WIN
WIN
Never stooping to calling your opponents Nazis while helping to create the largest democracy on Earth
(Mohandas Gandhi)
Picture by: Emily912 Caption by: mehemehem via Poster Builder
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Vladurday: BAD ASS | THE MEDIA Next »
First!
LUCKY!!!!!!111
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi[2] was born in Porbandar, a coastal town in present-day Gujarat, India, on 2 October 1869. His father, Karamchand Gandhi (1822-1885), who belonged to the Hindu Modh community, was the diwan (Prime Minister) of the eponymous Porbander state, a small princely state in the Kathiawar Agency of British India.[3] His mother, Putlibai, who came from the Hindu Pranami Vaishnava community, was Karamchand’s fourth wife, the first three wives having apparently died in childbirth.[4] Growing up with a devout mother and the Jain traditions of the region, the young Mohandas absorbed early the influences that would play an important role in his adult life; these included compassion to sentient beings, vegetarianism, fasting for self-purification, and mutual tolerance between individuals of different creeds.[citation needed]
The Indian classics, especially the stories of Shravana and Maharaja Harishchandra from the Indian epics, had had a great impact on Gandhi in his childhood. The story of Harishchandra, a well known tale of an ancient Indian king and a truthful hero, “haunted” Gandhi as a boy. Gandhi in his autobiography admits that it left an indelible impression on his mind. He writes “It haunted me and I must have acted Harischandra to myself times without number.” Gandhi’s early self -identification with Truth and Love as the supreme value is traced back to his identification with these epic characters[5][6]
In May 1883, the 13-year old Mohandas was married to 14-year old Kasturbai Makhanji (her first name was usually shortened to “Kasturba,” and affectionately to “Ba”) in an arranged child marriage, as was the custom in the region.[7] Recalling about the day of their marriage he once said that ” As we didn’t know much about marriage, for us it meant only wearing new clothes, eating sweets and playing with relatives.” However, as was also the custom of the region, the adolescent bride was to spend much time at her parents’ house, and away from her husband.[8] In 1885, when Gandhi was 15, the couple’s first child was born, but survived only a few days; Gandhi’s father, Karamchand Gandhi, had died earlier that year.[9] Mohandas and Kasturba had four more children, all sons: Harilal, born in 1888; Manilal, born in 1892; Ramdas, born in 1897; and Devdas, born in 1900. At his middle school in Porbandar and high school in Rajkot, Gandhi remained an average student academically. He passed the matriculation exam for Samaldas College at Bhavnagar, Gujarat with some difficulty. While there, he was unhappy, in part because his family wanted him to become a barrister.
Gandhi and his wife Kasturba (1902)On 4 September 1888, less than a month shy of his 19th birthday, Gandhi traveled to London, England, to study law at University College London and to train as a barrister. His time in London, the Imperial capital, was influenced by a vow he had made to his mother in the presence of the Jain monk Becharji, upon leaving India, to observe the Hindu precepts of abstinence from meat, alcohol, and promiscuity.[10] Although Gandhi experimented with adopting “English” customs—taking dancing lessons for example—he could not stomach the bland vegetarian food offered by his landlady and he was always hungry until he found one of London’s few vegetarian restaurants. Influenced by Salt’s book, he joined the Vegetarian Society, was elected to its executive committee[10], and started a local Bayswater chapter.[4] Some of the vegetarians he met were members of the Theosophical Society, which had been founded in 1875 to further universal brotherhood, and which was devoted to the study of Buddhist and Hindu literature. They encouraged Gandhi to join them in reading the Bhagavad Gita both in translation as well as in the original.[10] Not having shown a particular interest in religion before, he became interested in religious thought and began to read both Hindu as well as Christian scriptures.[4][10]
Gandhi was called to the bar on June 10, 1891 and left London for India on June 12, 1891,[4] where he learned that his mother had died while he was in London, his family having kept the news from him.[10] His attempts at establishing a law practice in Mumbai failed and, later, after applying and being turned down for a part-time job as a high school teacher, he ended up returning to Rajkot to make a modest living drafting petitions for litigants, a business he was forced to close when he ran afoul of a British officer. In his autobiography, he refers to this incident as an unsuccessful attempt to lobby on behalf of his older brother.[4][10] It was in this climate that, in April 1893, he accepted a year-long contract from Dada Abdulla & Co., an Indian firm, to a post in the Colony of Natal, South Africa, then part of the British Empire.[4]
I thought the ordinal post rule was meant to be unrelated to the subject?
And I thought bonus points were awarded for relating it to the subject. Judges?
I thought it was absolutely… dreadful…
YOU’RE GOIN TO HOLLYWOOD DAWG!
Mahatma Gandhi ki jai
Baba lover!
Ji Haan!
I call it a win.
If we throw out the score from the Russian judge…
I say Win, but then I’ve done the same before.
I think it’s more up to the poster’s discretion. Besides, the facts about Gandhi will only help us during the inevitable flamewar that is to come.
Now we don’t have to tab between Wikipedia, and PK! Thanks PM!
Laziness FTW.
And the Federation Judge sentences you to life on Cygnus Alpha
Not Chiron Beta Prime?
nope, new Starfleet regulations say you’re condemned to eternity in Hoboken, NJ.
Suffer!!!!
Well, I got the reference, even if the trekkies didn’t!
Well thank God someone did. At least my comment wasn’t entirely in vain then
It was more fun to see how far off-beam the Trekkies could get than to admit to getting the reference!
I never had to call my opponents Nazis, mine weren’t. But Obama and his ilk are Nazis, so naturally I would have called him what he is. Peace out.
*rips off the Gandhi mask* Obvious troll is obvious. Plus Gandhi is dead, he can’t post.
Perceptive
You would have gotten away with it to if it weren’t for that meddling Kraas!
Ah, the oh so unintuitive dumbass resurfaces to prove that life can flourish even when it has no brains.
Ah!! You’ve never heard of Zombie Gandhi!! He goes around eating people’s stocks of vegetables
Stupid people are stupid.
Troll Name spelling fail.
I know, there’s even a WIkipedia article up there with the correct spelling. Fail all around, I say.
Well that didn’t take long. I wondered why this was already up to almost 400 posts. *sigh*
MUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRR!
If the lol brings up Nazi references right up top, how does that impact Godwin’s law?
Do we go for the inverse and see how long it takes a Nazi referencing post to get to the point where those making comments accuse each other of being George Bush?
*ducks under kitchen table and grabs flame suit*
Reverse Godwin’s Law. You start out with a Hitler reference and see how many different directions it takes you.
A common standpoint of Ghandi..
“Don’t hate the Indians… Hate black people.”
I’m unimpressed.
lolwut?
Gandhi supported the Unification of all the peoples of India, including those of African descent and Muslims. He first began his civil rights work in Johannesburg, South Africa. Indians, at the time, were treated worse than Black South Africans in some cases. However, as he continued his freedom campaigns, he came to believe in the idea of universal piece and freedom for all the peoples of the world. He established communes or ashrams where he trained others in his beliefs and wanted a Unified India to set an example for the rest of the world.
Also, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., looked up to Gandhi and was greatly influenced by his methods. I doubt someone as intelligent as Dr. King would idolize a racist.
Sources:
Carson, Clayborn, ed., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King Jr. New York: Warner Books, 1998.
Wolpert, Stanley, Gandhi’s Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
<3 sourced info
At that time the term “Nazi” wasn’t even an insult though…
When you try to troll, at least try to get the important spellings right, idiot-supreme.
Well, of course, Nazis were still a few decades in the future for Gandhi. A little hard to get folks worked up about them.
OTOH, what do you want to bet Gandhi’s detractors were calling him a “communist”?
Didn’t Ghandi actually live in a commune?
@ ironic
Yeah, but they were only communes in the self-sufficient sense, none of that hippy commune BS.
Goddamn hippies.
*shakes fist*
They prefer “environmentalists.”
There is some overlap, but Teddy Roosevelt was an environmentalist, and he was hardly a hippie. Not all environmentalists are hippies and not all hippies are environmentalists, don’t generalize so much :\
Catching sarcasm fail. Though a thoughtful and nice reply. Thank you.
Oh, sorry. Sarcasm doesn’t work well in printed text…
You’re right. That was very civil.
(Well that just won’t do.)
You’re an ass hat.
(There, I have returned balance to the Internet.)
(just kidding, you’re not an asshat)
Technically, Gandhi died in 1948, India became independent in 1947, and WWII ended in 1945. Nazis were well known (perhaps not in India) as were there atrocities. However, they had yet to achieve the kind of Eternal Chaotic Evil status in the public mind as they have today, so your point might still be valid.
I was more thinking of the height of his political movement, which happened in the early 1900s. Of course, he lived past that to see Nazis in action.
Gandhi was politically highly active until india became independent which is 1947.
.
And Joe, yes, Nazis were certainly known in India – Indians fought and died for the Allied side (they were part of the British empire), they read the newspapers and listened to the radio.
Shaq is holding a panda, your argument is invalid.
But WHY is he holding the Panda, and has the Panda consented???
Doesn’t matter. Shaq is holding a panda. Your argument is invalid.
Nazis are pretty much the archetypes of lawful evil beings, not chaotic
Correctomundo.
Chaotic evil would be… PETA?
That’s a tough one, because they’re evil but they seem to THINK they’re good. But you’re right, Chaotic Evil fits.
Lawful Neutral is almost the entire USA, and Chaotic Neutral is Homer Simpson.
Lawful Evil would be Mr Burns. Lawful Neutral would likely be Mr Smithers. Chaotic Neutral would likely be Bart. Lawful Good would be Lisa (tending towards Neutral, Marge would be Lawful Neutral tending to Good.) My God!! I sound like a Geek. I’ve not had to use AD&D Alignments in years. Takes me back that!!
i’ve never felt so at home in a post.. *sniffle*
linky for happy: {http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vChEPj0dXXk}
I had a coworker who once redid the alignments to apply to the employees at our bookstore and what kind of employee you were. I always came out at neutral evil, which I can’t very well argue with, at least in the retail setting.
There is nothing neutral about you.
Except since I was at work I wasn’t about to expend any more effort than I had to. I was quite happy to torture customers by making them adhere to our coupon policy when the opportunity arose, but I wasn’t going to go out of my way.
Poor Ms. St.Clair! It was impossible not to feel her hardly used: to be obliged to stand back in her own shop and see the best coupons gone not to waste but to lethargic nonchalance not of those around her but by her very own detached apathy.
*attempts to make Jane parse a mangled example of a convoluted Jane Austin sentence to exact revenge*
That’s why you and I “get along” so well Janie dear!
Best kidnapping evah!
So since I’m Chaotic Evil.. and you’re Neutral Evil… does that mean our sex is Neutrally Chaotic evil?
I would disagree – Mr. Burns is Evil, yes, but Lawful? He will break the law at the drop of a hat, for his own benefit. Lawful Evil will do a lot of bad things but only to uphold the Law – not for its own benefit.
He’ll break US law sure, but breaking national law and breaking your own moral code are 2 different things.
Naw, PETA is just the symbol for all the wackos who aren’t scientologists and make liberals look bad.
As well as anybody into any type of animal rights at all.
What?
PETA makes anybody into any type of animal rights at all look bad.
Sorry that didn’t come across as well as I had hoped it would!
You know, they make them wear horrible clothing and have bad hair…
Plus they smell horrible.. like a veggie patch or something.
Oh, okay. You’re cool then. We’ll let you live.
For now.
Thanks for clarifying. Wow, this ask first lambast later thing is really working out well!
Stooping?
seriously? How old are you? I’m guessing under 16.
Refer to link.
Relevant. Impressive.
I don’t get it, sorry
It’s taking a shot at everyone that has decide anyone who doesn’t agree with their beliefs is a Nazi.
No, its probably closer to some liberal whining that life is unfair because conservatives are treating Obama like liberals treated Bush, and Reagan, and Goldwater, and Gingrich, and so on….
Hold on now that’s totally different.
Its ok ay dios mio, you should know by now we only listen to rational conservatives like you, Eddie, Froo, and sometimes Dhoti… sometimes…
Um, I think a name is missing…*hack, cough, wheeze, cough*
CAN’T…BREATHE…
Rando?
*snerk* Don’t let Rando hear you calling him a conservative. He’ll cut you.
Well, I think we were talking about conservatives, and Rando I’m sure will confirm that he is not a conservative. Try again…
But hey, what do I know, apparently I’m irrational…:)
I was joking. I’m well aware that Rando ISN’T conservative.
Phew, You had me worried there for a sec
The qualifier “like so-and-so” includes you Rand… I’m just working on a nickname for you before we start inducting you in with the regular conservacrowd.
Oh, can I be Nighthawk? Or maybe Dragon?
FVCK YOU, DALE!! FVCK YOU!!!
i’m in that group too! sane (for the most part) conservatives of PK unite! whoo hoo!
Whatever… you crazy librul’s need to get off welfare and GET A JOB!
Get on welfare and lose my job? Well, ok, if you say so!
*head explodes*
Oh, god DAMNIT! *heaves heavy sigh* I’ll get the mop. AGAIN.
I do hope you had your screen protector in place first.
*grumbles* No I most certainly did not…
I got to get on to the marketing dept. Those things are supposed to be on every screen in America by now. Did Billy Mays die or something? Why aren’t they selling like bratwurst in July?
I know! Where is that Billy Mays guy when you need him anyway.
HI I’M BILLY “THE ZOMBIE” MAYES, HERE TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE NEW-
*shoots Billy midsentence in the head, with a shotgun*
Goddammit! How many of my zombie clones are going to escape this week?! IGOR!? Give me the keys to the cages dammit! I’ve had it! No more crumpets for a week!
Easy there, Dick. George is no where near ready for discharge.
I’m sorry, Rando, I tried to stop them, but, it just sort of happened…
Rando, if you keep exploding like that, we may have to fit you with protective headgear.
It’s hard to type when your head is exploded and you can’t see the screen. Don’t worry, my new head is being overnighted here. But it’s preloaded with Vista, so that’s no good.
I’m running Linux.
It is different, the liberals waited until Bush really screwed up (see Iraq war) to start protesting him, and they never accused him of being a nazi or a fascist. The republicans (the republican party no longer represent a rational conservative viewpoint, so they’re not necessarily conservatives) started calling Obama a communist before he even took office, and the “teabagger” (lol) movement started before the Obama administration passed any of its own legislation, all but one of the bailouts were holdovers from the Bush administration.
P.S. Obama is a moderate liberal, he is neither a “socialist/communist” or a “nazi”, all those accusations came from republican scare-tactics during the presidential campaign.
P.P.S. I am aware that some people called Bush a nazi and a fascist, but there were no where near as many as the media would lead you to believe, just as there are far fewer “teabaggers” ( still a dumb name) than the media would have you believe. Anyone who accuses a president of being a nazi is a complete wacko, but at least the liberal wackos waited until they had a reason to point at.
Of course people were bashing Bush before he ran for president… He’s a professional politician. I do see your point though, the “election controversy” thing sorta made things worse. I never got real good coverage of his first few months because the news wouldn’t shut up about it. I guess I was referring more to the politicians than the public. Then again, the democrat party does have some real jackasses in it… My point is I really don’t remember hearing anything about widespread public protests until the Iraq war started, whereas the republican party started as soon as Obama got elected. Then again, I can’t help but feel the McCain campaign didn’t help that along…. Politics is(are?) confusing…
I vividly remember James Carville saying “I hope he fails” about Bush at around 8am or so on September 11, 2001. He took it back a few minutes later when the news broke, but both sides are guilty of being raging assholes about the other side.
Also, you have to remember that Obama came into office with wide, sweeping changes he wanted to make that managed to piss off half of the country. Bush didn’t really have anything like that going until after the war started.
Yeah, you’re completely right, but I can’t help but feel people are protesting his ideology rather than his decisions. Like I said, only one bill that has been drafted under the Obama administration has actually been passed so far. I agree that there are wackos on both sides, and I’m not defending them, but from what I’ve seen many of these “protesters” cannot agree on what they’re protesting other than Obama. Sure people can disagree with Obama’s policies, that’s part of the freedom of speech, but that doesn’t give them the right to call him a communist or a nazi without any other reason; that borders on slander. Besides, the truth is many of these people have been fed lies by the real wackos, but that doesn’t excuse them from not taking the time to check any of these “facts.”
I agree. But just to show that it is both sides…
{http://viralpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/bush_nazi_hitler.jpg}
{http://politicalpartypooper.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/bush-chimp.jpg}
{http://media.photobucket.com/image/bush%20with%20gun%20to%20head/ian02302/d6fd619f.jpg}
All of these (and more appeared during the Bush presidency. I’d actually be a little disappointed if Obama didn’t get the same treatment. Except for the last one, because threatening the assassination of a president, ANY president, is unacceptable.
