations planned in advance, in case Obama loses. Canuck has his voter machine fraud theory.
We Republicans have our ACORN scandal, of them registering thousands of illegal voters, most often those voting democrat: illegal aliens and government dependents. Of course, the ACORN scandal is actually true, intentional or not, significant of not.
So regardless of who wins this next popular vote, I look forward to the electoral college and the Supreme Court deciding who will be the next president of the United States.
Podman, I've seen that before. I'd like to believe our elected officials and non-partisan patriotric beaurocrats have ensured this has been corrected. But this is one reason why we have the electoral college.
Whoever votes for Palin/Mcain is just as much an idiot as anyone who voted for G.W Bush the last 2 times. The sheer number of morons that MUST exist in the USA fails to suprise us though. The world mocks you. That is all. Save some face...vote Obama
Who the fuck cares? Its like being the quarterback in high school... who cares if the nerds or the preppy cliques like you, you are the fucking quarterback
(I mean....I think the insular, close-minded sorts (like yourself) should THINK as though your part of a much broader community....you know...as in a "global" community...that sort of thing)
I guess good ol' "ares" there, didn't take into account on what to do with the "quarterback" when he can't seem to make a complete pass, fumbles the ball or even just is a lousy player.
Is it the "player"? Or his "coach"? Or both? Or as the team owner....do you fire them? Or let them keep doing what they're doing?
I do recognize that America's view in the world has been one form of soft power, and we should work to redeem America's image in the world. But McCain can do that just as well as Obama. Citizens of the world aren't mentioned as registered voters in the United States.
Ya know, I have yet to hear any religious zealotry come out of streamlined, and considering the source, that probably only means he's a creationist. A zealot is more like someone who would kill you where you stood, because you don't believe in the same brand of religion as he does.
Osama bin Ladin and al-Zarqawi were zealots, one is now thankfully dead. They would have killed you for your liberal western thoughts, without hesitation. But better men than you have contained them, and killed at least al-Zarqawi, among other zealot terrorists.
I remember the day I heard al-Zarqawi was killed in a bomb strike, apparantly he was still alive when US troops got to him, but died shortly after. I'm glad he got to realize he was killed by US troops.
http://www.spike.com/video/bombing-of-al/2734486?cid=YSSP In this regard, I truly hope there is a God, so the likes of al-Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden can burn in hell. But there's that universal wish for divine justice, that makes me think we humans made up the whole God / heaven / hell thing again.
Canuck, you like to label people. Apparantly you think that convinces others of your more rational and reasonable thinking. This propaganda is right out of the communist playbook. Something Stalin himself would do. I feel real sorry for Canadians if you're actually a cop.
Who starts the labeling game my comrade friend? Who over-reacts and throws out the propaganda as every opportunity? Who loathes the religious minded and conservative my Stalin following comrade? Who supports the socialist agenda of redistributing wealth? Who supports nationalizing banking? If I'm a torture-lover, then you are a devout communist. Just catching up on your labeling game.
C-
HD has absolutely hammered you. He keeps hitting you with reasoned approaches and dialog (not on every thread, but most of them) and all he gets from you is the same old stuff...waaah, waaaah, you ig poo poo head! You are a stupid dummy, Mr Fatty Fatso! (of course, I am paraphrasing)
Bug, were you East or West German? You weren't a devout commie were you? I think I remember you saying you were from Berlin.
I know enough of what Marx believed, and its a far cry from what Stalin implemented. Now I'm not saying the Democrat party is marxist, but some of its members are. If Marx was a US citizen today, he would be a member of the Democrat party.
Marx primarily was a philosopher. He had some utopic idea for a future society that failed to take human nature into proper account. Lenin was the primary architect who tried to implement it, Stalin was no marxist, he was merely a dictator.
East Germany was not marxist but socialist, which is a watered down version of Marx idea but did not work either.
Germany and formerly Western Germany has a system of a social controlled market, which is capitalism with safety systems. While not perfect it works a whole lot better than unchecked capitalism as used in the USA.
Oh, and politicians here suck as well, but usually not as bad as the president you had elected twice lately...
Anyone proposing communism should have his head checked and then go back to the library and do some serious reading on the history of the last 100 years.
Except that your social controlled market works better than ours. While we may be having an economic crisis now, historically US unemployment is way lower than Germanys, our growth rate usually better, etc. I'm ok with some regulation on capitalism, but not socialism.
We do have a functioning infrastructure, working health care (though the system sucks and wastes a lot of money) and only a small handful of homeless. While economy may not grow as rampant as in the US we also don't have as violent meltdowns. As for living standards: The average German is not bankrupt.
We also have a functioning infrastructure, with only occasional bridge collapses. We have the best health care in the world, if you can afford it. We have homeless, but also a warmer winter climate down south. Our "economic meltdown" has so far knocked off maybe 25% of the stock market, about down to normal growth levels for Germany. The average American is not bankrupt either, but has less of a social net to fall on.
In short, America probably has higher highs and lower lows than Germany. It keeps life more exciting!
Have the radio and TV Rwanda styled hate mongers fanned the embers of divisional and irrational hate to America? Just change Tutsi and Hutu, to Liberal and Conservative, or red and blue, or democrat and republican.
Don't let them strike the match, unless you are willing to die in the fire.
Extrapolate information from different sources.....look for the commonalities/patterns, if applicable.
And NEVER.....but NEVER......take ANYTHING....at face-value in the world around you.
Aww fuck.....now you went and got me going again:
Look, in my younger years (when I had hair and acne), I believed it all. ALL of it....you know.....UFO's.....Noah's Ark being found on Mt. Ararat.....The Yeti.....The Sasquatch....ghosts.....etc. I remember the turning point came about 10 or 15 years ago or so. I had this big debate with my brother about this stuff. I held up that famous photo, purportedly showing "The Loch Ness Monster". You know..the black-and-white one taken in 1933 or so, showing what appeared to be a creature in the water with an elongated neck and head? My brother says, "Ahhh, c'mon! That's crap! Gimme a break!" But I said, "No-no-no!! Look at it!! What else can it be?? DON'T BE A FOOL!!" Plus, I added, "it was taken by a SURGEON! A 'reputable' witness!". Well...lo-and-behold....it comes out that the pic was a hoax. A fake. A fugazi.
And then it started to snowball with everything else:
We claim there's "UFO's", or even that we have some aliens on ice at a base somewhere......but that's it: stories. They'll even say 'Area 51', like it's some kind of mantra. People claim that we celebrate J.C.'s birthday on Dec. 25th every year.....but "His" D.O.B. is NEVER mentioned in The Bible. People claim that there's a man-sized creature running around in the forests out in Washington state, Oregon or British Columbia......but we can't find him/it with satellites in orbit, that can pick up the heat of a match, or read my car licence plate.
And it....is.....all.......C-R-A-P.
It's crap, because it always boils down to the same things, over and over again-----without fail:
Money and influence.
This why when people talk about "faith", or blindly take something at face-value, I want to gag, now. There are good, well-meaning, well-intentioned people out there. Don't get me wrong. But in the over-all scheme of things, we are a deeply flawed race. Badly, even. And when it comes to money, power, influence, control or even just plain ol' malice......there's NOTHING we won't do, or any depth we'll sink to.
But now? When I hear those things or beliefs?
I think to myself......
"Well, I guess everyone at some point will have their own 'Loch Ness Monster' picture to believe in.....or hang on to."
Now Canuck, try your same thinking on all that socialist bullshit you've been pushing so far. It....is.....all.......C-R-A-P.
