RDF:![[Valid RSS]](http://validator.w3.org/feed/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Great Moments in Stupid Arguments
Posted by: Emperor Misha I in Dhimmitude, Hypocrites, Idiotarians9:25 AM
Some joker in Lewiston, Maine, decided to make fun of mohamhead by putting up a poster.
Would somebody tell us when the First Amendment was declared null and void? The usual suspects are howling about hate and racism, claiming that this is an insult of and offense to “all religions” and that it must be stopped, right now, lest we end up in dire straits indeed.
What? They’re going to start making fun of Christians next? Oh the horror of it, because surely that has never happened before.
So where were all of those bold, brave, principled Warriors of Good Taste and Religious Tolerance then? Where are the “hate crime” investigations for those? Don’t tell us, gasp, that there’s yet another case of double standards going on here?
Making fun of Jesus, the Virgin Mary and the Last Supper is perfectly OK, but Heaven forbid that anybody should poke fun at mohammed, because THAT is a true sign that the death camps can’t be very far away?
Kiss our Imperial Arse.
And no, we’re NOT saying that the anti-Christian examples that we mentioned above should be considered crimes or that the parties responsible should be prosecuted. Yes, they’re offensive to us. Quite a bit, actually. No, we don’t particularly like it when people ridicule and denigrate our faith but, and this is a HUGE but, the ones who did so had a perfectly good right to do so. We may consider them rude arseholes for exercising their right to make fun of our faith, but that doesn’t change the fact that they DO have such a right. That’s right: The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee your right to only say what other people agree that you should be allowed to say. Freedom of Speech isn’t about allowing speech that everybody already agrees with. Any idiot can be tolerant of something that he agrees with, the true test of Freedom of Speech is whether or not you’re prepared to allow speech that you find disgusting, offensive or just plain dumb.
We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: THERE ARE NO DEGREES OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
Either you have it, or you don’t have it. Obviously, some totalitarian fuckwits in this country would rather that we didn’t.
Go right ahead, morons, try to silence me. I laid down an Oath to the Constitution, and nothing and nobody, least of all a bunch of jackbooted swine, are going to make me renege on that oath. And if you try, I’ll have no choice but to explain the meaning of “against all enemies, foreign AND domestic” to you.
You won’t like my explanation very much. It’s loud and messy. And quite painful too. If I miss.
Entries (RSS)
Went over and read the site. Hmm, can you say “Patty Hearst syndrome” about this stupid town? Idiots do not realise that pisslam would do one thing to curb any insult, and that is to kill the insulter. How many Jews, Christians, whatevers, do they allow peaceful co-existence with and provide defense for? What’s that? Convert, pay tribute, or die at the sword?
January 7th, 2008 at 9:56 AMUsing
There seems to be an all-out attack on your Constitution, oh Emperor lately. Freedom of Speech, The Right to own and bears Arms being the main targets…
Double-standard? Most certainly. Even this atheist doesn’t like the ridiculing or debasing of anyone’s faith, but as you mentionned, to make it a “hate crime” is just plain stooopid”. But we musn’t offend the mooslimes now, must we!?! Because lets face it, and since mooslimes are offended by everything, this “investigation” is for their only benefit.
I smell the establishment of dominance… Sharia law and all its horrors is just on the next train unless someone has the intestinal fortitude to STAND and FIGHT this nonsense. I am not an American citizen, and my free-speech here in Canada is monitored as to what and how I can say anything regarding religion (read pigslam) because doing so instantly becomes “hate mongering” and I become a chew toy for our court system. I will, however, cheer you on whenever your citizens fight for their RIGHTS, especially the Freedom of Speech.
History has showed us again and again that the Freedom of Speech is the first to be removed. ALL other rights soon follow. The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, (insert favourite revolution here) all extinguished the freedom of speech as soon as they took power. Hence the concerns whenever anybody, under one guise or another, attacks it.
I’ll also take this opportunity to tell CAIR and our own Canadian Islamic Council to go and fuck themselves (or better yet, fellate a pig, since you’re related). Whenever you attack Freedom of Speech in any shape or form, you are proving to be the petty tyrants that you always were. There are MANY of us, free citizens everywhere (don’t you just hate us, you fuckheads) who will stand and resist with all our might, politicians be damned. Your day is fast approaching when you will do that one more attack, you will take that extra step, and then watch out. Along with the Emperor you’ll find ME, cold as steel and without remorse in removing your gangrenous carcasses off the face of this planet. Why don’t you TRY to come and shut me up… You’ll have more to worry about than just my words assholes.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:14 AMUsing
well God forbid that we insult the beheading..daughter killing..goat fellating…wife abusing…explosive wearing…mutilating followers of the religion of death. We don’t want to make them angry now, do we……
I say make ‘em angry, because they tend to get angry in large noisy
swarmser target masses……catch my drift? :em96:angry muslim swarm vs. one A10 or Spooky……..film at eleven
January 7th, 2008 at 10:36 AMUsing
jaybear
Gimme two or three hours to familiarize myself with the A-10 (weapons, nav and comm systems, familiarization flight) and I’ll guarantee you a box office winner…
Spooky can do the mop up… (if there’s anything to mop up after I’m done hehehehe)
January 7th, 2008 at 10:47 AMUsing
The Somali Community in Lewiston is upset! :em95: Everyone hang their heads in shame! Then go back to Somalia you sensitive souls, where, I am sure, bluebirds sing, gentle fragrant breezes waft through the Gingko trees (or whatever can survive there), and children laugh and sing all day.