I’m actually a little pissed that any type of disagreement with Obama is called racism. Can we flip that around and say that any time a black person disagrees with a white president it’s racism? No, and we shouldn’t. It’s silly that the country has sunk to pointing fingers and ad hominim just to take eyes off the fact that there is disagreement with an elected official. Oh, Lawdy, how can this BE????? Why, in the history of the world we’ve never had a president being disagreed with based on his ideology and policies!! Why, it MUST be because he’s black!!!
It’s stupid, on both sides.
RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111
MUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRDDDDDDDDDEEEEEERRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!
Hey, that tree had it coming…
I think we are in agreement. Both sides need to stop taking crazy-pills and start looking at reality.
Couldn’t say it better myself.
Reality is a crutch for people who can’t handle drugs.
The cake is a lie. Your argument is invalid.
Ahh, but is the cake a drug, and reality is a lie? o_0
The cake may be a drug, but what about pie?
The pie is a lie too.
But…..I likes pie……
The pie is truth. The cake is a lie. The cookies are an exaggeration.
The brownies seem delicious but are known to be highly misleading. The ice cream is highly suspicious. Don’t ask about the cheesecake, you don’t want to know.
Sorry, liberals certainly did not wait, you can probably go back on this website to document that. And I know you can find plenty of instances of them referring to him as a nazi and a fascist here. And Bush only screwed up if you believe freeing people from under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein was a mistake, I don’t think it was at all. It was noble. Obama surrounds himself with communists, liberationists, and radicals for a reason – they agree with each other. Obama is what he is, a socialist. He believes in the redistribution of wealth and using the Supreme Court to circumvent the legislative process to that end. That’s what socialism is. His association with Acorn alone tells volumes about his beliefs – Acorn has been undermining the political process in this country for years. Just in this last election they were under investigation for voter fraud in something like 15 states. They have taken our single most valuable right in this country and have made every attempt to corrupt it. He was part of that. He was friends with Bill Ayers, a foul individual and a terrorist. He was blowing things up in the US. Why would anyone be attracted to such an individual? Why would anyone “moderate” associate with him? Bill Ayers believes the same things now that he believed then. He and Ayers are friends because they think alike. Obama was in a church that preached liberation theology because he saw nothing wrong with it. We are fortunate to know as much about him as we do, and there is little about him that is moderate.
I think the best way to explain that is my belief that NO president has been the one really in charge. I think Bush was a puppet, and I think Obama is probably a puppet. It just isn’t as obvious cause he always has the teleprompter
I know it seems a little tin foil hatish but it makes sense to me.
Yes, but who’s running the teleprompter? Is it an ebil, self-aware teleprompter that is actually running the country????
I agree with you, ADM. And the teleprompter irritates me. For someone who has said in the past “I have a gift, Harry” and can sway a crowd with his golden tongue, the dependance on the teleprompter seems beneath him.
He’ll never reach the levels that Bill Clinton reached as far as holding you in the palm of his hand while he speaks (and then making you feel as though you needed a shower when the moment passed), but he’s got the gift of being able to speak to people.
Hee hee. Now I have dirty pictures of Clinton in my head, holding me in the palm of his hand before he stains my dress..
If you fit in the palm of his hand I think you’d get more then a little stain on your dress.
It would be like blasting a firehose at a mouse I’d think.
Ewwwww….
I know, but if ever there was a president who warranted that comparison it was Bill.
I dunno. He’s getting up there. Probably not a firehose so much anymore.
brain bleach please
I love Bill. I really do. As a psychology person I’m fascinated (and on a weird level) deeply respect his ability to sway people.
It’s really scary, actually. But, having said that, I don’t think he’d be much without Hillary. She’s the brains and brawn behind the silver tongue, IMO. She just doesn’t have the tone or face to sway people.
I’ve always considered Bill to be one of the best politicians of my lifetime, and that’s pretty huge, considering that I remember Reagan.
Mr. Clinton was a pretty good president. He didn’t do anything drastic, but he never really screwed up that much. I think people only hate him because he was painted as a lier by the “religious right.”
I never said he was a good president, LOL. I can’t bring myself to go that far. But he is the best politician of all time. Or, of my lifetime, which, as we all know, is the only important time in history.
Meh, you have your opinion, I have mine.
Cause the religious right is all it takes to have a hearing about impeaching the president. Come on for whatever reason it pissed off everyone at the time. It’s not ALWAYS the religious peoples fault.
I can agree that he was “meh” president. At least he had two terms, right? The last “meh” president only had one…
I saw him talk last fall when he was campaigning for Obama. I have no idea what he was talking about, but it was awesome anyway.
*snerk*
“Yes, but who’s running the teleprompter? Is it an ebil, self-aware teleprompter that is actually running the country????”
Hmmm….
“And now, my fellow Americans, I want to talk to you about the new teleprompter overlords who…will…be…uh, WTF?”
Hang on, I had a really good response, but my teleprompter is on the fritz.
Actually, I heard a story on NPR that apparently Clinton had the wrong speech loaded on his telepromter when he was presenting the need for national healthcare back in 1993, and it took them 9 minutes to find the right one, so he had to wing it for a while. The quote of what he was thinking at the time? “Well Lord, you’re testing me. Here goes”.
(link)
Wow, I could barely hear you over the thumping over your right-wing nut conspiracy thumping.
@ Jim
I addressed these issues in a later comment above. And Obama IS a moderate, it’s just that politics in america have been pushed so far to the right that the current democrat party is pushing policies that are almost identical to those of the republicans in the mid 1900’s. Look it up, I think you’ll be surprised by what you find, I know I was.
Now, that is breathtaking. The Democratic party is pushing policies similar to those proposed by the Republicans in the 1990s? We are as polarized as we have ever been in my lifetime. The uproar you are seeing now is an indication that many people did not understand what Obama believed in.
Dude, mid-1900’s aren’t the 1990’s. Learn to read.
*snort*
We ARE politically polarized. But the Democrats are also pushing what the Republicans used to stand for. By the way, Nixon, no lefty, wanted national, single-payer health care.
During the G Dub years I saw a bumper sticker that said “I never thought I’d miss Nixon”
Did you misread it, or are you just being snarky?
good grief, he did say the mid-1900s. The Democrats are pushing policies the Republicans followed in the mid-1900s?! No1, you lost me there.
Look it up. I’ll admit, it isn’t easy to find info on, but it is out there if you look hard enough.
The only one who calls Obama a “moderate” is Seth- is that you ?
No, I’m not Seth, I dunno where he went. He hasn’t posted in a while…
Dudette, You read this correctly and had no comment? Nothing about it seemed notable to you?
Meh, he’s not as bad as “Voice of Reason” was, I think Jim may just have trouble reading. He isn’t nearly as irritating as EvilPundit was, and he’s less insulting than even I get at times.
Liberals and conservatives will bash the opposing president without regard for how bad it looks, that’s how people are, and it’s how politics are. Bush led us into a war not under the pretenses you stated, but that Saddam had WMDs. Leading a country into a military movement under false pretenses is WRONG I don’t care what side you’re on. He’d have gotten my support if he’d have just come out and said “Saddam’s a crazy mean bastard and has already shown that he holds no reservations about invading another sovereign nation. He needs to be removed.” That would have been fine with me.
As far as Obama surrounding himself with people that agree with him.. well… DUH! I mean… it’s not like I’d choose to spend my time surrounding myself with people like you, just as much as you’d find displeasure in surrounding yourself with people like me.
And please, go read a sociology textbook for the definition of socialism, nowhere is a supreme court mentioned under it’s ideology.
The ACORN thing has been run into the ground, so please pardon me while I burn that strawman without any remorse and dismiss it.
Obama and Ayers, another straw man.. run into the ground, and any self respecting conservative doesn’t even bring that up anymore.
And in case you didn’t notice, ALL churches preach liberation theology, liberation from sin, from the devil’s dark influence, from the persecution of “the wicked” another straw man.. burnt and run into the ground.
Now please… come up with something of substance that’s not just a talking point, because Smokey would like to have a word with you about all these burning strawmen.
Right and wrong are all relative, just look at terrorists. I try to avoid the use of such terms, as should we all.
I base it off of, lying to get what you want is wrong, especially when the truth is a perfectly acceptable reason to get what you want.
So, intentionally killing innocent civilians is right?
Well yeah. Duh. Can’t you READ?!
Doh!
That’s the problem with moral relativism. It just doesn’t feel okay to not be able to criticize anything does it?
The way I see it, right & wrong is relative. BUT everyone has their own version of it, don’t we? Do any two people have the exact same version of right & wrong? I doubt it.
Close. Personally, I think that good and evil are relative, but right and wrong are absolute. Any decision that one can be presented with will have a right or wrong, and the way one distinguishes between the two is truth. According to what I know to be true, what is the roper decision to make? There is definitely absolute truth in the universe, because the workings of the universe can be broken down into terms of math, and math is pretty damn absolute. 2+2 won’t usually be 4, it will always be 4. If we were to approach every situation in life with the mentality of “there is truth in this, and knowing that will help me decide what the proper action to take is,” society would run a lot smoother. Unfortunately, most conflict arises when people disagree about which lie to delude themselves with. Sad, really…
Ah, very perceptive! However, though we all have our own codes of ethics, the real question is not “do they line up?”, it’s “how frequently do they change?” Even if we were to change the laws so that they were somehow in agreement with everyone’s code of ethics, how long would they remain so? In the end logic really is the only consistent basis on which to create laws.
Keep logic out of this, it’s an internet forum for god’s sake!
That’s true, but despite the changing view we still wouldn’t be allowed to think anything is actually wrong. To be a hardcore relativist you can’t think anything is intrinsically bad.
I can’t imagine someone actually saying. “There’s nothing wrong with slavery, it’s just that my current society doesn’t like it.”
You also cannot say that slave owners were morally wrong, because it was okay for their society. Relativism doesn’t allow for any moral growth.
Indeed, and if logic, which is a function of reality, is the only thing to base proper laws off of, I hold that it is the only thing to base a proper code of ethics off of, a code which conforms to the unyielding laws of reality.
I’m so turned on right now.
And I AM 18-24
Excellent. Talk dirty logic to me.
Hmm, maybe some assploding elbow action is in order, then?
Oooh, two of you? This will be a good night, fo sho.
For the sake of dirty logic, I’ll say I’m 18-24, as well…
@Charro
Sexy consequentialism states that an act is right if and only if it turns on a certain little mermaid.
I’ll bring the jumper cables.
I love mermaid consequentialism..
Logic porn is logical.
Porn logic is pornical.
Oh yes, the left would have supported Bush “if only.”
I dont quite understand your second point. I said he surrounded himself with communists, liberationists, and radicals — people he agreed with, which you then say of course. Are you agreeing or what?
The Supreme Court reference goes to how Obama would implement his “redistribution of wealth,” not so much the ideology itself.
And as to Acorn and Ayers, regardless of whether it has been run into the ground, the criticism is still valid. In fact, given the news of the last 2 weeks, Acorn is back in the spotlight. As I recall, congress just passed a resolution in the last week or so that would block Acorn from any of the so-called stimulus money. I think they were also forbidden from involvment in the census.
Liberation theology is a hybrid of communism and christianity, and christian churches don’t support it. John Paul II spent a great deal of effort to move the Catholic Church in South and Latin America away from it and back into line.
Criticizing someone simply for being acquainted with a terrorist or any other unsavoury character is never valid. I have seen no evidence anywhere that ACORN was involved in any voter fraud. It makes sense that voter registration organizations lime ACORN wouldn’t be allowed to collect stimulus money, that undermines their neutrality. Nothing is a hybrid of communism and any other religion, communism rejects all religions. More redistribution of wealth occurred during the Bush administration than during any other presidency I’m aware of. Much of this is common knowledge in most places. None of your arguments or statements are valid in any way whatsoever. Please stop being a puppet and think for yourself.
He reminds me of South Park’s representation of the Surgeon General from Indo-restro-gestion episode…
“Liberals like to kill babies, rig elections, and most importantly take everyone elses’ money to hoard for themselves, and I base this.. on absolutely nothing.”
I realize this is a waste of typing, because reality has no bearing on the opinions of some, but . . .
While Bush 43 may have led YOU into war based solely on claims of more WMDs than were eventually found, for the rest of us, Bush 43 received Congressional approval to re-engage military operations in Iraq begun during Bush 41’s term, based NOT ONLY on the widely-held belief of a more advanced WMD program, but also on 21 other equally profound justifications, most notably Iraq’s failure to comply with UN 1441.
OK, that didn’t nest anywhere near where I thought it would, but the point still stands.
*let the flames begin*
OH MY GOD YOU’RE HITLER!
President Gerorge Bush: the only time 41>43. I made a math funny!!!
I did find that humourous and I hate math.
42>41>43
Heh.
Presidential numbers just violated all laws of mathematics. And I’m pretty sure W tried to divide by 0.
damn, look what I’ve started now, they told me there would be no math
ssshhhh, I’ve been trying to hide here in Paraguay for 65 years, don’t tell Israel.
Oh sh*t sorry BC… I was just on the phone with Israel and they heard that… they said they were on their way.
This website was started in the spring of 2008, iirc, so all it’d really document is the last year of Bush’s presidency, when even republicans were trying to distance themselves from him in order to win over disenfranchised voters.
I worked in a disenfranchised pizza franchise. It was very disenfranchising.
John McCain distanced himself from the President, not so much the Republicans. Icanhazcheeseburger dates from Spring 2008 or just the “news” section?
Somehow I don’t see the cat people arguing politics very much.
Oh hai gaiz! I haz kyoot kitteh taht luvs meh.
Bush is Hitler!
Srsly?
Nope, doesn’t work.
Unless you dressed a cat up as Hitler. O_O
Or the kitty had some really unfortunate facial markings…!
My friend has a cat with a cute little mustache. He was named Chaplin though..
You’re right, John McCain didn’t distance himself from the republicans. He sold out to party-pressure and turned his back on many of the things he used to stand for that made real conservatives like him. Totally excusable. Stop being a puppet, you’re just parroting what the pundits are saying!
I would agree with that assessment. If you go back and look at what McCain stood for in 2000, you will see that a lot of that shifted in 2008.
Indeed, I’ve stated numerous times (in fact I even got a thumbs up from Anniee, even though she stated it as the only “truthful admission” I’ve ever made) that I indeed was going to vote for McCain until after the nomination when he suddenly turned into Bizarro McCain.
I was rooting for McCain back in 2000, until he got beat out for the nomination by that chump.
You got a thumbs up from Anniee? Weird.
The earliest posting from the lolcat side is November of 2007, so they still haven’t been around THAT long….
Hai gaiz!
Clearly… Bush was more of a Icanhazhotdog guy anyways…
My lord, even after all this time you keep pulling up the same old crap they were throwing around during the election. Funny how most of this stuff died down after the election. Why? It’s either false or irrelevant. Shaq is holding a panda. Your argument is invalid.
Whenever Shaq holds a panda, logic bows in reverence!
Ah!! Logic. I always remember the last bit of Destiny of the Daleks (Just before Davros is put on Ice):
Doctor: Let me ask you something. Nelly is an elephant. Nelly is Pink. Therefore all Elephants are Pink. Logical??
Davros: Yes, very logical
Doctor: You know what a human would say to that don’t you
Tyssan: You don’t get any pink elephants.
(BTW for all those Logic experts this is known as a false syllogism (apologies if spelling is incorrect))
dr. who ref. ftw.
wholly on topic, what are your feeling concerning the 11th doctor? discuss.
Can we get to actually see him in action, rather than just PR stills, first? Pretty much anyone born later than William Hartnell must have had an “OMG Dr Who’s younger than I am” moment in their life after all (mine was actually the 9th Doctor).
i really liked the 9th doctor (especially that World War episode where Capt. Jack Harkness and those kids with the gas masks showed up – very cool), but the 10th has been really entertaining.
From what I understand, there’s supposed to be a special coming up that will bridge between the new doc and Tennet’s.
here’s a short article with some shots: {http://scifiwire.com/2009/07/check-out-the-11th-doctor.php}, but the best i’ve found so far is a year-end special is when he’s supposed to show up.
Yes, they’re doing 4 specials featuring Tennet as the doctor, the last of which will show the transition from 10th to 11th.
And YES Christopher Eggleston was an AWESOME doctor, I wish he’d have had more than 1 season under his belt. But Tennet has filled the shoes and expanded them. I just hope Matt Smith can keep up.
So. What is Dr. Who anyway?
(I’m gonna regret this, aren’t I?)
*hands Rando protective gear*
Yes, my friend, I’m afraid you will.
Dr. Who is the longest running single story line sci-fi show in existence.
It’s an alien (a Timelord) from the planet Gallifrey. Specifically, this time lord is called “The Doctor” all Timelords when they become of age, pick a name for themselves. Examples are: The Monk, The Master, The Rani, And of course The Doctor.
In the good Doctor’s travels he’ll pick up various human companions, due to the fact that he loves humans, and life in general, and takes them on adventure through time and space using his ship called the TARDIS “Time And Relative Dimension In Space”. The TARDIS’s biggest attribute is the fact that it’s “LARGER ON THE INSIDE OMG!”
