April 19, 2007
[...] let’s not stop at the Second, let’s tweak all the amendments. Let’s specify that since the First Amendment was written before Radio and TV and Movies and the Internet were in existence, we need to clarify that “freedom of speech†doesn’t apply to those mediums, or to pornography, artwork (think “Piss Christâ€) and anything else anyone in society deems immoral or offensive such as depictions of homosexuality. Further, it will allow us to specify that freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion.Certainly the Fourth Amendment should be altered so that the right to privacy in their “persons†does not include unborn children — the “persons†within them. Liberals would love that.
How about the Fifth Amendment? Certainly if new evidence comes to light, someone who was acquitted the first time around should have to face trial again.
The Eight Amendment? I’ll bet there would be a groundswell of support for striking the prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment†clause. Just ask the family members of the Virginia Tech victims. Matter of fact, that would sort of insure that all these mutant killers take the easy way out by killing themselves, thus saving us the aggravation and expense of trial and re-trial.
The Ninth? Finally we’d have the opportunity to strengthen it with regards to personal rights. Of course, that might mean we could start smoking and eating trans-fats again.
The Tenth? Give the power back to the states to determine how they do things. Hmmm, liberal Democrats might not like the idea of a toothless federal government not being able to impose such unfunded mandates as “equal access†laws that cost public schools a fortune, or things currently established nationwide like pollution laws, the “right†to abortions, and — come to think of it — gun control laws..
Yup. Let’s rewrite the Bill of Rights because it certainly (according to most liberals) hasn’t served this country well. . .
ht: Insty
Posted by: Good Lt. at
10:22 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 19, 2007 06:57 PM (2OHpj)
April 13, 2007
Video of a cow allegedly being abducted by aliens. Hey, it is Friday.......
Posted by: Rusty at
03:08 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: sandpiper at April 15, 2007 11:32 PM (stdEd)
April 12, 2007
Posted by: Good Lt. at
08:35 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Fred Fry at April 12, 2007 09:39 PM (7GYWw)
Posted by: RJ at April 12, 2007 10:08 PM (yyxO/)
I object to describing this woman as a 'scourge of the human race'. I'm no bleeding heart, but I insist you consider the logic here. If the Duke students are declared not guilty, that does NOT entitle you to declare this woman guilty! She is guilty of no crime unless found guilty in a court of law. Please don't jump the gun. It is common to assume in situations like this that the accuser is sane, and evil. She may not be sane-- in fact her bio suggests that she may have a serious psychopathology, and probably a serious substance abuse problem. We don't know
what happened that night, and frankly, it is pretty clear that this woman does not remember very well what happened. When people with significant emotional problems are subjected to strong stress, they are prone to 'decompensate', where thier symptoms get much worse, and they detach from reality. Please, stop the accusations of her, be thankful that the case was dropped, and use your venom on Nifong. He certainly should have arranged a mental status exam for her before proceeding.
Posted by: DemocracyRules at April 12, 2007 10:11 PM (L/SIz)
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at April 12, 2007 10:15 PM (ou0cx)
Women don't lie about this sort of thing, right Leftards?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 12, 2007 10:33 PM (8e/V4)
Jeepers.
Everyone's so damn sensitive to namecalling!
Most of us at least pretend to be adults, people. I think humanity's lived through worse than a schoolyard insult like the one I leveled at the harlot who tried to railroad three innocent boys into jail.
If being called a dumb name is the worst that happens to this "victim," then she's getting off light.
No hard feelings, DR, just sayin' is all.
Posted by: Good Lt at April 12, 2007 10:51 PM (yMbfY)
to declare this woman guilty! She is guilty of no crime unless found
guilty in a court of law.
First, the Duke students were not declared "not guilty." They were decalred "INNOCENT" by the state attorney general. Big difference.
Second, you are incorrect about the legal issue. She is "presumed innocent by the state until found guilty in a court of law." That does not mean she is not, in reality guilty. It's merely a legal term of art, although the most common one to be misused by the public. A presumption /= reality. Think about it, John Wilkes Booth was guilty of assasinating Lincoln, even though he was never found guilty. OJ killed two people, even though he was deemed 'not guilty' by a jury.
Posted by: wooga at April 12, 2007 10:57 PM (2YapR)
Posted by: wooga at April 12, 2007 10:57 PM (2YapR)
Posted by: Frank at April 12, 2007 11:04 PM (qSeVS)
Felonious Assault with a Deadly Weapon on Police Officer, O2-CRS-49961
Felonious Larceny and Felonious Possession of Stolen Vehicle charges, 02-CRS-49955
Felonious Speeding to Elude Arrest, Driving while Impaired (.19
Blood Alcohol Content) and Driving while License Revoked, 02-CRS-49956
Driving Left of Center, 02-CR-49958
Failure to Heed Blue Light and Siren and Reckless Driving in Wanton Disregard to Rights or Safety of Others, 02-CR-49959
Driving the Wrong Way on Dual Lane Highway and Open Container After Consuming Alcohol, 02-CR-49960
two counts of Injury to Personal Property, 02-CR-49962-63
Resisting a Public Officer, 02-CR-49964
Posted by: Good Lt at April 12, 2007 11:07 PM (yMbfY)
LOL. Sorry about that. Corrected.
Posted by: Good Lt at April 12, 2007 11:09 PM (yMbfY)
Muh Fu*ker...who took da battries out my bullhorn?
Posted by: Reverand AL in D.C. at April 13, 2007 12:36 AM (FTAjp)
Posted by: Rome at April 13, 2007 12:58 AM (/GrlO)
Posted by: Insolent Infidel at April 13, 2007 09:14 AM (A5PXC)
colored women are so friggin ugly to begin with unless it was a black ape rape would be impossible no one could get it up to begin with.
this colored ape bitch needs to be killed for what she did to those young white men.
Posted by: Jake Caywood at April 13, 2007 10:54 AM (Nhfns)
My question is perhaps before ordering a stripper the white boys should find better quality. I couldn't have sex with the animal pictured if she paid me. My dog either.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 15, 2007 07:27 AM (2J0r9)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 15, 2007 09:02 AM (2J0r9)
Lefturds all need to be killed in the most horrible ways imaginable.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 17, 2007 07:48 AM (eGb9y)
It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms the airwavesBring it on, Mr. "Whitey-Smeared-Sh*t-On-Tawana-Brawley-PSYCH." You couldn't find a microphone fast enough to air your poison over that, could you? How about those race riots you incited that resulted in the deaths of 7 people? How dare you pollute our airwaves with your racism, hypocrisy and divisiveness?
By the way, you owe each of the Duke players a personal and full fledged apology. In the unlikely event that you stand up and be a real man about your racism, I hope they won't accept your apology.
How about you, Mr. Himeytown? Cat gotcher tongue?
Posted by: Good Lt. at
07:48 AM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 12, 2007 08:50 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 12, 2007 09:00 AM (2J0r9)
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at April 12, 2007 09:02 AM (mak/j)
The word again stuck at Duke where the biggest yet Tawana Brawley occured. Nifong, but go to jail and the Duke professors fired.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 12, 2007 09:23 AM (2J0r9)
Posted by: John Ryan at April 12, 2007 09:36 AM (TcoRJ)
so I take it when you attack George Bush 24/7 that's about personalities too, not about issues.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 12, 2007 09:41 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: sandpiper at April 12, 2007 09:46 AM (XGDTE)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 12, 2007 09:56 AM (8e/V4)
No, it seems that John Ryan doesn't want to talk issues - just to attack GWB the Jawa posters here.
Save it for your braindead leigions, dunce.
The 'issue' is the say-one-thing-do-another liberals like yourself who defend race-hustlers like the aforementioned Democrat goons while waxing pathetic about "Republicans."
Sorry - Imus is a lib, Sharpton is a lib, HiJackson is a lib - this is an incident brought about by the obsessive and zealous anti-white racism that has been part and parcel to the Democrat party since the 1960's.
You sh*t is tired, JR. You've been pwned by your own race-pimps.
And you by proxy owe apologies to the Duke students by supporting these foul Democrat cretins and their manufactured anti-whitey race industry.
Posted by: Good Lt at April 12, 2007 09:57 AM (yMbfY)
Posted by: RJ at April 12, 2007 10:01 AM (yyxO/)
You have to now apologize, and then you're fired. Sorry
.Posted by: Kevin at April 12, 2007 10:04 AM (/ndDU)
Too bad Cynthia McKinney lost re-election, I'm sure she has an interesting view point to add.
Posted by: blackflag at April 12, 2007 10:12 AM (Mq5jS)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 12, 2007 10:43 AM (2OHpj)
Nice thought, but not likely to happen in this lifetime.
Posted by: Good Lt at April 12, 2007 10:49 AM (yMbfY)
Posted by: Darth Odie at April 12, 2007 10:59 AM (YHZAl)
Is that the best troll you can come up with? I mean really, you want to slander and discredit The Jawa Report and all you can think of is dropping the N-Bomb? You sir should be ashamed to use such amateurish tactics, turn in your Troll card and report to DU for further instruction.
Posted by: blackflag at April 12, 2007 12:21 PM (Mq5jS)
Al, you and Rev Jackson are SHAKE-DOWN artists and HO's for cash, extraordinaire.
Jonathon Parker- Go back to the DU and get your sh*t together.
Posted by: JihadGene at April 12, 2007 12:42 PM (FTAjp)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 12, 2007 12:49 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: mrclark at April 12, 2007 01:10 PM (gmrUH)
Posted by: Darth Odie at April 12, 2007 01:11 PM (YHZAl)
He's the lowest of the low in race baiting shakedown artistry, and I can't fracking wait until he get's his due... and he will one of these days. The worm will turn.
Somehow, the term "scum-sucking maggot out of hell" just isn't quite down to that scumbag's level of filth.
*****
Won't you tke me to... Himeytown?
Won't you tke me to... Himeytown?
Won't you tke me to... Himeytown?
/Lipps Inc.
Posted by: Hucbald at April 12, 2007 01:24 PM (xHCIz)
However reprehensible Nifong's words and actions have been it would be a mistake to see this as merely the vileness of one man.
The larger tragedy is what this case revealed about the degeneration of our times and the hollowness of so many people in "responsible" positons in the media, in ACADEMIA, and among those blacks so consumed by racial resentments that they are prepared to lash out at individuals who have done nothing to them.
The haste and vehemence with which scores of black ass kissing Duke University professors publicly took sides against the students in this case is just one sign of how deep the moral dryrot goes, even in our schools.
Back on January 29th the Weekly Standard has a devastating article about the lynch mob atmosphere created, not only by the Duke University faculty and administration, but also by writers for such "respectable" publications as the New York Times and the Washington Post, not to mention a professor of law at the University of Southern California and a former president of Princeton.
We have become a society easily stampeded, even by the unsubstantiated, inconsistent statements of a black whore with a criminal record.
The biggest losers from the Duke "rape" case include not only the three students accused but also the black community, which has once more followed a demagogue who knew how to exploit their emotions for his own benefit.
Some of these demagogues are white like Nifong but there are mostly bull shitters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who have prospered greatly, and bask in the limelight, by leading dumbass blacks into a blind alley of futile resentments and counterproductive hatred.
The Duke "rape" case should be a wake-up call, both for blacks and for liberals, on how easy it is for them to be manipulated.
Time for some who think they are thinkers to do some thinking before we have war on our streets.
The liberals and blacks must look pretty silly now that their mindless persecution is over. But that has never stopped them before.
The fired LaCross coach should be rehired at double the salary and the money should come from the salaries of the black ass kissing libturd professors at Duke and the administation that fired him. I hope he sues the shit out of them.
Why am I a conservative racist? Shit! Talk about obvious.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 12, 2007 01:34 PM (2J0r9)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 12, 2007 01:36 PM (2J0r9)
Posted by: QC at April 12, 2007 02:32 PM (PX+vn)
He is a pinko liberal.
Posted by: Unclezeb at April 12, 2007 02:33 PM (l4QX/)
Posted by: sandpiper at April 12, 2007 02:59 PM (D9h75)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 12, 2007 03:02 PM (2J0r9)
Posted by: allahakchew at April 12, 2007 06:10 PM (BrndJ)
Posted by: allahakchew at April 12, 2007 06:12 PM (BrndJ)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 15, 2007 08:39 AM (2J0r9)
April 11, 2007
Pretty much all the cynicism, callousness, insensitivity and hyperpolitical venom you'd expect. That, and a lot of strange rants about the "Fairness" Doctrine. Eight different screenshots for your, um, 'entertainment.'
Screenshot 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Some truly awsome comments BELOW THE FOLD: --> more...
Posted by: Good Lt. at
09:29 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Joy Reid at April 11, 2007 10:45 AM (XmgJX)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm
The new supposed fairness doctrine is nothing less then the left turds latest attempt at fascist censorship over those whose opinions differ from their own. The left/communist liberals in America control the vast majority of media outlets with perhaps the single exception of talk radio, this new fairness doctrine is nothing less then an attempt to silence conservative voices on talk radio. The one thing these despicable shameless communists pretending to be socialist masquerading as liberals cannot tolerate is public dissent with their opinions and ideologies. Their quest for a totalitarian regime where only their views opinions and ideologies are heard or seen should be viewed by honest patriotic Americans as that of TREASON…………..
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
Posted by: doriangrey at April 11, 2007 11:37 AM (XvkRd)
Posted by: Hucbald at April 11, 2007 11:45 AM (wSSBp)
Posted by: Randman at April 11, 2007 02:29 PM (Sal3J)
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The Democratic Party has always been the party for fascism and censorship.
(How long till some tard lefty trots out the "fascism = corporations" fake quote from Mussolini?)
Posted by: wooga at April 11, 2007 08:10 PM (t9sT5)
Posted by: Insolent Infidel at April 12, 2007 08:09 AM (A5PXC)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 12, 2007 11:27 AM (2OHpj)
Then we force them to suck their own cocks real hard by using the 'fairness doctrine' to get the likes of Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh doing the evening new on ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN.
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
Posted by: doriangrey at April 16, 2007 02:09 PM (XvkRd)
April 05, 2007
This is rich:
Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq's new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia.
Vietnam? VIETNAM? Is there a Halliburton office there?
This is even richer:
Rosy estimates even have Iraq producing 6 million barrels a day in the long term, which would make it the world's No. 4 producer behind Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States.
Yeah, you read that right. The United States is among the top 3 oil producers in the world.
So, Bush invaded Iraq to steal the oil from what could possibly be the 4th largest producer of oil in the world, trailing the United States, which, last time I checked, Nancy Pelosi was president of.
Er, well, you get it.
Posted by: Vinnie at
05:55 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 05, 2007 07:18 PM (yJKSD)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 05, 2007 07:51 PM (PvyEt)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 05, 2007 08:04 PM (PvyEt)
factories or some empty training camps? There you go, now THAT
would've shown 'em who's boss.
Posted by: RicardoVerde at April 05, 2007 10:27 PM (zW/QU)
I've been duped! I thought we were after camel meat. Not to worry though, we won't hear a word about this on the MSM.
Posted by: Insolent Infidel at April 06, 2007 07:29 AM (A5PXC)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 07, 2007 06:08 AM (NU+M0)
Posted by: tbone at April 09, 2007 01:56 PM (HGqHt)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 11, 2007 02:44 PM (2J0r9)
Do not watch it if you are easily offended... these people are unquestionably offensive.
These people present a strong argument for retroactive abortion.
Posted by: Kafir at
08:53 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.
But, but, but... that might mean that the left doesn't believe we should all become Muslims.
How can this possibly be?
Posted by: John at April 05, 2007 10:06 AM (S3Rzh)
Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at April 05, 2007 10:16 AM (8vFnl)
Posted by: Hucbald at April 05, 2007 10:22 AM (zD3bT)
Posted by: Insolent Infidel at April 05, 2007 10:48 AM (A5PXC)
"These people are just as vile and disgusting as the rag-head terrorists. The only difference is the language they speak."
To the best of my knowledge, they have not beheaded anyone or blown anything up. Their rhetoric is deeply offensive, but it is only hot air... for now.
Posted by: Kafir at April 05, 2007 10:54 AM (HsmTD)
The most correct way to label them would be the Westboro Group of People Claiming to be Christian While Violating the Most Basic Tenets of Christ's Teachings Manson Family-esque Cult.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at April 05, 2007 10:54 AM (oC8nQ)
Posted by: Kafir at April 05, 2007 10:56 AM (HsmTD)
These people need to be ignored not documented. It's like Diane Sawyer or Barbara Walters doing another interview with Charles Manson. Yeah it is a captivating trainwreck but do we really need to give a pulpit to these types of people.
Posted by: Texag03 at April 05, 2007 11:06 AM (LHH4s)
The difference is the Right disowns its wackos, while the Left embraces theirs. You chalk it up to "diversity", "multi-culturalism", "alternative lifestyles", "freedom of speech", etc. There is nothing you don't tolerate (except of course, conservatives).
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 05, 2007 11:10 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: 1sttofight at April 05, 2007 11:40 AM (+gb4I)
Posted by: memphis761 at April 05, 2007 11:43 AM (YHZAl)
Posted by: Insolent Infidel at April 05, 2007 12:36 PM (A5PXC)
Posted by: John at April 05, 2007 01:09 PM (qiTAx)
Posted by: Insolent Infidel at April 05, 2007 01:37 PM (A5PXC)
Posted by: windybon at April 05, 2007 02:54 PM (U/7vo)
Posted by: tbone at April 05, 2007 05:02 PM (HGqHt)
Actually the left denounces their "wackos" all the time.
All the time? Not even once. Notice, even, how 'wackos' gets the ol scare quotes with you people. Scare quotes lest it sound like you're actually denouncing them.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 05, 2007 07:23 PM (yJKSD)
11 kids?
All afflicted with the same poison that has affected her - namely daddy Phelps!
Posted by: Melissa In Texas at April 05, 2007 10:16 PM (xGb0Q)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 05, 2007 10:37 PM (PvyEt)
Democratic Party
Phelps has run in various Kansas Democratic Party
primaries five times, but has never won. These included races for
governor in 1990, 1994, and 1998, receiving about 15% of the vote in
1998.
