Woo hoo!!! More good news.

[PSUFAN]

I'll give you two. ACLU and the 9th district court of appeals.

Help me out here. How did those two entities act on a desire to "silence Christians"?

[Dinsdale]

I'll give you two. ACLU and the 9th district court of appeals

I didn't realize the ACLU and the 9th were part of the democratic party.


And you talking about keeping your "freedoms intact" is fucking hilariously retarded.


What part of that whole "not establishing a religion" are you having trouble understanding?

Do you advocate the government reimbursing me for any expenditures that placed the ten commandments and other christain concepts on federal buildings at taxpayer expense?

No?

So, you're only into "freedoms" when they apply to YOU?


We're still waiting on the dissertation of these evil democrats silencing the christians-btw.

[battery chucka' one]

The royalty in this country, or at least the most obvious face of it, is the Bush family. Your party has begun to treat the Presidency as though it's a monarchy.

Don't tell me that Jeb wouldn't be lapping the field on your side right now if he was a candidate.

As opposed to, of course, the Clintons. *big roll eyes*

Hillary will not be the Democratic nominee. Care to place a wager?

She is for the Dems what Dole was for the Republicans in 96. She will get the nomination. What would you like to wager? Better's choice.

I hear they're preening Chelsea for a corronation....err...a presidential run in 2012.

She won't even be eligible under the Constitution in 2012.

Good point. I forgot she was about 14 when her dad was elected. That'd make her what, about 29 right now and 34 in '12. Will they let her be a senator? Maybe they want her in '16.

I don't want anymore Bushes in office. I wouldn't support Jeb if he was running. I don't think many would.

I'd bet that Jeb would be the Republican nominee if he chose to run this year. More likely, the Bushies are gearing toward a Democratic win in '08, so that they can come back with a "See, we told you so" and run Jeb either in '12 or '16.

I really think that the Bush block in the Republican party has run its course. I think that he's doing an alright job in the face of what he's had to deal with, but I'm done with them. Again, I don't think I'm alone here. Are the Dems done with the Clintons, though?

The Bush family is but one of the many faces of PNAC, who are actively trying to overthrow the American government, along with such illustrious names like the Bin Ladens.


Yet you tards vote for them...ponderous.

I've never voted for anyone named Bush. I probably wouldn't vote for a Bush if you put a gun against my head.

I realize that puts me among a very small minority on this board.

[battery chucka' one]

I'll give you two. ACLU and the 9th district court of appeals

I didn't realize the ACLU and the 9th were part of the democratic party.

Look at your left hand.

And you talking about keeping your "freedoms intact" is fucking hilariously retarded.

Where you have it written.

What part of that whole "not establishing a religion" are you having trouble understanding?

That you should breathe.

Do you advocate the government reimbursing me for any expenditures that placed the ten commandments and other christain concepts on federal buildings at taxpayer expense?

Now take a breath

No?

Now look at your right hand.

So, you're only into "freedoms" when they apply to YOU?

Where it says to blink so your eyes won't dry out. Now go ahead and blink.

We're still waiting on the dissertation of these evil democrats silencing the christians-btw.

Repeat.

[Dinsdale]

OK...no response to any issues, no response to the callout to back up statements you made earlier.

If you're not going to do that, what fucking good are you?

Wait...you dropped an epic IKYABWAI in response.


Nice work, KC BCO.

[Terry in Crapchester]

She is for the Dems what Dole was for the Republicans in 96. She will get the nomination.

Not a good comparison. The Republican Party has traditionally nominated the candidate whose "turn" it was. The Democratic Party has always been a bit more free-wheeling.

I'll grant you that the media would like Hillary to be the nominee. Then again, if the Democrats had listened to the media in '04, Howard Dean would have been the nominee. So there's some track record of rank-and-file Democrats not listening to the media in '04 (albeit not in '00).

What would you like to wager? Better's choice.

Let me get back to you on that one. I haven't thought much about it.

I really think that the Bush block in the Republican party has run its course. I think that he's doing an alright job in the face of what he's had to deal with, but I'm done with them. Again, I don't think I'm alone here.

I disagree. I think Jeb will be the nominee in either '12 or '16. I think George P. Bush will be the nominee at some point in the future.

Are the Dems done with the Clintons, though?

That depends on what you mean by "done." I don't think Hillary will be the Presidential nominee, not in '08 or at anytime in the future. If she's interested in running for re-election in the Senate, that's doable.

It's also possible that if a Democrat wins in '08, Bill will be asked to be Secretary of State (I don't know that he'd accept), or Bill or Hillary (or possibly both) could be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. But I don't think you'll see another Clinton as the Democratic Presidential nominee.