The series started back on 17:15 GMT on November 23rd 1963 and ran all the way up to 1989 when there was a movie made (Which Bombed, because it was… well strange and bad)
In 2005 the show was brought back to life on the BBX and has since, been a HUGE hit.
The Doctor has been portrayed by 10 different actors to date using a rather interesting plot device known as Regeneration. Once The Doctor becomes fatally injured he can regenerate, causing his body to reconfigure his DNA, changing his look voice, and in almost every case, his personality. Each Timelords life spans 13 regeneration cycles. The Doctor is currently up to his 11th incarnation (Not quite there yet as the 10th doctor has yet to pass the reigns on screen)
If you’d like to know any other specifics, please ask, I’ve watched the WHOLE series and am a total nerd like that, along with Star Wars.
Doctorin’ the Tardis!
Ugh.
blargh.
Gandih was one of the most violent, manipulitive men that ever lived. He was an consumate passive aggressive. Although he is seen as a frail old man spinning thread and cloth his hunger strikes caused riots and other violent acts. He always knew what would happen when he went on a hunger strike and used it to his advantage. He got a great deal done but he is not the peaceful man history makes him out to be.
Don’t confuse nonviolent action and civil disobedience with being weak. Gandhi did indeed know what the results of his actions would be. His position, IMO, was that *he* took no wrong action, and those who did would be revealing to the world the weakness of their position.
You, sir, are a moron. Please do one of the following:
1) Pull your head out of your ass.
2) Leave.
Thank you for complying!
Pretty bitter.
Not bitter, just frustrated.
Sometimes it’s a well-deserved outburst, and you, sir, earned it.
I have unique take on humour, that’s all.
@No1: you read, and you have humor. I like that!
*offers cookies*
YAY COOKIES!! OM NOM NOM!
bitter is pretty, isn’t he? Anyone seen him lately?
I’ve seen him make a few cameo appearances here and there. Oh, and he’ll be on Leno’s new show next week.
I’m going to DVR it.
Gandhi is not a hero.
Real heros are men like Richard Rahl.
Read up on him if you want an education on where pacificism leads in reality.
Like Lam says, pacifism is passive aggression. It is an inititation of force and reason tells us it must be answered ruthlessly.
I love the Sword of Truth.. but
Richard Rhal isn’t a real person.
You’re confusing me.
Ok, who is a real life libertarian hero I could use as an example instead? Maybe John Galt, he was a real life business man, scientist and inventor?
You’re confused over the veracity of using a fictional fantasy book character as a political ideal?
The Sword of Truth is not fantasy. It deals with important real life issues and characters. It also teaches you a philosophy (I mean a real philosophy not that stuff they teach ppl in liberal colleges) of how to live your life according to reason.
You can see pretty much everything in terms of these books.
The financial crisis happend because the banks didn’t understand additive and subtractive magic.
We are failing in Afghanistan because our soliders are not wearing war wizard outfits (I imagine a kind of spandex thing).
Gandhi is definintely not wearing a war wizard outfit btw. It IS NOT a robe.
I’m sorry. I just… wow. Really? Um, how old are you again?
Jane, this is how that whole “Scientology” thing got started. Run.
BEST COMMENT EVAR!
Yes, Ivan was massively overwhelmingly full of win there.
We must invent a new word to describe this amount of win!
Garsh! Thanks, fellers!
Are you saying Dianetics is fiction? You need valium.
Or a good lawyer…
Then I can keep the valium for myself.
I have some X@nax and some old V!codin. Does that help?
(Why can’t you type the names of medications here???)
I’ve been noticing that too.. But yes, I’ll take your hydrocodone + acetaminophen.
Probably because 90% of commercial spam seems to be ads for various medicine brands. Pretty standard spam filter, I would guess.
That does make sense. But it really takes the fun out of talking about abusing prescription medication.
*looks up from kicking the crap out of prescription meds* Whut? I’m still having fun.
John Galt is also a character from a fictional story by Ayn Rand. How old are you?
I think we’ve fairly well established that Sqwirk’s grasp on reality is tenuous at best.
Like most Liberals…..
Ugh. That’s a cheap shot.. And beneath you. Quite frankly.
Actually, Mr. Splat, my reality is what makes me so fvcking liberal.
Reality is all relative! Just ask zombie Einstein! LOLOLOLOL! (Ok, even I suspect I might need to be medicated at this point.)
So far, between charro and myself we have some X@nax, V@lium, and some old V!codin. Take your pick.
Can I just grab a handful, like a 5 year old trick or treater?
Yeah, but don’t take them all at…well, okay then. Hmmm. I’ll call a doctor.
Ooo the colors! I can smell the colors!
I hate Any Rand
Any Rand? Any Rand at all? Do you hate any Rando?
Why would you hate the map making people? Did they cause you to take the wrong turn?
Besides, everyone knows that Mcnally was the real douchebag of that team.
*waves fist* Mcnally!!!!!!!!!1
Send ‘em to me. I’ll take any convertible currency.
Ok, if you want to talk about objectivism, at least read up on it. If you want a good libertarian example, look into Larry Elder. Point being, don’t insult Ayn Rand or objectivism by doing what everyone else does and just talk about Atlas Shrugged. Read some of her non fic, like The Virtue of Selfishness or Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. I take objectivism seriously, so please come back with your guns loaded next time.
I read The Fountainhead. Funniest book ever.
Lol, the rape scene WAS pretty funny.
Stop posting in the internet and get back to work, Mr. Goodkind. You need all the help you can get to improve your dreadful writing ability.
“Gandhi that son of a bitch! He had it coming!”
“What was he doing?”
“Well, you know…. he was just… sitting there.”
“……oh.”
That sonofabitch…
That bastard! Let’s go teach him a lesson!
heh I just mind-melded Zedd and Gandhi… that was interesting.
That got me all tingly in my naughty bits.
UHF FTW!!!
Oh. Hell. No.
Eddie, I had a dream last night that you texted me and asked me to mow your lawn.
Sorry Charro, the thought did occur to me but I take great pride in my lawn, so I do it myself. Not that I think for a moment you wouldn’t do a bang up job, but sometimes you can miss those rascals that can hide in the grass and nip at your heels at inappropriate times.
It’s an awfully long trip for me to make anyway.
Yeah, but first class on an international flight is ace!
Good point. I’m on my way. We can drink tea and eat crumpets.
Enjoy the flight! Just give your name at the counter, tickets are waiting.
I think I’d probably freak out and jump out of the plane about 10 hours into that 18 hour flight. Too much confined space for me! I gotta breathe, man!
You know what’s fun? Asking the person next to you on the 24 hour flight to New Zealand, who’s scared to death of flying, if it’s ok if you open the window.
24 hours to New Zealand? Are you going by way of Dubai?
Here’s Max’s connecting flight schedule:
Boston to L.A
L.A. to Dallas
Dallas to Peru
Peru to Hawaii
Hawaii to L.A.
L.A. to Japan
Japan to New Zealand.
What? It was a $98 fare….
Or a military flight.. I’ve been on those and have literally travelled for 36 hours to get from one place to the next. But hey, it was free!
It was a Lewis Black homage…. CMON people!
Damn it, I missed the reference! I love Lewis Black..
The last time I was on an international flight, I flew with BA.
Never again, he spent 10 hours saying “I ain’t gettin’ on no d@mn ‘plane yo’ crazy fool!”
Thank goodness Hannibal had those tranquilizers ready.
In economy, yes.. but then I normally fly at least business.
The thought of being inside a flying tube where I can’t freely get out when I want to (and not die in the process) doesn’t appeal to me. Even that extra few inches of leg room doesn’t make it any better.
I have issues
Yes dear, but those issues make for an interesting night of….. issue… solving… *coughs*
Even hardcore has a safeword. What’s my safeword for getting off an airplane? HUH?? WHAT IS IT????????? BLAAAGH!!!!!! *head asplodes*
froufroo–I agree with you on flying. I hate flying. I like being in different places, but I hate flying. Even though I understand the physics and the statistics. And having asthma now makes it even more…interesting. Sigh. Will someone PLEASE invent the teleporter?!?!?!!!
/rant
That’s a fascinating connection to make….
Also, teleporters hurt like a bitch, haven’t you read “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”?
Don’t ask me!! I always used to travel Navy
I’d take some pain over endless congested head and motion sickness, any day!
International flights do suck. Especially when you’re not rich like Eddie..
I’ve flown economy on international flights. The secret is to always get an aisle seat. Then you have the luxury of walking around if you want. But, I will agree that anything more than 3 hours does get a bit tedious, regardless of WHAT class you’re in.
Or be coming down from mushrooms via rum n coke.
Gameboy FTW!
You can only play Super Mario Land so many times before it gets old, No1.
Woohoo!
Being inside a flying tube?? You think that’s bad!! You try spending days under the ocean in a tube that is purposely designed to sink. (I used to work on Submarines so often that now I prefer enclosed spaces)
Were they yellow? ‘Cos that would be awesome.
Nope!! Big black things that carried Cruise Missiles and nukes on occassion.
I didn’t think our Boomers ever carried Tomahawk? I know the Vanguards do have torpedo tubes.
I’d disagree with you there. It was very powerful and the right thing to do in the case of India VS Britian because the only reason the Brits were in India was because they thought they had the moral right to rule. Gandhi’s Satyagraha essentially took that away from them. If India used violence then it would only given the British Raj more authority in their eyes.
Exactly. Satyagraha would not have worked on the Germans. Of course, if he had invaded India, Hitler would have learned the REAL meaning of ‘Aryan superiority’. And Dravidian superiority, just for fun.
So it’s okay to slam Catholicism but not any other religion, right?
No you can slam all of the christian religions BUT DON’T MAKE A JEWISH OR MUSLIM JOKE BECAUSE THEN YOU’RE A BIGOT!!!!!
Your sarcasm just branded you a bigot. Good show! /s
Typical comment from a bigot like Ivan
Typical baseless insult from a baseless base….. base.
All your base are belong to us.
Hey look! I have a troll!
*seethes with jealousy*
*trolls Charro* Yeah baby…
*burns with ecstasy* Oh yeah..
*munches on popcorn* My thoughts exactly…
*munches ecstasy* I lurvs the Fortress.
I can guarantee you nobody gets slammed like Atheists.
I’ve known Atheists that were kinder and better to people than some self-proclaimed Christians.
As an atheist I can tell you that, unfortunately, about half of atheists are raging asshats. That doesn’t justify our persecution, but it’s the unfortunate truth.
Just like half the christians are buttholes too, and likewise that doesn’t mean you should call them stupid and delusional at every turn.
I don’t, I only insult them when they insult me or try to push their ideology on me. I have friends who are atheist, catholic, christian, jewish, and muslim. Trust me, I don’t judge anyone on anything but their actions.
I don’t know why, but my left eyebrow starts to twitch every time someone differentiates between Catholics and Christians.
Catholicism is the religion, Christianity is the faith.
I’m not either, but it’s still annoying.
Not true, at all.
Catholics worship Mary, and they have all those saints, and they believe in infallible papal decrees, and all that.
Christians don’t.
They tend to distinguish themselves from one another on their own, and there are some significant differences. I always try to be as clear and specific as possible when I speak, so I take things like that into account. Sorry if I insulted of confused anyone.
I’m pretty sure the only group on earth that can honestly claim that atleast 30% of people within it are not asshats are the Buddhists, only because I can never recall hearing a news story about radical Buddhists doing…whatever a radical Buddhist would do.
Lol, yeah. When I first hear about “buddhist extremists”, I was like, “Seriously, is this some kind of joke?!” But low and behold, there they are setting fire to police stations in Tibet. I generally applaud buddhism for preaching acceptance, rather than the nebulous “tolerance”, but i suppose some people are just THAT CRAZY!
Sorry, my mind is still stuck on Buddhist extremists. Something about that is just so wrong, and yet so right.
o.O
I thought Buddhist extremists were the ones who sat on top of a mountain for six weeks in order to become one with the universe.
But at least they are not blowing up that mountain top to achieve their oneness.
Now, those are the ultra-awesome buddhists. Those guys deserve cookies.
*turns on the oven*
Sadly a lot of us Buddhists are asshats. Maybe not so much in the using violence or forcing our beliefs on people part, but I know many Buddhists who are just as dogmatic to the point of hypocrisy.
Maybe the Jainists, they really go out of their way not to offend.
The hypocrisy part I noticed quite vividly in my studies of Buddhism. The philosophy often contradicts itself, but the most of the morals that are professed are pretty solid.
Didn’t some extreme Buddhists burn themselves to death?
As a form of protest during the whole colonial India thing, yeah. I wouldn’t call them extremists, they never got angry or violent.
You win the Non-Sequitur of the Day award! Billy, tell Splat what he’s won!
A punch in the Twig N Berries!
Gee I didn’t know Ghandi was a Catholic. I guess that’s why he never ate meat on Friday.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Win.
Hush, Seth!
“Help! Help! I’m being repressed!”.
Help! There’s a rescission!
Monty Python and the Holy Grail reference FTW!
“Now we see the violent inherent in the system! Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn’t you?”
You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!
This is parody?
I suppose it’s true that you’ve never passed laws, but for whatever reason, judges tend to tread on Christians when they get the chance.
What tipped you off?
Erm… my brain, I suspect.
So that explains the lean to the left!
*snee-completfukcery-eeze*
*hands SB and pitty some tissues*
I’ve never seen any evidence to suggest that. On top of that, criminals are convicted by a jury of their peers, not by a judge. If you mean supreme court judges, then I kinda see what you mean. However, the first amendment prevents religious ideology from becoming law. I wouldn’t refer to the “religious right” crazies as christians though, they don’t follow any of Christianity’s base teachings and put too much emphasis on the minor stuff.
Gandhi condoned the holocaust. That is why he never called anyone a nazi. He said that we should mourn the jews death but not do anything about it. And the tactics Gandhi used would have only worked against a just government. An unjust government would have just shot him. Not to mention that the british wanted out of india anyways
That pacifistic motto worked so well for the French Army!
(Once more into the breach)
The French military, following the bloody stalemate that was WWI, built a long and formidable defensive line between themselves and the Germans. They invested most of their military might in that line, convinced they were safe from the Germans.
Hitler took a look at the situation, and decided to attack from a different direction. He was using tactics so drastically new that no one in the world believed he could completely occupy a country and move on in just six weeks. (Sixty years later, the USA uses those methods quite successfully).
The French army was cut off from supplies and attacked from the rear.
(Just tired of the old meme about the French being cowardly. Give credit where it’s due and don’t assume we’re so superior that we’d do any differently)
We didn’t build a defensive line, we built an ocean, on both coasts!
And I rise above all that despises me
Comprehend the ways of man
And under a flag we salute or burn
There is blood on both shores
With hardened mind I travelled,
With hardened heart I conquered
A freedom so ironic, so despicable, so hypocritical.
There is anger resolute.
*swoons*
Sorry!! Wrong!! He didn’t use new tactics. The only tactics that were kind of new was the the Blitzkrieg (Well kind of!! Guderian created these tactics in the 20’s and 30s). In the attack on France Hitler simply rehashed the old World War I Schlieffen Plan and simply went round the back of the Maginot Line (Which reached to the Belgian Border) the French were so surprised that they started to pull back.
I’m still going to swoon. Why did you reply to me to say this?
The blitzkrieg had never had the kind of success it did when 1938 Germany used it. Before Hitler used it, no one in the world believed that recent improvements in vehicle technology would allow such a speedy and overwhelming attack. Russia didn’t even believe it could happen to them when they were invaded. They spent days insisting the reports they were hearing from the front must be exaggerated. It’s no wonder the French had no idea how to counter it when it took them in their back door.
It’s ok. And Sorry. It was just a tease. In truth about the French, Hitler made a drastic jump into technology, and the French were way behind. Along with most of the world at the time. Things like the ME109 were worlds ahead, and battle proven when everything started. Look at the HMS Hood. The changes in technology were DRASTIC during that time frame, to say the least. He remained ahead for most of the war, just simply was not able to produce the tech at the rates other nations could. Look at the M4 Sherman Vs any German tank…..
Nazi Germany oversaw some of the most significant advances in technology in the 20th century: feasible rockets, jets, the list goes on and on. They probably would have won the war if the weren’t so friggin’ frugal.
I just watched a show on the Military Channel with a list of things the Nazis either invented, or greatly changed the path on. But it still boiled down to the ability to mass produce what you did. We made over 40,000 Sherman tanks.
Yeah, number don’t always guarantee victory, but they sure help a hell of a lot!
It probably would have helped if Hitler knew his French history… or played Risk.