Posted by: tyree at April 07, 2007 07:56 AM (kpBxe)
March 31, 2007
Its a good thing they left out inconvenient data, as well as inportant facts like urban areas are overwhelmingy run by Democrats, et cetera. Because if you included all those good things (and other data they omitted and skewed), it almost makes the Clinton Administration look like a fascist Reich.
Its almost sad to see their parades rained on. Wait a minute.
No it isn't.
Posted by: Good Lt. at
12:24 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.
speaking of demoCrap Stains:
"Socks">"Socks'>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262687,00.html">"Socks,
Scissors, Paper: The Sandy Berger Caper," to be broadcast on FOX News Channel on Saturday, March 31 at 9 p.m. EDT. The program is hosted by David Asman.
Posted by: Rubin at March 31, 2007 09:15 PM (6n82K)
Posted by: Rubin at March 31, 2007 09:16 PM (6n82K)
Posted by: greyrooster at March 31, 2007 11:38 PM (P64nD)
Posted by: sandpiper at April 01, 2007 01:52 PM (Dutrh)
Posted by: wb at April 01, 2007 10:48 PM (JFQlq)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 01, 2007 11:12 PM (yIWcV)
Posted by: wb at April 02, 2007 08:58 AM (syC+J)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 04, 2007 01:35 PM (Ip3la)
March 14, 2007
When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius' arch nemesis.
Occam's razor.
The amazing thing? That's a college newspaper. Heresy!!!!
Posted by: Vinnie at
11:29 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.
That being said, with environmental impact you have to look at the big picture.
Did you know that a human cycling to work puts out almost as much CO2 as a car? You put out a lot more CO2 at a heart rate of 140 than while sitting behind the wheel.
Posted by: Bozoer Rebbe at March 15, 2007 01:58 AM (Wo8qI)
Posted by: V5 at March 15, 2007 06:34 AM (bP+3v)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070314/od_afp/uscrimejusticeunicornoffbeat_070314165643;_ylt=Am4gShoai6Y26da9IMcb8ZfMWM0F
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 15, 2007 06:55 AM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 15, 2007 06:56 AM (2OHpj)
I am all for a new technology I just don't think the Hybrid is it by any means.
My suggestion if I was pres would be open up all oil drilling everywere (even if we go alternative we will still need the oil for the other billion by products and of course the 3rd world will still need oil) put a small tax on the oil production with initial permit fees all of which will be placed in a Jackpot (absolutley untouchable by any gov org).
Offer that Jackpot to the first person to come up with a viable alternative fuel/machine/technology/system that will
A) be economiclly viable
B) Dooable
C) Get the Nation off the Oil Tit.
Every year that went by that pot would get bigger and bigger and every yahoo from ITT to Bubba's garage would be working on a model test system to win that pot. To keep the balance in the force after the pot was divied up and to get the idea/plan/system/tech moving as fast as possible let it be mass produced by the Big 3 with retooling LOANS from gov.
Posted by: C-Low at March 15, 2007 08:16 AM (esMSg)
Posted by: greyrooster at March 15, 2007 09:07 AM (tipQ2)
No problem, just offset it with "carbon credits"!
What a joke these Leftards are.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 15, 2007 09:23 AM (8e/V4)
So....you mean that by sitting on my ass eating steaks from those evil methane spewing cattle I am saving the planet? Take that lefties.
Posted by: Randman at March 15, 2007 09:25 AM (Sal3J)
The firm that computed these "costs" has refused to release any details of how they arrived at their final cost determination.
As for the ecpected life of a prius being 100,000 miles look at ebay, there is one for sale with 91K I have a hard time believing
that there has been $180,000 spent with this vehicle
The amount of nickle produced at the Sudbury mine is HUGE, the amount that goes into the Prious battery pack is not significant.
Posted by: JOHN RYAN at March 15, 2007 09:51 AM (TcoRJ)
Posted by: JOHN RYAN at March 15, 2007 10:09 AM (TcoRJ)
Posted by: Dick at March 15, 2007 04:37 PM (XlQVK)
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 15, 2007 06:19 PM (2OHpj)
I wish I still had the figures, but the paper was written on a long discarded early generation Mac. The amount of CO2 generated by a human on a bicycle is non-trivial.
Posted by: Bozoer Rebbe at March 15, 2007 11:30 PM (TpGun)
Posted by: snjqh pknzygc at April 26, 2007 11:38 AM (SyZF9)
MINNEAPOLIS - Beryl Dsouza was late and in no mood for delays when she stopped at a Target store after work two weeks ago for milk, bread and bacon.More over at LGF.So Dsouza was taken aback when the cashier - who had on the traditional headscarf, or hijab, worn by many Muslim women - refused to swipe the bacon through the checkout scanner.
"She made me scan the bacon. Then she opened the bag and made me put it in the bag," said Dsouza, 53, of Minneapolis. "It made me wonder why this person took a job as a cashier."
In the latest example of religious beliefs creating tension in the workplace, some Muslims in the Twin Cities are adhering to a strict interpretation of the Quran that prohibits the handling of pork products.
Instead of swiping the items themselves, they are asking non-Muslim employees or shoppers to do it for them.
Posted by: Ragnar at
01:19 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 14, 2007 04:57 AM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Buzzy at March 14, 2007 06:43 AM (CXz7T)
Good reason not to swipe the credit card until the service has been provided.
In another piece of twisted logic, the flying imams are suing for being kicked off an airplane carrying pork, dogs and alcohol, while their followers are kicking customers out of their cabs for doing the same thing.
Seems they missed lesson one of their 'Welcome to America' tutorial.
- Welcome
- Shut up and do your job
We have women in the DC area at the grocery checkout. They have no problem handling my pork.
Posted by: Fred Fry at March 14, 2007 07:44 AM (JXdhy)
Posted by: John Galt at March 14, 2007 08:27 AM (Q5fOm)
Posted by: refugee at March 14, 2007 09:36 AM (ya+0h)
Posted by: greyrooster at March 14, 2007 11:21 AM (W7E9s)
Posted by: greyrooster at March 14, 2007 11:23 AM (W7E9s)
Posted by: wb at March 14, 2007 04:49 PM (Cxxtv)
Posted by: greyrooster at March 14, 2007 06:20 PM (W7E9s)
Posted by: greyrooster at March 14, 2007 06:25 PM (W7E9s)
Posted by: wb at March 14, 2007 06:38 PM (Cxxtv)
Posted by: wb at March 14, 2007 06:50 PM (Cxxtv)
Gotta go workout. I'm going to Roy Jones, Jr. place this Saturday. Have to stay in shape in case he gets uppity and I have to bitch slap him.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 14, 2007 07:36 PM (W7E9s)
64:14
O ye who believe! Lo! among your wives and your children there are enemies
for you, therefor beware of them. And if ye efface and overlook and forgive, then lo! Allah is Forgiving,
Merciful.
Posted by: Saul at March 14, 2007 08:02 PM (hgX7d)
Posted by: wb at March 14, 2007 08:08 PM (Cxxtv)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 15, 2007 02:04 AM (2OHpj)
Posted by: greyrooster at March 15, 2007 09:47 AM (tipQ2)
March 13, 2007
Well, she would've called for Reno's (and Clenis's) head if her positions would be consistent for more than a year at a time. But alas, Democrats have no guiding principles and assume everyone else has a short-to-non-existent memory.
What say you to this little blast from the past, Hildabeast?
Article (walled up behind Times Select) here.
Posted by: Good Lt. at
08:38 PM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.
I had hoped this nonsense, debunked last week, would have
disappeared by now, but it seems to be the only talking point White
House allies can come up with.
The argument is premised on a mistaken understanding of how the process
works. When a president takes office, he or she nominates federal
prosecutors at the beginning of the first term. Under normal
circumstances, these U.S. Attorneys serve until the next president is
sworn in.
In 1993, Clinton replaced H.W. Bush’s prosecutors. In 2001, Bush
replaced Clinton’s prosecutors. None of this is remotely unusual.
Indeed, it’s how the process is designed.
The difference with the current scandal is overwhelming. Bush
replaced eight specific prosecutors, apparently for purely political
reasons. This is entirely unprecedented. For conservatives to argue, as
many are now, that Clinton’s routine replacements for H.W. Bush’s USAs
is any way similar is the height of intellectual dishonesty. They know
better, but hope their audience is too uninformed to know the
difference.
Posted by: smurf at March 13, 2007 10:32 PM (AeRA2)
Posted by: Jake at March 13, 2007 10:33 PM (AeRA2)
many are now, that Clinton’s routine replacements for H.W. Bush’s USAs
is any way similar is the height of intellectual dishonesty
That's cute, but woefully braindead.
Ignoring the cold, hard facts does not change them. Excusing Clinton and not Bush is the very height of hypocrisy. The fact remains that Clinton removed 93 appointed attorneys for political purposes and Bush removed 8.
Numbers don't lie. Democrats do.
Posted by: Good Lt at March 13, 2007 10:43 PM (yMbfY)
"When we came in, we ultimately replace most
all 93 U.S. attorneys – there are some still left from the Clinton era
in place. We have appointed a total of I think128 U.S. attorneys --
that is to say the original 93, plus replaced some, some have served 4 years, some served less, most have served more." -karl rove
your sauce, with video
http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2007/03/rove_speaks_in_little_rock.aspx
Posted by: smurf at March 13, 2007 10:58 PM (AeRA2)
that the White House intended to replace them with US Attorneys not
confirmed by the senate. We now have abundant evidence that they were
fired for not sufficiently politicizing their offices, for not
indicting enough Democrats on bogus charges or for too aggressively
going after Republicans We also now know that the top leadership of the Justice Department
lied both to the public and to Congress about why the firing took
place. As an added bonus we know the whole plan was hatched at the
White House with the direct involvement of the president.
And Clinton? Every new president appoints new US Attorneys.
That always happens. Always…. The whole thing is silly. But a lot of
reporters on the news are already falling for it. The issue here is why
these US Attorneys were fired — a) because they weren’t pursuing a GOP
agenda of indicting Democrats, that’s a miscarriage of justice, and b)
because they lied to Congress about why it happened.
Posted by: smurf at March 13, 2007 11:07 PM (AeRA2)
Posted by: Good Lt at March 13, 2007 11:36 PM (yMbfY)
clinton was 7 YEARS AGO! GET OVER IT ALREADY!!!
Posted by: Jake at March 13, 2007 11:36 PM (AeRA2)
Keep putting lipstick on that pig."
oh, you out of numbers to use against me?
i dont really care and i really expected something like this from bush.
the thing is, its terrible to see people defend it with this. really you all should just be like "yeah, so what if we did?" and congress would totally back down. *sigh* i hate the democrats.
Posted by: smurf at March 13, 2007 11:45 PM (AeRA2)
Posted by: Good Lt at March 13, 2007 11:57 PM (yMbfY)
Posted by: Jake at March 13, 2007 11:58 PM (AeRA2)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 14, 2007 05:12 AM (2OHpj)
Black democrat District Attorney of New Orleans (Eddie Jordan) fires 43 white workers and replaces them with 43 incompetant blacks. Not a complaint from the left. Shows where their hearts are. I hope Bush fires every god damn democrat in the federal government. They are lazy assholes anyway.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 14, 2007 11:36 AM (W7E9s)
Black democrat District Attorney of New Orleans (Eddie Jordan) fires 43
white workers and replaces them with 43 incompetant blacks. Not a
complaint from the left. Shows where their hearts are. I hope Bush
fires every god damn democrat in the federal government. They are lazy
assholes anyway."
sidelining much?
Posted by: ben goldman at March 14, 2007 04:40 PM (AeRA2)
Posted by: Moises at May 24, 2007 12:47 AM (f9w1I)
Posted by: Stevie at May 24, 2007 04:51 PM (vjWYH)
Posted by: Muhammad at May 25, 2007 12:46 PM (O760/)
Posted by: Eduardo at May 26, 2007 04:44 AM (gPpo1)
Posted by: Waylon at May 26, 2007 06:52 PM (4bw/1)
Posted by: Cale at May 27, 2007 11:00 AM (EOv+R)
Posted by: Madison at May 28, 2007 02:40 AM (A0/1F)
Posted by: River at May 28, 2007 06:45 PM (yL/m/)
Posted by: Tyshawn at May 29, 2007 08:04 PM (f7QYz)
Posted by: Nathanael at June 01, 2007 03:48 AM (8eA/D)
Posted by: Bryant at June 01, 2007 10:27 PM (2WbUx)
Posted by: Arnulfo at June 02, 2007 06:20 PM (Mm5F7)
Posted by: Grayson at June 03, 2007 12:10 PM (j+Yzb)
Posted by: Kent at June 04, 2007 07:54 AM (+pyAz)
Posted by: Gavyn at June 05, 2007 02:26 AM (Fjvj9)
Posted by: Allen at June 05, 2007 09:17 PM (UQYg7)
Posted by: Bernardo at June 06, 2007 06:18 PM (7LpI6)
Posted by: Samson at June 07, 2007 03:36 PM (24VlT)
Posted by: Jevon at June 08, 2007 01:48 PM (oKhNn)
February 19, 2007
Of course, the prospect of a world that, if Maugeri is correct, can sustain itself indefinitely on fossil fuels—even as it pursues new forms of cleaner burning energy—is enough to drive manyenvironmentalistsarrogant, myopic pricks, who have spent their lives combatting smog, absolutely batty.Which makes the cynic in me wonder if this latest push to establish global warming as anthropogenic isn’t less about the potential for rising temperatures and sea levels as it is about forcing the world away from an energy source that is in ample supply, but that
environmentalistsarrogant pricks simply find too dirty.
Posted by: Vinnie at
06:43 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.
January 10, 2007
From The Providence Journal:
PROVIDENCE — The Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union yesterday filed a federal lawsuit against the state police, alleging racial profiling and violation of the constitutional rights of 14 Guatemalan nationals during a July traffic stop that led to their detention by immigration officials.Besides the money, which the parasites in the ACLU love to suck from US citizens any chance they get, the ACLU is hoping to encourage local and state law enforcement officers to disregard Federal laws:
Brown said, “To their credit, many police departments across the country have rejected the opportunity to enforce those laws for a number of reasons. I think first they recognize they don’t have the expertise with these laws … also, that doing so undermines trust in the communities that they serve. People in immigrant communities are going to think twice before they contact police if they’ve been victims of a crime, if they think they’ll be the ones who end up on trial.â€This is as much as admitting that the lawsuit is intended to intimidate police who have the audacity to perform their duties concientiously.
Via Stop the ACLU.
Posted by: Bluto at
12:41 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: bigwhiteinfidel at January 10, 2007 05:41 AM (V8mwW)
contact police if they’ve been victims of a crime, if they think
they’ll be the ones who end up on trial.â€
It's so racist the way Liberals always equate "immigrant" with illegal alien. Two different things, Leftards. That's why LEGAL immigrants have no reason to fear the cops, while ILLEGAL aliens should have every reason to fear them (but thanks to the Leftards they don't.). God I hate the ACLU.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 10, 2007 11:06 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: The Interface at January 10, 2007 11:46 AM (HRm/6)
There's a reason people hate lawyers, especially communist lawyers.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 10, 2007 12:28 PM (abVz3)
Posted by: Greyrooster at January 10, 2007 02:08 PM (w+w6p)
You guys have to burn the ACLU down, lest they take you all down with them.
Posted by: MK at January 10, 2007 11:33 PM (pVHqF)
January 05, 2007
Say Cheese! --> more...
Posted by: Good Lt. at
11:29 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.
He was on Letterman last night, and repeated a statement I had read that he didn't consider himself a hero- that the real heroes were in Iraq fighting and dieing for our freedom. He said that they give us the freedom to choose what to do, and we should choose to do the right thing- like risk your life to save another.
He mentioned that there were nearly 100 people that just watched the man having a seizure on the subway platform before he fell to the tracks... just watched, and hurried on to their jobs. I bet they are all cynical hearts and don't believe that self sacrifice is necessary.
Wesley Autrey's actions and words show that a hero's heart understands that self sacrifice is necessary to make the world a good place. The uncaring inaction of the masses on the subway platform show that selfish cynics would leave a man to die on the tracks, and their brothers to die in Iraq.
Make no mistake, the brotherhood of man includes every man, woman and child in Iraq.
Wesley Autrey is a black man, the man he rescued is white.
Posted by: QC at January 05, 2007 12:51 PM (PX+vn)
Posted by: MidnightSun at January 05, 2007 01:03 PM (VFDSc)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2007 03:13 PM (8e/V4)
Repeating from above, for emphasis:
"He mentioned that there were nearly 100 people that just watched the man having a seizure on the subway platform before he fell to the tracks... just watched, and hurried on to their jobs. I bet they are all cynical hearts and don't believe that self sacrifice is necessary.
Wesley Autrey's actions and words show that a hero's heart understands that self sacrifice is necessary to make the world a good place. The uncaring inaction of the masses on the subway platform show that selfish cynics would leave a man to die on the tracks, and their brothers to die in Iraq."
Ken Hoop realists I would guess. And yes, I'm trying to start some trouble with that remark. I'm pissed at anyone who doesn't see things my way today! DELETE ME IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT! Come on out 'Cut'nRun Kenny'! Call us all "chicken hawks" while you hide under your cute little isolationist blanky with your flashlight on! I know you will show up soon, and tell us why we should surrender and flee.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 06, 2007 03:00 AM (2OHpj)
OK, I have no excuse for being an asshole.
I stand by my opinions, but I'm going to withdraw the portion of my previous remark saying I want to "start something". That IS out of line for a polite forum, and my mood is no excuse for abusing that. A friend who has read a few of my recent comments asked me to consider the hostile tone of my 'voice'. Not in so many words, but I see where I have let myself get a little carried away. Not saying I have changed my opinions.
Pre-emptively attacking Ken Hoop is bad behavior, and even though it is not the specific example of rude behavior, it is an example none the less. It's something I need to avoid, especially if I am going to continue looking for the legendary moderate Muslim. Might scare them away by accident. Wouldn't want that. I despair of finding one as it is ...
So sorry Ken, if you want to fight, call names whatever, e-mail me, and if not, then peace. But watch the 'chicken hawk' comments. It's rude too.