Some of us didn't waste so much time on UFOs and sasquatch, and started figuring out the real world much sooner, like at 18 in the military. You're still 10-15 years away from realizing you should have become a republican a long time ago.
You just admitted you're the most gullible nieve turd in the universe, and tell me I'm fucked? Shouldn't you be on some other website arguing that the moon landings were faked in Hollywood?
I keep saying this to you....but like, you jes' don't like to READ....do you?
WAS.
I WAS "fucked".
Then I woke up.
I once was lost.
But now am found.
While YOU....are still grappling with READING properly, torture-lover (and no, that sure didn't sound like a "flippant" remark to me; as a matter of fact...you went out of your way to make it clear by saying "Damn right! And I'll say it again!"
Nope.
Didn't sound "flippant" to me.
I've got an idea:
Why don't you just own what you fucking said?
I might even have a small bit of respect for ya. Lookit Stream: He may believe the Earth was created 6,000 years ago....but the bastard stands by it, by golly.
I have some bad news for you. You woke up from one fucked state, only to enter another. Maybe you should try religion?
I don't condone torture. I support interrogation with lawful methods. Waterboarding is borderline, there is no lasting permanent damage or real pain involved. Even then, I would only consider this on the worst terrorist prisoners, if some life-saving time sensitive information was believed to be held by the prisoner. But more than likely, the prisoner would only lie, so its not an effective interrogation means anyway.
My government as policy should not torture. Myself, my own personal feelings, if I had al-Zarqawi captive, or Osama bin Laden, I might want them to suffer... a lot. I expect my government to act with greater restraint than myself. So while I myself don't give a rat's ass if filthy terrorists are tortured, the rational part of me doesn't want my government doing it, or condoning it, because I do care about international opinion. Maybe if you cared about the murdered 9/11 victims a little more, or felt a bit more outrage about kidnap victims getting their heads sawed, or maybe felt a bit more disgust over captured US soldiers being executed, carved up, and booby-trapped, maybe if you were slightly more disgusted over suicide bombers blowing themselves up next to Iraqi kids, maybe you'd want some revenge against the fanatical terrorist leaders yourself.
Ohhhh...so now I don't "care about the 9/11 victimes"....or the "soldiers"...or just about anything else a nutty, flag-waving psychotic like yourself says.
Whatever. More and more I'm realizing I'm dealing with a pure simpleton here, operating on a very simplistic level.
And waterboarding is NOT "borderline", idiot. IT....IS...TORTURE. Period. And that's regardless of how Georgie-Boy chooses to re-define it. Civilized nations have already come to a common definition about that, regardless of your own fucked up view.
BTW....how come waterboarding is "borderline" with nutjobs like yourself.....yet when it was done to American POW's in Korea by the Chinese....it was called "torture"?
TORTURE.....does NOT work. If you can provide me ONE example where it did when used by U.S. personnel, wherein the intelligence gleaned actually stopped or averted a terrorist attack and has been VERIFIED....go right ahead. I'll even eat crow.
Bottom line?
If I tie you into a chair securely, and I beat the living fucking daylights outta you, and if I do it LONG enough and OFTEN enough, then I fucking GURANTEE you, that you'll fuckin' be confessing to both setting the Chicago Fire AND being on that grassy knoll in Dallas......BUT THAT DOESEN'T NECESSARILY MAKE IT FUCKING SO, NOW DOES IT???
1. Waterboarding IS torture.
2. Torture does not work.
3. You AGAIN said you condone it.
4. And when you engage in it. YOU are NO BETTER than the scum you described above.
HD, so "international opinion" is what restricts you from using torture? How about principles, like being a citizen of a civilized and democratic nation?
This is exactly what makes this "war on terror" so wrong: Principles of our societies are just ignored in the name of fighting the terrorists. This is doing their work for them. Giving up the principles of our modern societies makes us no better than them.
If the democratic nations would just stand together and keep to their principles (actually it is mostly the USA who step out of line), deliver captured terror suspects to an international court and subject them to due legal procedure, this would be much more of a threat to the terror mongers than lashing out blindly, hitting many innocents.
HD - "I support interrogation with lawful methods. Waterboarding is borderline, there is no lasting permanent damage or real pain involved."
If you think waterbording is not torture, but "borderline", then it would be something that you could and would do to your dog with a clear conscious and as a moral act?
And don't tell me your dog is not a terrorist, you are discussing the definition of torture, not the preconditions.
"TORTURE.....does NOT work. "
I already said that above. You're just confirming that you don't know how to read properly.
Any terrorist attacks averted or interregation methods are classified, if I did know them, I couldn't tell you.
"If I tie you into a chair securely, and I beat the living fucking daylights outta you, and if I do it LONG enough and OFTEN enough, then I fucking GURANTEE you, that you'll fuckin' be confessing to both setting the Chicago Fire AND being on that grassy knoll in Dallas......"
Is this your police training talking? I already stated torture doesn't work. I only said I personally might want some revenge on captured terrorist scum.
"1. Waterboarding IS torture. "
What do you have the torture rulebook? Waterboarding simulates drowning. It is not painful, it does not cause injury, its just fucking scary. Kinda like hoping to reason with you.
"2. Torture does not work. "
I already said that.
"3. You AGAIN said you condone it. "
No, I said I personally might want revenge against terrorists. I do not want my government doing it. You really don't read and comprehend very well...
"4. And when you engage in it. YOU are NO BETTER than the scum you described above. "
Well gosh, I haven't actually captured any wanted terrorists so far, so I really haven't engaged in it yet. But I'm still optimistic!
I would still say there is a big difference between torturing a known terrorist, and actually being the guy guilty of deliberately murdering innocent people purely for political or religious gain. Of course torture could only be justified if it was the only way to save lives, and it actually worked. If torturing a terrorist could save lives, could give valueable useful information, and was the only way to get this info in a timely way, then I'd support it. But this is not the case. If you can't see the difference between torture of a terrorist as a last resort only to save others, vs. deliberately murdering innocent men, women, and children, then maybe you don't think straight? Well I guess I already knew that.
"I KNOW I'M better than them. "
Well technically, you KNOW you're better than everybody. Its not that liberals don't know a lot of things, its just that so much of what they know is untrue!
"Apparently, YOU think YOU'RE not."
Wrong again! See I could never justify deliberately murdering innocent people for country or God. Terrorists can.
Bug, I think I answered your question as well. Principles outweigh international opinion.
I agree captured terrorists should be tried for their crimes. You guys want them to be treated as POWs, and so languish in prison until an official end of hostilities. The problem with an international court, is that so much of the evidence would be collected by secret methods, that we wouldn't want to share with terrorists or rogue nations. I would support a NATO court trying them.
"If you think waterbording is not torture, but "borderline", then it would be something that you could and would do to your dog with a clear conscious and as a moral act?"
Of course not! Because my dog could never be plotting the murder of innocent people! That's just crazy talk! I'm calling PETA on you! However, I've never been waterboarded, have you?
"And don't tell me your dog is not a terrorist, you are discussing the definition of torture, not the preconditions."
I was very much discussing the preconditions to torture, and by my definition, there probably are no valid conditions to torture.
As for your article Canuck, we should fix any abuses with trials of terrorists. The defense should have access to all evidence. Maybe the first trials should be declared mistrials. But again, we aren't denying them any constitutional rights, since they aren't US citizens. I found this quote most illuminating:
"our enemies deserve nothing less than what we would expect from them were the situations reversed"
Well we sure as fuck don't expect much from them do we? What has happened to every captured American soldier or contractor?