Actually not quite as simple as it seems there. German Tech wasn’t originally as great as people are led to believe. Take for example Operation Barbarossa. The reason why the 88mm Anti Aircraft gun was suddenly used as an Anti Tank weapon was that during the invasion of Russia, the Germans suddenly found themselves completely outperformed by the T-34. In one attack an AA battery was suddenly attacked by a load of T-34s and so as no other weapon was available they removed the limiters from the 88mm AA guns they had available which allowed them to use the guns as AT Weapons. They then suddenly realised that the invunerable T-34s were suddenly blowing up and that they had the perfect weapon against tanks. Thus tanks were built that could hold the 88mm gun (and the less powerful but still effective 75mm) such as the Panther and the Tiger.
Whoops!! Sorry forgot to include a little bit here. German Tank Design was (because it was always thought that they would be fighting on their own territory and thus wouldn’t have to be seperated from their supply lines) were needlessly complicated when it came to repairs. The Tiger was extremely complicated to repair and when it came to it, in an emergency rather than try to take the tank back to German lines for repairs, on many occassions (Kursk for example) the tanks were simply abandoned.) It was the Americans who came up with a simple way of repairing tanks (as they were fighting from a position where their Supply lines were very easily compromised and required an easy method of repair. They came up with the modular system in that if a system became irrepairable you simply junked it or sent it back to the lines for repair whilst the junked section was replaced with a new section, this meant that for all the losses that were sustained, it meant that casualties could be replaced pretty quickly in the field. Now all modern tanks use this method of design. (BTW The Jet Engine was actually a British invention, although the British ignored the invention until the V1 was launched. It was thought that the Germans were designing a Jet engine in tandem, but didn’t get anywhere until the Germans stole the British designs.) It is thought that the British came first (slightly) in creating the first Jet Engined fighter but it is thought that the Germans were technically first, but Hitler was dithering so much with what the Fighter should become, either a fighter or fighter bomber, that it was launched just after the Gloucester Meteor)
The Gloster (note spelling, not as in the place) E28/39 was the first working true turbo-jet aircraft, but it and the Meteor spent so long in development that the Me-262 beat it into service (by about 2 days based on first recorded combat).
Fail: Ghandi did his work before the nazi’s existed.
Fail: The Nazi Party was started in 1919. India gained independence in 1947.
fail – the nazi party had its beginnings in 1896 wit the formation of the czech national socialist party; by 1924 hitler had infiltrated and subverted the german equivalent and tried overthrowing the weimar gov’t and was jailed for it. after his release by the summer of 1925 hitler has gained control of what has become the nazi party and gives one of his first public rant, oops, speeches.
Fail: Reading into the history of the nazis too much to impress people on a LOL blog! /sarcasm
you fail — i don’t read up on much of anything to impress people — i’ve been around for a very long time, and i read simply because books, papers, and the internet contains information i don’t already know. i also listen to the news for the same reason – i like knowing what’s going on….
ain’t nothing wrong with knowing things, you might try it sometime. i promise any pain you feel from your brain cells absorbing new concepts isn’t deadly, and passes quickly. once you get used to learning it can even become fun
No1 was being sarcastic.
Fail, “Nazis” is capitalised and the plural form has no apostrophe.
But wouldn’t the possessive apostrophe be valid (i.e. Nazis’)?
Hmmm, good point. That would be the plural possessive, though, would it not? Not just the plural. I believe you and I are both correct, Eds, while Joseph is still incorrect.
Well, yes, there is that bit with Joseph. But Jane will tell you, we will never be able to educate the world, so we’ll just point and laugh instead.
*points and laughs at Joseph*
Well, in Joseph’s post he was saying the Nazis existed, so he was pluralizing. If existence was a quality belonging to the Nazis then you could argue that Nazis’ would be correct. The only time Nazi’s would work is if it were a single Nazi with something belonging to him. Yay possessive form!
Thanks! Now I feel more educated..
But it’s not, and it wasn’t.
*pouts* No one ever lets me be right.
You’re wrong and my forced wife is clearly too awesome to be refuted.
I wasn’t disputing Charro, only clarifying. I want Charro to join us for torture sessions later. I lurvs Charro. ^_^
*blushes* Awww I lurvs you too. And the torture sessions.
Well you know, I’m just perpetuating the best argument EVAR on PK…
Oh and about those torture sessions….
*hides the cucumbers* What time shall I tell the minions to clear the mess hall? I feel like having a wide open space this time.
Max, where are you hiding the cucumbers?
You’ll never know! And I’ll never tell!
I think I’ll cancel making cucumber salad now.
*gags, discretely*
But, I was going to toss the cucumber salad…
Well, I never denied that Joseph was an idiot.
True.
Apostrophes are for commies!
”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
ZOMG CHARRO YOU COMMIE!
Guilty!
I love Gandhi. He was great in “House of Sand and Fog”, but he needs to be more selective about the scripts he chooses. C’mon! “Lucky Number Sleven”? Really?
Gandhi more than made up for Lucky Number Sleven with Sexy Beast. Oh, and Sneakers! I gotta watch that one again.
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. ”
“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society. ”
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection. “
John Holdren, “science czar” for BARACK OBAMA
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ’spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger (founder of “Planned Parenthood”) (HUGE Obama supporter and he loves them too), Pivot of Civilization
On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.”
etc etc etc
and you clowns said Bush was like Hitler? PFFFT!!
I like your selective quoting. Troll more, and while you’re at it, take a tip from your namesake… Get a Clue.
Selective quoting? So, they are false? Is there any context that could make these quotes acceptable?
Quote 1: “if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” It’s called a clause, cancels out everything said before since we’re not in a population crisis.
Quote 2: Instead of having abortions, it should be mandatory for the mother’s to pass a parenting “qualifier” like adoptive parents do. Instead of having social services do it later AFTER damage has already been done.
Quote 3: Sqwirk has clearly stated below that this was from the 30s about eugenics, which at that TIME, was a popular idea.
Quote 4: Also pointed out by Sqwirk that the very last clause, just like the first quote, acts as a qualifier: “providing they are not denied equal protection.”
Quote 5: Are just a bunch of random words strung together….
Let me demonstrate how context could help… “sand n*gger” “ass-f*cking dick sniffer” “jewish whores”. All horribly inflammatory words that I just said… now if I add in the context…
“I find the term ’sand n*gger’ horribly derogatory and hardly an acceptable term in this day and age. Much in the same way that ‘ass-f*cking dick sniffer’ denotes a pre-pubescent homophobic understanding of homosexuals, usually brought on by uncertainty about one’s own sexuality. While ‘Jewish whores’ is simply the lamest phrase in the english language… period.”
As you can see, I clearly said all those words, but in context it shows that I vehemently dislike them.
Oh Max, you made me happy.
Holdren believes we are in a population crisis and is advocating eugenics. Eugenics was popular among atheists and socialists then, just as it is among atheists and socialists today. Margret Sanger did believe those things and those quotes are not taken out of context. And to suggest that she would vehemently disagree with them is ridiculous. Most people would be shocked if they read anything about Sanger.
I’ve read many things about Sanger and I am not shocked at all.
I suppose I could point out that I qualified it using the word people.
Good point, I am a mermaid.
@Jim,
I’ve done some historical reading about eugenics, while designing a course on science and history, and I can tell you with confidence that just about EVERYone was supportive of eugenics in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Our government supported it (they were worried about those ‘nasty, dirty Italians’ and other undesirable immigrants outbreeding and outnumbering the WASPs’. Our government established laws which allowed sterilization of many different groups without their express permission…or in some cases even their knowledge. We surgically sterilized the poor, the mentally ill, the developmentally delayed, Native Americans, African Americans… It was a god-awful time, and only Hitler’s excesses caused our country and many in Europe to stop these actions. And some of those laws were not fully repealed until the late 1970’s.
Jim, you need to do more research, or you end up sounding like an ass.
You! You there, with the facts! IN THE TRUCK NOW! -Puts a black bag over VG’s head-
Just kidding of course- GO VG!
No, the left was very supportive of eugenics. 1 out of every 6 people on earth belongs to the Catholic Church, which has always been against everything you list above. The majority of Catholics certainly did not support eugenics. And That does not count other Christian churches, Buddists, probably Muslims and the many other people that were against it. The fact that governments permitted it has nothing to do with the number of people who supported it. And since you brought up the subject of your vast historical research, perhaps you could enlighten me with even one source that supports the assertion that even a majority, let alone “everyone,” supported it. That is, since you designed a course on science and history and probably have the material sitting right next to you.
OK, let me rephrase. Most governmental officials, medical types, and intellectuals at the time supported eugenics. Jo Baker, A promoter of public health efforts to prevent premature death and illness in children used eugenicist language to promote her efforts in articles in the Ladies’ Home Journal, even though her professional and private writings did not, which leads me to believe that she felt such language would cause more people to follow her suggestions (which, BTW, are all common sense now). Baker, by the way, was a Republican, as were many who supported efforts in public health, safe workplaces and the like. Pre-FDR, the Democratic party was not seen to support what are now seen as ’causes of the left’.
I imagine you are correct that Catholics have never supported eugenics. However, I did not encounter any Catholics in positions of power at the time–that doesn’t mean there were none, just none in the areas where I have read. I think there was one gentleman who was briefly considered a candidate for Governor of New York? But I have not read his opinion of the topic.
However, eugenics was widely supported at the time, at least because people seemed concerned about ‘those immigrants’ ‘overpopulating’ the country.
Also, Herbert Hoover, Republican President, President of the American Child Hygiene Association (public health organization), eugenics supporter.
“Popular eugenics: national efficiency and American Mass culture in the 1930’s”, Susan Currell and Christina Cogdell.
And that, Jim, is why you failed.
OH SNAP JIM!! YOU JUST GOT OWNED BY A GIRL!
actually, i believe he got “pwned”, such was the degree of ownage.
i believe, “pwned by a girl” is more appropriate, such was the degree of ownage
way to go Viking gal
Jim’s avatar is a swastika?
grr to double posting. ah well
*shakles fist at the wall* i blame you, dry wall!!!
Ok so if you could… please cite your fact about how Athiests and socialists today support eugenics?
They don’t believe in God or competition so they’re evil.
Keep up man.
F*ck man! Leave your superior brain logic out of this!
“Keep up man.”? What does that mean?
He was being sarcastic.
But that doesn’t answer my question….
I’m pretty sure you are aware of it in Communist China, India, and North Korea. Just in China alone they have a 10-20 percent shortage of females because so many have been aborted to provide the family with a male son. You may also recall the number of people on the left who suggested that Sarah Palin should have aborted her son because he is autistic. I suppose you could include embryonic stem cell research as another example of where the right and the left divide.
first of all, palin’s kid has downs syndrome, not autism. second of all, i never heard anyone saying she should have had an abortion — the left was questioning her apparent hypocrisy of the religious right when the right has been espousing their ideal that mothers are supposed to stay home and take care of their kids and husband – not be out gallivanting around working a job that takes them away from their primary role of mommy/maid.
She should have had an abortion.
Should my Autistic son have been aborted?
I was really kidding Justa. I think if you choose to have a child, no matter what the “defects” (I know that’s a cold word, I can’t think of a better one – sorry), no one should tell you you should have aborted. It’s your life.
I think that is shaky ground. Personally, I don’t see mental disorders as a reason to abort a fetus on its own. However, my mother (who is a special ed. teacher) personally feels Palin should have on these grounds. It’s really sketchy and it comes down to your own personal perspective of the world and humanity.
Hmmm, I can only say “If it were me I would have aborted”, but I just feel that way because I wouldn’t want my child to suffer. I personally think that is selfish, but I can’ really say SHE should have done that, because I’m not her and don’t have her ethics. Or morals. In her world, it’s ok. I can’t fault her for that. Only for telling me what I can do in my world.
Not talking about you Justa.
Now that’s a good idea..
Charro, I sent you a nice reply, with plenty of polite details, but PK seems to be eating them. What you want to bet it nested about 10 posts back?
I’m going to bet billions.
Autism and Down’s syndrome are two completely different things. There are plenty of higher functioning autistic people who live mostly normal lives. We also don’t know what causes autism and the child seems completely normal until about 18 months, so to say that someone could just abort their autistic child is ridiculous since you wouldn’t know.
Sarah Palin’s son has Down’s Syndrome. You cannot diagnose autism in the womb.
I think you actually can test for it now because it is a chromosome disorder, making it easy to see. All you would need is some fluid from the womb.
Oops, reading fail on my part! I was referring to Downs Syndrome in my comment, no one knows what causes Autism.
I thought tuna cause autism.
There’s small amounts of mercury in all fish, and mercury causes neurological damage. Nerve/brain damage has been linked to autism, but it remains unclear what causes it specifically.
*sigh* I know that.
It’s on the rise, though. Something is causing it to rise dramatically. (My son has Asperger’s, which is about the mildest form of it there is. Although I have it too, which I just learned last year.)
Autism is normal. what’s teh going stat? 1/150 people have it? that makes it normal.
Actually, it’s even more common than that now. I can’t remember the stats offhand, but I think it’s up to 1 in 100 or more.
Actually, I don’t think that the rate of people with mental disorders is increasing. What I believe is happening is that the definitions of many neurological disorders have changed to include a broader range of symptoms; so what we get is a perceived increase where none really exists. In addition to the changes in definition, our technology and knowledge are improving at a massive rate, allowing more effective identification and diagnosis of mental problems.
What is now called Asperger’s is simply a set of traits enable a person to focus very, very well on a project–ideal for an engineer or scientist. But tough for getting through public schools. I’m glad that they’ve figured out how to help kids get through the schools better. But Asperger’s is a whole different can of worms from autism, in my opinion.
Not the rate of mental disorders. The rate of autism. And yes, it’s increasing.
viking gal–Asperger’s is a high functioning form of autism and is considered on the autism spectrum.
OMG, you demented sick fvck. Nobody said Palin should have aborted her child. Do you just sit in your house all day coming up with new and disgusting lies to insult liberals with? Seriously, your stereotypes are so insane that I can’t believe you really exist. If you do, then I’d love the honor of pissing in your frosted mini-wheats. You are pathetic.
Hate to say it, but some people did. I don’t know where it first came up, and I never saw it in the media, but I know people who said she should have. I personally don’t agree with the idea that it’s a “liberal” view, but I won’t deny it was discussed.
P.S. Nice rage BTW, very well executed and clearly focused. +1
Ugh, I missed that. And I’m glad I did. I’m pro-choice, but begrudgingly so as I hate abortion with all my bleeding heart. I consider the need for it to be legal a “necessary evil.” And I’d have some very ugly choice words for anyone that would dare say someone SHOULD abort their child. And I REALLY hate having to come down on Palin’s side on ANYTHING.
Well, I’ll tell you where I first heard it. On the day she was announced as John McCain’s running mate the media coverage made a point of how much pro-life groups admired her for her bravery in not aborting her down syndrome child.
Being a sociopath, I put relatively little value on individual human lives and have a hard time comprehending what people perceive as “wrong” about abortions. I don’t see how a partially developed fetus is alive, but I’m not always very in tune with normal human thought processes. I suppose it really falls into a sort of moral grey area for most people, but I really cannot say for sure. I personally support a woman’s right to decide whether or not to have a child, but I feel it may be for drastically different reasons than most people who share my opinion.
the only place i remember the idea that libs said she should have aborted was on right wing rants/blogs/faux claiming it was said. i read all sorts of left and right blogs leading up to the election, and didn’t see it anywhere on the left other than in discussions of what faux et al were claiming. i never saw any sources or cites quoted, just claims that a lefty said such a thing….
personally on the subject, i don’t care if someone does or doesn’t have an abortion – it’s none of my fricken business. i don’t like the idea, but i will not support legislation controls who or when a woman can determine what happens with her body.
Yeah that’s kinda creepy No1askedme. That last post of yours makes me think of Kevin Spacey in Fight Club.
A partially developed fetus is considered “alive” because it’s alive. It possesses the characteristics of a living organism. Jaysus.
Well, if you’re really a sociopath, than I see no reason discussing it with you.
“I don’t see how a partially developed fetus is alive, but I’m not always very in tune with normal human thought processes.”
*sigh* Why am I doing this? If you had a child, and she was born only halfway through the pregnancy alive, then you’d know that yes, fetuses are most certainly alive. They cannot live outside the mother’s body, but they move, try to breathe for a little bit. Then they die. But you’re a sociopath, so I guess that’s meaningless to you. Again, not sure why I bothered.
Don’t try to argue with me about it. I said my bit, and I don’t want to talk about it anymore.
I’m referring specifically to a fetus that has yet to fully develop. Even at the latest possible point during which an abortion is legal, the fetus has yet to fully develop, or even really obtain any kind of cellular differentiation. It has no organs, no blood of its own and no brain, it’s not alive.
Every psychologist and psychiatrist I’ve known says there’s no such thing as a self proclaimed sociopath. Part of being a sociopath is that you don’t acknowledge anything you do as sociopathic. I think what No1 is meaning to say is Munchausen.
*stands up next to Rando*
Trust me, No1, you’re better off letting this one go, ok?
Maxwell–I was kinda thinking the same thing. I wonder why anyone would go around bragging about being a sociopath, though. Probably a sign of some other issue. I know someone who had a psych suggest she was most likely sociopathic. She thought it was hysterical. Damn, I was actually starting to like No1 too. Too bad.