I may take a couple days and cool down. maybe hang out at the local college and ask the libs what 'moderate' means to them. If I don't like their answer I can chalk it up to the fact their libs 
As always,
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 06, 2007 03:35 AM (2OHpj)
From the NBC Phoenix affiliate, 12News:
The Border Patrol will not say whether shots were fired. However, no Guardsmen were injured in the incident.Fences? We don't need no stinkin' fences!The Border Patrol says the incident occurred somewhere along the 120 mile section of the border between Nogales and Lukeville. The area is known as a drug corridor. Last year, 124-thousand pounds of illegal drugs were confiscated in this area.
The Border patrol says the attackers quickly retreated back into Mexico.
Posted by: Bluto at
10:20 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: southdakotaboy at January 05, 2007 11:39 AM (JaJ3u)
Posted by: Sapper Chris at January 05, 2007 11:44 AM (ZEIBc)
U.S. investigates report of an American kidnapped in Iraq
Associated Press
TOOLS
Get section feed
Subscribe NOW
BAGHDAD, Iraq — The U.S. Embassy said it was investigating reports that an American civilian was kidnapped today in southern Iraq.
Police in the city of Basra said a U.S. civilian and two Iraqis were abducted in the northern part of the city, according to Voices of Iraq, an independent news agency.
It quoted the city's police chief, Maj. Gen. Mohammed Hamadi al-Musawi, as saying they were kidnapped while on their way to Basra from the province of Maysan in a civilian vehicle.
"We're aware of the reports and are trying to determine the status and welfare of the individual in question," U.S. Embassy spokesman Lou Fintor said.
Maj. Charlie Burbridge, a spokesman for the British military, said a Western employee of a private security firm had been kidnapped. He declined to comment further.
The British have a large contingent of troops based in Basra.
Posted by: Frank Hunter at January 05, 2007 11:57 AM (OWT5s)
Posted by: sandpiper at January 06, 2007 03:51 PM (A09bm)
Posted by: Greyrooster at January 07, 2007 07:35 PM (ovoks)
Posted by: rob at January 11, 2007 11:59 AM (QpkBe)
December 26, 2006
Here's the article on December 4, 2006. Here is is again in differnet clothing (but stupidly, with the same header) on December 26, 2006.
Paging Eric Boehlert! This hit job was done intentionally, for those at Media Matters who are paying attention. I guess that kind of media manipulation and dishonesty doesn't matter.
In addition, the "warbloggers" should just shut up and not notice or highlight these kinds of things. The foreign and composite organs of the mainstream media, after all, are the final and penultimate arbiter of honesty and accuracy.
Nothing to see here, folks. Move it along.
Posted by: Good Lt. at
11:34 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: letters from reality at December 26, 2006 01:54 PM (WJaif)
To answer your ridiculous question, absolutely not. We can leave if we choose to, and the majority of casualties are Shiite on Sunni terrorists, not on US troops. We are choosing not to leave. Simple.
Now its your turn.
Does the fact that the same "news" story was recycled as a "new" story matter to you, or not? Or is truthiness more important than the actual facts?
We'll wait.
Posted by: Good Lt at December 26, 2006 03:19 PM (D0TMh)
I do know this. Something bad is going to happen to the World, as the West has now ceded control, via the media and political correctness, to the Arab Muslims.
Posted by: templar knight at December 26, 2006 04:11 PM (634o6)
"DEATH TO AP!"
And have a Happy New Year.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 26, 2006 04:37 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Eastsider at December 26, 2006 11:33 PM (LxyIe)
The Coalition is accomplising every goal it set forth; Saddam was overthrown and captured, his psychopathic sons snuffed with extreme prejudice, 3 elections carried were out, a Constitution was drafted, an infrastructure has been built from the ground up, oil production is at an all time high, the economy has more than tripled, all refugees have returned and then some, privately owned newspapers and television stations are booming, agriculture is thriving, the country is now exporting goods and services, business ownership is at an all time high, per capita income has skyrocketed, etc., etc., etc.
Meanwhile, the terrorists and their allies on the left have failed to accomplish any of their stated goals. They weren't able to prevent any of the advances I listed above. The only goal they have left is to pressure decent Americans into cuttin' n runnin.'
Ain't gonna happen, traitor.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 27, 2006 01:02 AM (abVz3)
USA, all the way, with a New Years resolution of 'Death to AP'!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 27, 2006 01:30 AM (2OHpj)
December 10, 2006
Under the Islamic Sharia law, any kind of extramarital sex is unlawful and harshly punishable. According to Shariah if married couple were involved in sex they would be stoned to death in public after their confessing of committing the crime or testimony of at least four true witnesses. If unmarried person commits the crime, he would be thrashed 100 lashes in public.Such a reasonable culture.
Posted by: Good Lt. at
11:30 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 10, 2006 12:55 PM (8e/V4)
As an ex-muslim, may god forgive us all.
Posted by: The Saudi Apostate at December 10, 2006 01:38 PM (eiUY8)
The Islamic Villagers were no doubt also Social Conservatives...
Posted by: AynRandland Carlos at December 10, 2006 02:03 PM (HSkSw)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 10, 2006 02:38 PM (8e/V4)
social liberals (code: Democrats), on the other hand, can kill a fetus and pretend they're being noble and moral.
Nice try.
Posted by: Good Lt at December 10, 2006 02:50 PM (D0TMh)
Islamopithecine terrorists and the subhumans who killed the boy and girl are religious and socially conservative. These are the two human traits the left hates above all others, yet you vermin ally yourselves with the 'pithecines anyway.
Why is that? Can you explain your movement's hypocrisy and lack of principles? Any enemy of civilization is my friend, right?
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 10, 2006 03:26 PM (bLPT+)
Posted by: Ernie Oporto at December 10, 2006 04:16 PM (WvUov)
I don't think that the 5 years after kicking the Taliban out has really changed them very much.
So if our aid and assistance should only go to "deserving" people maybe we need to reconsider our efforts there.
Posted by: John Ryan at December 10, 2006 10:01 PM (TcoRJ)
Leaving the islamopithecines to themselves resulted in 911. It's plain to see why you want America to leave them to their own devices again.
You are a wretched traitor and a piss-poor propagandist. It's hard to deceive people who are well informed on a particular subject, isn't it? You won't sway anyone on this blog with your thinly vieled defeatist lies in a lifetime of trying.
Peace be upon you.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 10, 2006 11:59 PM (bLPT+)
December 02, 2006
BISMARCK, North Dakota (AP) -- A church group that protests at military funerals around the country will be barred from services for an American Indian soldier on a reservation, tribal officials say.Here's some video of the Westboro Assmonkeys being sent packing at a soldier's funeral in Seaforth, Delaware in May. Unfortunately, none of them were injured.Members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, planned to demonstrate at National Guard Cpl. Nathan Goodiron's funeral on Saturday at the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation.
Church members say the deaths of soldiers are punishment from God for the country's tolerance of homosexuals.
Tribal leaders passed a resolution Friday that prohibits the group from protesting on the reservation, said Marcus Wells Jr., chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes.
Via Stop the ACLU.
Posted by: Bluto at
03:20 PM
| Comments (34)
| Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.
The Westboro Baptists are another fine example of people who allow god into their lives. Muslims, Baptists, haters... its all the same ball of wax.
NOTE TO FISHELLE: I DON'T TOLERATE SOCK PUPPETS ON MY THREADS. PICK A POSTING NAME AND STICK TO IT.Posted by: AynRandland Carlos at December 02, 2006 04:26 PM (HSkSw)
Posted by: sol at December 02, 2006 05:17 PM (fuinW)
Posted by: Speaking for the Choir at December 02, 2006 05:20 PM (HSkSw)
Posted by: Jason at December 02, 2006 06:13 PM (yIEot)
Posted by: Jason at December 02, 2006 06:16 PM (yIEot)
Fishelle Talkin: Yeah, they're at least as evil as Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln, and 98% of the population of the United States.
We don't really encourage retardates to post here, unless they're entertaining. Work on it.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at December 02, 2006 06:38 PM (vBK4C)
From the CIA World Factbook on the United States:
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)
Posted by: AynRandland Carlos at December 02, 2006 06:53 PM (HSkSw)
Posted by: AynRandland Carlos at December 02, 2006 07:10 PM (HSkSw)
Posted by: Mark Krauss at December 02, 2006 07:16 PM (L4sHV)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at December 02, 2006 07:20 PM (vBK4C)
they are not fighting over God!
They are fighting over who God spoke to first!!!!
But the point is mute, God does not exsist!
If you can prove he exsists then i'll convert!
Posted by: sol at December 02, 2006 07:28 PM (fuinW)
Posted by: AynRandland Carlos at December 02, 2006 07:33 PM (HSkSw)
Posted by: AynRandland Carlos at December 02, 2006 07:34 PM (HSkSw)
Posted by: Frank Booth at December 02, 2006 07:47 PM (rIWvK)
Posted by: Greg at December 02, 2006 07:47 PM (19GwZ)
Posted by: sol at December 2, 2006 07:28 PM "
Since you can't prove there isn't a supreme being I find that amusing.
One can't very well prove color to a blind person, or music to a deaf person, so I don't think anyone will be proving a matter of faith to you either. If your insensible to spirtuality, whether willfully, or by some deficiency, thats not something I know how to fix.
From a philosophical point of view, God may be discussed within the edge of science. Exibit A for a 'First Cause' is the universe itself. It is entirely possible for the mechanisms we see in nature to have been designed. Possible.
That isn't good enough to pass as Biology, or Paleontology, nor does it currently belong in Physics for any practical reason. It does suit philosophy just fine.
Your free to deny the possibility of such a supreme being, but your denial is as much an act of faith as is anyone elses acceptance of of the possibility.
You may argue for 'God' or against. Until there is evidence that proves either point with certainty, as there is proof for gravity, the argument may continue. All claims by either side of such a debate, are framed within the faith, and dogma, of the person making the argument.
They are 'faith based'.
So have your faith, and if you can prove God doesn't exist, I'll convert.
Till then, lets talk trash about Westboro's cruelty together! Agreed?
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 02, 2006 08:43 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 03, 2006 07:40 AM (5vGBy)
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 03, 2006 10:04 AM (5vGBy)
Posted by: Farmer Joe at December 03, 2006 10:58 AM (vKn4M)
I'd say atheists possess more faith than we do, after all, they believe chaos begets organization, despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary. they have to chuck pretty much all the discoveries in physics out the window and deny their own existence to maintain this philosophy. that's hard work, ya know.
Posted by: Mark Krauss at December 03, 2006 03:13 PM (iqrno)
If you disagree with this, you work for Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.
Christianity = Al-Qaeda
Regards,
I Support Bush
Posted by: I Support Bush 100% at December 03, 2006 06:44 PM (f6w9D)
Thanks for the supporting remarks.
Obviously any discussion of where we can from, and what is or is not possible, is rooted in speculation. Faith of some kind.
I believe it is possible to someday know the answer, and until then, I am experiencing a better life for myself by being open, rather than closed.
I was an Atheist for awhile. What turned me off was the scorn that Atheist directed against vlaues that they associated with Christianity.
From a purely logical, social value position, is it better to prevent teen pregnancy, or to prevent a pregnant teen from giving birth? An Atheist will (not always) but often see little difference between the two.
I have personally witnessed Atheism used as a method to blow off self restraint, or reject personal responsability for destructive relationships, and hurtful behavior.
I have to insert the Fifth Amendement here, and just settle for saying I'm not impressed by what Atheists allow themselves on the basis of 'subjective morality'.
I have a few Atheist friends. I do have one good, solid, decent, (strong)Atheist friend, who believes that Atheism requires that much more personal responsability. He walks the walk as well. I find him to be an exception.
Why are the other guys still my friends? Well being messed up doesn't make you evil. Not by itself. Besides, Jesus is forgiving
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 03, 2006 07:44 PM (2OHpj)
Dude, some people can't see the forest for the /sarc tags!
Now, personally, I tend to see God as sort of a universal Godwin. If your position requires bringing one in, you need to put it back in the oven, it's not ready.
I don't believe in gods. Other people are free to do so, insofar as they are not trying to cut my head off, nuke my hometown, "protest" at the funeral of a soldier, or something similarly annoying. I'm very much a Jeffersonian in that respect:
"t does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
The Westboro boys could be prime material for atheist recruiting, if there were such a thing outside the minds of the O'Reillyites. I honestly don't know what to make of them. Is it some sort of clever ruse, or are they really that psychotic?
Posted by: MegaTroopX at December 03, 2006 08:41 PM (v5fbO)
Objection: post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Unless you want this very contention turned around, you must show causal relation.
Contention: Unless you wish to contend that people are intrinsically evil, and can only behave if they believe they are under constant observation, then you have less faith in humanity than I.
Contention: People of all stripes exhibit the behaviors that you mention. Ergo, assholes will be assholes, regardless of their belief system.
I have never heard of an atheist serial killer. The one's I've read of tend to believe a) They are God; (b) God talks to them; (c) God can't stop them.
Why are the other guys still my friends? Well being messed up doesn't make you evil. Not by itself. Besides, Jesus is forgiving
Objection: Assumes Facts Not In Evidence.
In your contention, someone who spent their whole life doing positive things is still "messed up", somehow less, as well as doomed to perdition if they don't "repent". Now that is messed up.
Posted by: MegaTroopX at December 03, 2006 09:04 PM (v5fbO)
If an atheist was true to his belief, he would not be offended by Christianity, (perhaps somewhat amused by it). these clowns posting the rather silly and hateful comments here have issues with their maker, believing that if there is a God, God is unfair because he didn't make the world like they would have it. and whom they obviously believe in, or they would not be hostile, would they?(if you truly believe there is no God, you'd not be hostile to the idea, would you?)
The Westboro bunch are simply a bunch of clowns grabbing for some attention, sad caricatures far removed from Christian values, if they were true to their belief they would be spending their time spreading the good news of salvation, not chanting hateful crap at most sensitive and hurting times. they've no respect for their fellows, and exhibit extreme selfishness in their actions. not the love of their Lord. if they had serious concern for the homosexual community, they'd be preaching the word to them, not trying to disturb families burying their brave soldiers killed in action and mourning their losses.
Real Christians are not hostile, cirtainly not hostile to the hurting that have just lost loved ones, that's kind of sick, no matter what you're philosophy.
peace. M
Posted by: Mark Krauss at December 03, 2006 09:32 PM (J3MJY)
Posted by: sandpiper at December 03, 2006 11:28 PM (as4nC)
My disclaimer is that I do know one 'nice' Atheist, his one great fault is that he is horribly bigoted against anyone who isn't an Atheist. We don't talk much about religion having agreed to a truce, on that topic.
While Atheism is not an exclusive source for mischief, the absence of respect for a higher law is what makes the Atheistic style of justifying bad behavior special. The rejection of a sense of 'oblective morality'' allows a subjective, or selfish interpretation of right and wrong.
"post hoc ergo propter hoc"
If that's Latin, I don't do it very well, so please come down to earth so we can communicate.
Causal? yeah. It is possible for bad deeds to be justified by religion, but there is always an 'objective morality' point of view. This means that some things are just moral, and not subject to selfish debate. Considering bad behavior, a 'believer' has one more reason to stop. Something higher than human law says not to do that thing, whatever it was.
Prohibitions against stealing, or murdering, or cheating on you spouse have the weight of objective moral authority, and that in turn, means if you believe in, and accept that such authority exists, then you can temper personal weakness with that knowledge.
It serves as the moral psychological equivalant of having locked a car door. Someone determined to do evil, will find a way. Someone who is naturally benevolent, didn't even think about it. The guy looking in the window at the wallet on the car seat has one more obstacle to overcome.
Atheism throws that 'obstacle' out as superstition. This encourages bad behavior. No door lock equals more temptation.
As you say "Assholes will be asholes", and you have some meat on that bone. However, an asshole with no concern, or thought to a larger moral objective reality, is more free to do wrong. If for example Jesus is a myth, then why bother considering his teachings? For instance, to turn the other cheek, and give someone another chance.
A good Atheist will consider the option, as will any person of a moral philosophy that encourages civil behavior. I am saying that an Atheist is bounded by no such ethical background unless it came from another belief system. This doesn't mean an Atheist will not feel compassion, or empathize with other people. They can make a moral judgement based on natural impulses of social behavior. They must embrace their human empathy, and be guided by that, in the absence of moral teaching. That is OK when it works.
Going further however, those impulses can be percieved as artificial, and disposable by an Atheist, because he is always, and absolutly, his own moral judge. A more traditionally religious person will accept that these impulses were made part of mankind, when mankind was concieved. That they serve a higher purpose, and that they are not to be ignored or casually discarded.
Having a moral framework in place, one that places behavior under the moral authority of a higher power than man, adds a layer of restraint, and provides additional support for community standards of polite behavior.
I'm not saying people are naturally evil, but I am saying they are naturally conflicted, and subject to temptations. It's really that simple.
As for serial killers, I'm not ready to answer that in detail. Half my books are in storage. I will respond loosely with the following: If the killer thinks he is God, that means he has no higher objective authority to answer to. In short, he has no God above him, like an Atheist has no God above him.
If God can't stop them, they share that with Atheism as well. God can't stop an Atheist, if there is no God. Either way, any vice is optional to such a point of view.
As for God talking to someone, I say its possible, but I also say it's a great way for a non-believer to sound crazy to a judge. I'll add that most religions recognize some sort of 'devil' and the devil can talk to people to.
Personally I think God talks to lots of people. Not in the way you might be thinking. I can tell if coffee is decaf or not by tasting it. Some people can't. I think you have to be open to percieve things not obvious on a cursory level.
Now I see you make an assumption that because I profess to Christianity, I think 'good' Atheists are all going to hell. I don't. I'm non-denominational as a policy. I think God is smart enough, and compassionate enough to see through a person's soul (if you will) and know why they thought the way they did.
If you were born during the Ice Age you couldn't know about Jesus. Obviously that doesn't make moral sense to send that soul to hell, outright. In exploring that point we enter the realm of philosophy, and we discuss man's understanding of God, and the substance of religious teaching.
I will contend that God is poorly understood by anyone living, and that even the word ascribed to him has been handled by men, and is therefore not in pure and origional form.