Now I agree they should have FAIR trials, without political bias. But they are not protected by US constitutional rights.
Hasn't just about everyone had a near drowning experience in their lives? I know I have. Friggin scary! But I got back to the beach, and I was just fine.
The UN would be the legal body responsible for installing the international court. And it would be the job of the prosecutors of the UN court to collect the evidence. Of course evidence has to be disclosed in court, if you don't want to tell what crimes they are guilty of you have no case.
What you are suggesting is not legal procedure it is state run revenge.
"1. Waterboarding IS torture. "
What do you have the torture rulebook? Waterboarding simulates drowning. It is not painful, it does not cause injury, its just fucking scary. Kinda like hoping to reason with you. "
Since when are Syria and Iran in the security council of the UN? Did they change the schedule?
HD, you understand pitifully few of the principles of justice and democracy. And unfortunately the US government has the same problem. You are destroying the values you seek to protect by compromising the principles of a civilized democratic nation.
If a person has to stand in front of a judge the evidence has to be presented, everyone has the right to a fair process. What you are proposing is not better than any of the "legal" processes in the countries you despise so much.
In a sane world, dictatorships and sponsors of terror would be removed from the Un or not be allowed in the first place.
Security councels notwithstanding.
Bug, I'm not saying the terrorists shouldn't be charged, given a fair trial, and presented all the evidence against them. I'm just saying I want the jury pool restricted to nations that share a military alliance with the US, so military secrets stay secret. Are you saying France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc. couldn't judge terrorists fairly?
Previous members of the UN security council have included enemies of the US, that would use our intelligence gathering techniques against us.
Frankly, even if the UN agreed to protect US intelligence secrets, they're so damn corrupt, we couldn't trust them. Next thing on the news, Iran executes have a dozen US spies...
I am not going to read the whole thread again...but, it seems at its core that the primary disagreement is whether captured individuals can be treated as criminals OR combatants in a war.
I, and most conservatives, view them as war combatants mostly because that's what they think they are: soldiers in a war against USA/capitalism/the West blah blah blah.
They are not to be treated as criminals.
The military can take care of it in tribunals or spend the remainder of their days at the luxurious Club Gitmo.
Nope.
Read to whom the Geneva conv. applies: (A and b, in particular)
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Bug, you're not reading clearly. I said I would show the terrorists on trial all evidence against them, I would provide all evidence to their defense attorneys. I would not allow that evidence to be broadcast in the media, or leave a secure area where the defendent and his attorney studied it, assuming it was classified evidence.
I would allow semi-neutral third party nations of US chosing (again preferably nato members) to comprise any jury pool, in the trials of terrorists. These jurists would have to have at least secret security clearances, and be sworn to confidentiality about evidence.
Their trials should be as fair as possible, without divulging US intelligence and security techniques to the world.
Take a very simple example. Say we had video evidence of a particular terrorist shooting prisoners, whatever. Say this video evidence was taken from a predator spy plane, satellite, etc. Enemies studying our surveilance capability get glues as to our capabilities, resolution of the images, ambient light requirements to get a good image, movement of satelites, all kinds of stuff. That in turn helps NK, Iran, Syria, etc. hide military and terrorist training facilities. If they know what we can see, they know how to hide it. Giving away US surveilance advantage to our enemies does not help our NATO allies either.
Now the examples I used pretty much already make the news. Other surveilance techniques are less well known. Capturing radio / cell phone transmissions, IR imaging, you name it.
Remember a couple years ago, there was a big stink because some dumbass leaked that the US could tap radio communications in Afghanistan to track Osama bin Laden to Tora Bora? Well Osama stopped using radios after that. One more capability made useless, because the enemy found out about it.
Know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna post this link, and then I'm gonna get long-winded (again). I saw this awhile back, and something occurred to me watching it, although I couldn't put my finger on it, at the time:
Now....here are some things I'm gonna say FOR THE RECORD, and these are things that are virtually impossible for some die-hard McCain/Palin supporters to even ATTEMPT to think through, on the flip-side, about Obama:
IMO I think John McCain IS an honorable man. That is to say, at his core, I believe him to have have the legitimate intererests of his nation at heart, and the principles to go with it. But what I firmly believe has happened, in the course of this election, is this:
He has been surrounded by the 'Rovian School Of Politicians'. These are people whom he has taken onto his payroll, in his campaign, who have told him basically, "We can win this election for you. Do what we say." These are the very same folks, who were involved in the smearing of HIM in 2000, by circulating stories that McCain had "fathered an illigitimate black child"; the same group that smeared John Kerry's war record/service by "swiftboating him"; the same group that believes that to win an election, you attack the MAN.....and not his policies. They looked at him, and said "See? We've won two elections this way. You wanna win? You wanna pay us to make sure you win? Then just do like we say.....or you will lose".
In the process, because he DOES want to be President, he unfortunately bought into this gutter philosophy, the same philosophy that dragged HIM through the mud.
Now....some might ask "Well, how can you believe at ALL that he's in any way 'honorable'? It doesen't make sense".
Watching this clip, at this stage of the game, I feel that he simply said "enough". I think he precisely BEACAUSE of the fact that he DOES have a measure of honor, and that he became so saturated with the aforementioned shit that his inner-circle baited him with, he couldn't stomach it anymore. I firmly believe that he's come to the conclusion that if he does lose this election, there was NO WAY he was going to let THAT kind of crap be his legacy, or what HE was known for.
I'll also be willing to wager that some time long after this election is over......all of this will, in fact, be revealed.
Agreed, Like I said months ago. McCain has never been in control of his campaign this time around. I don't think he wanted Palin, or even likes her, but she was crammed into his campaign by the RNC and those you mentioned.
When I watch McCain discuss her qualifications for POTUS, I see the same expression on his face as when he was forced to endorse Bush. He is being controlled by events and individuals around him to achieve a goal, with the always wrongful idea that once power is attained, all those outer influences will cease.
Hm, would be a bummer if McCain came to the point where he decided he could not take the crap anymore and put down his candidacy.
I too think that he is not a bad person and that he has the best intentions, but I think he is not a good choice for the job and intentions are not enough.
HD - I would not know about "Right wing rags", as that is not the media I use for decisions. Perhaps these "right wing rags" do cover former president Clinton, but the media I have been using has not, at least while I'm listening.
I have heard that the Hate monger Rush Limbaugh likes to discuss the Clinton family quite a bit. Perhaps he has a TV show as well?
You're the one saying you don't see Bill Clinton in the media you see. Well Bill Clinton's endorsement of Obama has been covered by every left, fair and balanced, and right wing media out there. I mean how could you possibly miss that? You'd have to be reading only the Yetti Gazette to miss it.
HD - That's correct. I never saw Bill Clinton endorse Obama. I don't watch TV much, I do read a great deal, and I listen to the radio while I work. None of the media I consume is main stream, so yes I guess you are using something else.
So what, am I misinformed because I missed that pointless TV moment.
But hey, I don't watch Jerry Springer, Oprah, or even the Daily show, and I did not watch either of the conventions. Its all propaganda.
Well I agree the conventions are propaganda. Did you see (or read) Powell's endorsement of Obama? So I'm guessing you missed Oprah's endorsement of Obama to?
Famous earlier quotes by Bill Clinton:
Clinton offered measured praise for Republican John McCain, saying he had served heroically in Vietnam. "He loves our country every bit as much as we all do," Clinton said. "And as a senator, he has shown his independence of right-wing orthodoxy on several issues."