:em12: :em98: THE SOMALI COMMUNITY??? Next they’ll demand their own state and probably get it.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:49 AMUsing
And meanwhile, over in good, old Blighty, the muzzies can just call the cops and get an English blogger arrested on sight for speaking the truth about pisslam..
January 7th, 2008 at 11:03 AMUsing
How many of us have said it before, as much as we may disagree with some of the crap that is allowed in print and or other forms of media (including those who speak out in the streets) as long as it is not advocating the take over of the country (as opposed to the *re-set option* as spelled out by our forefathers). Then they have a right to say it ( I may also have the right to punch em in the nose…but that’s another story). When the government (or any institution) is allowed to act on an individuals thoughts vice their actions … we are in for some deep do-do.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:40 AMUsing
Did anyone notice the picture in the post?!? Another shingin’ example of the umpteen layers of rigious fact checking by some journalist…no?!
That dog at best is a mutt, Rotties do not have white blazes on thier chest, nor do they have white on thier muzzles.
uNhinGeD OtuRaGe in 4,3,2,1….
As a member of this impire I am OFFENDED that our noble breed is so demeaned..I DEMAND a full investigation, I am OUTRAGED AND DISGUSTED…I Want this reporters HEAD ON A PIKE!! ….*gasp* Death to the journalist! I demand BLOOD….*GASP*
:em41:
January 7th, 2008 at 11:44 AMUsing
Errrr…got too overly outraged….I think I meant to write EMPIRE…*tap tap… is thing on?..pppsst…*CLEAN up on post 8!!?
January 7th, 2008 at 11:50 AMUsing
LC CiSSnarl
I understand pigslamic paradises like Iran and Sudan have such items in quantity… Very useful to propagate the fucking pedophilic, pus-filled obscenity called pigslam…
I’ll order some for you! Euuh, new or used..?
January 7th, 2008 at 12:31 PMUsing
the fake phone number has been traced. arrests expected. :em95:
January 7th, 2008 at 12:34 PMUsing
Used please, I wouldn’t want to waste a perfectly good tree on a journaljizzer, Mother Gaia and all that you know? :em02:
(Snarl Looks at his previous post #9..Man… I either need to slow down typing or I need those “edit post” thingys back…..”Shinging” ):em98:
:em01: To qutoe Larry…That’s funny there…I don’t care who you are… :em01:
January 7th, 2008 at 1:09 PMUsing
Since my old dog, “Rusty”, passed away I’ve thought about getting a new pal and naming him mohammed. But then I thought how wrong it would be to name a friend and noble creature after the pedophilic murderous prophet of the ROP.
If the Somali community is so offended they can commune their asses back to Somalia. While they’re at it, they can take the Sudanese community with them and drop them off on their fucking way. I am so sick of all the PC eunuchs walking on eggshells trying not to offend the muslims and islam I would like to rip their heads off and shit down their necks.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:27 PMUsing
While I think that the joke was very immature and silly, to call it a hate crime is dumb. I want to know how come jooos and christians can be insulted, but not muslims. I love america precisely because hate crimes are supposed to be restricted to when people actually get hurt. Insulting a religious figure on a poster and getting put in jail for it is something iran would do. While I do not like insulting religions, I do not want to go down the path that would lead to my thought being a crime. Why are the somalies so upset? From what i have read, much worse things happen in their country-why do think Hirsi Ali left it?
January 7th, 2008 at 1:57 PMUsing
It’s ironic that the same state that would prosecute someone for saying “Mohammed is not good with children” has, at the same time, statutory rape laws on the books.
And at a news conference today, store owner Hussein Ahmed meant to say “I find it contemptible that so many brutal, wanton acts of savagery and oppression have been committed in the name of my religion that now good people everywhere are compelled to question the legitimacy of Islam”, but instead, it came out “We see this as a very bad insulting situation”.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:29 PMUsing
[...] Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Great Moments in Stupid Arguments We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: THERE ARE NO DEGREES OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH! [...]
January 7th, 2008 at 3:53 PMUsing
Well if criticizing islam is now a criminal act, might as well just go ahead and blow up some mosques during services.
If I’m gonna be stuck with a rap sheet, make it a doozy.
(DISCLAIMER: The above is not a call to action in any way shape or form but it is a very real possibility when otherwise good citizens are forced into a corner due to political correctness)
January 7th, 2008 at 3:57 PMUsing
I think what alot of people forget about freedom of speech is that it protects all speech, not just non controversial speech but contorversial speech as well. Also it is sometimes forgotten while someone has the right to say anything they please, we also have the right to not listen when we hear something offensive.