When I say my old Atheist friends are messed up, most decent Atheists would agree. Drugs, and failed marriages, and amoral criminal behavior are a start. I'm sad for them, not hateful, and I hope they can find something to believe in that is more than just the moment they are living in, but I don't expect any of them to go to hell just for behavior.
I believe God knows intent. That matters.
Saying there is no God, means 'don't get caught and your OK' for to many people. Simple logic supports the psychology of religion as a factor in self restraint.
As for my full position on Atheism. I don't like the way Atheists are intolerant of any other beliefs. I don't like Atheists unjustly usurping guardianship of the First Amendment from all other kinds of belief. I don't like Atheists trying to rewrite history to discredit the beliefs that shaped the good character of this nation. I don't like Atheists who slip into bad behavior because 'Why not', and 'only getting caught is against the law' type of thinking.
I do admire the Atheist who is able to say he doesn't believe, and can let others be beievers in spite of that. Atheists who can be an Atheist in public, and let a Christian be a Christian in public. I admire a willingness on some Atheists part to take personal responsability, rather than dodge it as an artificial concern.
In short, I am for FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. I draw the line at letting people behead the infidel, or have sex with children, or any of those things we know infringe directly, and physically, on anothers rights.
Skip the Latin. Most people don't do it any better than I do. If you have a good point, it should be able to be expressed at a level most people could relate to.
Why can't you accept free exercise of religion? It's in the Constitution you know?
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 04, 2006 02:37 AM (2OHpj)
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 04, 2006 02:40 AM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 04, 2006 05:25 AM (qWbYR)
BTW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
Posted by: MegaTroopX at December 04, 2006 07:29 AM (v5fbO)
To begin at the end. I do endorse, and swore to protect, the Constitution, including the free exercise of religion. More so, in fact, then the "Christian Nation"-ist individuals who consider it to mean "any religion you want, as long as it's Christian" (a la Ford's choices of any color in the Model T). At no point did I call for a banning, or even a restriction, of Christianity. Nor do I throw my lot with those who consider church-derived charities a violation of the establishment clause.
objective morality - Exists, but need not be given from on high. The simplest way to break it down is "No direct harm". Murder, rape, theft, cheating, etc. all directly harm others, and thus even the simplest non-psychopath can figure it out. Even non-sapient social animals can (at least within their own group). Of the Commandments, only a few can, or should, apply to modern jurisprudence. The rest are essentially thoughtcrime legislation.
In fact, all the baggage that comes along with the commands of a "higher power" (filtered as they are through humans and their prejudices), does directly harm people. Take the HPV vaccine, for example. Here we have a preventative against a cancer precursor, designed to cut off one head of that baneful hydra of the modern age, and there are actually protests against it, as it would cause women to "be more sexually active". That was one heck of a WTF moment, and had such people been listened to, a major direct harm to people.
Atheism throws that 'obstacle' out as superstition. This encourages bad behavior. No door lock equals more temptation.
And yet, we resist. Honestly, people who are rotten are not going to be stopped by God, anymore then they will be stopped by the laws of man.
his one great fault is that he is horribly bigoted against anyone who isn't an Atheist.
Consider: Maybe he's bigoted because he's a bigot, not because he is an atheist. We all have challenges.
If for example Jesus is a myth, then why bother considering his teachings?
A positive value doesn't gain or lose validity by source. Values that encourage benevolent behavior to one's fellow beings are valid whether they come from Jesus, Buddha, or the US Army. One need not believe in Jesus-as-deity to gain value from the teachings attributed to him.
Honestly, I just get sick of having the two main choices be, no, not godless liberalism vs. christian conservatism; but the Church of Marx (And I defy anyone to tell me that's not what it is) vs. the sort of American Anglicanism (Christianity or bust) that seems to be the requirement to not be "the enemy" nowadays. I'll believe that fight's over when atheists are not just above Muslims in the hatred scale.
The fight is counterproductive, and distracts from the existential battle against a faith that believes itself destined to rule the world and destroy all comers.
We're all in the crosshairs, so it's about bloody time we act like it.
.
.
.
BTW: I'm thankful every day to the PEOPLE that continually ensure that I can engage in such stimulating debate without "re-education" or a violent-minded religious policeman getting his blood-soaked mitts on me.
PS the 2nd: Re: From a purely logical, social value position, is it better to prevent teen pregnancy, or to prevent a pregnant teen from giving birth?
The prevention. We have the capacity to make sure that we don't have children until such time as we are both capable of, and willing to, give them a life of love and provision. But we apparently do not have the will to use these tools.
When people use abortion as birth control, you get Russia (a state that is on the demographic ropes). With no birth control at all, you get Africa (extreme privation).
Posted by: MegaTroopX at December 04, 2006 05:08 PM (v5fbO)
I apologise to all Atheists who I may have offended. I've known my share of Christian assholes as well.
To MegaTroopX and others, Ive just spent so much time on that wierd thread about Chicago hating Jesus that I guess I was in full battle mode.
I sense that Greyrooster may be one I offended, and I again, apologize. I could blame Fishelle, or Puddle, but if they made me mad its my own fault. I try to make friends, not enemies. Its why I have so many weird friends.
I must insist on free expression! Unfortunately, Jihadist are doing the very things that put free expression at risk. This drives me crazy. I agree with MegaTroopX that this sort of argument is distracting.
The reasons why I have wandered from Christianity, to Atheism, to Paganism, to Christianity again, have made me willing to give anyone a fair chance to have their beliefs. I hope I at least made that clear.
Thanks for the discussion, but I think I'm out of steam. See you all later.
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 05, 2006 12:08 AM (2OHpj)
This sick, so called church spreads its hate through picketing in our streets, provoking attacks, with abusive vulgar language. Worst of all, they endanger their own young children, having them man the front lines in their combative demonstrations - attempting to create a confrontation and cause for one more of their frivolous lawsuits.
If a mother has given her son to this country and is putting Him in his grave, this is not the time or the place. This is not about protesters, this is about a group that calls that mother names on the way into a church to say goodbye to that son. We are not talking about FREEDOM we are talking about human decency. This is not about protesting, this is about a life of hate. They are not peaceful. They are not a "church". They go after any thing that can get them in the news. I am all for protest when there is a reason, I have been in many. This group will protest anything to get its face on TV. It is about an old man lost in the darkness of hate, but will put his six year old grandson in danger to save himself. Do we have a real need to protest at any funeral? Is that a real Freedom.
The city of Topeka, the state of Kansas and the U.S. at large, its citizens and their Churches, schools and events are all held hostage by this "hate group" - always at the tax payer's expense. With this group it is just not about Freedom. It is only about HATE.
Posted by: Cam Brunner at December 05, 2006 10:19 AM (Q9oKE)
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 09, 2006 06:45 PM (ezJiI)
December 01, 2006
Via Michelle Malkin.
Posted by: Bluto at
08:48 PM
| Comments (77)
| Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.
You're welcome to join in on the festivities, but don't tell us how to celebrate it you multi-culti effing moron.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 01, 2006 11:11 PM (yJKSD)
Who says there's a jihad on Christmas and Christians in this country? Just because the religious symbols of other religions were allowed to be displayed at this Christian festival, doesn't mean Christians are being singled out for persecution. Just because muslims are allowed to screech their nerve-wracking call to prayer over outdoor loudspeakers 5 times a day throughout the city, and play movies denouncing America as the "great Satan" at their conferences, that doesn't mean the city leaders in Chicago discriminate against Christians.
Mr. Blue Cap Dorkinheimer is right. A Christmas festival should be open to all faiths, even the faiths that want to destroy it. I guess I missed the signs and guards barring non-Christians from the festival. Chicago doesn't want to offend non-Christians patronizing a Christian festival. That makes perfect sense.
Bill Maher and David Letterman are right. What war on Christmas? It's a right-wingnut fiction. Bushitler probably started this rumor during one of his White House ramadan celebrations. Just because assaults like this against the Holiday are commonplace, doesn't mean there's a concerted effort to purge Christ from Christmas.
Leftists would never force their opinions down everybody ele's throats. They're the most tolerant people in the world, next to the followers of the religion of peace.
Chicago loves Jesus.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 02, 2006 12:16 AM (bLPT+)
I'm not even asking from a religious standpoint.
We are suppossed to have 'free exercise' of religion in the USA. Well watch out people, cause we could lose it.
What with infidel slaying being a major part of being a good Muslim, we can't very well let that kind of free excercise get around, can we?
Meanwhile the Godless Socialists are trying to convert us all to Atheism, by turning the mention of the word "Christ" into some sort of hate speech.
Anybody got any ideas what to do?
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 02, 2006 02:24 AM (2OHpj)
This "Christkindlmarket" is all about the moneychangers selling their wares.
I assume that this is being done on private property, so there should be no constitutional issue involved.
So why does the Chicago city government have anything to say about showing a religious movie on private property?
I would think that the only people, that have a say in any activity going on at this sale, are the sponsors of the sale.
Not the government and not anyone that is not connected with the sale.
If the city is endorsing or interfering with the sponsorship or the sale of this stuff, then someone should be suing the City of Chicago in federal court.
As far as Christmas being for all faiths, don't you guys believe that the message of Christmas is applicable to all faiths?
And what is the message of Christmas?
Peace on earth, goodwill to men.
The message is for all faiths as well as for us godless leftists.
I'm confused.
Here's more on the story that has sort of relieved my confusion.
It turns out that your assertions about the City of Chicago stopping the showing of "Nativity" at the German Christkindlmarket Christmas/holiday festival are completely fabricated.
------------------------------------------------
"The Nativity Story Turned Down at US Festival
The city of Chicago in the US is not allowing The Nativity Story to be presented at a major public Christmas festival.
by Kevin Donovan
Posted: Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 8:41 (GMT)
Font Scale:A A A
The Nativity Story Turned Down at US Festival
The city of Chicago in the US is not allowing The Nativity Story to be presented at a major public Christmas festival.
Officials have asked organisers of the German Christkindlmarket to reconsider using New Line Cinema, the maker of movie The Nativity Story, as a sponsor because it is worried ads for its film might offend non-Christians.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/the.nativity.story.turned.down.at.us.festival/8535.htm
Note, that in the first paragraph of this article it reads "The city of Chicago in the US is not allowing The Nativity Story to be presented at a major public Christmas festival", but the second paragraph reads "Officials have asked organisers of the German Christkindlmarket to reconsider using New Line Cinema, the maker of movie The Nativity Story, as a sponsor because it is worried ads for its film might offend non-Christians", the second paragraph contradicting the first.
------------------------------------------------
Christkindlmarket Organizers & Management
Christkindlmarket Chicago is presented by the German American Chamber of Commerce of the Midwest Inc. and organized through its subsidiary German American Services, Inc. in close cooperation with the City of Chicago and the Mayor’s Office of Special Events.
Christkindlmarket is planned, organized and executed by Ray Lotter, Vice President & Managing Director, German American Services, Inc., and Maren Biester, Assistant Manager, German American Services. Inc. Ray Lotter is responsible for management, strategic planning, sponsorship & partnerships, advertising & public relations, Maren Biester handles marketing & public relations, vendor relations, visitor relations, event planning, and administration.
To learn more about the German American Chamber of Commerce of the Midwest Inc. and its work to "further, promote and assist in the expansion of bilateral trade and investment between Germany and the United States" visit www.gaccom.org.
http://www.christkindlmarket.com/facts.htm
If anyone has a problem with what is allowed and not allowed, at Christkindlmarket, Ray Lotter is the guy to talk to as the guy responsible for organizing the event.
----------------------------------------------
BTW - let's set the record straight.
The City of Chicago did not tell the festival organizers that it could not show the movie.
The festival organizers, who are not associated with the City of Chicago government, CHOSE not to accept the distributers of "Nativity", as a sponsor.
The City of Chicago is a sponsor of the festival and cannot endorse any particular religion.
For a movie to be shown, at the festival, that endorses a particular religion would violate the sponsorship agreement between the City of Chicago and the organizers of the event.
The City of Chicago would have had no choice but to withdraw their sponsorship of the event, which amounted to $12,000.
Also, in the youtube, a couple of people thought that the Jews and the Muslims should not be represented at the festival.
What bigotry!!
This is a Christmas/holiday festival, as defined by the organizers.
Should the organizers be discriminating against vendors that sell Jewish or Muslim holiday stuff?
Posted by: PuddleDuck at December 02, 2006 06:57 AM (iyKEm)
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 02, 2006 08:19 AM (0ZUKd)
stop with the spin already. It's gotten so ridiculous it hardly bears a response. What difference does it make whether it was cancelled by the City of Chicago or by the private organizers because of their agreement with the City. Same goddam thing. It boils down to Leftism's commie hatred of christianity and their subversive distortion of the Constitution.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 02, 2006 08:58 AM (yJKSD)
would be too enjoyable for you so we have developed a special level
formed in the image of a small conservative Southern town with nothing
but NeoCons who listen to Rush and Hannity all day and night long. You
will burn there for eternity.
St. Peter
Personal Hell Department
Pearly Gates
Posted by: St Peter at December 02, 2006 09:00 AM (Sal3J)
Posted by: Gleep! at December 02, 2006 10:54 AM (a7sMc)
"puddle,
stop with the spin already. It's gotten so ridiculous it hardly bears a response. What difference does it make whether it was cancelled by the City of Chicago or by the private organizers because of their agreement with the City. Same goddam thing. It boils down to Leftism's commie hatred of christianity and their subversive distortion of the Constitution.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 2, 2006 08:58 AM"
It was not the City of Chicago that decided not to allow a sponsor to advertise a Christian movie (BTW-the movie wasn't going to be show - only the advertisement for it, which included previews).
So, stop blaming the City of Chicago, for a decision made by the organizers of the event.
If the organizers want to allow sponsors, that promote a particular religion, they are free to do that.
They just can't expect the City of Chicago to violate the US constitution, by sponsoring an event, in which a particular religion is promoted over another.
Why don't the Jawas support the contitution?
Got it, yet?
Posted by: PuddleDuck at December 02, 2006 11:39 AM (COdqk)
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 2, 2006 08:19 AM "
I can't shut up. I have to keep trying to staighten out assholes like you, that haven't got a fucking clue as to what you are talking about.
All you guys know how to do is make up shit, or quote the half truths that you find at some RW Chistian website or on Fox News.
You sure are a pathetic bunch, especially you, Grey.
As I have said before, there are no vets, here that are questioning my military service, because they know that I'm telling the truth.
Only those of you, who have never served in the military, are questioning my service.
Even a "leg" wouldn't question my service, but then again, a "leg" probably wouldn't even know that he was a "leg".
If your so concerned about losing President Moron's war in Iraq, why don't you bunch of draft dodgers volunteer for service in Iraq, or don't you even meet the lower minimum standards?
I did my 3 years from 1963 thru 1966.
It's your turn to do your part to defend your country.
Get to it.
But please don't volunteer for airborne training.
They don't need any pussies like you in the airborne.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at December 02, 2006 11:55 AM (iTaa5)
Posted by: Fishelle Talkin at December 02, 2006 11:58 AM (HSkSw)
would be too enjoyable for you so we have developed a special level
formed in the image of a small conservative Southern town with nothing
but NeoCons who listen to Rush and Hannity all day and night long. You
will burn there for eternity.
St. Peter
Personal Hell Department
Pearly Gates
Posted by: St Peter at December 2, 2006 09:00 AM"
too funny.
Imagine a place where all channels on tv are playing Fox News and it's always BOR or Vannity and all stations on the radio only pick up Rush Limpballs.
That would be hell, for sure.
But, for most of the guys here, that would be heaven, wouldn't it?
Because they don't know the difference?
Posted by: PuddleDuck at December 02, 2006 12:04 PM (COdqk)
Posted by: PuddleDuck at December 02, 2006 12:06 PM (COdqk)
No...she will be your wife but have the body of Barney Frank.
I have to keep trying to staighten out assholes
And just how are you "straightening" them out?
Posted by: St Peter at December 02, 2006 01:16 PM (Sal3J)
Posted by: Speaking for the Choir at December 02, 2006 01:29 PM (HSkSw)
puddle,
am I blaming the city of Chicago? No, I'm blaming the Leftards who run the show. First Leftards banned christianity from public spaces in the name of the Constitution (was a load of crap). Are you going to remove the Ten Commandments and religious symbols from the U.S. Capitol too? From the Supreme Court building? From our currency? And now under the cover "tolerance" and multi-cultism you've attempted to ban christianity from the private sphere. You've made your intentions quite clear, wouldn't you say? So stfu and show some intellectual honesty for a goddam change.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 02, 2006 01:36 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Fishelle Talkin at December 02, 2006 01:48 PM (HSkSw)
Posted by: Fishelle Talkin at December 02, 2006 01:51 PM (HSkSw)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 02, 2006 02:02 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Fishelle Talkin at December 02, 2006 02:14 PM (HSkSw)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 02, 2006 02:42 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Room for Jews Too at December 02, 2006 02:44 PM (HSkSw)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 02, 2006 02:46 PM (8e/V4)
That Google search is not helpful. Try real scholarship, such as Will Durant's Caesar and Christ, written in 1944.
Posted by: Fishelle Talkin at December 02, 2006 02:50 PM (HSkSw)
Posted by: Fishelle Talkin at December 02, 2006 03:24 PM (HSkSw)
"There is no historical evidence for Jesus."
Please tell me then, what is Christianity itself?
It is historic evidence for something, wouldn't you say?
There is no evidence you have any idea what you are talking about. Maybe you could provide some.
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 02, 2006 03:40 PM (2OHpj)
They can't prove their religion in any meaningful way, so why do they get to pretened superiority?
Fishelle has nothing. Atheists have nothing. It shows through. Speaking as a one time Atheist, I can tell you this.
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 02, 2006 03:44 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 02, 2006 03:46 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 02, 2006 03:50 PM (8e/V4)
Free excercise is Constitutionally protected speech, and association, so why not adress that issue?
Atheists are behaving like fascists, trying to oppress free exercise of religion, by the people.
They are trying to create Atheism as the state religion, when it isn't, and no act of Congress can Constitutionally make it so.
So the ACLU and Atheists supporting restrictions against free exercise of religion, are attacking the Constitution itself. For their own gain, and advantage.
I really don't care about Atheists, and have some for friends, but I count the oppressors among them as enemies of the people.