He said Obama's opposition to the Iraq war was a "fairy tale."
"I mean, when is the last time we elected a president based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running?" Clinton said on "The Charlie Rose Show. "In theory, we could find someone who is a gifted television commentator and let them run."
HD - Hey I saw a old clip of Bill Clinton on the TV last night. He was trying to force the three big automakers to build cars with a minimum 30MPG CAFE standard. The Big three said it was not technically possible to build a car that gets 30MPG.
"The Big three said it was not technically possible to build a car that gets 30MPG."
As an engineer, I disagree that its not technically feasible to build cars that get 30MPG. I do think its maybe not safe or cost-effective. There are statistics for deaths per auto accident, related to vehicle size. And duh, if you crash a tiny little rolling coffin, you're more likely to die. (This probably required a multi-million dollar government study) Hybrids and hydrogen fuel cells are much more expensive currently, and were more so in Bill's presidency. So I don't buy into the big auto / oil conspiracy. Its bullcrap. The auto companies made the cars that we wanted to buy. GM made the first electric car, and no one wanted to buy it. The first Prius's were laughed at, until gas hit $3 a gallon. They are now all working full speed on electric and hybrid cars, just in time for gas to dive.
I think the US needs to reduce its demand on imported oil, but we need to do so in a cost effective and safe manner. Mandating smaller cars for everyone would cause the traffic deaths to soar. I'd buy an electric car, if I lived down south. Batteries don't work for crap when its -20 degrees F.
HD, you are way out of sync with the automibile industry. The USA are a third world country when it comes to cars. Have a look at the European market, there are many many cars that make 30MPG and more and they are not the small tin boxes you protray them to be.
I drive a car that makes about 20MPG at 150HP, not a small one, large sedan. And I am about to replace it with a newer model that makes about 25MPG at 190HP, same car. I could get a model with an engine that does 30MPG at 110HP, but that is not enough fun.
The US cars are just crap, totally behind the technical curve. Got any idea why the US auto makers are doing so badly?
Bug, you said it yourself. A car that gets 30 mpg is no fun to drive! You just admitted you'd rather have a more powerful car that only got 25 mpg. All us Americans want, is the right to buy more powerful cars, and not have our government mandate what we can buy.
US cars are not crap. The quality of many German automakers has dropped below many US automakers. The problem with US car companies is that they keep building larger and more powerful cars, because that's what America wants to buy.
In 1970, America was cranking out muscle cars. 11:1 compression. cubic inches over 400. V-8s. Most everything got horseshit gas mileage, but was fast. Then the gas crunch hit in 1973. All those muscle cars sat, or were suddenly worth nothing. Fuel efficient Japanese cars and volkswagen beetles got their foot in the US market.
Well jump forward 35 years. American car companies now cranking out trucks and SUVs with gas sucking V-8s again. Then another gas crunch makes them all worthless again. Suddenly that ugly asses Prius is worth more than that Chevy Suburban. American car companies are guilty of making the same stupid mistake twice. But they'll recover quicker this time, and hopefully learn their lesson.
HD, I drive a large sedan because the main use for this car is long distance travel or the weekend shopping haul. If I did not have the requirement of the long distance drives (which includes to be able to travel at 130-140mph) I would have a much smaller car which handles better in the city and is a lot lighter (mine is 1.6t). The smaller engine would be very well for that one.
There are lots of smaller size cars around that are safe and are a better deal for the city, but are fun to drive and do better than 30MPG. Also a Diesel engine is a good option to get the MPG up, you can easily get a sedan here with a >30MPG Diesel engine.
If you think German cars have dropped below the quality of US cars you must not have compared any cars lately, looking at a 20 year old VW beatle does not count.
The US car industry is easily 10 years behind in engine technology, as for production quality better compare with Spain or Italy if you want a chance to come out ahead.
My Toyota SUV 4-wheel drive Rav-4 (over 10 years old) gets 30MPG. It and all of the other Toyotas I have owned have been of stunning quality, design, and endurance. I have owned three American cars, and one was very durable, the other two were crap.
Just from my personal experience American car quality is rising on some models, but is a long way from the quality of Toyota.
For example: My mother has a Ford Focus, and it has improved quality, not as good as her previous Escort, but when checking the recall and TSB's there are over 800 for this vehicle. I was checking for the recall on collapsing coil springs.
So just out of curiosity I checked to see what the Rav-4 had, and it had 1 TSB, and it was for when rear window is replaced.
Technically, many US designed vehicles are quite good, but practically (design, and quality) they are way behind. To much style over real substance.
Palin's a MILF! Definitely worth screwing or spurting over.
But to risk making her leader of the Free World? NOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!
Typical McCain trickery. Judge the electorate, get it half right.
canucky i believe in you , you are the MAN..................
Keep doing it, forget the glumbertarions who want to usurp your position as sheriff.
You deserve another medal . LOL
winning the 649 would be nice ,but having a brain like yours is winning the lottery of life.
Yes I like to fuck with you but you can take it.
It's fun to be funning with you. peace N Love
"...it does not matter if the war is not real, or when it is, that victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous.
The essential act of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labor. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance.
In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects."
No, honey...it means they disagree.
As a sheep, I recognize you must swallow whole everything your side believes, but not over here.
BTW...I notice you routinely fault me as a coward for not donning the uniform for my country. I have never faulted you for your deep, penetrating support of the homosexual movement even though you aren't gay. Or, have I erred in my assumption?
Had you been paying attention, lo these last 2 years, you would have noticed that Obama's assention is because of his race.
I am sure you listed to Limbaugh and his comments. I am sure you are not basing your narrow opinion on this one article. Not you, C-. You always check to make sure your facts are balanced and two-sided.
Bigot.
That blog has many intresting comment, most are correct. I was a life member in the GOP until "W" came along and gave the party of Goldwater a new, mean, religous direction. F*#K the Neocon, Obama has my vote.
Obama's assention is BECAUSE of his race or in spite of it?
If (as the loyal McInsane and now Limbaugh stooge you are) you think only in terms of skin colour then you're even sadder than I already knew
Erm one would actually suppose Obama's assention is because he speaks to the issues better, has campaigned better and comes across better than McInsane whom you've said you don't like, who doesn't represent your views, but for whom you still plan on voting?
IQ-1
Because of it. Remember how he got here. Through the Democrat nominating process...NOT SOME NATIONAL REFERENDUM. Think man, think. When else has there been a more grossly underqualified party's nominee? For many months (including now) it is perfectly legitimate to claim that Obama should be the Pres because it is about time we had a black man, or similar arguments.
On other blogs I have argued: Since when does one's race qualify or disqualify one for the Presidency?
BTW, Mr. Bigbrains...none of the things you mentioned (speaks to the issues, campaigned better, etc) have anything to do with qualifying for the Presidency. You have just said that the reasons BHO assended to this place is STYLE not SUBSTANCE. That makes you the unthinking one.
Yet anyone who disagrees with Obama's political viewpoints is clearly a racist? That's what Canuck keeps telling me. I'm afraid both sides still think somewhat in terms of skin color, we just don't all talk about it.
Again...your own stupidity and rationalizations mock you.
Those other examples are valid because they pertain to ACTUAL groups of peoples, and as such, CANNOT apply to criticisms (steroetyped, or otherwise) to a political party, or its supporters.
Why?
Simple:
In those examples, one cannot choose whether or not to be a visible minority; one cannot choose or change whatever nationality from whence he/she sprung from; one cannot choose to simply wish a disease away (alchololism), so any slant on those as a whole...would, of course, be "bigotry".