Mischa I
Well it depends on the nature of the joke, I actually find some religious humor to be quite funny if it is done right. Plus I like to think the big man upstairs has a sense of humor too. So my advice to the muslims is to lighten up and take a joke will ya? People make fun of christians all the time and you don;t see me getting all uppity about it and calling it a hate crime. Plus as a mentioned earlier we are endowed by our creator with a sense of humor for two reasons. One, because in his infinite wisdom he knows that laugher is good medicine(after all god was the first physician and surgeon).Two, because he most likely has a sense of humor too. I believe that if we all took a time out from all the bickering and fighting between the religions and sat down together and told some good jokes, perhaps we could……………………………. oh hell that sounds too optimistic and probably won;t work. Oh well, I’m steal an idealist at heart.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:05 PMUsing
That poor poochie in the picture.
I hope the owner keeps his doggie out of sight. Otherwise the loving, caring Somali community of Maine will ask for the dog it be put down….or stoned to death.
On another note, every time I go to the airport in Minneapolis I wear this big gaudy gold pin that my grandma gave me:
of a PIG.
I love to see the faces of the Somali taxi drivers.
And I DARE any of them to tell me I can’t wear it.
I FUCKING DARE them.
If these uncivilized idiots want to live in our civilized country then they have to learn how to be offended. Hell, I’m offended all the time. Learn to live with it, you whiny twits.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:09 PMUsing
Have any PDF copies of the flyer so we can display it too?!
John
January 7th, 2008 at 4:20 PMUsing
I’m from Maine, born and raised here as a matter of fact. I even used to own/run a small computer shop on lower lisbon street.
I have had -extensive- dealings with the Somali population there.
They’re one of the reasons I moved. It’s not a race thing, it’s a culture thing. I’ll give a kenyan credit in a heartbeat. I’ll even give a Nigerian a break. Not a Somali.
Real life example. I had the Director ( for lewiston )of Somali Relations in Maine ( or some such touchie feely bunch ) stiff me. Thats right, the somali in charge of making sure that somalis look good, stiffed me 80 bucks on a service call.
Fuck em all.
I dont even care about the muslim angle. Fuck. Them. All.
Thrice damned mysogenistic victim game playing parasitic fuckheads.
Another example. The Somali discovered it was really, stupidly easy to get on welfare in lewiston. So they -all- got on the bandwagon. And then they called all thier relatives, and had -them- come up.
The social net in the lewiston area started to break. THe mayor, made the mistake of assuming the Somali were good people, and ran a letter in the local paper pleading for them to slow down. not stop moving here, just -slow down- long enough for them to find the money to pay for these fucks.
They crucified him in the press.
He had the hardest time explaining that he didnt hate black people to his grand daughter, who he dotes on. Pretty little thing, looks like an obsidian jewel….
The list goes on and on.
the -people- of lewiston are getting very close to the boiling point with this bullshit.
The ‘leadership’ keeps doing stupid shit. elections are gonna be interesting.
The thing that nobody seems to get is that it has nothing to do with the color of thier skin. It has -everything- to do with thier culture. Their tribal, non-assimilated, screw anyone who isnt your tribe ‘culture’.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:07 PMUsing
One person’s tolerance is another’s censorship. This is exactly why we need to educate people in schools, not indoctrination. If American students knew the constitution, there would not be a place for this kind of Stalinism.
-Jim
:em98:
January 7th, 2008 at 5:19 PMUsing
Ah s**t!!! Guess I better burn that Koran with the .45ACP bullet holes in it.
Better flush it. Opps, that’s not politically correct either.
What’s a guy to do!?!
January 7th, 2008 at 6:01 PMUsing
We are aware of that nerby.
January 7th, 2008 at 6:13 PMUsing
Southern Libertarian
January 7th, 2008 at 8:50 PMOf course The Guy Upstairs has a sense of humor. Else, whither the platypus?
Using
Holy Jeehosaphatttt ! Are you tellin’ me that it’s ok to name my dog “Phoque ewe”, eat shit, douchebagh, honkey, cracker, cocksucker…………but I can’t name him Muhahhhhhmaaaadd? Christians unite!
January 7th, 2008 at 9:00 PMUsing
True, true.
I don’t mean to give the impression that I think that ALL humor at the expense of religion is offensive, because it certainly isn’t in my opinion, but, then again, it is a very subjective thing by its very nature. I mean, I loved Life of Brian, and I consider that one a mild example. Yes, G-d must indeed have a great sense of humor, or He would’ve never put up with me for so long.
What I mean to say is that yes, I too get offended from time to time, yet I DON’T immediately run for the scimitars and pitchforks and demand somebody’s head on a platter like a certain moon rock-worshiping “faith” I could mention. I’m not saying that muslims don’t have a right to be offended or that they’re even wrong for being offended, although I do believe that they’re a tad hypersensitive (that’s a British Understatement™, by the way) about it. By all means. If it gets them all hot and bothered or if they think that it’s just about the rudest thing they ever saw, they have the same right as everybody else to get pissed off, load up on the invective, fire off a nastygram to the Editor or, as is my preferred method: return fire. With gusto. Then we can all have a nice long flamewar, everybody gets to use their favorite four letter words and utter obscenities about the other person’s heritage and, at the end of the day, nobody gets hurt. That’s fine with me. No problem.