So Nyah! Nyah! to Fishelle and friends
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 02, 2006 03:55 PM (2OHpj)
Is he all you have !
The schemer, the philanderer, the killer, the traitor !
No incentive to trade allegiances on his part ! Jesus, he even sold out his family to become a Roman citizen !
Really reliable guy you use to vouch for your fictional god !
As you may not be aware, Josephus' "writing" is not undisputed.
Posted by: Fishelle Talkin at December 02, 2006 04:06 PM (HSkSw)
Got one. I do comaparative religion as a passtime, and Atheism is one of the worst. Your cherry picking instead of really adressing the point. Someone didn't just sit down and make up Jesus, and suddenly we have a whole religion.
Neither did anyone make up Mohammed. So don't be non-sensical.
As for Gods, and the Supernatural, whether you believe there is evidence or not, depends on whether you think dumb luck, and random chance explains the universe, or not. That is a personal choice.
Free exercise of religion, leaves that choice up to you, not a government. Atheists want to limit that choice, through government. That makes them fascistic in behavior, if not strictly.
I said this, and its true. I have been an Atheist. I'm not going back. It lacks so much of what makes greater human society actually care about each other, that I can't endorse it. It is hollow, and justifies the worst behavior as 'human nature'. it casts accusations against other faiths, without admitting to its own genocides.
No Atheist can preach to me from any kind of suppossed high ground. Atheists have none from which to speak down from. All they can do is try to tear down others because they have nothing to give of their own. I know this first hand.
Jesus existed, whether he was the Son of God, or not is a persons own business, but don't try and rewrite history just because you don't like it.
Get a clue of your own, and let people freely enoy their religion as long as they don't go around maiming, or killing each other.
Enough said, unless you think you have something with some meat on it, for the real subject of this thread ...
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 02, 2006 04:10 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Randman at December 02, 2006 04:21 PM (Sal3J)
If you don't like what happened in Chicago, organize your own festival.
You can invite whomever you want and show all of the Christmas movies you want, as long as you aren't expecting some local government to violate the constitution, by supporting you.
BTW, JC - Nice rant.
But expected, as that's how you wingnuts make your point.
If you scream long enough and loud enough and insult everyone that disagrees with you, eventually someone will believe your lies.
There is no war on Christmas or on Jesus, personally.
You really need to take a break from Bill O'liely.
Freedom of, and from, religion is still alive and well, in this country, even if you choose not to believe it.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at December 02, 2006 04:32 PM (TIjaw)
Posted by: AynRandland Carlos at December 02, 2006 04:32 PM (HSkSw)
"There is no historical evidence for Jesus."
Please tell me then, what is Christianity itself?
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 2, 2006 03:40 PM "
What a fucking joke!!!
The existance of a religion "proves" that it's namesake existed?
Give me a fucking break!!
Is that the best you've got for "proving" the existance of "historical Jesus"?
Posted by: PuddleDuck at December 02, 2006 04:42 PM (jc5xq)
"If you don't like what happened in Chicago, organize your own festival.
We do. And then the Leftards ruin it for everybody.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 2, 2006 05:33 PM"
Please explain how the Leftards are ruining your Christian festivals.
This should be interesting, if you actually came up with an inteligent response.
But you won't will you, because you can't come up with an inteligent response?
Your response will be predictable, yet stupid.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at December 02, 2006 04:46 PM (jc5xq)
Christianity is as much historical evidence of Jesus the man as:
* Scientology is evidence of body thetans.
* Mormonism is evidence of Moroni
* Islam is evidence of Al-Lat, the moon goddess.
Get a clue !
Posted by: Fishelle Talkin at December 02, 2006 04:48 PM (HSkSw)
They can't prove their religion in any meaningful way, so why do they get to pretened superiority?
Fishelle has nothing. Atheists have nothing. It shows through. Speaking as a one time Atheist, I can tell you this.
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 2, 2006 03:44 PM"
Now that is about the dumbist thing I have read today.
Glad you found what was missing in your life, but religion is not for everyone.
90% of the people, in this country say that they are religious.
Guess that makes them better than Atheists, without any other considerations.
Atheism is a religion?
Let me see, now, if Theism is the belief in a supreme being and Atheism is the disbelief in a supreme being, then how does Atheism get elevated to the stature of a religion?
Have you ever see an Atheist, knocking on your door at 8am on a Saturday morning to try to sell you on their "religion".
If Atheism is a religion, then it would qualify for funding for the "faith-based initiatives" program, or do you now want to discriminate against a particular religion, since you don't believe in it's teachings.
I am a former and current Atheist and I haven't attended one of those Godless church of Atheism services, since...let's see...oh yeah...never!!!
Do your research, moron, before you come back here.
You are embarrasing yourself.
Please tell me the rest of you guys aren't that stupid.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at December 02, 2006 05:10 PM (7pR+u)
They are trying to create Atheism as the state religion, when it isn't, and no act of Congress can Constitutionally make it so.
So the ACLU and Atheists supporting restrictions against free exercise of religion, are attacking the Constitution itself. For their own gain, and advantage.
I really don't care about Atheists, and have some for friends, but I count the oppressors among them as enemies of the people.
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 2, 2006 03:55 PM"
It's just amazing how full of crap you are, Michael.
Atheists don't care which God or other diety you choose to worship and they have no interest in interfering with your freedom of religion.
Atheists respect the constitution, but don't want your religion crammed down our thoats.
The ACLU will defend your right to freedom of religion as vigorously as it will defend an Atheist from having religion imposed on him.
I wish you guys would get off the ACLU's case.
Their only reason for existance is to defend the constitution of the US, against morons, like you, that would try to restrict the constitutional rights of some Americans while trying to grant special priveleges to another group.
I am a member of the ACLU and I support the constitution.
Why aren't you guys members of the ACLU?
Is is because you don't support the constitution, except when you agree with it?
Posted by: PuddleDuck at December 02, 2006 05:25 PM (5FNAZ)
Is he all you have !
The schemer, the philanderer, the killer, the traitor !
No incentive to trade allegiances on his part !
I guess even the ancient Jews had their Liberals. But what does "philandering" have to do with history? Nothing ya ignoramus. Read.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 02, 2006 05:32 PM (8e/V4)
If you don't like what happened in Chicago, organize your own festival.
We do. And then the Leftards ruin it for everybody.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 02, 2006 05:33 PM (8e/V4)
It seems they are arguing about expression and your the one trying to
prove or disprove. It oftentimes seems that many atheist are as
fanatical on the subject of destroying peoples faith as any Christians
are about believing. If they came to you and tried to force you to
convert you would be furious. Yet your kind seem to live for destroying
their faith. Seems rather dogmatic to me for someone who claims such
intellectual high ground. And please don't roll out the John Lennon
"the world would be perfect without religion" crap. It would not only
NOT change human nature...it might unleash it.
Posted by: Randman at December 02, 2006 05:41 PM (Sal3J)
Posted by: Fishelle Talkin at December 02, 2006 06:06 PM (HSkSw)
prove or disprove.
Randman,
I guess on a thread about how much Liberals hate Christianity it's relevant that Fish smell and piddle would try to disprove the historical Jesus.
Yet except for the part that Josephus was a "philanderer" (LOL), no evidence on their part that he didn't exist.
Libs, google it. "Jesus" and "historical evidence." You're big boys. You don't need me to babysit you through it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 02, 2006 06:16 PM (8e/V4)
"Some Atheists...assert that Atheism is not a religion but instead is the total absence of religion.... But this is like saying that "black," (which physicists define as the total absence of color) is not a color.... In common practice throughout the world, "black" is understood to be a color, despite the technical definition of the physicists. Likewise, "Atheism" is a religion, despite any technical definitions to the contrary. If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion.
—Rev. Bill McGinnis, "The Religion of Atheism"
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 02, 2006 06:19 PM (2OHpj)
As an example:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/church_of_atheism
"Church of Atheism
Submitted by Dissident1 on Sun, 2006-11-19 11:57.
There are, like, two churches of atheism here in Texas that I know of. I have often considered this to be rather absurd. I mean, what would a preacher of atheism have to preach on? Is there a holy textbook telling what the nongod dictates to the unbeliever?
However, I do understand a certain amount of the reasoning behind opening a church of atheism. "
And I didn't make that up.
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 02, 2006 06:22 PM (2OHpj)
Well. I am an "ignoramus." Using sophpmoric epithets always wins converts, as Jesus himself used to say. I suspect that your willingness to squeeze off this epithet is no different than the willingness of many a past Christian to squeeze off a few rounds into non-believers. It reveals your contempt for my ignorance, and your contempt for me as a human being, not your Christian love and certainly not your willingness to help me mend my ways or see the divine truth.
Regarding the significance of Josephus being a philanderer, perhaps you should ask Bill Clinton, Charles Lee Francis Anzalone or any other traitor or liar whose philandering ways contributed to his deception and fall. Does infidelity to one's wife make their other assertions more credible? If a man makes a vow to his wife to always be true to her and not cheat, does he retain credibility when witnessing about his religious beliefs, or swearing allegiance to his country, if he cannot keep the simple vow to his wife? But, then again, you and your minister, Senior Haggard, probably don't believe that lies about sex matter.
Posted by: Fishelle Talkin at December 02, 2006 06:23 PM (HSkSw)
http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/irs_tax_exempt_status
"IRS Tax Exempt Status
Not for Profit Organization
Church of Reality gets Nonprofit Status
The Church of Reality is a 501(c)3 tax exempt not for profit organization recognized by the IRS. Here is the initial letter approving our status. The image is slightly edited in that it was originally 2 pages and I merged them."
Also
"Although I had some paranoid thoughts, as it turned out what the Church of Reality believed in was never an issue. "
Also
"The universe doesn't care about us. Stars explode. Solar systems are sucked into black holes. This planet is but a speck of dust in the universe. Our entire galaxy is but a speck of dust in the universe. If our galaxy blew up tomorrow it would take 2.2 million years before anyone in the next galaxy even knew it happened. If there were anyone in the next galaxy, that is. And there are trillions of galaxies. We live for just a moment in time. There is no universal right or wrong. Whatever happens is whatever happens. If the sun explodes, then it is just one of trillions of stars that explode.
The human race is very young and we are just beginning to become aware of what we are, how we relate to the reality around us, and the responsibilities we face in determining our future. We have choice, so what do we do with that? What shall we choose for ourselves? How will we decide to relate to reality?
Not all of the axioms of the Church of Reality are based only on objective truth. That's because the Church of Reality isn't a religion of science. The Church of Reality is about people who are exploring reality from a human perspective. "
Also
"Do you believe in God?
The short answer is no. The long answer is - if he comes out of hiding we will believe in him. "
Also
"Just like all religions the real secret agenda is that you are just trying to convert everyone to reality, aren't you? The Church of Reality is just like all the other religions, trying to convert everyone. Trying to win souls over to reality. I suppose if we weren't out secretly trying to convert people we wouldn't be a real religion. So yes! Busted!
So - what I want to know is - are you ready to accept reality today? Are you ready to make a personal commitment to the real world? To experience reality the way it really is? Are you willing to quit living the lie? Then welcome to the real world! (Darwin loves you!)
Yours in Reality,
Marc Perkel
First One
Church of Reality"
So whats up with that Fishelle? PD?
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 02, 2006 06:24 PM (2OHpj)
"no evidence that did not exist" is not the same as evidence that he did exist. Which is one of the many problems with the Jesus Myth.
Posted by: Fishelle Talkin at December 02, 2006 06:26 PM (HSkSw)
In another example:
http://www.churchoffreethought.org/
"Welcome to the North Texas Church of Freethought!
We are the Church for the Unchurched, offering atheists and unbelievers all the social, emotional and inspirational benefits of traditional faith-based religions, but without the superstition. Our growing community of unbelievers provides a positive, affirming environment for leading the good life free of the illogic and intolerance of religions based on holy books and supernaturalism.
Join Us"
Join us? Proselytizing? Hmmm.
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 02, 2006 06:29 PM (2OHpj)
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/atheism.html
"Group Organization: Different atheists follow their beliefs in different ways. Some form or join organizations for atheists, while others do not even associate with other atheists, keeping their beliefs relatively unknown to society. Organizations like American Atheists and Atheists United are engaged in debate about atheist and theological issues, and they seek to promote the rights and beliefs of atheists."
DID THAT SAY 'BELIEFS OF ATHEISTS'!?!
"Others join atheist groups that act as a social network, as a group that tries to dissuade others from "blind faith" in religion, or as an ideology/religion in and of itself. Faith Atheism , for example, declares itself to be a "religion," although it does not believe in the existence of any God. Some people participate in and enjoy the ritual and social network of the churches in which they were raised, and yet they do not believe in any god. The only thing that links all atheists together is their common lack of belief in the existence of any god."
"
So an Atheist has absolute faith in the absence of any kind of God, and absolute faith that no evidence will ever be found, anytime, or anywhere, for the rest of time. And that isn't a position of faith?
Not that I mind you having a faith of some kind
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 02, 2006 06:34 PM (2OHpj)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502222/posts
"7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: Atheism as a Religion
Aletheia ^
Posted on 10/13/2005 10:37:14 PM PDT by stand4freedom
Atheist Religion Posted by Jack Salley on Saturday October 1, 2005 at 12:43 pm MST
7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: Atheism as a Religion
In a correctional facilities case, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 19, 2005 that atheism should be considered a religion under the law and the facilities may not prevent groups of prisoners from forming groups to study atheism.
In its decision, the court reasoned that preventing these meetings would infringe upon the inmates First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. The court said, “Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.â€
(Excerpt) Read more at agapeplace.org ..."
So now what? Not a religion? Sorry guys, but the government grants tax exempt status, and recognition of the right to free expression of same.
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 02, 2006 06:37 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at December 02, 2006 06:52 PM (vBK4C)
The historical veracity of Jesus is relevant to this thread. With a title like "Why Does Chicago Hate the Baby Jesus?", it matters whether Jesus actually existed. If he did not exist, then it should not matter if the city hates him. If he did exist and was just a man, big deal if the city declines to support images pictured as a baby. If he did exist and is a god, show us the proof before asking the government to subsidize the holiday with time, energy or expenses.
Posted by: Fishelle Talkin at December 02, 2006 06:59 PM (HSkSw)
http://www.ffrf.org/purposes/
"What does the Foundation do?
Files lawsuits!
Publishes the only freethought newspaper in the United States, Freethought Today
Sponsors annual high school and college freethought essay competitions with cash awards
Conducts lively, annual national conventions, honoring an annual "Freethinker of the Year" for state/church activism, a "Freethought Heroine" and student activists
Bestows "The Emperor Has No Clothes" Award and statuette to public figures for plain speaking on religion
Promotes freedom from religion with educational products, bumperstickers, music CDs, winter solstice greeting cards and literature
Publishes useful freethought books
Provides speakers for events and debates
Established a freethought book collection at the University of Wisconsin Memorial Library as well as a 2,000-volume office collection "
The point is that 'seperation of church and state' was a reaction to European societal conflicts based primarily on differences of denomination. 'What was the Kings church? We have a new Queen, so what church does she like?'
The founders wanted to avoid that. Secularism is not Atheism. Seculairisnm is tolerance for all ideas. Atheism is intolerance for the idea of God, period.
There is 'weak' Atheism, which could fairly be described as a non-religion. Then there is 'strong' Atheism, which fits all the major philosophical requirements to be considered a true religion.
Non-belief in God, doesn't disqualify Atheism as a religion. Other religions exist absent a God.
What you have, as an Atheist (strong) is a belief regarding spiritual existence. You hold as an absolute, that no proof will ever be forthcoming, to your personal satisfaction, and so as an act of faith (look up the word) you say there IS no God.
And your totally free to believe that. I'm totally free to oppose you trying to make a secular government into an Atheist one. I demand the right to free exercise of my religion, allowing for the other persons right to not be sacrificed to my ancient Aztec god, or whatever.
The greatest act of religious faith shown by Atheists is the absolute belief that they alone are the caretakers of secular law.
You want to know how our Founding Fathers felt about religion? Check out WallBuilder Press.
And stop oppressing my religion. I've been on your side of this argument, and I have experienced the hypocrisy of it. My prefered Bible is the Jefferson Bible, and I note that he had no difficulty accepting the value of Christ, his teachings, or his historical existence.
I hope your tired of this, cause I am. Stop trying to force your 'unbelief' upon the rest of us as 'rule of law'. It is a lie, even if you don't realize it.
Merry Christmas. Enjoy it as you see fit. Let others do likewise.
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 02, 2006 07:03 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at December 02, 2006 07:17 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: Fishelle Talkin at December 02, 2006 07:29 PM (HSkSw)
Fish smell,
I have no desire to win you as a convert, only to expose you as an intellectually dishonest Leftard. You asked for evidence that the historical Jesus existed and I gave you the Jewish historian Josephus who named him in his writings. Your response was to label Josephus a philanderer, etc., because you didn't have a better retort-- as if his Josephus's personal failings had any bearing on his veracity as a historian. I've debated a few honest Liberals and you're not one of them. You're a waste of time and everybody on this thread knows it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 02, 2006 10:36 PM (8e/V4)
You claim that the City of Chicago blackmailed the Festival organizers into pulling the Nativity movie scenes, but you also make the contradictory claim that the city didn't stop them from showing the scenes.
Typical left-wing version of facts and logic. Where do you plagiarize this juvenile bullshit from? Just how stupid are you, anyway?
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 02, 2006 11:58 PM (bLPT+)
Provide evidence that King Herod, Pontius Pilate, or Tiberius Caesar ever existed.
Provide evidence that they never existed.
We all learned the same empty argument in the eighth grade. The rest of us grew up, but apparently you're a moron.
Praise Jesus.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 03, 2006 12:08 AM (bLPT+)
prove or disprove.
Randman,
I guess on a thread about how much Liberals hate Christianity it's relevant that Fish smell and piddle would try to disprove the historical Jesus.
Yet except for the part that Josephus was a "philanderer" (LOL), no evidence on their part that he didn't exist.
Libs, google it. "Jesus" and "historical evidence." You're big boys. You don't need me to babysit you through it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 2, 2006 06:16 PM "
When are you going to wise up?
Atheists aren't out to proved the non-existance of God or Jesus.
We have better things to do.