Kevin Spacey was in Fight Club?
I’m not bragging, I’m attempting to explain why my views are weird, I’d go into more detail about my thought processes, but I’m afraid I would just bore you… At any rate, I can’t help but think anyone who sees people as tools is most likely a sociopath… Please correct me if I am wrong.
Okay, wait, you just *think* you’re a sociopath? Like Maxwell said, I don’t think self-awareness is really a sociopathic trait. You’re not a sociopath. Just kind of a dick.
More than likely, but your problem is that you’re self proclaimed. Any psychiatrist will always tell you, the first sign of any psychosis is that the patient doesn’t recognize it. The old “I’m not crazy! YOU’RE Crazy!” line. All sociopaths deny being one, that’s part of it. The fact that you can recognize your behavior as sociopathic excludes you from that ilk. Dahmer, Bundy, Manson etc. saw NOTHING wrong with what they did. Now the fact that you see people as tools, lucidly recognize that fact but ignore it, doesn’t make you a socipath, what it DOES make you is a prime candidate for being the CEO of a health insurance company…
Max darling, sociopath =/= psychosis. Otherwise, you’re right on your points.
I didn’t mean psychosis, but I can’t think of the technical term for it… I guess disorder works…. It’s been… oh… 8 years since my college psychology work…
I guess the real question here is… No1…
*sits him down on a long couch*
Have you ever had suicidal thoughts? And I mean seriously contemplated them?
It’s ok sweetheart. Psych is a sticking point for me and I try to gently correct as necessary. Many hugs all around.
I minored in psych in college with a major in Drama/Theatre Arts. I took 3 semesters worth of psych but mainly as backdrop for the Stanislovsky method of acting… knowing what’s inside your characters head and the thought processes would be invaluable in creating a character. Which it has been
Wow, what do you do when you’re not running the Fortress of Doom?
I dunno… I seem to fit the definition…. I really cannot say. The truth of the matter is we all see ourselves as sane in our own mind, but upon making observations and doing some research I find I don’t fit into most psychological norms. I see people as tools to be used as needed, not that I actually treat anyone that way, but I’ve never been able to shake that view. The closest I’ve ever come to actually caring about someone on a personal level is when a particular individual amuses me, whatever that might mean, I’m amused by many things. I don’t see a need to justify my actions, nor do I even need a reason to do things at times, sometimes I just do something because I can. I’m paranoid in the sense that I am absolutely incapable of trusting anyone completely, there’s always that little part of my mind telling me I’m being deceived or used, probably because I have no problem with using others. I frequently find humor in things most people find atrocious, I won’t go into details, it would likely be unpleasant for all involved. I have never felt a feeling of guilt in my life, regret yes, but not guilt. I’ve manipulated information in the past to turn others against those who irritate me, I don’t feel any particular way about such actions. I have a need to act in a way that is contrary to those around me, to optimistic people I am cynical, to cynical people I am optimistic; I don’t know why, maybe I crave attention, don’t ask me. I honestly don’t care what others think of me beyond what is necessary for me to manipulate them. On top of all this, I have a complete lack of personal understanding of social behavior. To me all social actions are nothing more than tools and constructs, any other meanings I am incapable of understanding beyond a technical level. Most emotions are lost on me, although I do occasionally feel somewhat happy or sad, to me they are just chemicals in my brain that alter my perceptions, a holdover of evolution from when we were feral apes. I’ve never feared anything in my whole life that hasn’t presented a direct danger to my life, although I am somewhat of an Apiophobe (irrational fear of bees and wasps). I have no fear of death, it’s more of a resentment, the prospect is unpleasant, but I do not really fear it. I am prone to fairly violent thoughts, I don’t know why, but I have somewhat of an obsession in terms of understanding how to break bones, I don’t fully understand why; I blame my paranoia. I find it is impossible for me to take anything seriously, I just laugh at everything; be it a failed mid-term or a car accident, (I once saw a pretty bad accident on the 91 freeway, all I could do was laugh to myself about how long it would take for the clean-up crews to clean up all the blood, there was a lot, about three to five car-lengths down the leftmost lane was covered in it, it was fairly orange-red too which tells me it was fairly fresh, making it take nearly twice as long to clean up. I don’t think most people think that way, but I could be wrong; if they do they don’t show it. Taking all this into account, I did more research and found my psychology lined up fairly well with the standard definition of a sociopath. I could be wrong, but I severely doubt thoughts like this are considered normal.
@charro –
No! I totally fcuked that up! I was thinking Seven and wrote Fight Club.
Movie reference fail.
P.S. I apologize for the long post, and also if my thoughts bother anyone, but I cannot bring myself to allow myself to be seen as a false personality.
Oh, hey, since I have your attention, how do I change my avatar? I’ve tried three times now and it isn’t working!
As much as it pains me to say this No1…. you’re not a sociopath. You sound for most accounts like a normal human being’s psyche. Nearly everyone has feelings and thoughts like you do, some suppress them better than others. I wouldn’t actually say that you have any real disorder at all, you’re more searching for a reason as to why you are the way you are. Most people simply suppress or don’t think about the urges or dark inclinations that you embrace about yourself. I’m sure that there are clinical diagnoses of certain aspects of your psyche, but nothing about what you said really stands out to me as someone who’s sick. Everyone has problems with trust, and those who don’t are naive. Everyone has dark violent thoughts at one point or another, it’s just a matter of whether or not the brain can suppress or redirect them towards something else. Everyone has feelings of paranoia because that’s part of being human. The only thing that I say could possibly hint a disorder of some kind is your humorous view of tragedy. That could be a red flag, but not a strong one. I’d say you’re more an introvert who instead of blaming others for your issues, you embrace and use them to the fullest. Also, you obviously have a very dark sense of humor, that in itself can cause self questioning of your mental health, but I can tell you, most of us here, have VERY dark senses of humor.
I don’t think you’re that far off from the norm, instead of denying and shunning your darker side, you embrace it.
@SB, all good. I thought I was losing my marbles.
@No1, you’re a sociopath. Also, go to {www.gravatar.com} and set up your email addy with a pic.
Curses.. I meant to say “not a sociopath”.. Goddamnit.
I don’t really think sociopaths really contemplate themselves that much. I think that’s part of the gig. Not really sure.
But let me add an addendum to that… I’m not a psychiatrist, and I have Oh….. close to 7 more years worth of schooling to go before I’d be eligible for a license… so you might want a second opinion
Ok, guess I’m just a little off, whatever. I’ve never really done much formal research on psychology. Thanks for the tip on the avatar, I’ll try that when my internet is no longer being dumb.
P.S. Wifi networks suck when your neighbors have baby monitors all over the house.
Maxwell–I’ve never taken psychology, but I’m gonna take a guess that the humorous view of tragedy is some sort of coping mechanism, possibly due to tragedies past. That’s my completely unprofessional opinion.
I once stayed up on a 2 day coke binge trying to research evil to find out if I was evil.
Then I drank a bottle of Southern Comfort and went to bed.
DSM-IV-TR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Glibness and Superficial Charm
Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as “their right.”
Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
Incapacity for Love
Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet “gets by” by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
*this is what I do*
Well, yes, this is true. But, I don’t really think you can diagnose psychiatric disorders over the internet..
I just figured in case anybody was fuzzy on it. I tried to say this awhile back, but nobody joined in so I figured I’d just throw it out.
I love psychology. I majored in it when I wasn’t too busy getting my Philosophy degree.
Why yes, charro, I would like fries with that.
*grumbles* Here are your fries, ma’am. That’ll be $6.98 cash check or charge..
You damn dirty Capitalist! I want my Freedom Fries for free, just like everyone else!! I’m *ENTITLED*, dammit!!!!
Ooh, put on this vinyl corset, hold these cat’o'nine tails and say that again..
I don’t think the corset will fit for another couple of months. But I can give your feet a proper caning…
Oh my god I’m soo in love.
That sounds a lot like me except for the Impulsive Nature, Infidelity, Need for stimulation, Grandiose Sense of Self, and Juvenile Delinquency. I suppose I’m about 50% there or so, not that it matters much to me; I never prided myself on being a sociopath or anything. Although my inner rage seems to manifest its self as a sort of alternate personality that manifests its self when I’m not around others, it’s not a very nice one and it makes me really violent if I’m not careful. My level of self-control allows me to keep my composure under most situations, although there are some specific triggers that can send me overboard. However, I do have real friends, even if I mostly interact with them through false personalities; they seem to be aware of this though.
You make it sound so much dirtier when you say it Randman.
That’s the way I like it, dirty, elbowey and assplodable.
Hmmm.. I think I like you.
I don’t believe in eugenics (and I’m an athiest/socialist)- ((BTW, Obama is NOT a socialist- Take it from me, a socialist))
I just believe, like I think many people do, that having too many kids is bad, children having babies is bad, and bad parents having children is bad.
Anyways, the world needs to have a big talk on overpopulation. Get together, drink some water, eat cookies, ya know.
FINALLY! A socialist comes in to clear up the Obama thing for us! I knew he wasn’t a socialist. Thanks, Allie.
I’m actually not being sarcastic either.
If Seth were still here, he’s probably have a cut and paste post of “Obama is NOT a socialist.”
TRY READING THE ARTICLE IDIOT!
These are quotes from a book written by someone Obama has chosen to be the “science czar”, just one of MANY examples of the people he surrounds himself with. If BUSH had had someone who thought those things, EVER, I can just imagine what you liberals would have said!
The irony is, Margaret Sanger would have said that Obama should NEVER have been born and safe to say that Holdren was referring to people like his mother when talking about his “ideas” on population control.
since you’re too damn stupid to click the LINK, here you go:
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
He brings up your stupid “context” argument in there.
You people love to mention things “taken out of context” but refuse to put the same things IN context of what’s going on in our once great country.
Here’s another Sanger quote for you:
There is but one practical and feasible program in handling the great problem of the feeble-minded. That is, as the best authorities are agreed, to prevent the birth of those who would transmit imbecility to their descendants. Feeble-mindedness as investigations and statistics from every country indicate, is invariably associated with an abnormally high rate of fertility. Modern conditions of civilization, as we are continually being reminded, furnish the most favorable breeding-ground for the mental defective, the moron, the imbecile. “We protect the members of a weak strain,” says Davenport, “up to the period of reproduction, and then let them free upon the community, and encourage them to leave a large progeny of `feeble-minded’: which in turn, protected from mortality and carefully nurtured up to the reproductive period, are again set free to reproduce, and so the stupid work goes on of preserving and increasing our socially unfit strains.”
Well we’ll just let Sanger know that we don’t want her in the our admistration! Oh… wait….
Ok… so I hit the reply button to Get A Clue’s irrelevant viewpoints of a dead woman… and it popped down here… weird.
That should tell you something..
Who are you responding to?
It’s because there are over 600 comments that there is a nesting fail?
Nope. nesting is back…..
Reading this nest looks really goofy right now. I’m guessing the nesting went haywire briefly yesterday?
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1689/1689-h/1689-h.htm
THE PIVOT OF CIVILIZATION
By Margaret Sanger
there’s some “context” for you.
Once again, Margret Sanger is dead… so what’s your point?
I’m liking this “Sanger” woman more and more.
Weird, mine did too.
My god! Teh ebil librul soshulists! They’re taking our nesting now and giving it to the lolcats!
ZOMGWTFBBQ!!
The funny thing about this?
We’re already encouraging it…
“No child left behind”.
Neither side provides cites, and when they do they are almost always blogs so nobody cares.
I’d like a cite for that statement.
My blog is more citatious than your blog!
That sounds kinda kinky… lol
Total hawtness. I suggest you google my yahoo and then we can vlog all night long!
Lol, reply fail.
Man, if the old standby “Your Mom” was ever applicable anywhere else…
Do. More. Research.
Sanger was a eugenics supporter, and also a contraception-provider. Funny thing, she only got arrested and jailed for providing contraception–to married women who desperately wanted it! In those days, it was illegal to publicly talk about or provide contraception–or even to talk about the rhythm method in public. And women were being injured by repeated childbirth, and they had no way to prevent getting pregnant again–especially if their spouse refused to restrain himself.
Sanger also was the major funding source for the research which resulted in the invention of the birth control pill. So if you like sex with a woman and don’t want to use a condom, and don’t want more children, you have her to thank.
Mind you, I’ve read enough about and by Sanger to know that I can’t stand her as a person–egotistical, racist, WASP supremacist, and obnoxious. But I can still respect what she did in the name of providing contraception options for women.
This is unrelated to your earlier “ZOMG OBAMA’S A RACIST!” statements, or did you already forget that? No one is arguing about the ethical validity of “eugenics”, we determined it’s not exactly fair, so why are you bringing all this up? Here’s a rational thought for you, McCain wanted to outlaw abortion, Obama didn’t because he felt women had a right to decide for themselves (oh noes, we can’t let them run their own lives now can we!?). If abortion were outlawed, Planned Parenthood would go under; do you not see their financial incentive to back Obama?! Think for yourself, I promise it won’t hurt you!
Why is the reply button being dumb again? This post was directed at “Get A. Clue”
I had all kinds of weird things happening with IE (incorrect nesting, numbers showing up next to the posts, etc., etc., etc.) I opened Firefox and everything seems fine. Must be IE?
I’m running Google Chrome and I’m getting the nesting fails.
Safari is showing the nesting fails. None of that other stuff though.
Same here… strange…
Wait, did you seriously just cite something called “zombietime dot com”?
“I must kill the demons!” Jim said
“No Jim,” the radio crackered, “YOU are the demons!”
And then Jim was a zombie.
Eek! A zombie!
Bravo! An excellent example of, but not limited to, such fallacies as quote-mining, guilt by association, and Godwin.
You know clamboy…. I wish I could quit you… *strong Man-Hug*
Oh come on! Godwin!? The whole lol is a Godwin.
So… ‘yaknow, obama only personally appointed him to a government position, he barely knows him! and he also doesn’t agree with him!’
Is that your ‘guilt by association’ counter-argument?
Ok so you post one recent quote which is quite reasonable. John Holdren is saying that people having 10 children (or some other LARGE number) in an environment that is already strained is a problem and people could (note he does not advocate this himself) be required to have smaller families by law.
And then after this you post two quotes from the 20s the 30s when eugenics was the mainstream ideology of the united states (and most of europe).
Note that the quote from John Holdren is NOT saying that certain kinds of people should be prohibited from having children while others are not. In fact the quote ends with him stating that everyone should have “equal protection”.
It’s only the right in america that argues against the human right to a family, that it’s right that some people on lower incomes shouldn’t be able to ‘afford’ to have children.
Note also that Margaret Sanger died in 1966, how can she have been an “obama suporter”.
Shouldn’t people who have children be able to afford them?
Yes they should. Which is why it’s right for the rest of us to help support families on low incomes through taxation and why there should be a reasonable minimum wage.
Well, if we are going to do that, then why should anyone worry about affording children, they can just have as many as they want and will get money for it. (I know someone personally who divorced her husband and went on wellfare because she wanted to be a “single mom”)
Well then she better be ready for that child to have a rough life. Welfare isn’t made to support for a lifetime. It’s made to be a supplement, until work can be found.
Oh, she had a fine life and the kids are already grown…. One is going to UC Berkley right now, the other one had some trouble but seems to be getting better.
Then she had some other source of income besides welfare, because it is NEVER the life of glamour and glitz that everyone says it is. It’s not a big publisher’s clearing house check that arrives in the mail every month. And welfare can never (unless this person finds some other means of additional income or have some kind of deals on living expenses) support a family.
Don’t open that door Max.
Looks like she did…
Looks can be deceiving. Example: Tom Cruise LOOKS sane… enough said!
Really. You know FOR A FACT that she lived a nice, happy, financially stable life on nothing but welfare while her kids grew up? I think you’re letting your conservative bias cloud your vision. Anyone who WANTS to “live” off of nothing but welfare gets the life they deserve, and it’s not much of one. THIS is why I snippy with you, bitterclown, since you brought it up in an earlier LOL. This attitude that people get on welfare because they’re just lazy always pisses me off. Maybe a few of them, but you know what? Those people are clearly idiots, and don’t speak for the majority of people who really need help.
I really don’t know where the conservatives get this stuff, but it seems to be a rather common view. I know plenty of people who rave daily about the evil “welfare kings”. I just don’t get it…
Kings?
Yeah, they claim there are people living lavish lives of luxury at the taxpayers’ expense through the welfare system. I gotta admit, I don’t know where they get this stuff!
Yes, I know FOR A FACT. She is related by marriage to me. She may not have had a wonderful life but she raised two kids and got the life she wanted. You get snippy with everyone you don’t agree with, that is my objection. If you were on my side of the fence you would be called a troll, but since youre liberal you can snipe at everyone all you want and no one calls you out on your abusive language. You’re a funny and intelligent guy, I would think you could get by just fine without calling people names because you don’t agree.