What they (and everybody else) do NOT have the right to is to demand that people offending them be silenced, jailed or beheaded. Not in a free country anyway, and that USED to be what we lived in here. I don’t like Nazis either (there’s another British Understatement™ of even BIGGER proportions than the last one. I “don’t like” Nazis in much the same way that Cato the Elder “wasn’t terribly fond of” the Carthaginians), but I’ll be fucking triple damned if I’d stand by while some totalitarian nut decided that we ought to pass a law against them making utter morons of themselves with their disgusting rhetoric.
Once what can be said and what can’t be said is up for popular vote, then you don’t have free speech anymore.
January 7th, 2008 at 9:06 PMUsing
Damn! What a thought! Oh, and of course the disclaimer rides on my post as well.
January 7th, 2008 at 9:31 PMUsing
Name a dog or a teddy bear MoHAMed and you are charged with a hate crime. Yet this doesn’t even rate a wimper? :em98:
January 7th, 2008 at 9:56 PMUsing
The “anger” is a ruse. They use it to disarm and control the overly conscientious. Europe has already been duped into submission. We’re next.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:00 PMUsing
*reaches for the reset button*
January 7th, 2008 at 10:26 PMUsing
Deathknyte:
Why don’t you read Misha’s comment #28 and you’ll know what I was referring to when it comes to “grudges”.
You’re so offended by MY opinions that you can’t keep your balls in your pants. Pussy.
You are the biggest baby who comments on this site, because you hold grudges against people who differ from your opinions forever.
Grow up, you moron.
I’ve eaten men like you for breakfast.
Grow some balls little baby-man.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:33 PMUsing
Deathknyte:
January 7th, 2008 at 10:37 PMOh, and what I meant was “offenses” not grudges. I’m offended by things, but unlike you, I don’t have a big glaring chip on my wimpy shoulder.
The wimpy shoulder being YOURS.
You don’t frighten me, asswipe.
Using
well…. feeling a little cranky Nerby? what brought -that- on?
anyhow, looks like the media missed this one;
[Please DO NOT, under any circumstances --even if Helen Thomas is threatening to french-kiss you, post "raw" URL links in the comments. That is what that nifty "link" button is for. Highlight a word or sentence you want to turn into a link, click the "link" button, and put your URL in the dialog box. (IE7 has a yellow nag bar that wants you to temporarily allow scripts, so allow it.) BUT DON'T POST RAW URLs! -- DJ, the nagging bitchy Liberal]
January 7th, 2008 at 10:48 PMUsing
Management, clean-up on aisle 34!
January 7th, 2008 at 10:54 PMUsing
Well, LC Roguetek, if you want to know, that guy has been swiping at my comments from day one.
Since this is blog is about free speech, I thought I’d dig a few to the guy.
Am I going to be brought up on hate speech charges?
January 7th, 2008 at 10:59 PMUsing
Do Mooselimbs shop at Piggly Wiggly?
January 7th, 2008 at 11:01 PMUsing
Roguetek;
I just read the article that you linked. I thought that the pig head tossing was a work of “art. Isn’t that what Piss Christ was?
Am I wrong?
Sarcasm.
No sarcasm for DeathKnyte who truly seems to have a problem with women who have opinions that differ from his own. In the old days we called them bullies. What are they called today? Ass wipes?
Time for sleep. Good night.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:13 PMOld feud, Rogetek, one that should have died in the dust, but immature men reveal themselves repeatedly. Hope you get that and don’t follow his example.
Using
Nerbygirl,
One of the articles I read about the pig head was that the guy just meant it as a “joke.” Apparently, he’s been charged with desecrating a church (a misdemeanor), and a hate crime (insulting a religion).
January 7th, 2008 at 11:19 PMUsing
People mocked Orwell. How right he was…just a decade or so too early.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:22 PMUsing
Relax Nerb, I wanst aware of why you were fired up, so I figured I’d ask.
Personally I think the bacon-bowling was funny as hell.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:41 PMUsing
Emperor says
I fully and whole-heartedly agree. But I would even go a step further.
Free speech, Freedom of Expression and all other unalienable personal rights that can be exercised in public are like muscles. They need to be exercised to be preserved, nurtured and made stronger.
Unless people offend other people with their expressions, we slowly grow accustomed to not being offended. And loose the ability and the willingness to deal with it. That is exactly the point where we loose those most precious rights.
I have witnessed this happening here in the UK. You cannot criticize a Muslim in the UK with any reference to his culture or religion whatsoever. Even when making a ‘No Shit Sherlock’ remark about Honor Killings being caused by Muslim religion and culture. Political Correctness has made the mainstream UK so unaccustomed to this kind of expression that it is now pretty much forgiven. Just think about the UK blogger Lionheart.
We had similar problems in the Fatherland. The cartoon controversy raged more intensely than in other countries, mostly because of the large amount of Turks in our country. And very unfortunately because some parts of the Jewish community tried to jump on the bandwagon asking for similar exceptions for freedom of expression regarding their religion. Don’t get me wrong, everybody knew and said where the main pressure was coming from. And luckily, enough people voiced their concern about the attempted limitation of freedom of the press and enough newspapers printed the cartoons.