BUT....one CAN change political parties; one CAN change from Republican to Democrat; one CAN switch those allegiances quite easily. And vice versa.
SO....couple of things, here:
1. Stop your fucking whining.
2. Clean up your definition of what "bigotry" is.
3. Stop defending a political party who's membership are predominantly too dumb to care to know any better ....by sheer choice. CHOICE.
4. Stop applying normal civilized standards of behaviour to a particular political party.
Oh man...I can't believe I just said that to someone who thinks waterboarding is "borderline".
See, Stream-O LOVES using this nutty argument all da time wit me. So...here goes:
Whenever a person gets called a "religious zealot", it's because that person has CHOSEN, or made a CONCIOUS DECISION of free will......to be an idiot. See? They can choose to wake up ANYTIME, put away their Grimms Fairy Tales about talking snakes and talking shrubs that are on fire as they speak.....and join the 21st century. But once they CHOOSE to use this insipid, personal belief to judge others by, or as a litmus to cast a vote, or (even worse) as a guide with which to run a nation by......then all criticism of THEM...becomes fair game, and no "bigotry" is involved or such a charge can be applied. To say otherwise by any of THEM, implies a weak crutch/justification for their silly, nonsensical fantasies....for which they've made a deliberate CHOICE.
Now....take yer average sheet-wearing, KKK-member, right? Now THERE'S a fellow, who has made a PERSONAL CHOICE to be a fucking ignorant dummy, right? He CHOSE to believe in the silly things he does, and that's fine. He can CHOOSE not to believe those things at ANY time, and act like a civilized fucking human being. So....is it "bigoted" to call HIM a "bigot"? Well, my good pal Stream-O seems to think so, according to one of his reactions, when I called out one such vermin on this type of thing.
Now...heres' the crux of it....(PAY ATTENTION!):
"Bigotry", or rather the MANNER in which it is being slung HEREABOUTS by self-serving ZEALOTS protecting, nourishing and desperately trying to justify their own personal belief system UPON others, is the LAST LINE OF DEFENCE DRAWN IN THE SAND, TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR OWN PREJUDICES. Now......me? Personally? I could give a rats ass if someone wants to go and worship/believe in talking snakes that make women eat fruit out of a tree. Could care less. Bully for them. Yippee. BUT....once they start holding others in judgement BASED on those beliefs that they CHOSE.....CHOSE!!!.......then said beliefs are no longer personal and private....and the fucking gloves WILL come off. And if THAT happens....they really got NO room to cry "foul", or scream "bigot!". It just makes their argument weaker....more petulant. And it most certainly does NOT make ME a "bigot", either against his chosen beliefs....a political party.....a political candidate.....or anything else that is within the realm of someone having the opportunity to CHANGE a viewpoint, or just plain keep the damn stuff to ones self. It's private and personal...and THAT....I could even respect. But once you start infllicting it (whatever "it" is), upon others....then it ain't personal anymore, is it? As a matter of fact.....you now have LOTS of involvement with it. And then to cry "bigot" when the shit hits the fan, and spirals out of control?? Sounds rather petty...don't it? Look back, and see how many times he's done it. Absurd....ain't it? He soounds almost like a little kid throwing a tantrum, fer chrisasakes: "liar-liar-pants-on-fire!!"....."bigot-bigot-bigot!!!" Jesus.
This is why "bigotry" has a sole focus on people of race, colour, ancestry and sexual oreintation. Political parties/supporters/affiliations just don't fall into those criteria. At all.
Take Stream-O there, f'rinstance: do I believe he's really gone over the deep-end with this whole "religious" thingy? Yup. Do I believe he uses it give himself a smug feeling of being moraly superior to anyone and everyone around him, because of it? Yeah, I'd say so. Do I believe that he uses it to judge others by, even going so far as to nurture an UNSPOKEN justification for condemning others, based on the above criteria? Yes. I do.
Buuuut.......(here's the kicker)......
Do I believe that HE is a crack-dealer? Nope. Do I believe that he's an honest, law-abiding taxpaying citizen? Yes. Do I believe (based on his on-line persona, at any rate) that he contributes to societys woes, by breaking the law or victimizing others? No. Do I believe he'd give a starving, dying dog on the sidewalk some water? Sure do. Do I believe he is genuinely and sincerely pained by the young American kids who have died overseas? Very much so, yes. BUT......do I have a serious problem with NOT his PERSONAL religious beliefs as such....but the MANNER in which he uses said beliefs as a litmus for others, considering it IS an act of free choice on HIS part? YES....much like our imaginary Klansman mentioned earlier. See, by HIS definition of the term, I would, say, be a "bigot" by calling a "bigot"...a "bigot". See how ridiculous that sounds? Silly...ain't it? Look back, and see how many times he's done it. Absurd. He sounds almost like a little kid throwing a tantrum, fer chrisasakes: "liar-liar-pants-on-fire!!"....."bigot-bigot-bigot!!!" Coward-Scaredy-Cat-Coward-Scardy-Cat!!"
Jesus.
The term "bigot" then, at least as it pertains to ME in this little Town of Glumbert....
Now....what I've done here, is give you a very rational (or so I think), civil, point-of-view, from my end....k?
IF....and I DO mean IF.....I get an asinine response, or some more petty rhetoric about how "bigoted" I am, OR I get some half-assed comment about being a "Marxist".......all bets are off, and we go back to trading pot-shots and insults. I'll roll with it, either way.
Your call.
(Stream-O? This don't apply to you. YET. YOU......can go take a powder for a while; go have a cream soda and some Tylenol or something. I wanna see what this gent has to say)
Let's be clear here, on another, far more pertinent, point...that being the clear difference between a "bigot".......and a "racist".
A "bigot" is someone who (for want of a better description) is just willfully, and blindly ignorant----"stupid", if you will---who simply does not know any better (i.e., our imaginary KKK friend, or the fictional Archie Bunker, for example); a "racist" in my view, is a far worse creature: this is someone who usually tends to be already educated AND very calculated in his hatred, who is far from being blind and ignorant, and who COULD/SHOULD know better (i.e. Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter, et al).
Now ask yourself a question, swabbie:
Do I fall into either of those categories? Pot-shots, broadsides, political views and occassional jabs to tweak a response ASIDE, that is. THINK CAREFULLY on this one.
Canuck, I'm gonna give you a serious answer, but you won't like it.
I don't really buy that alcoholism is a disease. Are religion, homosexuality, and political thinking diseases? I'm pretty convinced that liberalism is a mental disease. But seriously, I don't think you can make people change their religious beliefs, or maybe even political beliefs, any more than you can convert a homo. Its how your brain is wired. How many times in history have people tried to change others religious or political beliefs by coercion? It doesn't work. Its not a matter of educating them out of some thinking. God knows I can't educate you out of your liberalism. So while they may not look different on the outside, You're still being bigoted against the way a person thinks, feels, believes.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry: "A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own"
From a dictionary:
Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Thats you Canuck!
Synonyms for bigot:
fanatic, hypocrite, intolerant, zealot, diehard, extremist, maniac
A klansman is a bigot because they are intolerant of others based on race, religion whatever. Let me ask you this Canuck. Is a klansman a bigot if he hates Jews? They're white, must be the religion that klansman is bigoted against. Just like you're bigoted against Streamo's religion, or anyone elses. Now you probably don't hate religious people to the extent that Klansman hate Jews, but its still soft bigotry.