It’s not because I’m liberal. It’s because people like me here. Some things I can discuss civilly. Other views just sicken me and it’s a lot harder to keep my feelings in check. I get snippy because I’m passionate about many of my views and it angers me to see the same things over and over, like assuming everyone on welfare just wants to mooch off the government. I know some people do that, I’m not that naive. However, I still think it’s important to keep programs like that so that the people who REALLY need it actually get it. You CAN’T come up with a program to help people that sleazeballs aren’t going to abuse. It cannot be done. So we either screw over everyone to make sure nobody abuses the system, or we try to help everyone knowing we’re gonna have to take it up the butt from those who want to abuse the system. Those are the two options, really. We can reform welfare all we want, and I have no problems with doing so, but we’ve gotta accept that people will still find a way around it.
Just because something someone says “sickens” you doesn’t give you the right to be abusive, especially if they weren’t abusive to begin with. Remember there is a person here, you seem to advocate caring and compassion so where is it in here?
I also think it’s important to have safety net programs to a certain extent. But forcing people to pay for it in an ever increasing amount is not good, well you’ve heard all the arguments by now against it so I won’t go into it.
Actually, it would be right and virtuous for you to support families on low incomes with your own money. It is neither right nor virtuous for you to take other people’s money without their consent. Similarly, if you want to provide a reasonable minimum wage, start a business, hire people, and pay it. There is nothing “right” about calling for others to do what you will not or can not.
Congress enforces taxes, people elect congressmen/congresswomen, people chose to vote. Therefore, the public chose the taxes they pay. THINK ABOUT IT.
The public chose the taxes they pay? I think you would find a great deal of disagreement about that among the tax-paying public. One of the biggest concerns today is that 40 percent of Americans do not pay any federal income taxes at all and still voting for those congressmen who see nothing wrong with imposing higher taxes on an increasingly smaller number of tax-payers. Respect for private property and the idea that men are entitled to the fruit of their labors are beliefs fundamental to christianity and captalism. There is nothing “right” about taking and spending other people’s money without their consent.
Sure there is, and I am too awesome to explain why.
The congress has the power to levy taxes… seems like it to me. This is a representative democracy with a diverse ideology, just because you don’t personally approve doesn’t mean they’re stealing from you…
*dons bandit mask and brandishes .44* GIMME ALL YOUR TAXES!
Its not a matter of my personal approval, it is a matter of justice. It is not just to take more from one individual simply because he is in the minority. That is the beginning of tyranny. We are a representative democracy, where in theory all are represented equally and all share in its burdens.
No, we are not represented equally, at least not in the sense you think. We have a bicameral congress because when the constitution was being written, small states wanted a senate with 2 representatives from each state, while bigger states wanted a true representative democracy with delegates from each state based on population. Instead, we settled with the Connecticut Compromise, which established both. So, technically, we are a hybrid of a republic and a representative democracy, leaning a little more towards republic since the senate has a bit more power than the HoR.
HoR meaning house of representatives
But the problem is we DON’T share burdens equally. Why don’t people understand that?
Are we all insane, or is it only me?
Believing, believing in the free will
To last, to burn, to die
Yes, we are all insane in some way, it’s what makes us different. Some individuals happen to be more insane than others, as for the truly sane? Well, the perfectly sane are the most insane of us all. THINK ABOUT IT…
Normal is weird.
Normal is a setting on a dishwasher.
LOL, I LIKE YOUR PERSPECTIVE!
I like Rando’s perspective too.
A girl in middle school told me that. I wish I could take credit for it.
normal is highly over-rated
Oh grow up Jim! Now you’re arguing semantics! “Some people don’t like it so it’s bad! QQ” Look, not all people like being forced to tolerate free speech, is that tyranny? You don’t get to choose what is fair and what isn’t based on solely what individuals feel, because that’s the true beginning of tyranny. If you don’t believe me, look up how the Church of England got started.
P.S. Not everyone feels the same way you do about everything, look around you once in a while.
Um, capitalism and Christianity have vastly different ideals, least of which is private property and keeping what one earns. Remember that whole “brother’s keeper” thing in the Bible? that means that we all have a responsibility to take care of our neighbors, what’s mine is yours, etc. And fruits of our labor? The idea of having a right to what you earn is a selfish ideal, whereas charitableness would be selfless, and which one is glorified more in the Bible, hmm? I don’t agree with the Christian assertion that greed is a sin, because greed means, at its core, the belief in the right to keep the fruits of ones labors. In today’s world, greed has been perverted into meaning wanting to sacrifice others well being and profit to yourself, but that is an outright lie. Greed is a foundation of Capitalism, and the Christianity disagrees with the ideal of greed, therefore cannot exist in harmony with Capitalism.
My favourite sin is lust, personally.
I think I prefer losth and gluttony. Together. (… “sluttony?”) Lying on the couch eating til I fall asleep. Arrr.
losth == sloth, natch!
Sluttony makes you sound like a prostitute.
Right. “Gloth” it is then.
Now you sound like a fat goth.
Sluttony, eh? I think the commandments could use a few amendments…If you know what I mean.
No? Fine.
Back to dirty, elbowey and assplodable, I suppose (those are still ok, right? I never read anything in the Bible about “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s elbows”)
I agree, lust need not be a sin.
I must admit, I’m about as lazy as they come. Right now I’m using this site to put off writing an essay for my college english class.
P.S. College essays FAIL!
I’m putting off studying for a forensics test. *shrugs*
I have a degree in Philoosphy.
*sigh* I also have one in Philosophy.
I has a dagree is connumication. It duzn’t halp mutch.
*facepalm*
*giggling helplessly*
My aunt once put on a resume that she had lots of experience in pubic relations. She got the job.
(It should have been public, if you didn’t figure that out.)
I think that had something to do with Lewinsky getting her job too.
[What follows is written from a Christian perspective, assuming the existence of God in order to facilitate discussion. Please don't feel that I am pushing my beliefs on you; that is not my intent.]
One must have before one can give. One of the central ideas in Christianity is the power to choose: to choose to follow God, to choose to live virtuously, and in this case to choose to be thy brother’s keeper. If our money is taken by a government and given to “neighbors” you don’t even know, you aren’t doing anything Christian or even particularly generous. The money might as well have never been yours. Instead, if you earn that money and choose to give it to a reputable charity or to a good friend instead of spending it on a luxury, you have made a choice that pleases God and your neighbors.
But what about the people who have nothing to give? Is it right to punish them for their accident of birth..?
Damnit! Bad charro. Stop that.
Does anyone truly have nothing to give? Altruism isn’t just about money. Money is considered highly important to our society, so it’s a good example, but people can help each other by giving time, effort, love… I mean, I won’t lie: I’m a greedy bitch. But the potential is there.
Not necessarily.. I don’t see a schizophrenic who is unmedicated having all that much to give, being too wrapped up in their delusions to function in a society that misunderstands and condemns them..
I guess that would be the brother who needs keeping. He needs decent care and medication, and finding those can be a serious problem. I guess there are two categories here: those who can help and those who need help. Normal people move back and forth between them. An unmedicated schizophrenic would be stuck in the “needing help” column. Then the question is, do you start holding his inability to help others (you) against him?
No, I wouldn’t. But he has nothing to give.. And in this society that usually means he is punished for it.
Usually, yes. The challenge is to be UNusual. No, the challenge is to be unusual in a good way.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, but I’m enjoying it.
It makes sense to me. But that might just be because it’s the middle of the night here. Basically, it’s the difference between moral responsibility and legal responsibility. Legal needs red tape to grant exceptions; morals can look at someone who’s clearly disabled and say, “Well, of course we can’t ask that of him, he needs our help.”
In theory.
But not everyone is moral like that.
You can always give blood…
Not if you have the HIV..
Ah, very good point. BUT, if you have HIV you could always give someone HIV too!
That’s not such a great idea.
Sharing is caring.
Now giving money by choice is something I can get behind. In the end, all I really care about is the choice to do something, and what the consequences of that choice are. If money is given by choice as a token of good will and generosity, it is what altruism should be, and a wonderful application of Christian values. But when that generosity becomes compulsory and mandatory, it ceases to have any value as an altruistic exchange. Now, if blurring the lines between true altruism and forced altruism is a breach of Christian values, then I stand corrected. You raise a good point, so I’ll think on that.
The problem with altruism, is that you can’t depend on it. Despite our nation’s tyrannical evil tax machine that is taxing us all into poverty (/sarcasm), there are still plenty of people who could help more. And I don’t mean if you bring in $200,000 per year donating $500 to United Way (which would be great, don’t get me wrong). I mean bringing in $200,000 and dropping at least $100,000 of it into charity. Hell why stop there? Depending on what part of the country you live in, you could live very comfortably on $50,000.
My point is, can we really rely on the haves to help out all of the have nots, even to help them get on their feet? I doubt it. So we either say “too bad so sad” to the have nots, or we say that the haves HAVE to help the have nots. I know which one I’d pick.
No, we can’t rely on them (us) to help everyone out. That’s basically where everything breaks down: socialism aims to help out those poor people by taking from those that have extra to give; capitalism allows us to choose and inevitably too few people are willing to help. What’s the happy medium? I don’t know.
Floydism. Duh.
The happy medium is not feasible. It is technically possible, but in a democracy people will always fight over what is right for the country, and there will always be a small selfish bias. There is no way this happy medium will ever be attained, we are doomed to destroy ourselves with our conflicts between greed and charity in differed measures. Discrimination doesn’t help either.
we believe in human progress
we create the servants we need
we develop new ways of living
we develop new ways of living
we search for power sources
we need energy to survive
we build on fragile ground
we build on fragile ground
we feel safe in our unstable houses
we fear the world outside
we’ve become strangers at home
we’ve become strangers at home
we went too far, we can’t turn back
we built too high, we can’t get down
we are the slaves of our servants
in the shadow of our ambitions
As much as I agree with not being able to depend on altruism, I don’t think I could depend on the government to do a good job with money, either. The thing that so many people seem to overlook is the fact that government, no matter what you think about them, is just a collection of people. People who are subject to the same flaws, fallacies, temptations and problems as the rest of us. The only difference is that their problems and flaws have the potential to royally screw us all over, but only if we give them that power. They may have the best intentions, but the more power we give, the more liberty they take. Government workers are not above human nature. What we need is reform that can help people get on their feet without taking from those who can already stand.
I can’t remember perfectly the stats I posted last week about the US charity given world wide but I believe for 2005 it was something like the government giving 35 billion and private giving 75 billion. So my point would be that yes sometime the private sector, especially all those rich people you hate and want to take money from, do give to charity. I believe Bill Gates is quite the charity giver as well, so before you advocate taking most of “rich peoples” money away you should do some research or just STFU. Sorry if I seem harsh but it gets tiresome hearing about you bitching about those that have. Why don’t you get off your ass and make some money so you can give it away?
And the “haves” do help out to the tune of 90% of the taxes.
Thank you for providing the stats I was looking for. To go a little further, the richest 50% of Americans pay 90% of the tax burden, while the richest 5% pay 50% of the tax burden. Point being that if you think taxing them more is the right thing to do, we’re well on our way to having them pay all of it, and that would be pretty fvcked up. Kudos to Semperfidd.
well, if your income is $200,000, you’re paying at least $60,000 in taxes, and, gosh, the government helps people, and i’m giving them a load of money already, why do i need to give more?
If any of you have a better idea besides “let charity do it,” then I’d be happy to hear it. Because “let charity/churches do it” is nothing more than a copout.
I’m sorry you get so frustrated, but those of us who advocate higher taxes understand this one thing…. The cost of living does not scale like taxes do. It costs the same amount of money for the rich guy on Welford St. to live that it does the poor guy who lives further down Welford St. that makes half.
And in this economy ,the whole “Go out and make more money” argument just falls flat, and it falls flat because of an economic system that YOU support, not us.
Taxes are relative… cost of living is NOT relative. So until you want to advocate scaling down the price of EVERYTHING to match people’s salaries just like taxes, you can “stfu”. That’s all we’re saying.
So where does it stop Max? Do we finally end up getting taxed at 100% and everything is given to us by the government? Punishing success and forcibly spreading the wealth around only leads to mediocrity (sp?). I and most conservative people I know, do not have a problem paying taxes of some sort. The problem is how they are spent. If the government was more efficient on how it spends our money then there would be alot more to go around. Instead they spend it poorly then come back and ask for more. A current example is the money from the stimulus bill that was to be provided to ACORN. You had to be blind to think that there was not something wrong with this organization before all the videos came out. Yet the government pledged to give them billions and pay them to help out with the census. The current administration has appointed/nominated several people who cheated on their taxes. I degress. The truth is most of us are happy to pay some taxes to help out those that truely need it and to help support the necessary services of government. We don’t want to pay money that is thrown away or given to groups to find out how much a cow farts in one day.
@ CyanEyed — if you’re paying $60g on $200g — you need a tax advisor, furthermore even at that rate, it’s still only 3% of your gross
But there is a chance that the money that we don’t choose who to give to can come into the hands ofthose who need it most, which might not at all be who we think it is, or who we feel good about helping. Giving via your taxes can be every bit as altruistic, maybe even more, as you don’t get to go “ooh, I am so nice!”
And YES, of course I am saying that giving to charities is morally questionable. Really. Of course.
No – what I am saying is both ways can be argued, and it’s not so clear to me that giving freely to your chosen targets is in any way morally better, or more “Christian” if you will”, than contributing to “the community chest”.
Umm… ‘brother’s keeper’ is a quote from genesis, where cain had just murdered his brother… god says ‘where is your brother?’ cain says ‘am i my brother’s keeper?’
so yeah, your argument is invalid.
Understanding modern Christianity FAIL.
“Cain’s words have come to symbolize people’s unwillingness to accept responsibility for the welfare of their fellows — their “brothers” in the extended sense of the term. The tradition of Judaism and Christianity is that people do have this responsibility.”
I got this from dictionary.com’s cultural dictionary section. If you’re just trying to be a literal, that’s one thing. But failing to acknowledge the proper use of a common phrase for the sake of being literal is just plain ignorant.
Yes, we do have a responsibilty to our brothers, but its an individual responsibility. Taking someone else’s money and giving it away is not charity, its theft. You can be charitable with your own money, not someone else’s. The Bible teaches individuals to be charitable, but also not to covet other people’s possessions. Christianity is perfectly at peace with the idea of private property. The Catholic Catechism explains the reasoning behind this in sections 2401-2418. Greed, on the other hand, is a desire to amass earthly goods without limit. The bible forbids avarice arising from a passion for riches or to covet unjustly what is not ours and what belongs to another. But again, these are admonitions to us as individuals. We are individually responsible for our acts of charity or greed.
I agree that taking form one person and then giving it to another is indeed theft. But the question of whether or not we have an obligation to give freely is a bit paradoxical to me. If i choose to keep what I earn and never give to charity (which I do not advocate, don’t get me wrong), then I have a right to do so. On the flip side, I have just as much of a right to give it away to whomever I choose. If I have an obligation from birth to be charitable to the point of damaging my own well being, then I don’t quite see it as a choice if my alternative to self debasement is eternity in hell. The thing that makes me choose one or the other is my set of values. If I value the life of others and I see it to be in my best interest to invest in the well being of others, then I should be able to CHOOSE to do so. If one does so because they see it to be in their own interest, then I do not believe it to be merely altruistic, but egoistic as well. Egoism is not always a bad thing, and neither is altruism, but a functional, decent human being should have a decent respect for that which is earned by him. When government intervenes, it becomes a logistical, irrational debate of “how much can we steal without people saying anything.” They believe that they can mandate altruism, which, as defined by websters, is “1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species.” They cannot however, force altruism because, by definition, it must be by choice. Now, I acknowledged somewhere above that Christianity can be at peace with the concept of private property, but only one feels that it is necessary to give that private property away. If it is an obligation from birth, then that may as well never have been your property in the first place.
Ugh, this was an ugly post. Maybe I’ll just wait until I’m not so tired and I’ll polish it up a bit. Sorry if I jumped around and made it a bit ambiguous.
Also, just as a side note, greed, as it is defined by Websters, is “: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed.” Now, in this, it does say that the desire for something in excess, but I would argue that to be selfish is a slightly different thing. Selfish means “1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one’s own welfare or advantage in disregard of others.” Personally, I see this as being concerned with ones own well being, and not using others as a means to promote it. People commonly equate being selfish with being greedy or thieving, but I don’t see it as such. In reality, to be selfish is to be more introverted or isolated, and your actions are committed outside the concerns of others. It just irritates me when people try to point to selfishness and greed as evil, when really they mean thievery and dishonesty. One can lead to the other, but they are not definitively the same.
So much for side note…
my bad
“Respect for private property and the idea that men are entitled to the fruit of their labors are beliefs fundamental to christianity and captalism.”
Really? Where in Christianity does it say you get to hoard your money?
It’s on page 666, Rando.
*flips to page 666*
Well, it doesn’t count if the devil says it. Why do they even quote that guy in this book?