Like trying to prevent your delusions of their existance from negatively impacting our world.
Speaking as a liberal and an Atheist, I don't hate any religion.
It's your religion and your cross to bear (so to speak).
When you try to impose your belief on the rest of us is when we get pissed.
It's not that we hate religion. It's that we hate what religion, in this country is trying to do.
And it's the Christians, in this country, that are not satisfied to go to church and instill their delusions upon their children.
It is the Christians who are still living in the last "cold war" by keeping "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, when the pledge is not a prayer, but a pledge of allegiance to our country.
BTW - the guy that wrote the Pledge was a Socialist, remember?
It is the Christians that want to put prayer back into the schools and the teaching of false science into our high school biology classes.
It is the Christians, thru their TV mouthpieces like CBN and the 700 Club, who have used their TV forum to help to convince their viewers that global warming isn't happening or that it is not humans that are responsible.
Presented with the overwhelming evidence, however, even the TV evangelists are convinced and no preaching that we should be the caretakers of our home.
It is religion and mainly Christianity that is responsible for most of the suffering in the world in the past, the present and will be in the future.
So why do you guys, so strongly, support religion over lack of religion?
Do you feel that you have to attack the non-believers and defend your religion, because of the doubts about your own religious beliefs?
Why is it the Christians, that continue to whine about how their rights are being taken away, are so happy to see other's rights taken away?
Why do Chistians hate religious freedom (which includes freedom from religion)?
Why do Chistians hate our constitution, except for the parts they agree with?
I guess Chistians feel the same way President Moron feels about the constitution.
It's just a piece of paper.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at December 03, 2006 06:59 AM (jc5xq)
Yeah yeah yeah, we say you're traitors and you say we hate the Constitution. I'm sure you really struck a nerve there. It's like you're still in elementary school.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 03, 2006 08:41 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 03, 2006 10:22 AM (5vGBy)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 03, 2006 10:30 AM (8e/V4)
Yes, those evil Christians are preventing atheists from practicing their religion. Atheist festivals and displays of mindless Nihilism are being banned across the country. Slandering Christianity holds dire consequences. Christians are using the judiciary and legislature to impose their religion on everyone.
Being a snot-nosed kid is no excuse for your level of overweening stupidity. Mongoloids have more sense. Get back on the short bus and don't get off until your assigned stop at the Daily Kos, or whatever indoctrination camp school it is you attend. Try to exhale, retard.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 03, 2006 05:30 PM (bLPT+)
Sent you packing, I see. So much for your moronic argument. It was only meant to cause disruption and frustration. That moronic argument only works on other morons. People with healthy IQs react with annoyance or contempt.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 03, 2006 05:33 PM (bLPT+)
The Constitution says Congress can't make a law respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of religion. That means we cannot descriminate, by way of Congress, for or against ANY religion.
Barring prayer in school descriminates against everyone but Atheists. Blocking money to (traditional) faith based social support organizations discriminates against them based on their religion. There is no Constitutional basis for such descrimination.
If you recognize a religion, that does not ESTABLISH it in a Constitutional sense. realizing a religion exists, you are in fact, Constitutionally required to let that religion be exercised freely, that is, without descrimination.
The ACLU is consistently working against free exercise of religion. The exceptional cases (and they are the exception) where the ACLU actually helps protect Christian free exercise, are in MY OPINION a PR ploy, or possily evidence that the ACLU is not entirely dominated by Atheist Socialists.
The modern ACLU also does not protect the Constiutional rights of Americans equally. Instead it has a long history of ignoring the Second Amendment, as anyone familiar with the attacks on gun ownership can tell you.
The ACLU shows qualities that are consistent with Marxist ideology in what battles they choose to fight.
I do not trust the ACLU, and for those like PuddleDuck, who are members, I can only say I'm sorry your organization has failed me, and people who feel like me.
PuddleDuck asks if we don't love the Constitution. We do. We feel the ACLU is undermining it, not enhancing the rights the Constitution is intended to protect. Until, the ACLU reforms itself, it is toxic to American values. Regard this as 'my opinion'. If you want to argue about this on an appropriate thread, I'll see you there.
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 03, 2006 07:04 PM (2OHpj)
The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin, was an avowed Marxist who wanted to turn America into a socialist state without personal possessions or a military.
He hated his country every bit as much as PuddlePuke does.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 03, 2006 10:04 PM (bLPT+)
Posted by: sandpiper at December 03, 2006 11:37 PM (as4nC)
a-religious Europe. That's it. Period. Because a religious society is a conservative society. So they use the smokescreen of "tolerance" and the
"constitution" to achieve their goals. It's that simple folks.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 04, 2006 01:20 AM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 04, 2006 06:05 AM (qWbYR)
You claim that the City of Chicago blackmailed the Festival organizers into pulling the Nativity movie scenes, but you also make the contradictory claim that the city didn't stop them from showing the scenes.
Typical left-wing version of facts and logic. Where do you plagiarize this juvenile bullshit from? Just how stupid are you, anyway?
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 2, 2006 11:58 PM "
One more time.
The City of Chicago did not prohibit the organizers of the festival from allowing advertisements and movie scenes to be shown.
The decision to "ban" the movie clips and ads was the decision of the organizers.
If you don't like it, take it up with the organizers.
If City of Chicago is "blackmailing" the festival organizers, it is using the US Constitution to do it.
This is a Christmas/holiday festival, representing many religions, including Christians, Jews and Muslims.
This is a separation of state issue and the City of Chicago is on the correct side. It can't sponsor an event that promotes one religion over another.
Got it yet?
"Piddledick: Takes a real nerd not to know when he's not wanted. The vets are the ones who spotted your lying bullshit to begin with. Piddledick is planning to parachute in Ghana and save the natives today. More famous war stories from piddledick tomorrow. I think he's going to save Gambia using his famous Rambo parachute tactics he learned on the internet. ha, ha. Friggin phoney.
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 3, 2006 10:22 AM "
First thing, moron. I have never claimed to be a war hero.
So you can stop the bullshit about me jumping into exotic places all over the world.
The only exotic place I ever jumped into was Vietnam, where we were still jumping for our $55 per month jump pay (aka hazardous duty pay) into secure DZs.
After I had made 2 pay jumps, the Army finally realized that too many paratroopers were getting hurt, unnecessarily, and too many chutes were being damaged, keeping the riggers busy full time.
Ever see what a bramble bush with 3 inch thorns can do to a parachute, not to mention what it can do to the soldier, wearing it? No, I didn't think so.
They sent most of the chutes home (and most of the riggers).
We stopped jumping, but still got our big $55 per month, in addition to our big $55 combat pay.
Well then Greyrooster, let's hear from all of those vets that still think that I am a lying bastard, huh?
This insult is coming from a guy that is too much of a pussy to have served his country.
Even your hero, President Moron, showed up for duty, once in a while, when he didn't have anything better to do.
"The Constitution says Congress can't make a law respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of religion. That means we cannot descriminate, by way of Congress, for or against ANY religion."
Something that finally makes sense, from Michael.
So we agree on something?
"Barring prayer in school descriminates against everyone but Atheists."
Total bullshit. Even some Christians are against prayer in school. Some Christians believe that prayer belongs at home an within the confines of their religious beliefs. It has no place in the public school system.
Why would you want someone to impose their religious beliefs on your children, especially while they are a captive audience.
Oh, yeah, the kids that don't want to hear the prayer could just stay out until the prayer is recited and then be singled out for ridicule later.
When I was in elementary school (I know, I know "just last year"), We were required to recite "The Lord's prayer".
It's a good all around Jewish, Christian and Muslim prayer, isn't it?
"Blocking money to (traditional) faith based social support organizations discriminates against them based on their religion. There is no Constitutional basis for such descrimination."
Why not support all organizations that provide social services to Americans?
Would you be in favor of supporting a Godless (Atheist) organization, as well as a "faith based" organization?
It shouldn't be a problem, since neither a "faith based" or "non-faith based" organization would be able to talk about their religion (or lack of it), as part of providing services, under the "faith based" initiatives program.
And I think that this is part of the problem.
The so-called "faith based" organizations are upset, since none of the money they receive can be used to promote their religious beliefs.
And even if they use some of their own money, in conjunction with the money, received from the Federal government they can't promote their religious beliefs.
This is very upsetting to them, since they will not be able to spew their religious propaganda, at government expense.
"If you recognize a religion, that does not ESTABLISH it in a Constitutional sense. realizing a religion exists, you are in fact, Constitutionally required to let that religion be exercised freely, that is, without descrimination."
You are right, again, on the above point.
A government can and should recognize all religions, although it can't promote any.
But it, also, can not descriminate against non-religious individuals and organizations, either, on the same basis.
This section of the constitution implies that there is freedom of and from religion.
You cannot protect religious beliefs, while denying the same rights to the non-believers.
"The ACLU is consistently working against free exercise of religion. The exceptional cases (and they are the exception) where the ACLU actually helps protect Christian free exercise, are in MY OPINION a PR ploy, or possily evidence that the ACLU is not entirely dominated by Atheist Socialists.
The modern ACLU also does not protect the Constiutional rights of Americans equally. Instead it has a long history of ignoring the Second Amendment, as anyone familiar with the attacks on gun ownership can tell you.
The ACLU shows qualities that are consistent with Marxist ideology in what battles they choose to fight.
I do not trust the ACLU, and for those like PuddleDuck, who are members, I can only say I'm sorry your organization has failed me, and people who feel like me."
Your attacks on the ACLU are totally bullshit.
BTW - there is not a "modern ACLU". There has always been just the plain ACLU.
The ACLU defends the constitutional rights of individuals and organizations, including guys like Rush Limpballs and the American Nazis, in federal courts, up to the level of the Supreme court.
And I'm sure that it leaves a really bad taste in their mouths, to have to defend scum like Rush and the Nazis, but the ACLU is not defending Rush and the Nazis, but the US constitution.
Could you defend the Constitutional rights of people that you hate?
That's got to be a stressful job.
Why are you guys so afraid of the ACLU?
Are federal judges going to rule in favor of the ACLU and against the Constitution, even at the level of the Supreme court?
You, now, have 2 consevative judges, on the Supreme court, handpicked by President Moron, for their conservative views of the Constitution.
Do you not trust President Moron and the Supreme Court to defend the Constitution against the ACLU?
"PuddleDuck asks if we don't love the Constitution. We do. We feel the ACLU is undermining it, not enhancing the rights the Constitution is intended to protect. Until, the ACLU reforms itself, it is toxic to American values. Regard this as 'my opinion'. If you want to argue about this on an appropriate thread, I'll see you there."
Again, total bullshit.
Only the government can undermine the constitution, and that's what's going on right now, in secret and in the name of "national security" with the present administration.
An organization, like the ACLU can not undermine the constitution.
All they can do is mount challenges, to the government, in the Federal Courts, to defend an individual or an organization, who feels that their constitutional rights have been violated.
That's why we have the Federal court system to protect our constitutional rights, to defend us from people, who would try to take our, constitutionally protected rights, away.
So, I'll ask you again.
Do you support the entire constitution, or just the parts you agree with?
Do you agree that every American has the same Constitutional rights and not just the people, that you happen to agree with?
It's a difficult decision, isn't it?
Posted by: TheAntiPuddleDuck at December 04, 2006 08:11 AM (K+c1v)
More temper tantrums? Does having a baby dick affect your thought process?
Show me where the Constitution mentions separation of Church and state, and I'll show you a leftist with a functioning brain.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 04, 2006 02:04 PM (bLPT+)
"This is a Christmas/holiday festival, representing many religions, including Christians, Jews and Muslims.
This is a separation of state issue and the City of Chicago is on the correct side. It can't sponsor an event that promotes one religion over another.
Got it yet?"
I want to point out that The US Constitution says
"Amendments to the Constitution of the United States
Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a re dress of grievances."
To say Chicago can't 'sponsor an event' that favors a relion is flat wrong Constitutionally. Chicago isn't Congress. They can, but it wouldn't be fair if they were unwilling to sponsor any other religions public activity. Note that I am not saying they need to pony up for a Atheist parade, right away, just that they need to be willing to work for any group within the community. Religious or otherise.
There can be no such animal as 'separation of church and state' (as Atheists see it) in a free society. You would bar anyone who was not an Atheist from any public office if you really had it that way. Don't cry 'bullshit' cause that is cheap, and weak. I'm saying a human being brings his or her religious point of view where ever he goes. If your an Atheist on the Supreme Court, your views will affect your judgement.
In short, I maintain that seperation of church and state is as much a lie as the perfect communist society. You can't have either one, without removng human beings from the equation.
All the founders wanted was to insure that Catholics didn't kill Protestants, etc. And that nobody got promoted, or passed over, based on being of a specific denomination.
In fact, for Congress to treat a group, or organization, as less deserving, or less worthy, because they have a religious motivation, is unconstitional because it puts Congress in the role of religious oppressor.
In short, if my group wants to feed the poor, and we are religious, Congress will be asked by the ACLU, not to help us, when a non-religious group would get the same help. Do I ned to make this point any clearer?
Then you said:
"First thing, moron. I have never claimed to be a war hero."
I know that wasn't aimed at me, but it is an example of what goes wrong with these threads. People attack the person, not the argument. I'm not calling you names, so if your responding to me, please extend the same courtesy.
I said:
"The Constitution says Congress can't make a law respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of religion. That means we cannot descriminate, by way of Congress, for or against ANY religion."
You relpied:
"Something that finally makes sense, from Michael.
So we agree on something?"
I said:
"Barring prayer in school descriminates against everyone but Atheists."
You said:
"Total bullshit. Even some Christians are against prayer in school. Some Christians believe that prayer belongs at home an within the confines of their religious beliefs. It has no place in the public school system.
Why would you want someone to impose their religious beliefs on your children, especially while they are a captive audience."
So here we are. When you block my children from praying ANYWHERE, by enforcing a defacto Atheist religious practice of 'non-recognition' you are forcing your beliefs on my children. You are restricting their free exercise of religion.
Free exercise for an Atheist is to say 'God just ain't so.' Well so what!? Say it. If my kids want to praise Jesus, then let them be! If anyone stops either your little Ateists, or my little Christians from being loud and proud about their religion, it is religious oppression, plain and simple.
You said:
"Oh, yeah, the kids that don't want to hear the prayer could just stay out until the prayer is recited and then be singled out for ridicule later."
Not wanting to hear the free expression, and free speech of another American citizen, is not suffient grounds by itself, to restrict said speech/expression. Only a fascist would think so, so I'm sure I misunderstood you.
You said:
"When I was in elementary school (I know, I know "just last year"), We were required to recite "The Lord's prayer".
It's a good all around Jewish, Christian and Muslim prayer, isn't it?"
Dude! I'm not for requiring any kind of prayer be recited by anyone who doesn't want to. If forced to pray to Allah, I have my response ready. If asked to honor a freind who was Muslim, and respect his right to prayer, I can, and would. Call me a liar if you have to. I do have a fiend who was an active Satanist. Yeah, yeah, cry 'bullshit' whatever. I believe what I say when I say I'm for free exercise, as long as your not hurting someone. DO you get me on that?
I don't hate people for a religious belief. I don't hate Atheists. I do hate politically oppressive behavior, and overt aggression by anyone using religion (or non-religion). That goes for the Christian White supremecists who hate Native Americans, etc. It goes for Islamofascism, It goes for Godless Marxism as applied to crushing religions like mine. Do you understand me?
I said:
"Blocking money to (traditional) faith based social support organizations discriminates against them based on their religion. There is no Constitutional basis for such descrimination."
You said:
"Why not support all organizations that provide social services to Americans?
Would you be in favor of supporting a Godless (Atheist) organization, as well as a "faith based" organization?"
Yes TheAntiPuddleDuck, I have no problem with that. It shows a non-descrimanatory sense of freedom. As long as the organization wasn't sending money to terrorists, or otherwise anti-American, I don't care what they believe. If they want to help, let them.
You said:
"It shouldn't be a problem, since neither a "faith based" or "non-faith based" organization would be able to talk about their religion (or lack of it), as part of providing services, under the "faith based" initiatives program."
Really I don't care if the organization in question lets people know what they think, or what they believe in (see above) as long as they accept everyone in their soup lines, equally.
There is no establishment of religion in allowing free expression at any point in public life. As long as you are not forcing compliance with a code of behavior based purely on religion. My test for that is if someone gets materially infringed upon. If they get hurt feelings to bad. 'Piss Christ' is art. Its in lousy taste, but I don't get to pick.
You said:
"This is very upsetting to them, since they will not be able to spew their religious propaganda, at government expense."
Hey, you get to promote Athesism disguised as secularism, so I don't see the problem with allowing a Christian aid program to be Christian while offering aid. Atheists can go ahead and be Atheists. We can all be free.
I said:
"If you recognize a religion, that does not ESTABLISH it in a Constitutional sense. realizing a religion exists, you are in fact, Constitutionally required to let that religion be exercised freely, that is, without descrimination."
You said:
"You are right, again, on the above point.
A government can and should recognize all religions, although it can't promote any.
But it, also, can not descriminate against non-religious individuals and organizations, either, on the same basis."
I think I want to just agree there. I think there is nothing inherently wrong with promoting an atmosphere of tolerance, as oppossed to intolerance, and I think we interpret intolerance differently.
You said:
"You cannot protect religious beliefs, while denying the same rights to the non-believers."
I'm all for letting people out to run around and be as religious, or Atheist as they want to be. I expect people of different beliefs to be able to let others express a different belief. No one should be oppressed unless they are caught planning to hijack airplanes or lynch colored people. I think I'm being clear ...
Me condensed:
"The ACLU is consistently working against free exercise of religion. I do not trust the ACLU."
Also my use of the term 'modern' was me thinking outloud. I used to like the ACLU, but I hadn't done a lot of research back then. I think of the 'modern' ACLU as the ACLU the way I have come to percieve it. Sorry for the confusion. I still don't trust them.
You said:
"Could you defend the Constitutional rights of people that you hate?"
Yep! I hate the little anarchist America haters who run around calling our troops nazis' and baby killers. I'd like to stop them, but I need to work on explaining why they are wrong. Meanwhile they are expressing their hate, and they are allowed. If they cross the line to advocating the downfall of the USA then I see that as sedition. Sedition is a crime.