[PSUFAN]

Many Christians feel repressed when they cannot restrict the constitutional rights of others. Sorry about that (not really). Or perhaps, they feel repressed because when they are asked to substantiate tripe of the type peddled above, they are forced into silence, or IKYABWAI inanity. Again, can't help you with that.

[Terry in Crapchester]

The notion that white Christian males are somehow oppressed in the U.S. would be extremely comical if it were accepted by a half dozen or so flat-earth cranks. But the fact that it has gotten as much traction in this country as it has is scary.

[Dinsdale]

The notion that white Christian males are somehow oppressed in the U.S. would be extremely comical if it were accepted by a half dozen or so flat-earth cranks. But the fact that it has gotten as much traction in this country as it has is scary.

Then maybe they shouldn't make laws specifically targeting white males.

AA was passed to remove free will, and was intended to come at the expense of white males. Do you deny this?

Blacks are encouraged to use the N-word. Whites are cast out from society for doing so.


Would you like another few hundred examples, are are you feeling stupid enough already? Since 1964, there's only been one ethnic group/demographic that's had laws passed to negatively æffect their financial standing, dumbass.


Sure, Jews, Muslims, Christians, and atheists have all been targetted equally, but to deny a legal trend to opress white males is flat out lying.

[Dinsdale]

Bill could be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.

PSU, or any other admin --


Could we put this quote right on the topic page of T1B, just so any new members that happen upon this place realize right off the bat what a complete, total, inarguable fucking idiot Terry is?


TIA


Then again, I suppose he could be "nominated"...he does in fact have a license again.


Matter of fact, I'm all for it -- might be the funniest news coverage of the 21st century.


That was quite possibly the stupidest thing ever posted on this board. And since there's people from Kansas City posting here, that's saying a bunch.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Blacks are encouraged to use the N-word.

Certainly not by everyone.

Whites are cast out from society for doing so.

Your point earlier was that there were laws passed discriminating against white males. Last time I checked, using the n-word is not against the law. It's distasteful to most people, and using it is a sign of ignorance, but you won't get arrested if you choose to use it.

Btw, you're all over the map on this one. A moment ago you were going after BCO for making precisely the same point you're trying to make here.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Bill could be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.

PSU, or any other admin --


Could we put this quote right on the topic page of T1B, just so any new members that happen upon this place realize right off the bat what a complete, total, inarguable fucking idiot Terry is?


TIA


Then again, I suppose he could be "nominated"...he does in fact have a license again.


Matter of fact, I'm all for it -- might be the funniest news coverage of the 21st century.


That was quite possibly the stupidest thing ever posted on this board. And since there's people from Kansas City posting here, that's saying a bunch.

You do know his background, don't you? Before he was President, he was, among other things, a Constitutional law professor.

Newsflash: somebody in the position of having been a Constitutional law professor is in position to be a Supreme Court nominee. Provided, of course, that a President is somewhat confident that his take on the Constitution is somewhat similar to the President's.

Note that I didn't say that Bill Clinton will be nominated to the Supreme Court, only that he could be. Obviously, it would only happen under a Democratic President, and then only if the Democrats also had a majority in the Senate. But other controversial nominees have been confirmed, even when the opposition party controlled the Senate (see Clarence Thomas). And there are certainly less stellar nominees who have been confirmed to the Supreme Court (see Clarence Thomas again).

It's quite obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about here.

Sidenote: I'm pretty sure that a law license is not a set-in-stone requirement for appointment to the Supreme Court, believe it or not. Of course, in today's day and age, one could not realistically be appointed to the Supreme Court without one.

[Dinsdale]

A moment ago you were going after BCO for making precisely the same point you're trying to make here.

Huh?


See, you need to understand that you've proven beyond any doubt you're quite fucking stupid. So realize that when people don't understand you, chances are it's you.

I said nothing about BCO's comments regarding christian men being oppressed.

Without going back and looking, I don't believe BCO even mentioned the subject. He talked about "silencing the christians," which I disagreed with.

Matter of fact, it was YOU who brought the christian-male-oppression to the table. Since white christian males are a subset of white males, I gave my (very accurate) thoughts, which can be backed up with facts.


But really -- you think that Bill Clinton could be nominated for the SCOTUS...you're a fucking idiot, and any statement you make after that will be discounted as the ramblings of an idiot.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Your point earlier was that there were laws passed discriminating against white males.

It's called Affirmative Action, you stupid, braindead fuck.

I was referring to n-bombs, you knuckle-draggin troglodyte. Where is there a law against them.