"Now....what I've done here, is give you a very rational (or so I think), civil, point-of-view, from my end....k? "
And I do appreciate that. You're still wrong though.
"Let's be clear here, on another, far more pertinent, point...that being the clear difference between a "bigot".......and a "racist". "
A racist is intolerant of others because of race. A bigot can be intolerant of others for just about anything. A racist is automatically a bigot, but not the other way around. I'm not calling you a racist. Bigotry can have nothing to do with racism.
"a "racist" in my view, is a far worse creature: this is someone who usually tends to be already educated AND very calculated in his hatred, who is far from being blind and ignorant, and who COULD/SHOULD know better (i.e. Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter, et al). "
So a racist is like a really smart bigot? See again, I'm not calling you a racist. Rush, Matt, and Ann aren't racist, they're just republicans. That might make them bigoted against liberals, but not racist. The don't hate blacks, asians, latinos, eskimos, pacific islanders, whatever.
I'm not trying to insult you, (in this instance) but seriously ask yourself this: Are you intolerant of other peoples opinions? Are you intolerant of people who identify themselves as republicans? Are you intolerant of people who worship God? Yes you are. That by definition makes you a bigot. And admitting you have a problem is the first step...
Your definition of "bigot" and "racist" I wildly disagree with. Are you telling me, that if I say, "Because of such-and-such reasons, I think Political Party A are completely skewed (for whatever reasons) and their policies are totally asinine".....then you're saying that would make me a "bigot"??? Criticizing a POLITICAL PARTY??? So if I were to criticize The Aryan Botherhood...would THAT make me a "bigot"? Naw, man: you're doing what Stream does: you're using that term to draw that last line of defence in the sand, to justify your own position. And I've told you repeatedly why HIS "religion" became fair ball. Okay...so I have a problem with institutionalized religion, as opposed to any one sect. Does THAT make me a "bigot"? Anti-establishment (towards a certain establishment, to be sure) maybe....but a "bigot"? So by YOUR reasoning...that means all those philosophers in the Middle Ages who had the nuts to say to The Church that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and NOT the other way around like The Church said, and who were later burned alive at the stake as heretics...well, THEY must have been "bigots".....and had it coming....right? See? You're doing it again: you're falling back on a comfortable term as a defence, by trying to include a group (a POLITICAL group) into that target venue. Well...I guess in the way YOU see "democracy", one MUST NOT criticize any political group...yes? Otherwise...one would be a "bigot"? Why not just substitute the word "bigot" for "subversive"? I mean...THAT'S what you'd REALLY like to say....isn't it? Be honest now.
Besides, aren't you REALLY saying, in effect, "Anyone who criticizes or disagrees with anyone or ANYTHING else...is a bigot"?
Like, seriously....come on. That really IS absurd, and you know it.
Look, because of my bombastic nature, and method of delivery, I can tell without a word-of-a-lie.....I've been called A LOT of things in my life. But as to either a "bigot" or a "racist"? Not a single time. No way.
Sorry, dude....but I'm much better than that.
Always have been.
Always will be.
Plus, if you say Rush, Matt or Anne are NOT "racists"...then I kinda know where you're at, at this point. I really hope they are thankful that they live where they live, and hate-speech and hate-mongering are tolerated. They should consider themselves fortunate. I mean that. This is why "racists" are infinitely more vile than your average "bigot": they can usually be quite subtle (or overt, depending on the circumstances) as they want to be. The "bigot" is usually just right up-front, and easy to spot. This is why todays Republican campaign are smart about it; instead of the word "nigger"....they will use words like "terrorist"...or "muslim"....or "socialist".......or "madrassa"...or "traitor"....or "no lapel pin"....
And pally...you are VERY mistaken, if you think that there aren't those in those within the neocon base of the Republican Party, who don't follow this philosophy.
VERY mistaken.
Also note, that because these matters are always open to interpretation (and that's fair) ....why is it, that out of ALL the Americans who frequent this site...it's only TWO that use the term "bigot" when coming at me?:
Yourself....and Stream-O.
Why is that, do you think? (the answer IS kinda obvious, actually)
C-
You just wrote some of the silliest rationalizing I have ever seen. You have officially outdone yourself.
I will answer your question at the end of your post, which is absurd on its face:
Most people do not care what you think in any deep way. HD and I are among the few who have made you a hobby. There are many here who simply are not interested in engaging in dialog, regardless of what they think of you.
Being a bigot is not something that can be voted away or defined by popularity. If 62 percent of the people here think you are not a bigot...so what? It doesn't change the fact.
"Your definition of "bigot" and "racist" I wildly disagree with. "
I noticed that. But my definintions are supported by the dictionary. Yours are wrong. A racist is not a really smart bigot. You can be bigotted against homos, that doesn't make you a racist.
You can criticize political parties all you want. Its when you're intolerant of others opinions, say at the first instance they say they prefer McCain, to the point that you can't even talk with them, you immediately start throwing your republican stereotypes at them, and of course instantly assume you're intellectually superior, that's what makes you a bigot.
"So if I were to criticize The Aryan Botherhood...would THAT make me a "bigot"? "
No. If you met a member who identified themselves as a member of the Aryan brotherhood, and you immediately assume they are stupid, inbred, religious zealots, etc. (probably could assume racist in that case), you're applying bigotted stereotypes to them. Now that person may be a complete fucking asshole, and you may be well within your right to not like them. But when you assume any generalized stereotype about anybody, your being a bigot.
There are different degrees of bigotry. If I assume a Jew doesn't want to work on Sunday, well that might be a stereotype, but its based on common Jewish believes. Its not really hurtful, and not really bigoted I don't think.
Now if my black friend comes over for dinner, and I'm serving fried chicken, watermelon, and Colt45. He'd probably think I meant well, but was a dumbass. I would be bigoted, but not in a mean or deliberately hurtful way.
If I interview a gay guy for a job, but won't hire him because I don't want no flamers in my office. Or I go light a cross on fire in some black guys yard. I'm being bigoted and deliberately hurtful.
I don't care for institutionalized religion either, I came from a Catholic upbringing. That doesn't mean I assume a religious person is a creationist, crusader, zealot, automatically stupid for believing what you consider crap. I don't assume all Jews hate Muslims, and vice versa, but Israel and Iran don't get along. Ok to generalize about an institution, not so much about people.
You can make generalized descriptions of institutions or churches, you can be anti-establishment, but generalizing about people almost always makes you wrong.
"Why not just substitute the word "bigot" for "subversive"?"
Not even close to the same thing. You can be a very non-bigotted subversive, or a very bigotted non-subversive.
Subversive means:
Intended or serving to subvert, especially intended to overthrow or undermine an established government.
Nazi bigots didn't want to subvert their government. William Ayers wanted to subvert the American government, but I don't know if he was a bigot.
"Besides, aren't you REALLY saying, in effect, "Anyone who criticizes or disagrees with anyone or ANYTHING else...is a bigot"? "
No. Anyone can disagree. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and they all stink. But when you can't even respect the other opinion, you assume there is something wrong or inferior about them, that's the bigoted part. Do you hear Obama say Palin must be an inbred, racist, stupid, reactionary zealot? I don't know if Obama thinks that, he doesn't say it. You pretty much think it and say it. But you don't really know shit about her. You disagree with her political beliefs, and don't like her talking style, but you know nothing about her thoughts, religious beliefs, intelligence, family history, whatever. You know only the one thing about her, her political thinking, and you assume / infer the rest / fill in the blanks from the stereotypes in your mind. Hell I may be giving you too much credit for even knowing her political beliefs, you may just hate her because of that dang republican label.