Jesus, why do you have to make everything about you Rando?
Pfft. I’m not the devil. Don’t insult me. Satan calls me for advice.
HE’S CHEATING ON ME?!
Satan seems like an ok guy to me, much less up tight than that God fellow.
God sure does seem a bit overbearing at times, I agree.
… But satan spends most of his time planning how he’s gonna remove your(humanity in general) innards. And that seems a little unkind to me.
Yes, but at least he’s not overbearing about it.
That’s how satan gets you. He makes it look pretty. It’s like a REALLY hot girl whipping a guy. The guy doesn’t realize it because he thinks it’s getting him something “good.” Next thing he knows he’s miserable and has committed way to much time to it.
God just says, “this is what’s right and wrong. Do what you want. I’ll still be here to pick up the mess if you don’t listen to me.”
That’s not what god said to me. He told me to keep fukcing a chicken..
Very nicely said!
That’s easy Sqwirk, Obama’s actually a 1000 year old Kenyan warlord, who, not only sold his own people to slavery, gave Marx and Nieche the guidelines of socialism, but he also sank the titanic, slept with hitler’s mother then blamed it on the Jews, and the 1970 Edsel… it’s ALL his fault!
OHHHHH! So that’s what I’m not getting! Now I see why the republicans hate him so much!
Actually nm, I just read a little more about John Holdren and he does seem to be a pretty loathsome character.
He’s never advocated eugenics (that’s quite clear), but he is far on the extreme of the population control argument.
John Holdren does have some strange views on population control. I still fail to see the connection Get a Clue is trying to make about Obama and Hitler…
I think it’s the choice of Holdren for a high-ranking position in the Administration for which he wasn’t vetted nor was asked to explain his views. This whole “czar” thing pisses me off on a very basic level, as these guys aren’t accountable in the same ways as other elected officials who make policy are. I’m actually kind of surprised that Holdren wasn’t jumped on and made to quit in the same way that Van Jones was, considering that Jones has views that are only slightly less inflammatory than Holdren’s.
That, and clearly Obama is Hitler. I don’t know why, he just is. So suck it, Trebek!
Below me….. Below me…. I don’t get it..
Blow me.. Blow me.. I get it.
I meant that in the most sexual and pornographic way possible, not in the derogatory sense.
You were below me…. hmm… nope… still don’t get it.
That’sh not what your mom shaid lasht night.
I’ll take the rapishts, for 400.
Final Jeopardy — write a math equation. Anything at all. 1+1=2 would be an example. A simple math equation. Alright lets see what you got.
0+0=0
“you got it right! Let’s see what you wagered.”
poop
hahhahahahahahahaha
I shpent many yearsh of my life trying to invent an anal bum cover. My greatesht regret is that I never managed it.
Isildo: “You’ve lived a horrible life.”
Trebek, I must inquire into the penis mightier…
Gussy, it up however you want, man, but does it work? Will it mighty my penis??
Sean Connery is too awesome for words, even if it isn’t really him playing him.
I’d vote for you!
Hey, I don’t point my finger at anyone but whoever I think is wrong at that point in time whether or not I am correct.
Oh, wait, did you say orgy? Sign me up.
Orgy? What do I need to do to get in on that?
Point your finger randomly and shout “MUUUUURDERRRR!”
Finger-pointing makes me think dirty thoughts…
I like it.
*points at Isildo* MUUUURRRDERRR!!!!!
Pause. Stare. Blush. Grin.
Heh heh. You said finger pointing.
hehehhehehehehehheheheheh
It’s funny how “finger puppets” sounds okay as a noun.
Um, Jon Stewart is NOT parisan?
No, I don’t believe he is from Paris.
Yet he acts like a French weenie!
That’s racist against French people.
Unfortunately human “morality” is nothing more than a joke. The only way to get people to consistently help others is to provide incentives. I don’t like it anymore than anyone else, but we just have to face the facts and work with them.
Facts, shmacts.
Morality is joke?
U is joke!
Although, in all seriousness, the majority of humanity IS morally depraved. Kinda sad, if you think about it…
Morals and ethics are different. Most people have ethics of some kind, but they vary widely from person to person, so they don’t make cooperation any easier. As for “morality”. “Morals” are born from the idea that certain actions are inherently “good” or “bad.” The idea that any action is inherently anything is a logical fallacy, and the concepts of “good” and “bad” are only products of social bias.
Eugenics was not a mainstream ideology of the United States in the 20s and 30s, it was a mainstream ideology of the Nazis and the left in this country. Most Americans were horrified by the idea and its execution. The Catholic Church spoke out against it then and is still speaking out against the culture of death today.
He is saying that Planned Parenthood, not Margret Sanger, supports Obama, which it does.
I think if you go back through all of the presidential elections for the last 40 years, Planned Parenthood has always supported the Democrat and not the Republican nominee. That doesn’t necessarily imply guilt by association, does it?
Guilt by association or “you are known by the company you keep.” The relationship between Planned Parenthood and the Democratic party is an instance of like minds and not a relationship I would seek for myself.
Ok, so let’s say the NRA suddenly decides to support a Democrat without the nominee soliciting for that support, does that mean the nominee is still guilty by association? The bottom line is, I don’t think there is any question that Obama supports abortion, and that aligns with what Planned Parenthood’s agenda is. But if hypothetically Obama was against Abortion, and Planned Parenthood still supported him, would that make him guilty?
Guilt by association is always just a last ditch effort for people that have nothing left. Since Obama was a black man, and the Republicans had a white guy running… you KNOW the KKK endorsed McCain, now… does that mean that McCain’s a racist? Nope, but by Jim’s logic, it does.
Jim, you know that homeless guy you passed on the street today! He asked you for change! You know homeless people! You’re no better than a hobo!
I fed a homeless guy the other day.
I don’t like being hugged by homeless guys.
I say this to say that despite our differences I think I would brag about being hugged by Obama. Therefore he isn’t a hobo.
If Obama tried to hug me or grope me, I’d knee him in the nuts…..
What’s wrong with hugs?!?!
Nothing wrong with a good man hug IMHO.
Hugs, not drugs.
But hugs don’t let you hear the tasty colours!
I enjoy hugs on ecstasy.
Yeah. ‘Cuz kneeing the President in the nuts is a great idea. Retard.
Does passing someone on the street even count on your planet as an association?
Well considering that homeless thought enough of you to ask you for some support, the same way Planned Parenthood thinks enough of Obama to endorse him, then yes…
And by the way.. I live on Earth, you should come visit us sometime. Maybe you’d make friends here then.
I doubt that Max. I doubt that.
I think the last thing a Democrat would want to talk about is the KKK’s preferences for political parties.
Sure, the KKK supports a party that nominates women and blacks for the presidency… You need to get out more…
It’s interesting how the ideologies of the parties have changed. Back in the day, the KKK did endorse the Democrat party. Of course, that was a long time ago, and now they won’t have anything to do with Dems.
Do they support a party now? I honestly don’t know if they’ve thrown their lot in with the Republicans, or if they’re more Libertarians than anything.
“Now if I join your party, can we hate Mexican’s?”
“Well technically, yes, but……”
“Okay, well what about blacks?”
“Well you don’t really need a political party for that…..”
“SWEET!!!1! *runs out the door* Alright fellas we found our new home!!11!!”
I think the KKK is more or less gone nowadays…
No man they still have ralleys. It’s scary.
Really? Whatever, I suppose they have a right to peaceably assemble…not that I agree with anything they say.
Some more or less prominent KKK members, and associated groups as well, sponsor a number of local politicians.
I leave it as an exercise for the student to discover which party they belong to.
KKK rallies are the ultimate real life trolls. Ignore them, and they go away. I’m serious. I’ve heard of cities where nobody protested them. Nobody came out to see them. And they left. They WANT people to protest them. They’re attention whores.
Honestly, any party the KKK says they endorse is kinda irrelevant, since they’re a bunch of fvcking whackjobs anyway. If the KKK says it’s part of the green party, I don’t think ill of the green party, I just hate the KKK more for giving some unsuspecting party leader the kiss of death by endorsing them. The KKK is kind of isolated in their craziness, so I don’t really care if they delude themselves into thinking they have any place in modern politics.
I wanna see a battle royale between the Westboro Baptist Church, and the KKK…. all the hate and rage could start a zombie apocalypse!
I don’t know, something about mixing zombies and crazy racists seems dangerous…wait, nvm, there already zombies. GIT YER SHOTGUNS, YA’LL, IT’S ZOMBIE SEASON!!!
*cocks shotgun* You fukced.. With the wrong guy..
Then they realized, they fukced with the wrong Mexican…
(dang, I need to stop referencing Quentin Tarantino movies)
Do a pull on Robert Byrd and KKK
“Work the Google on the internet machine!”
You made my lol!
Sorry, pretty lame hypothetical.
Matches your arguments, so it’s fair play.
We were talking about guilt by association, right? You may consider it lame, but you still didn’t answer the question.
He doesn’t have to Eds. He is too awes… Wait a minute that’s my argument.
Answer the question Jim.
YOU CAN’T PUSH HER ANY FASTER JIM!!!!!11!!!
Startrek reference WIN! Also William Shattner is awesome.
Wait, ALL Floydists are teh awesomez, yes? Jim is not a Floydist, at least not by my records.
Yeah I know, this acid has me really confused. I’m sorry. *hangs head in shame*
We appealed to Roger Waters. He said “fvck him.”
As well he should have. Can you imagine if Roger had welcomed him with open arms? It would be chaos!
Actually, charro, I believe that’s my argument. Your lease is up, and I want it back.
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*assumes control of the property by means of eminent domain.*
-
Randman, please get off the lawn..
No, no, no, you can keep your guilt by association. I’m just to awesome to let charro keep my awesome argument.
But I assploded your elbow.
nuh-UH!!1!1!
Well screw you then! I don’t like you anymore!!
Oh yeah, well, that’s fine, cuz, um, I, umm…
NUH-UUHHH!!!!
YUH HUHH!!!
No, whenever someone has to go such a long way to come up with an artificial construct proving their case, the effort itself proves the rule. The NRA isn’t going to support a candidate who doesnt want their support and Planned Parenthood doesn’t support anti-abortion candidates. Are there cases where someone might get the support of an organization they dont agree with? Maybe, but thats not the norm is it? What really is the point? To show that there are exceptions? I know that, I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know it too.
You’re idea of “guilt by association” is all screwed up. People will always look out for themselves, politicians always want support. Politicians will generally market themselves to what they perceive to be the largest group, look how the republican party acted when they discovered the “religious right” (I know I bring this up a lot, sorry, but it really exemplifies all the things wrong in politics!). The “religious right” advocates the jailing of homosexuals, so by your logic the republican party also supports that. They don’t. Guilt by association is an old political tactic that can be traced back centuries, used to jail or otherwise inconvenience perceived “threats” to the current regime.
So by your logic then it doesnt matter who you hang out with? I think your examples of the religious right are a little skewed. Yes there are some nuts out there but you seem to want to throw everyone who believes in God into the religious right catagory that you so ferverently object to. Last I heard there were a couple of good things the religious did for the poor.
Political parties want all the support they can get. For clarity, a political party acts like a person who wanders around crowded places and asks everyone they meet to be their friend. They don’t care why they support them, they just know they can get their support. Guilt by association would only be a valid argument in this case if Obama had personally asked for the support of Planned Parenthood himself. He didn’t do that, they supported the Democrats on their own without coaxing. As for the “religious right”, you’ll notice I always put that in quotes. This is because they are hardly religious and aren’t even remotely conservative. They’re self-important fascists and nothing more. When I refer to the religious right, I’m actually specifically excluding religious people and real conservatives. Sorry for the confusion, I don’t really bash anyone because of their religion.
“This is because they are hardly religious and aren’t even remotely conservative”
I would say the majority of the people that are typically grouped in the “religious right” catagory are neither fascists and are conservative.
* yes using the word neither in my response did not make sense. bad english bad english.
“No, whenever someone has to go such a long way to come up with an artificial construct proving their case, the effort itself proves the rule.”
I’ve never taken logic, but I’m pretty sure that’s not in there. In fact, that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
I think he had supporting logic, but i don’t see a conclusion.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS A HUGE OBAMA SUPPORTER!!
LEARN TO READ!
Margaret Sanger was a devout RACIST and her idea was to ELIMINATE people like….OBAMA!
ANYONE who would suggest FORCED abortions for whatever reason they dream up has no business in the government of ANY civilized country, do you get it now?
* and Obama is A huge planned Parenthood supporter, EVEN THOUGH, it’s founder would have liked to see him aborted at the very least and I’m sure, deep down, killed.
Just out of curiosity, what kind of drugs are you on? They produce FANTASTIC results.
*puts down PCP* I want some too, this crap is doing nothing for me.
I took his drugs once. I ended up naked on top of a bell tower with a water gun screaming “pew pew pew!”
More pew pew less Q Q.
LOL!
Dude, you’re making us look bad.
ALLCAPS = fail
But he’s more or less right, racists shouldn’t be in government.
[inflamatory remark/]
The only known member of the KKK to be elected to congress was a democrat.
[/inflamatory remark]
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. ”
— Sounds just like Communist China…
China doesn’t have compulsory abortion laws, they tax families with more than one child.
As it should be..
It really isn’t a bad system, but it allows the rich to propagate unopposed and the cultural bias to have a son is a big problem. I feel it could work in America with some tweaking.
Hang on, let me find the proper response to that…
FASCIST!!!!!1111111111!!!!!!!
How about no? Is no good for you? I don’t like that idea at all.
Bad idea that. Who asked you anyway?
I’m not asking you to support me, I’m just stating my views on the subject. I am already well aware that my views on this topic are rather unpopular, but additional input is always appreciated.
I try to keep my more extreme views to myself. Less horrified looks and pointing that way, I’ve found.
Whoa, dude. Maybe you need the valium.
I get angry when exposed to too much stupid, sorry…
I’m a little unstable, so when I see ignorance of that magnitude I tend to lose control and go on a rant…I suppose it’s better than becoming violent… Hmmmm, maybe I need a stress ball….
Perhaps one of these:
{http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/415dZo%2BetyL._SL500_AA280_.jpg}
LMAO!! Winnnnnnnnn!!!
I’m so hooked on that show
Oh it’s ok. I get the same way. That’s why I gave up arguing on the site for the time being and interject non sequiturs and song lyrics.
You’re wrong about your behavior and I’m too awesome to be refuted.
HIDE THE CUCUMBER!!
At the beginning, I meant “he” as get a clue, since his post was pretty pointless.
You know what’s pointless? YOUR FACE! OoOooOOoo!
And by that I mean, you have lovely round features….
Dang it, now i feel bad for posting my way more awesomer comeback burn.
You know what’s your face? YOUR MOM!!
Oh yeah, that just happened.
Ooooh, sick burn dude.
Aww, yeah. It’s on like donkey kong, beeyotchiz!!
Donkey Kong? I love Donkey Kong!
*giggle*
@ randman83
I agree with you on a lot of what you said, but the sad truth is that, especially in America, our population growth is such that we won’t be able to sustain ourselves within the next 100 years or so. A lot of the growth is from immigration, is that the immigrants’ fault? No, it’s the fault of the countries they are fleeing, countries that are so divided and chaotic nothing gets done and they themselves face overpopulation with a failing economy. They truth is that overpopulation is a global problem that must be dealt with, but many people are divided on this topic. What we need to do is conduct more research into population control and find a fair, feasible way to implement it. I’m not saying compulsory abortion is the only way, I personally feel it would only be acceptable as an emergency solution. By the same token, I don’t think it should be outlawed, but you have right to your opinion as I do. The big problem is that so many people out there just don’t acknowledge the population crisis our planet is facing, some even think our population needs to get even bigger. But the reality is that population growth is a problem that will very likely end civilized society within the next 300 years if nothing is done to handle it.
I don’t know about ending civilized society, but it will definitely end the civilized part (if it hasn’t already). What is likely to happen, just because man, unfortunately, no matter how hard we try, cannot overcome nature, is probably going to suffer the same fate as all other species until a meteor destroys us; we’ll fluctuate and adapt. If a deer population is increasing without being checked by a declining wolf population, the deer eat all the available food and start to die out from starvation. These weakened deer are hunted to the brink of annihilation, but then the wolves suffer the same fate; there’s not enough deer to go around, so they starve and die. The deer population slowly comes back, and the cycle repeats. Thus is the nature of…nature…
We will follow the same path, but our cycle just takes a longer time. We will consume resources, run out, move to another that is either renewable but cannot be made available quick enough to sustain a population (though nuclear fusion technology might just be our saving grace), or move to a source that is non renewable and do the same thing over again. Either way, we will decline. There are thousands of factors, maybe millions, that do this on a scale large enough to affect the human race, but it is inevitable all the same. We will adapt to dwindling numbers in whatever way becomes necessary, reproduce, populate and try again. It’s all rather poetic, actually.