I think there is a modern society test for all religions, political persuasion etc. If it can take pointed, targeted offense by whatever legal means of expression and not try to limit said expression, it is compatible with the West’s form of society and way of life. And everybody here knows who would fail miserably. :em02:
January 8th, 2008 at 2:23 AMUsing
Gunsniper - As my Grandfather used to tell me (No kidding, bless his Sicilian soul…) “Never go to jail for ATTEMPTED murder.” And, Although an A10 is a very efficient, very effective and damned impressive piece of machinery, especially when handled by a pro, I do so prefer a .50 single shot, telescopic corrected and stabalized scope and a nice perch. A bit of cheese, some wine, and a nice sight picture from about 1500 or so. Just so they never hear the bang.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:32 AMUsing
I see a market for “Fuck Allah” t-shirts. Now that’s just artistic expression.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:05 AMUsing
First, how is it any kind of crime to post a lost pet poster, even if it’s false. It doesn’t even constitute fraud, since no undue benefit is sought. So if it’s not a crime, it can’t be enhanced as a hate crime. Mohammed is just about the most popular name world-wide at the moment and there’s certainly no law against naming your dog–real or imagined–the most popular name in the world. There are murderers, rapists, frauds, and thieves named Mohammed–in fact, the original set the pace in those criminal areas. Naming a dog Mohammed frankly lends undue virtue to the name. Roguetek, thanks for the local view–as always, local intel is far superior to MSM blather. You are absolutely right that it is not color, but culture and character that are the issues, not just in Lewiston, but everywhere a welfare community has been allowed to grow–my town, NOLA being a big, messy example. I pray that Lewiston’s CITIZENS can put this cancer to route.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:05 AMUsing
I am not offfended by your opinons, mainly because I dont care about them. You like to have mental images of who I am, yet you dont know ANYTHING about me. I laugh at you because you amuse me. Your ALWAYS raging about something or other. If your not bitching because some of the rotties have expressed an opinon that you dont agree with your making personal attacks. You remind me of someone… oh yes, Islamic Rage Boy. I suppose in your case it would be Minnesota Rage Girl.
What chip would this be?
Who knows? I think she just likes to yell.
If I have been swiping at your comments from day one, why wouldnt I remember more of them? I do remember your lecturing everyone as to how they should be behaving.
Dig away, it amuses me. Also, I dont think Misha is going to start clamping down on anyone’s speech unless it gets out of hand.
I have no problem with anyone who has a different opinion than my own, unless of course they start dictating what my opinions are.
I said that a woman who got murdered by her lover who was cheating on his wife should’t have been sleeping with the guy in the first place. Nerby took offence at that and declared me to be one of the taliban.
I know I shouldnt poke a stick at the possibly mentally deranged but sometimes I can’t resist.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:10 AMUsing
Comment by Deathknyte
true, But a Gentleman would have simply shut the fuck up by now…
January 8th, 2008 at 11:29 AMUsing
I am offended that you are offended.
I have come to the conclusion that the only reason these people advertise the fact that they are offended, is because we pay attention to them.
We give them the platform and the medium to let us know how offended they are. We react by re-offending them just like you would add more fuel to a fire.
Christians can easily be offended also with what other people consider “art” or “marriage” or some other lifestyle expression. They tend to legislate their disapprovals.
The neat thing about our Constitutional Rights as it pertains to religion and the free exercise thereof, is that we all have the right to believe or not to believe — practice or not to practice whatever religion we choose. That means that I don’t have to follow the rules of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Ramtha, or any other faith if I choose not to. I am totally “offended” if a group creates laws that tell me I have to conform to the teachings of another faith — just because they think this country was “founded” on those “values”.
There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says you are protected against being offended, and I certainly wouldn’t advocate any legislation that would codify a restriction against offending someone.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:42 AMUsing
DJ
This is one of the areas that I say D has a good point. You don’t have to look any further than the defense of marriage act. While social conservatives tend to frown on gay marriage, doesn;t give em the right to tell other people how to live thier lives. Sorry but I’m gonna have to side with DJ on this one.
DJ
Once again, I coudn’t agree more and that’s what makes us one of the greatest nations on this earth is because people are free to worship(or not) as they chose and say what they want to. That’s one of the major reasons why I get upset when one religion or another tries to push thier veiws and beliefs on others, or they get hostile just because someone makes fun of em. This goes for all religions, people are free to believe in whatever but dont push it on me.
DJ
As I said in my earlier post, freedom of speech covers all speech to include controversial speech. Sure there’s things we disagree on DJ, but I believe we have some common ground particularly on the social issues.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:14 PMUsing
Methodist Squirrels:
There were four country churches in a small Texas town.
The Presbyterian church, the Baptist church, the Methodist church, and the Catholic. Each church was overrun by squirrels.
One day, the Presbyterian church called a meeting to decide what to do about the squirrels, After much prayer and consideration they determined the squirrels were predestined to be there and they shouldn’t interfere with God’s divine will…………………..
In the Baptist Church the squirrels had taken up habitation in the baptisery. The deacons met and decided to put a cover on the baptisery and drown the squirrels in it. The squirrels escaped somehow and there were twice as many there the next week…………………………
The Catholic group got together and decided that they were not in a position to harm any God’s creation. So they humanely trapped the squirrels and set them free a few miles outside of town. Three days later, they were back……………………..