But really -- you think that Bill Clinton could be nominated for the SCOTUS...you're a fucking idiot,

Then how about you give just one reason why he CAN'T be nominated for the Supreme Court?

[Terry in Crapchester]

You do know his background, don't you? Before he was President, he was, among other things, a Constitutional law professor.

Newsflash: somebody in the position of having been a Constitutional law professor is in position to be a Supreme Court nominee.

Newsflash: a Constitutional law professor/skeevy pervert who lies under oath and is disbarred will never get to sniff the bench let alone sit on it.

He was suspended, not disbarred. And he no longer is.

I never said he will be a Supreme Court Justice, only that he possibly could be.

[Dinsdale]

Newsflash: somebody in the position of having been a Constitutional law professor is in position to be a Supreme Court nominee.

Newsflash -- someone who willingly gave up their license to practice law due to a shitstorm for playing duck-and-cover under oath in legal procedings isn't going to be nominated by anyone with intelligence greater than that of Terry...which is pretty much everyone, including several species of livestock.


If you're going to try to weasel your way out of over-the-top fucking stupidity with semantics, just fucking save it.


Depends what your definition of "could" is.


Just fucking let it go, and be less of a fucking idiot another day. You delivered a knockout punch to yourself on this one.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Newsflash: somebody in the position of having been a Constitutional law professor is in position to be a Supreme Court nominee.

Newsflash -- someone who willingly gave up their license to practice law due to a shitstorm for playing duck-and-cover under oath in legal procedings isn't going to be nominated by anyone with intelligence greater than that of Terry

What you're forgetting is that much of the public has a pretty short memory. And Clinton is lookiing pretty good as a President in hindsight, at least compared to his successor.

If you're going to try to weasel your way out of over-the-top fucking stupidity with semantics, just fucking save it.

What part of "I never said he will be nominated" don't you get?

[Terry in Crapchester]

I said nothing about BCO's comments regarding christian men being oppressed.

Without going back and looking, I don't believe BCO even mentioned the subject. He talked about "silencing the christians," which I disagreed with.

Matter of fact, it was YOU who brought the christian-male-oppression to the table.

Now who's talking about over-the-top semantics? Isn't "silencing" Christians a subset of "oppressing" them?

[Dinsdale]

Your point earlier was that there were laws passed discriminating against white males.

It's called Affirmative Action, you stupid, braindead fuck.

I was referring to n-bombs, you knuckle-draggin troglodyte. Where is there a law against them.

Dude...you're now so fucking punked that you've resorted to combining different points I've made to try and come up with one to argue against?

Supreme bitch move.


Let's review just how desperate your fucking stupidity has made you, shall we?

The notion that white Christian males are somehow oppressed in the U.S.

So, what are we using to define "oppressed"?

By oppressive laws not being passed against them?


Then, by your own logic, no African American has been oppressed in this country since 1964.


Is that what you're really trying to argue in defense of your stupidity?

Or are there other ways a group or individual can be oppressed, like through the actions of general society?


I tend to believe the latter.

But regardless, I provided examples of both. AA was a program to oppress white males, regardless of what spin you put on it from the other side of the coin. It's truly an example of "two wrongs make a right" at work. Employers are required to hire based on ethnicity, and a white man can be denied a job based purely upon the color of his skin, in favor of a less qualified applicant. This is , by definiton, an oppressive law. A minority can sue for being denied a job based on skin color, but with white men, this behavior is actually encouraged.


Outside of the legal sphere, in our social sytem, one needs to look no farther than comparing and contrasting the treatment of Don Imus, as opposed to the treatment of **insert rapper name here**.


No freaking contest -- white men are oppressed for behaviors that are encouraged, or at minimum have a blind eye turned to them when done by nonwhites.


Do you refute this?



Are you even capable of touching a keyboard without making a complete fool out of yourself?

[Dinsdale]

Now who's talking about over-the-top semantics? Isn't "silencing" Christians a subset of "oppressing" them?

Did you think this would somehow reverse your idiocy?


Maybe you should go reread this thread.

I argued against BCO's asinine statements that an entire political party is trying to oppress or silence christians. Since you're fucking stupid, I'll guess I need to explain that this was based on his insinuation(since he did the wise thing, and ejected after saying some reeeeallllly stupid shit...sup Terry) that certain Constitutional rights should be revoked for anyone who doesn't agree with BCO. It goes to that whole "separation of church and state" thing. Since BCO refused to explain his point, one could only assume he was taking the tired stance that by not violating that separation, and by not trashing the BoR, someone was being oppressed or silenced.


YOU brought the whole "white christian male" oppression to the discussion. It had absolutely nothing to do with BCO, or anyone else's point. I merely went with your tangent, and explained that it was in fact true, and cited examples to back my point.