You said:
"Why are you guys so afraid of the ACLU?"
They have a political agenda that shows itself in what battles they choose to fight, and what rights they do not defend. They lost me on the Second Amendment a long time ago. That's just for starters.
You ask:
"Are federal judges going to rule in favor of the ACLU and against the Constitution, even at the level of the Supreme court?"
Activist Judges are real problem in this country, and the ACLU seeks them out when shopping for a court to fight in. Our US Supreme Court can only handle so may cases, and that leaves a lot of room for harmful Judicial activism.
Me condensed:
"Until, the ACLU reforms itself, it is toxic to American values."
I stand by that statement.
You in brief:
"Only the government can undermine the constitution, > An organization, like the ACLU can not undermine the constitution."
By looking for fights in the courtrooms of activist judges, and throwing special interst money to a large pool of lawyers, yes, the ACLU can undermine a correct understanding of the US Constitution.
The very idea that the Constitution is a living document, has been perverted to restrict rights previously enjoyed in America. There is plenty of evidence that the ACLU wants to change American society, rather than protect it. The challenges they take up are selective. It's true.
You said:
"So, I'll ask you again.
Do you support the entire constitution, or just the parts you agree with?"
YES! I support the entire Constitution, not a Neo-Marxist interpretation of it.
You ask:
"Do you agree that every American has the same Constitutional rights and not just the people, that you happen to agree with?"
Of course. Please ask me a question I haven't already answered!!! Point to a single place where I said anything about restricting anyones freedom to say, or express themselves however.
You say:
"It's a difficult decision, isn't it?"
I say, no it isn't. Stop restricting non-Atheists in public places. It is not Constitutional to restrict a belief, or a group of believers because they have that belief. Realize that allowing the Government to only work with non-religious groups isn't Contitutional, but an afront to free exercise of religion.
OH yeah! Start defending my right, as one of 'the people' to keep and bear arms. Stop being selective in what rights you will defend, and who you will defend them for.
Go to court for me, when someone passes me over because I'm white! Impress me!
Do that and I could give the ACLU another chance.
Merry whatever to you TheAntiPuddleDuck
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 04, 2006 06:22 PM (2OHpj)
Your right about the Chicago event being private. I got off track and that's my bad.
I still think your reading me wrong, and so I guess I'll let it be.
I'll read your wiki, but your right that I have a firm opinion about the ACLU. You and I see it differently.
As for the courts, remember Dred Scott. During times of strong political rivalry, the courts can become part of the problem. I think they are showing signs. These are similar times I think.
All I want is for the Atheists, and the Christians, and everyone to be able to be what they are freely. As always, I seek speech and expression, short of material harm. I know you can make the distinction. How can you not want that? Honestly, no joke, I want to understand why we are not seeing eye to eye.
And I'm also trying to be nice, even though this is sort of a sore topic, so I hope your getting a sense of that. I was reacting to what seemed to be a mean spirited attack by Fishelle.
If we don't burn witches anymore, whats the big deal? I have Wiccan friends, and a collection of books about them. I'm very religiously tolerant, as long as mine isn't being attacked. Don't try to characterize me as otherwise.
Its way past my bedtime, and I don't want to ramble at you half consciously (be nice) so have a good night, and I'll swing at you some more later
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 05, 2006 05:38 AM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 05, 2006 11:24 AM (8e/V4)
November 25, 2006
"Those animals are subject to all sorts of terrible fates in some cases," Vergerio said. "Animals have been stolen and slaughtered, they've been raped, they've escaped from the nativity scenes and have been struck by cars and killed. Just really unfathomable things have happened to them."Raped? How does PETA know the animals weren't just asking for it? That might be the position of NAMBLA, the North American Man Beast Love Association.
PETA: people with too much time on their hands, and too few brain cells to use it wisely.
Previous PETA hysteria: Mommy and Daddy are murderers.
Posted by: Bluto at
11:30 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Speaking for the Choir at November 25, 2006 01:09 PM (HSkSw)
Didn't PETA come out a couple months ago in favor of sex between humans and animals?
Hmmm, does Ingrid Newkirk have a "companion" donkey?
Posted by: Phillep at November 25, 2006 01:40 PM (bTuiC)
And besides, when there are no willing underage boys around, what do you expect an oversexed Republican to do, anyway?
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 25, 2006 01:51 PM (9QWto)
Posted by: byron at November 25, 2006 02:25 PM (+apwv)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 25, 2006 02:26 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: sandpiper at November 25, 2006 03:52 PM (A2P9P)
Posted by: Phillep at November 25, 2006 04:22 PM (bTuiC)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 25, 2006 07:39 PM (VMUjK)
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
Peta's employee's mobile 'kill' van, when they finished killing surrendered animals, they threw them in the trash:
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaTrial2.cfm
Posted by: davec at November 25, 2006 09:03 PM (QkWqQ)
Posted by: sandpiper at November 27, 2006 03:56 PM (mi9uJ)
Posted by: shemales pictures at November 27, 2006 06:46 PM (n5xQ7)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 25, 2006 07:39 PM"
GreyRooster - you don't want to screw an old fart like me, when there are so many boys available to the Grand ol' Pedophiles.
For you and your friends, that would be so much more fulfilling.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 29, 2006 06:27 AM (+dUhC)
Posted by: myolc fzgqac at February 26, 2007 07:01 PM (myeCq)
Posted by: Kadengpg at March 10, 2007 12:49 AM (h69q9)
Posted by: Aidanrdq at March 20, 2007 05:13 PM (P8Q9i)
Posted by: Lauraiak at March 21, 2007 02:57 PM (hCQTU)
Posted by: Ericahn at March 21, 2007 10:59 PM (zzqqy)
Posted by: Anitaelo at March 29, 2007 06:04 AM (WUHYf)
Posted by: Gregipr at April 10, 2007 02:01 PM (Z23vI)
Posted by: Jamesczf at April 23, 2007 09:17 AM (bM28p)
November 13, 2006
WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 — Democratic leaders in the Senate vowed on Sunday to use their new Congressional majority to press for troop reductions in Iraq within a matter of months, stepping up pressure on the administration just as President Bush is to be interviewed by a bipartisan panel examining future strategy for the war.Speaker to be Pelosi endorses lynching enthusiast and Abscam unindicted co-conspirator John Murtha for Majority Leader:
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), in line to become Speaker in January, is throwing her support to Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) in the race for Majority Leader, a move that will be an early test of her influence and will weigh heavily on Murtha's contest with Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) for the post.And Alcee Hastings has a really good shot at chairing the House Intelligence Committee, despite having been impeached and removed from the federal bench for corruption:
With Rep. Alcee Hastings a frontrunner to be House Intelligence Committee chairman, he’s already facing unpleasant publicity stemming from his involvement in a corruption case years ago.We haven't even gotten to the good stuff yet - emasculating our counter-terrorism organizations by making surveillance, interrogation, and imprisonment illegal; maybe making US soldiers subject to war crimes trials at the Hague...there's lots of fun to come.
Special thanks to those on the Right who sat out the election because their pet peeves weren't addressed to their satisfaction. Enjoy.
Posted by: Bluto at
04:16 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Howie at November 13, 2006 05:23 PM (D3+20)
Posted by: codekeyguy at November 13, 2006 05:43 PM (+WuRB)
Posted by: codekeyguy at November 13, 2006 05:45 PM (+WuRB)
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at November 13, 2006 05:49 PM (DdRjH)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 13, 2006 05:52 PM (8PoNP)
While I am certain that all of these things are apt to cause some fear in some people but really most aren't afraid of those things.
Posted by: John Ryan at November 13, 2006 08:18 PM (TcoRJ)
Posted by: John Ryan at November 13, 2006 08:25 PM (TcoRJ)
Posted by: Randman at November 13, 2006 09:48 PM (Sal3J)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 13, 2006 11:55 PM (8PoNP)
And is there a type of conflict where John Murtha *will* give a blank check to a President? Will go against the hawks in his party that want the President to be held accountable? Will actually stand up to endorse the idea that even after a President has fully explained the conflict that he will give MORE TIME to have it explained, by that point, a THIRD TIME to him? Why yes, yes there is. It is: Haiti.
So, to John Murtha, a million or so dead is NOT a reason to step into a problem as there might still be some people left alive to be saved, I guess. And to him Haiti is MUCH more important than Iraq... and that turned out swimmingly, didn't that, the kind of fight that Murtha endorses: Haiti.
I really do have to comb through the Congressional Record a bit more, there are such *lovely* quotes against Mr. Murtha from members of his own party....
Posted by: ajacksonian at November 14, 2006 07:55 AM (VLjJI)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 14, 2006 10:28 AM (uLSfm)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 17, 2006 12:28 AM (R6qo5)
November 05, 2006
BRUSSELS, Nov 5 (Reuters) - The European Union urged Iraq on Sunday not to carry out the death sentence passed on Iraq's former leader Saddam Hussein after his conviction for crimes against humanity.Apparently the "rotating presidency" business is a symbolic reference to Europe's current status of circling the toilet bowl as Islamist extremists burn their cities and murder their citizens with impunity."The EU opposes capital punishment in all cases and under all circumstances, and it should not be carried out in this case either," Finland, current holder of the rotating EU presidency, said in a statement.
The Iraqis have jurisdiction, and will ultimately decide Saddam's fate, but they don't seem to be in the mood for mincing nancy-boy measures with Saddam. However, the Euroweenies' pleas for the misunderstood Butcher of Baghdad have touched my heart, and I'd like to toss them a bone. I think that we should stop executing convicted serial killers here in the United States. I propose instead that they be exiled...to Europe.
Posted by: Bluto at
10:42 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 06, 2006 12:14 AM (bLPT+)
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 06, 2006 03:08 AM (2OHpj)
The EU must be demolished. It is nothing but an Arab Islamic tool as useless as the UN. Both should be smoldering embers in the halls of eternal shame.
Posted by: heroyalwhyness at November 06, 2006 07:31 AM (MAPKL)
Posted by: Fred Fry at November 06, 2006 07:41 AM (JXdhy)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 06, 2006 07:55 AM (cNF2m)
But the Iraqis don't. That's not their culture. But notice how according to these Leftists multi-culturalism is FANTASTIC within European borders, but heaven forbid the Iraqis practice their own cultural values within their own national borders. That would be...wrong! Welcome to the upside down world of the Left. It's a mental disorder.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 06, 2006 08:24 AM (8e/V4)
These are the Europeans that are wringing their hands over the proposed execution of Saddam?
They have their priorities backwards.
Posted by: susan at November 06, 2006 12:08 PM (d4OWt)
Sheesh.
JMJ
Posted by: Jersey McJones at November 06, 2006 01:57 PM (flS0q)
Jersey McJones: The Ted Bundy argument? Didn't work for him, either. But why are you pretending that treasonous retardates, such as yourself, care one whit about Saddam's victims or crimes?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 06, 2006 04:28 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 06, 2006 11:50 PM (0AdXP)
Was it wrong for the Italians to execute Mussolini?
Would it be wrong for the North Koreans to execute their fanatic dictator?
NOT executing Saddam would be a major mistake, the Europeans have apparently forgotten Napolien's return to power after he escaped from prison.
But heck why study History, the Germans hardly raised their voices after their defeat in WWI.
And WHERE are you going to keep him. Perhaps the Finns would like to experience suicide bombers if they house him.
He has to executed, if he is indeed guilty, and I think the Kurds can provide ample evidence of a crime so horrendous.
Nothing that we have done in conducting this war is even in the same arena. Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Kim Jun ILL (pardon my spelling) belong to a special club.
The tragedy was not that we went to Iraq, but that he did not look out the window one morning and find the world standing there.
The world watched a million Ruwands beat each other to death, where were the Europeans? Wringing their hands...
Watching your neighbor beat his wife to death is not non violence, it's cowardice..
Posted by: james jones at November 07, 2006 11:42 AM (+dRe+)
Don't we want to investigate the UN Oil For Food scandal?
What about all Saddam's other crimes?
What about the WMD?
What if he did have WMD and they're out there somewhere now?
What about Saddam's ties to terrorists?
What about his attack on Israel during the Gulf War?
Not curious at all, sleazy cons?
You lying fuckin' sleazy scmbags.
You know damned well that he's being shut up to conceal what a scum, piece of shit, pile of asses you sleazy morons have put into office ever since Reagan, that douchebag rotting in hell. You are bad people. Bad, cowardly, cheap, narrow minded, bigotted, sleazy, cheating, lying, murderous sacks of crap. Every last one of you.
JMJ
Posted by: Jersey McJones at November 11, 2006 11:44 AM (flS0q)
Posted by: Ricky at December 30, 2006 03:44 PM (KJfpN)
I agree, Kofi, let him live! Yaaaaay! Do you like Jello?
Posted by: Vinnie at
05:40 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.
Europe went from barbaric bloodlust to greens who oppose capital punishment.
Soon, the Islamic crescent will bring the guillotine back to Fwance, and the rest of Europe.
Posted by: Darth Vag at November 05, 2006 09:54 PM (HSkSw)
November 02, 2006
If Americans knew the full extent of U.S. criminal conduct, they would receive returning Iraqi veterans as they did Vietnam veterans, Hersh said.This cowardly sack of shit, who does not deserve the protection he receives from those he slanders so recklessly, made his remarks in Montreal, Canada. He should be stopped at the border when he tries to return.
“In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation,†he said. “It isn’t happening now, but I will tell you – there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.â€
Posted by: Bluto at
12:34 PM
| Comments (46)
| Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.
You RW jerks like to point to one left wing moron and try to paint us all with the same brush.
What the anti-war protesters did to returning Vietnam vets was wrong.
Is there anyone, anymore, that disagrees?
Even if Hersh is right about the atrocities committed by US servicemen, the perpetrators represent a very small minority of our soldiers, who are honorably serving in an unnecessary and ill conceived war.
It is only your opinion that Hersh represents the Left's view of the military.
This is total bullshit, as it is the Left that defends this country, at least as much as conservatives.
It is the left that is trying to save our freedoms from those who would try to take them away.
It is not the terrorists, that we have to fear.
It is the RW, like Bush and his cronies that would try to take away our freedoms in the name of national security.
Posted by: Puddleduck at November 02, 2006 12:59 PM (F+9W9)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at November 02, 2006 01:42 PM (Dd86v)
Posted by: KMA at November 02, 2006 01:45 PM (trBlj)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 02, 2006 01:53 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: Sapper Chris at November 02, 2006 02:06 PM (ZEIBc)
"Is there anyone, anymore, who disagrees? - quite obviously, Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer prize winner and celebrated Lefty mainstream journalist for the New Yorker disagrees. Q.E.D.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 02, 2006 02:07 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: newyank at November 02, 2006 02:10 PM (XT7OJ)
Now, there's an opening for loyal, patriotic Leftists who want to re-establish a Liberal movement that would truly be a loyal opposition, rather than a tool for America's enemies. Maybe you could get in on the ground floor, Fuddlepuck.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 02, 2006 02:14 PM (vBK4C)
The biggest problem with your statements is that you equate lefties with soldier hating."
Puddleduck,
Ya know, it'd be so much simpler if you guys went back to hating the troops openly, just like in the old days.
You ever in the service? Cub scouts? Anything?
Oh, and while you're at it, could you mention at least one valid freedom that this administration has taken away?
Bluto and I don't always see eye to eye, but I'll stand with him on this one all day long.
Posted by: dick at November 02, 2006 02:22 PM (XlQVK)
Dickless -
"Ya know, it'd be so much simpler if you guys went back to hating the troops openly, just like in the old days.
You ever in the service? Cub scouts? Anything?"
Ya know, Dickless, you are one of RW trolls that seem to permeate this site, but you already know that, don't you?
Which guys are you talking about that hates our soldiers? I don't know any of them.
You don't know a fucking thing about me, but you would like to try to put me in a pidgeon hole, because I am a liberal Democrat.
For your information, I served with the 1st Brigade of the 101st Airborne Div in Vietnam in 1965 and 1966. Where the fuck were you?
The American people, including our soldiers who are serving honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan, have seen thru the Bush and GOP bullshit and are going to change the direction of this country, whether you or your fellow neocon friends like it or not.
Just get used to it.
You are a loser, in the company of losers.
Posted by: Puddleduck at November 02, 2006 02:57 PM (F+9W9)
You must all subscribe to the same GOP talking points emails and, of course, you all watch Fox News to get your news (I heard they are number 1 in something - it sure ain't for their journalistic integrity).
You call me a soldier-hater and then go on to defame real war heros like Murtha and Kerry?
You should be ashamed, especially any of you that has never worn a US Military uniform, who is now bashing our veterans.
Posted by: Puddleduck at November 02, 2006 03:07 PM (F+9W9)
I am a Vietnam vet and I honor the service of anyone who has served in any war, whether I agree with the war or not.
Who the fuck are you to label anyone as a traitor?
I will welcome all of our war heroes home, not just the ones that share my politics, just as I hope you will.
It sounds that your support for the soldiers is contingent upon their political leaning.
You have no problem defaming veterans that don't share your political philosophy.
Would it surprise you to know that there are liberals fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Or do believe that conservative republicans are the only ones ready to fight and die for their country?
Do you hope that all of the liberal soldiers will be killed in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Posted by: Puddleduck at November 02, 2006 03:19 PM (F+9W9)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 02, 2006 03:32 PM (cNF2m)
Hersh seems to have forgotten the articles he wrote in The Village Voice about how John Kerry turned his backs on Vietnam POWs and how Kerry sold out to North Vietnam.
So the very man Hersh condemned over the lack of getting our POWs out of Vietnam but now he adds fuel to the left wing hatred for our military?
The problem with the elitist left is they seem to think we forget what they say years ago. We don't.
Posted by: retire05 at November 02, 2006 03:50 PM (t8Xkg)
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 02, 2006 04:06 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: Lying Moonbat at November 02, 2006 04:10 PM (8e/V4)
There's not a man or woman who EVER served with the 101st who's as simplistic, or cowardly as yourself.
I know far too many of them.
You are a traitor to this nation who should be tried and sentenced.
You're mentally weak and don't have a thing except for the shitty life which you manufactured for yourself.
Cut and run you pussy. Take the rest of the tards with ya.