BUT— THE METHODIST CHURCH came up with the best and most effective solution. They baptised the squirrels and registered them as members of the church…… NOW they only see them on Chritmas and Easter…..
January 8th, 2008 at 12:17 PMUsing
Skye, he won’t be brought up on any charges - about a year later he ate his gun.
It’s a shame, with that perfect roll he was obviously a fine bowler.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:51 PMUsing
I agree with him almost completely too, except there is one “minor” point here. There’s a huge difference between “art” and “marriage.”
Art is, by definition, subjective and it would be utterly ridiculous to try to define it. Marriage, on the other hand, is and has been defined for thousands of years as the union between a man and a woman. Granted, in some cultures, it is defined as the union between a man and possibly several women, but you get my drift.
I don’t like it when words get re-defined, because it leads to all manner of nonsense. Look at the word “racist”, for instance. It used to mean something. It used to mean “somebody who believes that somebody is inherently superior to somebody else, simply based on their racial makeup.” Something that was, is and should be righteously fought, ridiculed and eradicated wherever found. Nowadays, however, it simply means “somebody who says something mean about anybody belonging to a group, any group.”
Example: It is quite common now to be described as a “racist” if you as much as suggest that some cultures are better than others. Say that pisslam is inherently misogynistic, primitive and violent? You’re a “racist.” What race is pisslam, pray tell? I wasn’t aware that you had to have a particular genetic makeup to be an adherent of that religion. The thing is, if you want to criticize somebody for being critical of another religion/culture/whatever, there’s already a perfectly good word for it: “Bigot.” You can call me an anti-pisslamic bigot all day long if you want, I don’t mind. But racism doesn’t enter into it. And, as a result, the very real and very serious charge of racism is almost utterly ignored by intelligent people since it has completely lost its meaning. It’s a catch phrase now, nobody gives a shit anymore, and that’s a crying shame.
Back to “gay marriages.” I don’t have a problem with the concept, except for a religious one, but that’s my personal issue and an issue for the homosexuals in a partnership to work out with G-d. I have no right, duty or obligation to get involved in it. It harms no-one, and it is, quite frankly, none of my gottdammed business. Just don’t call it “marriage”, because it isn’t. Call it “civil union”, call it “Ethel the Frog”, I don’t flipping care, just don’t come re-defining language to me, because it won’t fly.
Words mean something until we decide that they don’t mean anything at all, at which point my interest in interacting with the human race is lost, because I won’t have a fucking clue what they’re talking about anymore. I don’t need them, my existence is not validated through my acceptance of their idiocy, I’ll go on just fine without them, just don’t come fucking trying to tell me what words that already have a meaning are suddenly supposed to mean.
And if you insist, just go away. Have a nice rest of your life without me, because you’ve just ceased to exist as an intelligent being to me.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:31 PMUsing
Bingo…
And suddenly after those thousands of years we have a exteremly small minority forcing a change on the majority.
The very idea that conservatives say they have the “right” to tell anyone, gays included, how to live their lives is preposterous, it flies in the very face of what being a conservative means.
I will submit however that the “conservatives” do have a right to “PROTECT” thier institutions by clearly defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Just like Gays defend thier right to gay day and gay this and gay that…
In a utterly upside down PC addled society that right is being erased for millions for the benifit of 1 tenth of 1% of the population..it’s pure maddness.
All the while Gays perceive and in many corners have forced thier way to a “right” to attack and destroy (yes that IS what they are doing) one of the last pure bastions of conservative life…Marriage.
Conservatives arent telling them they don’t have a right to be togeher, but they ARE telling them It’s NOT thier god damned “right” to overthrow a tradition, holy or otherwise, that has stood since the dawn of recorded time.
Personally; I don’t give a rats ass if Larry and Leon want to live together until thier so fucking old they need a dildo and a tank of oxygen for each to get each other off…but keep your hands of the vows between a man and a woman …the same vows and tradition that has stood the test of years and has helped countless generations to become normal happy human beings.
January 8th, 2008 at 2:17 PMUsing
Screw the :em72: PC pukes :em38: to death up the ass sideways with a broken wine bottle!! I’m supposed to tolerate the assaults on my religion such a a crucifix in a glass of urine or a Virgin Mary icon encased in manure because :em41: “Theyyyy’re art”, and they can’t handle a damned bit of a joke, fuck ‘em!! Naming the dog mohamhock does seem like an insult to man’s best friend!
January 8th, 2008 at 2:35 PMUsing
I suppose that “Toad the Wet Sprocket” was already taken? :em99:
Words get re-defined all the time, Misha, and they gain or lose their meaning over that time. If I said we were having intercourse right now, people would start to wonder about us.
The word “marriage” has also taken on new meanings over the years. I don’t see the Church getting up in arms about people who play pinochle, or when someone describes the “marriage of sight and sound” or “song and dance”.
It is a word, that can have different meanings to different people. They could even have similar meanings, but mean completely the opposite to other people.
We spend our time arguing over semantics sometimes, using the definitions as an excuse to be against something, or to clarify something. “Amnesty” was the most recent one I heard. Bill Clinton did it to describe “sex”.