Hmm, this became way cooler than I wanted it to sound. Quick, charro, do something random to ruin moment!!
*looks up from chicken fukcing* Whut?
Well done!
*looks up from chicken fukcing* Oh.. you’re still here *grins sheepishly*
Keep fvcking that chicken!!
Hey, that chicken was asking for it by dressing so fowl.
*looks up from sheep fu(king and grins chickenishly*
Holy hell, someone get the brain bleach, stat!
OH NOEZ, I’M OUT OF BRAIN BLEACH!!
Additionally:
It will take a hundred years waiting for the summer
And no one just yet knows if we’ll hear the whales again
Nuclear winter covers the world for almost twenty years
All what we own are dreams and hope for the next generation
That’s oddly relevant and poignant…
Thanks. One of my favourite songs.
Also, you raised an interesting point with immigration. As it is, the more developed countries with high living standards are facing population decline of actual citizens, because there are few people having babies, and the growing senior population is being supported by the shrinking younger population. This is the main reason social security is such a travesty. Now, while we are not having babies, under-developed countries are having babies like mad, and are facing over population in their own countries. So the key to figuring out this predicament is this; if underdeveloped countries are having babies at a rate that increases their population and increases the country’s population that they emigrate to at a rate high enough to compensate for that country’s lack of babies, then we will face a serious population problem. If that birth rate is not high enough to increase the population of 2 countries, then the overcrowding problem will be a lot further off. A great book that goes into this a little better is I think “America Alone,” by Mark Styn. A decent enough book, but the parts about demographics and population statistics was fascinating. If you’re interested, check it out.
Thanks for the suggestion, I’ll try to find that. To be honest, I never realized I had such an interest in anthropology until I got into college, and I’m somewhat under-informed on the subject as a result.
I have very little that resembles a life outside of the random things that interest me, so I spend a great deal of time just reading and googling things in case they come up in some discussion. Usually it doesn’t, but every now and then, it comes up and I’m happy to have a cite-able source. Then again, I suppose this increasing knowledge of random crap is inversely proportional to my decreasing existence of a social life…
Maybe I should read up on that…
Meh, who needs a social life. I have friends, but I hardly see them anymore. Then again, I’m a sociopath…
@no1askedme
No he’s right, Obama is a racist; he called Kanye West a jackass. West is black. Hence Obama says: black = jackass, so he’s a jackassist racist.
Obama hates himself! Well, half of himself anyway. Quite the inner turmoil there.
That would make a good book!
“Besides, a fetus doesn’t even qualify as living by the definition of “life” (IE, it cannot survive independently for any period of time).”
*winces*
Poor fetus’ are all doomed to die!
Wait a moment…*waits a moment*…if they can die, that means that they lived before, no?
Let’s not go there, shall we? Kthxbai.
Where the hell is Kthxbai?
Hmm, Rando, I’m puzzled, you tell me not to go there, and yet, I just read you were against abortion or at least you consider it a necessary evil, and yet you say a fetus doesn’t qualify as living and tell me not to point out that they might be living after all? I really don’t understand you there.
I would advise you leave it alone with Rando. Look! A shiny object! *distracts Keith*
AAAAaaaaarrrhrh, my precioussssss!
I think he’s quoting me from an earlier post way up there. My point is that part of the scientific definition of “living” is that the organism must be able to survive without another organism. Although this definition would seem to exclude parasites, a flea needs a host to feed on to continue to survive, but it can survive off of a host for a time. In the case of an underdeveloped fetus (at least at the point of development at which abortions are legal), as soon as it is detached from the uterine wall it is “dead” in the sense that all its cellular functions cease. It cannot survive without being physically attached to the mother. It is as “alive” at this point in development as a severed finger. Sorry if I caused any confusion.
I don’t think you caused any confusion at all. We all need a “host” to feed off. For humans, it’s the planet and her resources. A flea, like any other organism, needs a food source. As you pointed out, a flea would perish without a host, as would we.
I stood up and applauded. Whoo! I feel better now. Thanks for that rant.
Where did you get that definition of life? srsly? There are many creatures that cannot survive without a host organism.
Sorry for the confusion, I’ve clarified above.
Technically Ghandi was around quite a while before Hitler started his shennanigans, but nonetheless, Ghandi was pretty cool.
*offers pistol to pistol whip Jeremy for saying “shenanigans”*
Hey froo… what’s that restaurant you like?
…with all that crap on the walls!
It’s Afganistanimation!!
And that butler who tries to keep him out of trouble… but… no… he never does…
I’d like a litre of cola…
Oh hell… I’ll bite the damn soap!
Alright moew, everyone, lets keep it under control.
um, that should say meow…
YOU BOYS LIKE MEXICO?!?!?!?!
These snozzberries taste like snozzberries.
Too bad India’s democracy is about as effective as a wet cigar.
Yeah, but they sure have become the blackhole of outsourcing..
I called tech support last night to make them refund money they ripped off my mom for and got someone in India.
It was probably the most notorious of outsourcing companies in India, Satyam.
Possibly. I did however get her money back. I’m a good mer-daughter.
Did you threaten them with nuclear devastation? Because honestly, that’s the only way I can see you getting your money back.
Silly, I can’t threaten nuclear devastation while talking on a cell phone!! Those things are monitored by the NSA for moo’s sake!
*smacks forehead*
Of course!
Kevin Mitnick can launch
nuclear missiles by
whistling into phones.
…
My phone has a camera on it.
no way!
Was it made in Canada?
Those soldiers were Canadian!!11!
Wrong thread. Sorry.
You say that like having differing sexual orientations is a bad thing.
Sure, unless you’re a sexually confused, homophobic, hateful, spiteful, and all around worthless kinda person…. there’s no reason to think finding something different from the norm attractive is a bad thing.
i am all of those things you posted, though
Well good for you. Here, catch! *pulls pin and gently tosses grenade at billy*
How’d you get my grenades???? The Chief is gonna be pissed!
So you have differing sexual orientations then?
yes!
dey see me trollin dey hatin
Aww Max… that last troll was too easy.
I wanna see you work for it!
Let’s find another right-winger pretending to be a ‘I r uh Libersoshalist’ type and let’s peel the skin off…
At least funny troll is funny!
Trolling, UR DOIN IT RITE!
Max, not to hijack the thread *hijacks the thread*, but I was having this conversation with my extremely neo-con mother a few years ago when she finally (after three years) found out I had a belly ring.
She was all freaked out, wanted to know why I got it, how wrong it was…..the usual guilt trip. I told her I got it for me, no one else, and that since I’m not in the habit of whipping out my stomach to show off my belly ring, it’s not like a bunch of people knew I had one.
Here was my point that actually left her without an argument:
“If having facial piercings was normal for our culture, would you have a problem with me getting facial piercings? If you grew up with a ring in your nose because your mom put it there for whatever reason, would you then get mad at me for getting one?”
Which leads me to my point: Considering that alternative lifestyles and sexual orientations are becoming more mainstream, is it really fair to call them “different from the norm”? Aren’t they becoming the norm? Even in a small way?
Hahahaha one of mine is an interior designer and assistant manager at a furniture store. I love him.
@Max. I assume then that you never accuse anyone of ‘throwing like a girl’? Good for you!
The concept of “normal” is a delusion. Seriously, has anyone here ever met a completely “normal” person? The concept of “normality” only exists as a tool of social pressure.
I love Tool!
She hijacked the thread!! Blow it out of the sky!!!
I had a really funny mental image of Gandhi rolled up in a big sheet of paper, and somebody trying to light him on fire, but couldn’t cause he was bald.
hahaha
Is that weird?
Funny…. I never figured you for a Brit
I’m not. I’m just a fan of puns.
You and pitty must get along famously.
I’m horrible at those runs and it makes me sad.
Me too. Sometimes I get a good one in and it’s like “Oh, SNAP!”, but she’s MUCH better.
Well I don’t know about Gandhi lighting up but *my* ears are burning …
)
And guys, there’s no good/bad in a punrun – they *should* be awful! (but thanks
You’re too kind, and modest.
I love puns, grew up punning, but pittypat… A whole different league!
Did anyone ELSE get a mental picture of Ghandi as a rollie? =/
Note to self… bake more brownies…
I just imagined him as a bundle of sticks.
Thankfully, the ‘next’ generation has decided for us. Voluntarily choosing NOT to have children means we’ll have a much more balanced population (hopefully) in about 30 years.
Sadly, the downside is… less stupid people to lol at… /sigh
Wait, who isn’t having kids.?
Me, that’s for DAMN sure.
Me, neither.
I don’t see much of a point to spawning offspring…
I love the Offspring!
Show me how to lie
You’re getting better all the time
And turning all against one
Is an art that’s hard to teach
Another clever word
Sets off an unsuspecting herd
And as you step back in the line
A mob jumps to their feet.
Kids are fun. Once they reach 7 or 8 you can make them do all the cleaning for you.
This is what makes me right all the time. [LINK]
A panda just killed a knight with its rainbow beam. Your argument is invalid.
Ghandi cursed alot in Sexy Beast.^^
*I* suggest you Google Myspace Twitter until I Yahoo all over your Facebook.
These nesting fails are weird.
I agree totally I remember when the Libtards were calling Bush a Nazi! Ha Ha
That has nothing to do with my statement at all.
Just out of curiosity, is anyone else getting numbers next to the replies? It’s like trying to read them on my Blackberry so by the time you get further down in a thread, it’s one letter per line.
Sources on Margaret Sanger:
Margaret Sanger, an autobiography.
The Sex side of life: Mary Ware Dennett’s pioneering battle for birth control and sex education. By Constance M Chen
Passionate Crusader: the life of Marie Stopes. By Ruth Hall. (Stopes was a sexuality educator in England, at the time of Sanger).
I have more sources, but they are in my office at work.
If thats for me, and I’m not certain it is, it misses the point. I’m aware of eugenics, but you asserted that it was widely supported. You actually went farther, but lets assume even widely. I’ve never seen anything that even remotely indicates that more than a minority ever supported it. Even the way these “pioneers” are portrayed in history as battling and struggling suggests they were in the minority. You think Sanger’s autobiography is going to say everyone supported her beliefs? It says just the opposite.
… What’s your point?
@ Jim.
More sources on eugenics: “Inheriting shame: the story of eugenics and racism in America”, Steven Selden. –which does indeed talk about the many prominent Americans who openly supported eugenics, including Theodore Roosevelt–another Republican.
Also “The politics of heredity. essays on eugenics, biomedicine, and the nature-nurture debate”. Diane Paul.
You really need to read Seldon.
Sanger herself is a good example of the left’s fascination with Eugenics. Sanger writes in her autobiography that her living room was a gathering place for liberals, anarchists, and Socialists. Who knows, maybe a Republican was able to slip in there, but she was comfortable on the left. She was a member of the Woman’s committee of the New York Socialist party and spoke at a KKK rally in New Jersey. She began her “Negro Project” in 1939 which she described as a project to exterminate the Negro population. Why celebrate her or her loathsome legacy, Planned Parenthood? If there is inherited shame, it would be with those who supported eugenics then and promote abortion now. Those who want to export it to Mexico and Africa. That would not be me.
Not only is the reply train messed up, but so is the tracking for adding a comment below! PK, you have gremlins!!!
I’m a mogwai-mermaid.
Dude, that means you must be popping off new mogwai-mermaids constantly according to the rules! Is it after midnight? *takes away charro’s midnight snack*
Noooo not my brownies!!
*sneaks charro some under the door*
There ya go, you will not be left snack-less.
*makes googlie eyes* Awww I heart you Eds.
Of course you do.. I may be old, but I’m not always a cranky bastard.
*walks in* Ed… what the hell happened to my brownies?! I put a whole damn half oun-
*looks at Charro* SONOFA-!
Sorry, Floydists have to stick together..
*snerk*
Ah well, I’ll have to just go down to my Greenhouse of Doom next to the Kitchen of Desolation to whip another batch….
Really?!?! Need any help?
Yeah help me find those 30 illega- Ahem… those 30 or so perfectly legal American citizens that work my gardens… Tell them it’s harvest time!
*wipes brownie from face* Hi Max! *waves*
*hands Charro some Mtn Dew and some Funyuns*
Here… you’re gonna need those in about 10 to 15 minutes…
Dude, I didn’t eat the brownies and I need those. Hand ‘em over.
Nooo! Not my funjuns! You be stealing all my food Rando!!
Don’t like Gandhi much. I prefer more militaristic idols. Like Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Paul Atreides, Kil’jaeden, The God-Emperor of Mankind, and Evil Gandhi in Civ IV Who is Actually a Warmongering Maniac.
I believe that there is indeed a time and place for both peaceful resistance and violent resistance. Neither is inherently wrong or right, although ideally it would be best to try to minimize the suffering of innocent bystanders.
P.S. If this doesn’t post correctly, it is a response to maddok’s comment.
I must inform you it twas but a merry jest. I began by listing three real warlords followed by non-existent ones. Paul Atreides is the wossname from Dune who unifies mankind, Kil’jaeden leads the Burning Legion in WoW, or at least part of it, The God-Emperor of Mankind is the God-Emperor of Mankind from Warhammer 40K, and Evil Gandhi in Civ IV Who is Actually a Warmongering Maniac is from Civ IV.
I don’t like war, either, but I realize it’s a necessary evil and we should always be prepared to defend ourselves.
I don’t like war, either, but it’s way more fun in video games!
Especially if you grab snips and shotty.
Shotty=awesome killtaculars
Eh, I prefer to invest all my money in research then send in Tanks while the other nations are still figuring out how Gunpowder works.
I’m aware of this, but just for the irony, I decided to take your silly comment and respond to it seriously.
Kil’jaeden leads the Burning legion in the sense that the VP leads the US in the death of the President…. if the president could somehow separate his spirit from his body and get it tossed and sealed somewhere in the twisting nether where it can fester and grow back to it’s real strength…
Oh come on, that’s lame. If it takes a loooooooong sentence to explain, it’s lame.
You must have ADD.
I was gonna reply, but I was distracted by som
Hey let’s go ride our bikes!
Yaaaay Hank!
The Planet is running a fever. It has a bad case of People, but soon the disease will run its course.
The Planet will be here long after the People have depleted all the People-consumable resources (think: Soylent…) and passed on into the fogs of non-history (without people to remember, there won’t be any history)
*pours chlorine on firefly’s head*
There, that should start the process of cleaning out the gene pool.
Godwin’s law fail.
Has anybody mentioned yet that Ghandi was Canadian?
And he drank his own piss.
Is he Canadian?
Does the pope sh*t in the woods?
Do bears live in Rome?
Exactly. Glad SOMEONE talks sense around here.
india isnt a very democratic country….
Edward Norton fought Gandhi!
The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club.
Thanks to his rearing under the Indian caste system, Ghandi was a massive racist.
Under India’s caste system, the darker you are the lower your caste with black people being barely human and not deserving of any respect. Ghandi believed in the caste system and his actions and words show him to be a racist.
Ghandi vs. actual Nazis would have been interesting…
SHORT, but interesting.
Short, horrifying, and painful to think about for generations, but interesting.
*snerk* Ghandi as a phone bank operator taking a service call from a Nazi about a tank gives me the giggles…..
Hey Rando, I have a gold-plated internets here for you!
Well, it’s kinda stupid calling your opponents Nazis while 3 or less years ago there WERE actual nazis.
Back in 1948, Nazi didn’t mean the same thing as evil person. And after 1948, Gandhi was dead.
So this is quite a history fail.
Hmmm, this does fit…
How now brown wang
Here’s a butler
You Rang
No You
No You
Your Mom
Your Dad
Well, your goat’s wang in Trinidad
Oh no you didn’t
Yes I did
Katydid
Katy Couric
Cure Cancer
The tears of innocent children plus Chuck Norris tears plus a saucy beverage
Lolwut?
You heard me
No, speak into the microphone as I am getting interference from Wangnesia
Amnesia?
No your other right
That’s what she said
*shot*
Stop that, silly.
Marble-heavy, a bag full of Wang
Ghastly statue with one gray toe …
In the German tongue, in the Polish town
Scraped flat by the roller
Of wangs, wangs, wangs.
For when your train of thought derails and everything goes to hell, a Wangineer is what you need, riding hard a sweaty steed. And in those times of dire urgency, just hope it doesn’t end in pregnancy, for then you will wish you had chosen celibacy.
Yet when the cold wind nightly blows and hopefully down she goes, make sure to keep your mind off Ice Fishing.
The groan of floats in their inky sleep
The pounding axe tips just once, then through
A sliver of scale and then gone.
I’m soo turned on right now.
You just have a thing for sexing up dragons.
How did you know?!
Don’t tell Tyler that.
*mmmpfh* Tell him what?
Nothing dear, keep at it. >_>
Great thread.
DWN, please come around more often. Not just for the Wangifications, but also for the shenanigans *dodges a pistol whip from froo* that we used to orchestrate! Think of the children DWN…. THE CHILDREN!
>_>
School girl outfits?