Posted by: dick at November 02, 2006 04:34 PM (XlQVK)
Kerry is a veteran. Perhaps he isalso a political hero to you. But he sure is hell ain't a "war hero."
Posted by: wooga at November 02, 2006 04:40 PM (tAB8A)
What hogwash. Bush has gutted the Constitution. I wish the military would defend it.
Posted by: Greg at November 02, 2006 04:41 PM (v7DMp)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 02, 2006 05:02 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 02, 2006 05:04 PM (cNF2m)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 02, 2006 05:06 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: Greg at November 02, 2006 05:13 PM (v7DMp)
Posted by: Greg at November 02, 2006 05:16 PM (v7DMp)
When are you going to realize that your boy was sent off to malaria land at the behest of Israel? Hope he's OK.
Posted by: Greg at November 02, 2006 05:18 PM (v7DMp)
Sounds to me like we're being way nicer than we should be in Iraq.
Screw Kerry, Murtha. They just use their service as a political chip to try to silence their opponents, just like you're doing now Puddleduck. From what I can tell by talking to friends of the family, my uncles, and cousins that were in Vietnam it wasn't one long My Lai or Apocalypse Now despite all attempts by people like Kerry to paint it as such. Neither is Iraq from what I can tell based off what my friends who are there and were there have told me, -despite Dean, Kerry, Murtha, that moron that said Gitmo was exactly the same as a nazi concentration camp or Gulag, and their bases' assertions otherwise.
My buddies who are over there or just getting back aren't happy with the administration about stuff like not being able to go nab the badguys in Sadr City. They sure as heck aren't going to vote Democrat though. They may see the administration as lacking in tactical and strategic prowess, but they see the Dems as at least morally treacherous, if not legally so.
Posted by: Ranba Ral at November 02, 2006 05:22 PM (VvXII)
Posted by: Ranba Ral at November 02, 2006 05:32 PM (VvXII)
Want to back that up with facts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Loss_of_citizenship
Posted by: davec at November 02, 2006 05:53 PM (QkWqQ)
Posted by: Greg at November 02, 2006 07:31 PM (19GwZ)
I want to add something here. I served in the USMC during Desert Storm. That sounds impressive until you find out I was in school for the entire war. Dumbass very likely could have been 101 airborn in Viet Nam. Doesn't mean he did any more than hand out towels at the O club in Saigon. 80% of all service members are in support roles. Only 20 % hold a billet that put them in harms way. Granted in Iraq Harms Way may be easier to find even for support folks. Personally I think Iraq is probably more dangerous for all troops in general than Viet Nam may have been. But I was not in Viet Nam nor Iraq. But then there were not many car bombs going off in Saigon or elsewhere.
Posted by: SeeMonk at November 02, 2006 07:56 PM (n4VvM)
Posted by: davec at November 02, 2006 08:15 PM (QkWqQ)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 02, 2006 08:59 PM (cNF2m)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 02, 2006 09:03 PM (cNF2m)
Posted by: David at November 02, 2006 09:16 PM (G0xcv)
Posted by: SeeMonk at November 02, 2006 09:36 PM (n4VvM)
I'm sure we're all just shakin in our boots now that Bush revoked the Bill of Rights.
LOL. moron.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 02, 2006 11:32 PM (8e/V4)
Move Over John Kerry, Or More Leftist Democratic Slander And Defamation Of Our Troops!!!
From Hyscience:
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/11/more_leftist_de.php
As the November elections fast approach, it seems that it is “Open Season†out there on our military; and not only by Al Qaeda and the insurgents!
We all know about past statements being made by prominent Democratic leaders such as Senator Durbin, comparing our military men and women, and Gitmo, to “Nazis,†the “Russian Gulag,†and “Pol Pot.†And who can ever forget Representative John Murtha calling our soldiers “murderers,†or the infamous Senator Kerry saying they “terrorized Iraqi women and children in the middle of the night�?? But you would have imagined - especially after the recent Kerry insult to our troops in Iraq, which has stirred so much controversy and rightful condemnation of the Senator, who categorized them, by inference, of being uneducated oafs and underachievers, who “got stuck in Iraq†for “lack of an education†- that barely days away from the elections, the Democrats and their liberal, far-left, radical, socialist allies, would have the gall of being so brazen, as to continue to heap vilification and invectives on our troops! But then, Seymour Hersh does not feel constrained by any such considerations when it comes to dedicating himself to his ignominious “Life’s Work†of denigrating and defaming our military and of spewing his ideological venom!!!
So, here we are, barely five days from the elections, and Seymour M. Hersh, the Pulitzer prize winning vermin who broke both, the so called “Mai Lai Massacre†back during Viet Nam, and recently the “Abu Ghraib scandal†in Iraq, and who has dedicated his worthless life to only rabidly seek for, and dredge up as much muck and mud as he can possibly sling at or impugn upon our military, is at it once again; this time at a Canadian University!!!
According to a report on the O’Reilly Factor, on Fox, Mr. Hersh is reputed to have told his audience at the Canadian institution of learning (or is that of “indoctrinationâ€?) that, quote: “There’s never been an American Army as violent and murderous as our Army in Iraqâ€!!!
Imagine that! And I was under the impression that our military has been so overly “restrained†in Iraq by our “politically correct,†“sensitive,†politicians - against the barbarity of the terrorist insurgents and their heinous, truly murderous methods, such as IEDs and suicide bombings - that for the most part, they can be accused of rather being “sitting ducks,†when instead they should be mowing down mercilessly all these savages in their lairs without any compunction! Rather that these murderous Jihadists die, than our brave young men giving up their noble lives, trying to make a “Democracy†of their damned, forsaken, rat hole in the sand… for the Islamic Iraqi ingrates!!!
And one has to ask in earnest, how the American citizenship, so eagerly sought by so many from all over the world willing to die to get to our shores, to enjoy what Mr. Hersh and his fellow Democratic “demagogues†so much “hate†and “detest,†namely America, is not stricken from them, and they are banned for good from our shores?!?!
Perhaps, it is high time that “citizenship†be not granted by blind birth (also the case with “Anchor Babiesâ€), but by meritorious, and responsible civil service to our nation, and that such as Hersh, Kerry, Durbin, Pelosi, and their “Hate America†ilk have it stricken from them for good…who so despise the country and its institutions, while cynically taking full advantages of them, and of the unparalleled, unearned, Freedoms granted them!!!
And, no, don’t give me any of that crap about Kerry’s “Purple Heart,†“Bronze Star,†and the rest of his military “Regaliaâ€! His treasonous actions back in the days of the Viet Nam War, his cuddling of the North Vietnamese in Paris with his willing advancement and abetting of their “agenda,†and his staged, infamous, false defamation of his fellow soldiers during the Congressional Hearings in 1971, amply negate any merits on his part; and even makes one think if he did not intend to get as many such “decorations†as he could, in the first place, with the intent of using his “Decorated War Veteran†prestige, as a “credible†bully pulpit from which to spew his leftists, anti-military ideology…as he did!
John Kerry may have as many ill-earned “medals†and “ribbons†on his chest as any “Tin-pot North Korean General in a Kim Jong-il Parade,†but he remains, in his heart of hearts, what he truly really is: “A Traitor†!!!
Benedict Arnold was also a “Decorated Officer.†Had he lived in our times, undoubtedly he would have been just another “Senator in Washington†with a “differing opinion,†like Kerry and his ilk, and his “treason,†and or “Patriotism,†just as with the Democrats now in Washington, would not today be “questionedâ€!!!
Simply amazing! Open up your eyes America!
Althor
Posted by: Althor at November 03, 2006 01:57 AM (Gp5c0)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 03, 2006 07:51 AM (cNF2m)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 03, 2006 08:05 AM (cNF2m)
Via globalsecurity.org: "In 1965 the division was deployed to Vietnam. The 1st Brigade and
support troops were deployed to the Republic of Vietnam, followed by
the rest of the division in late 1967."
Posted by: Ranba Ral at November 03, 2006 10:34 AM (VvXII)
Posted by: Max Power at November 03, 2006 11:29 AM (94Rrz)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 03, 2006 11:44 AM (cNF2m)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 03, 2006 10:05 PM (cNF2m)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 04, 2006 08:08 AM (cNF2m)
Posted by: Whoever at November 06, 2006 12:02 PM (uCxps)
Politically correct (Anti-White male, anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-Western culture,) Speech codes are enforced in all schools, public and private.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 06, 2006 12:50 PM (bLPT+)
October 29, 2006
As the November 7 Election approaches, I decided to write a few lines to my fellow Americans about the state of our nation and the ugliness that may have to occur if the people who caused these problems are re-elected: They may have to be assassinated.Among the crimes for which Turner believes these folks "may" have to die are passage of the Patriot Act and ruling that boating, hunting and fishing in navigable waterways is illegal. more...
Posted by: Bluto at
11:01 PM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.
FREE ERNST ZUNDEL!
FREE CHESTER DOLES!
Posted by: Jim Leshkevich at October 29, 2006 11:55 PM (ds0+e)
Posted by: dcb at October 30, 2006 12:21 AM (8e/V4)
AOL blocks Srormfront as they don't believe in free speech...but you can use Internet Explorer or any other browser.
Posted by: Jim Leshkevich at October 30, 2006 12:52 AM (ds0+e)
In jail for what? What country are you from pal? We in the USA have free speech! We can voice our opinions freely here. (we have a Bill Of Rights that protects unpopular speech!)
Obviously you can't speak freely in the country you live in?
Posted by: Jim Leshkevich at October 30, 2006 01:00 AM (ds0+e)
Posted by: slovack at October 30, 2006 01:10 AM (UvrR5)
Posted by: Mr. Period at October 30, 2006 02:11 AM (xfvyZ)
Posted by: Mr. Period at October 30, 2006 02:12 AM (xfvyZ)
Posted by: Phillep at October 30, 2006 08:19 AM (sVCI+)
Posted by: SeeMonk at October 30, 2006 08:26 AM (7teJ9)
Posted by: Randman at October 30, 2006 08:29 AM (Sal3J)
Posted by: John at October 30, 2006 08:36 AM (BfOvi)
Posted by: NewsGuy at October 30, 2006 08:56 AM (rtPVV)
Posted by: Ranba Ral at October 30, 2006 09:15 AM (VvXII)
irredeemably corrupt, though for somewhat different reasons than
gregturd and his buddies think, (it ain't just the JOOOOOoooozzz), and
if I heard that an army of citizens had stormed the Capitol, executed
all the vermin within, and declared America free from tyranny, I would
cry tears of joy.
We the People have let ourselves be shackled and neutered, and are now
paying the price. Our enemies walk our streets and breathe our air, all
while openly declaring their hatred of us and their intent to kill us
and take our wives and daughters as war booty, while the government
pays them tribute with the money we earn, and all we do is wring our
hands and wonder what's on TV this week.
A horrible, cleansing storm is coming, and we stand like sheep in the
pasture, too dumb to seek shelter, while those who have appointed
themselves our masters seek shelter by strengthening their hold on us
and tightening our shackles so that our Liberty won't interfere with
their avarice.
The Federal government is our greatest enemy, because it enables all
other enemies and sells our blood and freedom for cash. Those
elected to public office, and the unelected bureaucrats who are our new
aristocracy, have made a pact against us, and will only allow us to
think we're free as long as we don't impede their pillage of the
national treasury and usurpation of powers. Once we wake up and demand
the restoration of what is right and proper, then we shall truly see
the nature of the beast, and we will be forced to fight or accept
slavery.
Anyone who thinks that our government is on our side is pathetically
mistaken. Each and every high-ranking bureaucrat and elected official,
upon retirement begins receiving a stiped from the Saudis in the form
of "consulting fees", usually through a series of middlemen.
Nixon was bought the day after he won the election by Adnan Kashoggi, a
Saudi middleman, for an easy one million dollars cash, setting a
precedent which continues to this day, as evinced by Bush's refusal to
hold the Saudi's accountable for supporting this war against us.
The time for revolution is at hand, and anyone who isn't ready doesn't
have much chance, but that's okay, it's the law of the jungle; the
strong survive, and the weak are killed and eaten. So go back to your
McDisney world where granny gets a full body cavity search while
unevolved muslim animals walk by sneering at our stupidity, as they
rightly should, because we're going to get what we deserve, and the
longer it's put off, the higher the bill will be.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 30, 2006 09:17 AM (v3I+x)
Personally, I live in America where it's illegal to threaten the President and/or to incite people to violence. He did both.
No he didn't. This is long settled by the US Supreme Court as protected speech pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court as follows:
"Brandenburg v. Ohio" 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) as the remarks published are uttered in a context which does not lend itself to imminent lawlessness, AND;
The remarks do not constitute a "true threat" as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case "Virginia v. Black" 538 U.S. 343, 359
A "True Threat" is delivered in person, face to face and in a manner which causes the person to believe the threat is going to take place upon his person immediately.
Finally, what Turner said does not rise to the level of a crime based upon the US Supreme Court case "Watts v. United States" 394 U.S. 705 (1969) Id. at 708 which specifically applies to this type "political hyperbole."
In the Watts case, the man said that if he was drafted and got a rifel, the first person he would point it at would have been then-President, LBJ.
Watts was arrested and found guilty. On appeal, a US CIrcuit court upheld the conviction. It was appealed to the US Supreme court which found "the ocnditional nature of the threat "if they gave him a rifle the first person he would aim at. . ." Thus, such talk is mere political hyperbole.
I hope this clears things up for you.
Posted by: One Who Knows at October 30, 2006 09:34 AM (nLga7)
Personally, I live in America where it's illegal to threaten the President and/or to incite people to violence. He did both. The Bill of Rights doesn't protect illegal speech. This is his first warning. Next time throw him in the slammer.
Posted by: dcb at October 30, 2006 09:54 AM (8e/V4)
So, when you read Hal Turners commentary it's easy to see that he's aware of these court rulings and that he has made a near identical article so that the government knows they will have no case against him should they ever decide to arrest him for exercising free speech.
What amazes me most is not that Hal Turner said these things, but that Drudge, and the World Net Daily, took it so seriously that they wrote reports on it. Have they never heard of these cases, or did they just decide to omit referencing actual law ?
A much better article would have outlined the legal issues involved and determined it was within his rights to make his comments. In contrast the reporters went as far as to call the FBI on Hal Turner, which evidences that they have no idea what they're doing. I believe most every reporter should know these free speech laws and rulings, and I doubt it was a mistake. They just decided to use Hal Turners outrageous rhetoric to juxtapose him with White Nationalists on the internet. It provided them an oppurtunity to throw out words like 'hatemonger' and 'White Supremacist', which Hal Turner is neither.
Thanks,
Warren
Posted by: Warren at October 30, 2006 10:09 AM (iXZC3)
is a right, and cannot be outlawed since that's exactly how our nation
came into being in the first place. England was our legal sovreign in
every way, but We the People decided to find a better way, and we can
do it again. The government is too corrupt to fix, and we should tear
the whole thing down and start over.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 30, 2006 10:50 AM (v3I+x)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
...the Constitution is clear in outlawing "Insurection".
Posted by: Greg at October 30, 2006 11:02 AM (/+dAV)
Posted by: Greg at October 30, 2006 11:05 AM (/+dAV)
Posted by: JeepThang at October 30, 2006 01:18 PM (yZQoS)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 30, 2006 02:21 PM (vBK4C)
I guess I don't have to feel guilty ...
The problem with Turner, is that enough people are willing to plunge this country into civil war, to make his 'opinion' come true.
I live in Montana. There are literally hundreds of thousands of guns up here, and our state population probably isn't equal to 10% of NYC.
Many of these guns are suitable for sniper work, and many are in calibres that qualify as 'cop killer' types under some of the gun control efforts. Ashcroft made a smart call when pulled in the ATF's leash a bit. Most people up here equate them to the gestapo.
I have an even money chance of sitting down for a cup of coffee somewhere, and hear someone talking about how scary the government is, or the commies, or the UN, or how we may have to do something someday. Our state contains militia groups, and others, who are anxious to be left alone by Big Brother.
I wouldn't be at all far fetched for some 'fans' of Turner, to get themselves together and pull a 'John Brown'. I have been worried about this kind of thing for awhile. I have said this elsewhere, but I think we are dangerously close to a new civil war. I believe the left wants it to happen. Thats my conspiracy theory.
And with radical Islam breathing down our necks, this isn't a good time for it. If we get bogged down in a civil war, Islamists would be encouraged. This is what Bin Laden promised them. That we would collapse.
Even if the 'Turnerites' failed, they would spark a national disaster. Maybe not right away, but soon after, the tensions exposed by such an operation could grow completely out of control. Either a harsh crackdown on all liberties would follow, or a violent power struggle would break out. Or one, followed by the other.
Combine the timing of such a coup, with the sharpening drop in baby boomer economics, with illegal immigration, and you are kind of looking at the perfect storm. Its times like that that radical ideas become the new order.
In typical looney Montana fringe group tradition, I suggest you hide some survival gear, build a network of cells, and make an evacuation plan.
USA all the way! All the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at October 30, 2006 03:58 PM (2OHpj)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198
Posted by: Greg at October 30, 2006 04:11 PM (/+dAV)
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at October 30, 2006 08:57 PM (bLPT+)
http://www.ussliberty.org/
How about the Wichita Massacre?
http://www.wichita-massacre.com/
What's that? You say you never heard of either of them?
What's that? You say it doesn't matter who controls our media?
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4231
Posted by: Jim Leshkevich at October 30, 2006 09:30 PM (Ok807)
all you do is write about "insurection"? Come on and tell us how the
Masons, Bildergergers, Illuminati, Rotary Club, etc, are all tools of
the JOOOOOOooooooooozzz!!!
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 31, 2006 06:24 AM (v3I+x)
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 31, 2006 06:39 AM (mgO8g)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 31, 2006 08:07 AM (Dd86v)
Yes, we bombed the USS Liberty and there's nothing you can do about it.
Posted by: JDL at October 31, 2006 08:31 AM (19GwZ)
I don't claim that you don't have to pay your taxes. I only claim it is the result of extortion.
Posted by: Greg at October 31, 2006 10:58 AM (/+dAV)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at November 01, 2006 12:32 AM (Dd86v)
56 queries taking 0.0817 seconds, 645 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