I am not going to lose any sleep over whether Adam or Steve calls their relationship a ‘marriage’ or a ‘1953 Studebaker’. It has zero effect on me at all. I don’t care who does or doesn’t sanction it. My life is no better or worse either way.
I’m kind of a live and let live person. If two (or more) people of adult age are happy living the way they are living then who the hell cares?
January 8th, 2008 at 3:14 PMUsing
And who, pray tell, said I was a gentleman?
Ask Misha. I am no gentleman.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:27 PMUsing
The Chariot Builder @ 54:
But Adam and Steve aren’t messing with the vows between a man and woman, they are only concerned with their own vows.
You can vow to do or not do anything. Do you have to be a man and woman to vow to stay together and live as one couple? Shouldn’t the government recognize these two individuals as one couple?
The reality is, most gay couples don’t care about church, your G-d, your faith at all. They are concerned about the secular aspect of marriage — that which society and the government treats them the same as they would any other couple who VOW to live together as one.
There are a lot of straight couples who don’t want anything to do with a religious marriage. They aren’t religious, but are given the benefits of marriage anyways.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:27 PMUsing
Mischa I
Now that illustrates the lack of understanding by many people on the difference between racism and prejudice. You are correct that the latter should not fall into the catagory of racism and you will hear no argument from me on that.
Mischa I
No sir, that would be prejudice. I’m not saying that you don’t have the right to your opinions, I simply disagree with your assessment and that is also my right. I may disagree with what you say or believe but I shall defend to the death sir your right to have those beliefs and to say whatever you choose.
Mischa I
Obviously a very heated issue for you, and that seems to be a reasonable compromise on a very divisive issue for the American populace. The only thing that same sex couples have aked for was the same rights that normal married couple has under the law and defining it as a civil union is a good compromise.
Mischa I
I’m going to agree that the english language has been butchered over time with the PC police and all that, and you won;t hear any argument from me on that. Personally, I admire your resolve to have your beliefs and not to give a damn what others say. I also have very dear and cherished beliefs, that all men and women are equal and should be judged as individuals rather than as being part of a group. Also as a libertarian I believe in limited government and seperation of church and state which is the reason why I said in my post I opposed the defense of marriage act and the reason is because it enlarges the control of the federal government on the lives of Americans.
Mischa I
No I don’t insist on changing your ideas and well deserved beliefs. I simply insist on expressing mine just as much as you and I believe on those issues we will simply have to agree to disagree and move on.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:41 PMUsing
Just so we understand each other….
on an unrealted note;
http://news.yahoo.co.....dical_raid
and
http://wnd.com/news/.....E_ID=59566
Read -both-.
the differences are…. interesting.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:32 PMUsing
Sadly, yes. That would’ve been a good one, though
But, you see, that’s what I don’t understand. If it’s so completely unimportant, if it really IS “just semantics”, then why won’t the loudmouthed wing of the gay movement shut the fuck up about calling it a marriage and take the civil union proposal that most of us wouldn’t bat an eyelid over? I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to live together as a couple with all of the horrors that that entails, so if they’d just quit insisting on calling it something that it ISN’T, there’d be no argument. We could sign it into law tomorrow, as far as I’m concerned.
Southern Libertarian: First I need to clarify. When I used “you” in my previous post, it was the general “you”. Not directed at you personally. We seem to agree on pretty much every part of this argument, this in particular:
Have a beer on me. I’ve always thought that the FMA was an abomination (yes, I know that you’re talking about the defense of marriage act that was not merely an abomination, it was also un-Constitutional). The Federal government has the powers specifically given to it in the Constitution. No more. Period. End of frickin’ story. If you want to get me started on Federal overreach, just say “commerce clause” and I’m like to blow every single farkin’ gasket that I have. Never in the history of mankind has a piece of legalese been so deliberately misinterpreted in order to usurp powers that rightfully belong to the people or the States and We The People are too bloody simple-minded to as much as complain about it. In the days of the Founders, Congress critters would have been dangling from trees in DC the next morning, but today we just sit and take it.
Now, with regards to the FMA, you can at least defend their actions by pointing out that they were offering it as an AMENDMENT, which is the PROPER way to go about it. Still doesn’t change that it’s an idiotic idea in my opinion. Much like Prohibition. There was nothing un-Constitutional about Prohibition, all the “i”s were dotted and all the “t”s were crossed, but it doesn’t change the fact that it was a moron idea from a bunch of morons. The only ones to benefit were the Kennedys and the other crime families in the country.
But one really can’t call the FMA “overreach”, because they did what they were supposed to do: They came up with a proposal to amend the Constitution to include the definition of marriage as a Federal prerogative. And, thankfully, it was slapped down. Dumb idea. We’d only have had to repeal it later.
If I were to come up with a defense for the whole idea, I’d say that it was because there was such a stir, hullaballoo and assorted other nonsense about redefining “marriage” to include unions between men and men, men and women, men and livestock and women and their shoes (don’t laugh, it would’ve surely followed), so those parties against it felt that the only way to put a stop to the nonsense was to make it a Constitutional amendment. I can understand and, to a degree, sympathize with that, but that still doesn’t make it a good idea in my opinion. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you automatically ought to or even that it’s a good idea to do so.