I had a lady stop by my house recently, running for state house of representatives, she was a democrat. I told her I usually vote republican, because I want lower property taxes. We talked civil-like for a while. She had all these great things on her brocure: better schools, save the environment, health care for all, all good things. But no fucking way to pay for all that without jacking taxes. She figured out she probably wasn't going to win my vote, and went on her way. I didn't insult her, I didn't call her a stupid commie whore, I didn't even think it. I do believe she feels she's doing the right thing, I just disagree with her that its the right thing to do.
"Look, because of my bombastic nature, and method of delivery, I can tell without a word-of-a-lie.....I've been called A LOT of things in my life. But as to either a "bigot" or a "racist"? "
Again, bigot and racist are not automatically the same thing. Your definition of racist, as some super genius calculating bigot is wrong. Racism is just one subset of bigotry, intolerant against a person's race. You can be a bigot against homos, Jews, Irish, catholics, pilgrims, Polocks, poor white trash, rich white snobs, lawyers, etc. If you're white, that's not racism (assuming you don't consider Jews a different race as Hitler did.)
"Plus, if you say Rush, Matt, or Anne are NOT "racists"...then I kinda know where you're at, at this point. " What makes them racist? Again, because they're reactionary right-wing, they automatically have to be racist? Could they not be friends with and respect a reactionary right-wing black man? I'm pretty sure Colin Powell was well regarded by them in the past, until he endorsed Barack. Then he betrayed their right-wing beliefs, so they probably attacked him. Not because he was black. Now they may have some deep down bigotry or even racism, but they don't say it on the radio. I don't know it, you don't know it.
"This is why "racists" are infinitely more vile than your average "bigot":
You think a bigot is a subtle racist, this is wrong. I could lynch every gay man I met, on the spot, with pure fucking hatred. If he's white, than I'm not racist. Its still a hate crime. Even if he's black. I may not hate the fact that he's black, only the gay. I may have my best buddy helping me lynch homos be a black guy. This is not how I feel by the way. I have a gay brother-in-law. He babysits my kids. And no my boy hasn't learned how to be gay from him yet. Course he hides it from my kids.
"This is why todays Republican campaign are smart about it; instead of the word "nigger"....they will use words like "terrorist"...or "muslim"....or "socialist".......or "madrassa"...or "traitor"....or "no lapel pin".... "
Wow... Holy shit, I can't believe you believe that. Republicans like to label people just like you do, especially enemies or opponents. If you're saying Republicans are not allowed to criticize or label Obama, well it is dirty politics, but its not bigoted.
Yet when you call Palin a stupid Nazi whore, how is it that you're better than them? Surely you must really mean that she's a cracker, and hate her because she's white? Do you get it? Seems foolish if you're also white, but that's what you're accusing republicans of. If a black man can't stand Palin or McCain, is he racist? If a black man screams out at a democrat rally, that Palin is a witch and a Nazi whore, is he racist? Well he might be. But then you might have said that. (I'm assuming that you're white, but I don't really know that.)
There are plenty of true racists in the republican party, and in the democrat party. There are probably many white people that will not vote for Obama because he's black, and they'll sling mud anyway they can, and they will attack him every way but attack his race. But there are many more Republicans, that don't agree with his higher taxes, socialist leanings, weak foreign policy, etc., and they'll sling mud anyway they can to. But "nigger" never enters their thoughts.
"why is it, that out of ALL the Americans who frequent this site...it's only TWO that use the term "bigot" when coming at me?"
Because we are the ones you've been bigotted against. You attack and ridicule Streamo for his faith and politics. I mearly mentioned I prefer McCain, and support the Iraq war, and the attacks on my character from you never ceased. You sling more mud than McCain, Bush, and the swift boat vets combined.
You're not a hardcore evil bigot. I don't think you want to round up republicans and send them to re-education camps, like Stalin or Mao (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.) But if you meet a complete stranger, and he's got a McCain / Palin sign in his yard (hasn't been stolen yet), do you automatically assume he's a redneck war-mongering dumbass? Do you act differently toward him?
I'll be honest, when I see the Obama sticker (well maybe just the old Wellstone and the Kerry 2004 stickers), I'm thinking liberal tree-hugging hippie dipshit. But I don't treat them any differently, until they prove to me they're a dipshit. I might argue with my liberal co-worker about politics, but I still treat him the same.
So maybe you wouldn't treat a republican rudely, or any different in real life, maybe its just this anonymous internet that lets your true bigotted feelings fly? So is it ok if I just throw out the "n" word from time to time for fun? I mean, I'll never meet these people.
1. If I ever met a member of the KK K or the Aryan Brotherhood....they ARE assholes. That's a given. I don't care if they live in a mansion or trailor-park. They SHOULD not have a platform of ANY kind. You can defend them all you want, and give them "equal air time". Nope. I will not. They are scum, from the tips of their pointed heads, down to their webbed feet. Their views are scum. THEY....are.....scum. And ANY sane person would agree. No socially redeeming qualities or values there, whatsoever. And most certainly nothing worth hearing. And if you want to call me a "bigot" because of THAT...feel free. Go ahead. Defend them. But they would NEVER get a platform from ME. Nor should they......from ANY sane person.
2. I have met many reasoned, rational folks who are Republicans, who CAN come at me with a sensible point of view, with no hint of malice or ill-will. I have. But MOST....MOST...tend to sink to the depths I've shown in those clips, and MOST tend to subscribe to the base ideas of the others within their ranks in that venue. I'll agree with President Jimmy Carter who said a while back (he's a favourite amongst the right-wingers, ha-ha), when he said "The Republican Party has, for a long, long time.....used racism---sometimes overtly, sometimes subtley....as a part of their general policy/philosophy".
3. If you think the "bigot" defence is a way to defend the Republican Party (or ANY political party or candidate, for that matter), then that is quite lean. Very thin.
4. Say I bump into you on the street. We start chatting. We get onto politics. We go and and on and on. And then you find out I'm a foreigner. Surprise. And then I say to you, "You're Republican Party, your current President...are complete and total planks"......and here's why...." You gonna call me "anti-American"? (like a few radicals have attempted around here) A "bigot"? Gimme a break. In any free and democratic society, ANY LEGITIMATE political party/figure SHOULD BE and IS.....fair game. ALWAYS. I'll put in a caveat there: so long as they can BACK IT UP, IN GOOD FAITH, with some well-founded points of view. It may interest you to know, that for most of my early years, I was what you would call a card-carrying "conservative". Through-and-through. I re-adjusted those views over a lengthy period of time (as is anyones right in a free society), for a variety of reasons. Now, if they are NOT fair game...then you've got worse problems....and better seriously re-evaluate the system you live under...OR..alter YOUR way of thinking. Simple labelling and name-calling does not cut it. Mind you, I HAVE done that (more for theatrics sake), but that's never ALL I have. Big difference.
5. I've had many-many tangos with Stream over his religion (and religion in general). He can't seem to grasp what I've been drilling into his head all along: there's a difference between being against anothers personal religious beliefs.....and being against the instiutionalized, established structure of ALL religions. Again, once he came out swinging, and started judging others by the mighty sword of HIS "religion", and worse yet, allowing his religious beleifs dictate who holds office (like that broad in that video). ....well, then it ain't a "personal and private belief" any longer...is it? Then THAT...becomes fair game, as well. It would be the EXACT same thing, as me saying to you, "Hey Helldiver! I'm a Canadian! That means I'm BETTER than you....and because of THAT..I'm right and you're wrong about everything. " I ever say that? To anyone? Or even WOULD I? Of course, ALL of this, then, applies to anyone wanting to run the office of President from a foundation of religious belief, or influence. It then becomes EVERYONE'S business. If you ever had President who was an out-and-out bigot or racist.....same thing. He becomes fair game. A political party? Same thing. Fair game. This is what McCain/Palin are finding out. The hard way.
I've given you example after example, of the racist and bigoted and paranoic tendencies of the current Republican Party, as well as that of their core base. You want to prove the same menality exists everywhere else? Fine. Let's see it.
"1. If I ever met a member of the KK K or the Aryan Brotherhood....they ARE assholes. "
I never said they weren't. They are obvious racists being a member of such organizations, and that is never cool. That doesn't automatically make them stupid, inbred, religious nutjobs, etc. It just makes them racist. I never defended them. I questioned your bigotted stereotyping of others, as these groups do. These people are racists, because they've carried their bigotted stereotyping of others to an extreme, and you are rightly disgusted with them. You are doing the same Canuck, with your bigotted stereotyping of others based on religious or republican beliefs. No, I'm not defending them at all. I want you to realize you're making the same mistakes as them, only against different people.
"I'll agree with President Jimmy Carter who said a while back, when he said "The Republican Party has, for a long, long time.....used racism---sometimes overtly, sometimes subtley....as a part of their general policy/philosophy". "
Carter is a dumbass, and the worst US president in my lifetime (including Bush). I'd like to see Jimmy back up that accusation with any facts.
"3. If you think the "bigot" defence is a way to defend the Republican Party then that is quite lean. Very thin. "
I'm actually not trying to defend the republican party. Again, just trying to show you that you're no better than those you berate. You're on the other left-wing team, but using the same bigottry and stereotyping as the hard-core right-wing might do. (Which is certainly not all republicans, just as all democrats are not hard-core communist leftists). So how is it better when you call Palin a Bible-thumping whore? Either you say it because you're being bigotted, or its just for theatric effect. Either way, I find it crude and offensive.
"4. Say I bump into you on the street. We start chatting. We get onto politics. We go and and on and on. And then you find out I'm a foreigner. Surprise. And then I say to you, "You're Republican Party, your current President...are complete and total planks"......and here's why...." You gonna call me "anti-American"? (like a few radicals have attempted around here) A "bigot"? Gimme a break. "
No. You are not an American, but still entitled to your opinion in America. I would disagree with you to some extent. Now when I identify myself as agreeing with the war in Iraq, any republican principle, or anything Bush has said, that's when you become noticeably agitated. Now you might bite your tongue in person, but you're thinking this guy is inbred, stupid, racist, etc. etc.
"In any free and democratic society, ANY LEGITIMATE political party/figure SHOULD BE and IS.....fair game. "
When did I ever disagree with that? You call specific posters here racists, stupid in-bred rednecks, etc. They are not political parties, they are not public political figures. You are not just insulting those posters. You are applying bigotted stereotypes to them. Maybe I consider your words too seriously, and its just theatrics as you say. But little kids view these posts.
"5. I've had many-many tangos with Stream over his religion (and religion in general)."
I have nothing to do with that. I've made my religious beliefs pretty clear. Maybe you failed to distinguish between organized religion and Streamos personal beliefs? Or maybe you and Streamo got off on the wrong foot? Its not like you jump to conclusions or anything...
"worse yet, allowing his religious beleifs dictate who holds office (like that broad in that video). ...."
I still fail to see how Palin's religious beliefs are any more crazy than Obama's. Do you argue with Obama supporters, who would vote for Obama, because they support his religious beliefs? But hard-core religious people vote using their religious thinking as a guide. They believe religion is more powerful than this world, and I don't know that they are wrong.
"Hey Helldiver! I'm a Canadian! That means I'm BETTER than you....and because of THAT..I'm right and you're wrong about everything. " I ever say that? "
I think so, but in different words. Maybe it wasn't the Canadian in you, so much as the left-winger in you.
"I've given you example after example, of the racist and bigoted and paranoic tendencies of the current Republican Party, as well as that of their core base. "
You have? You've given me examples of racist or bigotted behavior by a few individuals, who attended Republican rallies. Now assuming they really are Republicans, and not Obama plants, that hardly makes them mainstream average republicans. They might be crazy right-wing religious nutjobs, as you again mistakenly assume all Republicans must be. Now if I hear an Obama supporter say something marxist or socialist, (other than Obama himself) can I assume all Democrats are socialists?
you guys are in a heap of trouble no matter who gets in. just make sure you keep your heads down children in the house and all your women folk safe.
Anarchy is the order of the day for you guys......................
No! You all can't move to Canada, remember your border patrol are armed and will shoot.
Mexico is out of the question for American unless you wear a Canadian hat. They love Canadians .
That is call a toque [pronounced chuc]
peaceNlove
Would be nice if it were that way, but as it looks they will rake in bonuses even though their banks get bail out money from the governments to survive.
Goddamn canuck, how much time do you have in a day to write all this bullshit? Wouldnt your time be better spent doing some fundraising for Obama or something?
But I have to admit it does hit my funny bone when a guy who talks this much crap calls someone else closed minded when he doesent know the first thing about them or what they stand for.
Please get a job canuck, or at least take up a hobby. Something constructive maybe? I mean you can post here and just keep banging your head against a brick wall, and Ill probably still laugh reading it, but I mean this from one person to another, get a life.
Thank you in advance for your nonsensical, ad hominem, closed minded response.
Streamlined and Helldiver are retards. Canuck is a semi-retard. Mako is bright. Podman is earnest but deluded. Ares is a buffoon. Canadaman is a moron. Gymyg is senile. The Bug is a fascist pig.
I have haemorroids.
I was talking to a purple rabbit this morning about the election, and he said "Here is the strait poop." (Odd phrase for a rabbit to use, but I digress)
"You guys are fu*ked, the great squirrel told me so. Learn to eat grass and leaves, because that's all you are going to have."
(and then he hopped off, and I lost my conservative consultant)
Funny thing about that rabbit, is he was wearing right wing rags, with a Jimmy Carter for president pin on one ear, and a Ronald Regan pin in the other.
But with the rabbits advice I know I'm on the right track for voting this year.
Being loaded onto a cattle truck, starved, mutilated, humiliated, flensed alive, experimented on, raped, gassed and burned to death.
None of the above can compare with the pain I am experiencing from my piles.
I apologise for my part in failing to stop Hitler.
After that retard crack, I've lost all sympathy for you.
Seriously though, while none of us were probably even alive when Hitler was, we were alive when Milosivich, Saddam, and Kim Jong Il were in power. I'm not sure we've all learned the lessons of Hitler. Well like Meatloaf says, maybe 2 out of 3 ain't bad.
The amazing thing is that what she is wearing (probably only once anyway), doesn't look any better than if she had bought the stuff from K-Mart.
I hate being patronized about how "I'm hurtin' right now" by someone wearing expensive accouterments. I noticed the same thing when Hillery was running, and she had (what looked like) one of those $220K black pearl necklaces on.
If you find being described as semi-retarded amusing, then you are indeed a low intellect jerk off. Oh - I forgot - you're a Canadian, and nobody cares what you are or what you think. Mounties, maple leaves, panoramic viewing trains, dull and ultimately feeble politics - what a great contribution to makind. Go back to your igloo and fart until your air runs out you cretin.
Comments (234)
To post a comment, you need to login or signup.