Personally, I’d just leave it to the States, just as I would leave abortion to the States where it belongs. If some silly state wants to call Susan and Sarah’s union a “marriage”, then I suppose they can do that unless their citizens object which, going by polls and the number of States that HAVE passed laws against gay marriage afterwards, is pretty much a given. If I lived in a State that allowed it, I’d just pull up my tent poles and move on.org.
The only sticky widget here is that before you knew it, somebody would start hollering about reciprocity, something that apparently is a Constitutional right in all matters except for CHLs. And then we’d have to deal with THAT. Correction: We WILL have to deal with that, and probably before long too.
My reply to that question is simple: The moment that my Texas CHL is valid everywhere in the Union we can talk. Until then, shut up.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:03 PMUsing
Dave,
Would you add “Get Together” by the Youngbloods to your music list and dedicate it to DK and NerbyGirl?
:em99: :em03:
January 8th, 2008 at 7:15 PMUsing
Mohammered the Pedo for Profit…..was a dick licking, child rapist….now come and get me you fucking useless Islamic trash…..if you have the balls….e-mail me and I’ll be waiting.
Wonder if that would qualify as hate speech, since it’s the truth? :em12:
hOOt
January 8th, 2008 at 7:35 PMUsing
How the Hell did a thread about Muzzies being Gawdless fools get turned into whether a couple of butt packing cowboys should be allowed to get hitched…..? I could care less as long as perverts can’t legally adopt and I don’t have to pay their AIDS treatment bill with my tax money….the fags should be able to do their perverted thing to their heart’s content. :em01:
hOOt
January 8th, 2008 at 7:39 PMUsing
And you’re bragging about it? That says a LOT right there…
January 8th, 2008 at 7:52 PMUsing
Who’s bragging? I am simply stating the facts as I see them.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:16 PMUsing
You’re mis-reading me Dave, when I said “vows” I was referring to and using it in the context of the institution of marriage as a whole.
And yes I lived with my wife for many years before she drug my worthless carcass to the “alter”, (we were actually married on a beach and miles from the nearest church) so I understand what you are saying, however I still feel that some traditions, and institutions such as marriage that have again been around since the dawn of recorded time simply need to be left alone. Call me old fashioned.
Some thing just don’t need to change in society. Period. Case in point the traditional role fathers have played in the family for years has been under assualt from almost every quarter of society, the press and pop culture have painted Dad as a bumbleing nincompoop. And that show’s in society; kids today don’t have a clear Father figure and the results are telling..especially when you click on the news and see 17 year old Johnny just shot up a class room of his peers… say what you will, Fathers today are not viewed as Fathers were in the earlier years. It’s obvious.
Another aspect of this and a point a co-worker brought up is I and many others in the country view homosxuallity as an abomination. AND not just from a relgious aspect either, because remember I am agnostic. It’s just wrong. It serves no purpose, it contributes nothing to the furtherment of society. Archaic? Perhaps but that is how I see it, and so do a lot of others.
That being said, why should something I and millions and millions of other people whom hold thier marriage as something to be cherished be forced to adopt changes to the institution by a group that is completely wrong…now its Larry and Leo, who’s the next group to come down the pike demanding thier so called “rights” Larry and Lambchop?
You give me ONE good reason why it’s right to suddenly reverse the course of thousands of years of tradtition other than some ambigious concept of “tolerance” and “inclusivness” and I’ll re think it…till then as I said leave the institution and tradition of marriage be.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:41 PMUsing
And your point is…? I don’t know if anyone’s clued you in on this, Skye, but this ain’t exactly Queensbury here.
And shall we not shed tears for “Any Hat” Nerby, okay? This is the same individual who gets pissed when we don’t share her righteous indignation over the things she thinks we ought, when we don’t vote the way she thinks we ought when she thinks we ought…hell, she even gets pissed when we don’t post about the things she thinks we ought to post about, when she wants us to post about them. I mean, she’ll try to tell us what to write about here but won’t go do her own blog - wuzzupwiddat?
Puh. Leeze.
DK, you go right on being you. You’re more entertaining any day.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:09 AMUsing
i think you’re a gentleman, DK. But then again, i have not read what precipitated this.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:19 AMUsing
95% Respond Negatively to Illegal Immigrant as Texan of the Year
This Bud’s For you, Mr. Illegal River Wading Border Crosser!
January 9th, 2008 at 12:24 AMUsing
I’ve had similar thoughts,such as, “I’d rather get in trouble for something I’ve actually done.”
Are you sure it wasn’t a 17-year-old Mohammed? :em02:
INSULT
January 9th, 2008 at 2:20 AMTHOSE
WHO
BEHEAD
ISLAM
Using
Deathknyte
I haven’t read anything from you yet I would consider ungentlemanly, you have like all and any of us, your own style of expression, and that is perfectly alright for this humble Canadian!
nerbygirl , you keep right on writing about how you feel… That’s the magic of the Rott, all are welcome to voice an opinion. And I’d like to think that I am a gentleman… (HC bows and kisses nerbygirl hand).
See, that wasn’t so bad! :em93:
January 9th, 2008 at 11:11 AMUsing
Rather than calling the guy a Texan, maybe they should have made him illegal immigrant of the year.
I am not kissing hands HC.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:42 PMUsing