How fucking stupid are you? Dumb enough to try and weasel your way out of this bed you've made, or not?

[Dr_Phibes]

But regardless, I provided examples of both. AA was a program to oppress white males, regardless of what spin you put on it from the other side of the coin. It's truly an example of "two wrongs make a right" at work. Employers are required to hire based on ethnicity, and a white man can be denied a job based purely upon the color of his skin, in favor of a less qualified applicant. This is , by definiton, an oppressive law. A minority can sue for being denied a job based on skin color, but with white men, this behavior is actually encouraged.

Something to consider is that A.A. merely treats a symptom, it completely ignores the deeper problem and makes people think that they are accomplishing something when in fact, they're merely blocking it out.
You've got someone blanketing inequity, so by levering numbers - they're playing to meet statistics so their journals look good.

To try to 'liberate' blacks, women, etc. within the strictures of capitalist society is at best a distraction and at worst a delusion. I'm not sure I'd classify the whole thing as 'everyone's out to get whitey'.

[Dr_Phibes]

inequity

Welcome to life on Planet Earth, pussy.

Equality is a bourgeois liberal concept. Tell it to BSmack.

[PSUFAN]

there's the Dems and their desire to silence Christians

I'd love to see any example of this documented.

I guess I set my expectations too high.

[Goober McTuber]

If you were expecting anything intelligent (or even coherent) from the battery chucker, yes, you set your expectations way too high.

[BSmack]

inequity

Welcome to life on Planet Earth, pussy.

Equality is a bourgeois liberal concept. Tell it to BSmack.

Are we speaking of equality of opportunity? Or redistribution of wealth in the name of economic equality. The later is what liberals are accused of attempting, the former is what Republicans would have you believe exists in America.

[BSmack]

The equality of opportunity does exist. Get real, you fucking moron.

Back off the pipe mv. "Equality of oportunity" is a fallacy. Just ask the kid bumped out of Yale by Chimpy.

[BSmack]

Don't tell me it's hard to make a living in the US. It isn't. If you can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere.

You're confusing "making a living" with "equality of opportunity"?

Ponderous.

The simple fact is that "equality of opportunity" is a myth. Opportunity is relative to who you know, how much you know and how much money you have. Sure, you can work and make something of yourself. But don't for a fucking minute think that you have the same access to capital to start a business that say Jenna Bush has. Because it simply isn't true.

[BSmack]

The simple fact is that "equality of opportunity" is a myth. Opportunity is relative to who you know, how much you know and how much money you have. Sure, you can work and make something of yourself. But don't for a fucking minute think that you have the same access to capital to start a business that say Jenna Bush has. Because it simply isn't true.

Who said equality of opportunity is supposed to mean that everybody starts out rich?

Nobody said that. We're talking about equality of opportunity. Which, in any rational sense of the word, means access to opportunity. And the simple fact is that access to opportunities are limited by the size of ones wallet. Ergo, equality of opportunity is a myth.

[battery chucka' one]

Part of a Christian's worship is evangilization. Other parts are stewardship and fellowship, among others. By secularizing Christian holidays, such as Easter (stop the pagan argument. I don't even want to hear it), Christmas, and Thanksgiving, they silence any evangilization that these days could provide. The mention of Christ in schools is roundly stifled (sup ACLU?) as it is in many other American arenas. The Ten commandments are historically one of the earliest societal laws. They are the cornerstone upon which western civilization was built. Yet we are not to display them in any way that might catch the eye of somebody who is not familiar with them. Christian fundamentalists (of which I am one) are routinely demonized by the media. If you need more, please let me know. Thanks.

[BSmack]

And the simple fact is that access to opportunities are limited by the size of ones wallet.

If that were true, nobody would get rich who didn't start out rich.

The fact remains that opportunity for advancement grows exponentially in relation to ones wealth. Or, as the old saw used to go, the first million is the hardest to make.

[BSmack]

Christian fundamentalists (of which I am one) are routinely demonized by the media.

Link?

[BSmack]

Yeah, some people are going to have to work harder than others. Tough shit for them.

With rhetoric like that, you're making my point for me. There's really not much more to say. You need to learn to accept the fact that not everybody is born with the same opportunities in life.

[PSUFAN]

By secularizing Christian holidays, such as Easter (stop the pagan argument. I don't even want to hear it), Christmas, and Thanksgiving, they silence any evangilization that these days could provide.

What? I thought the government's only reason for existence was to secure your constitutional freedoms?

Now you need the government to formally recognize your holidays, because otherwise you can't spread the "good news"?

You really require the government's say-so to spread your "good news"?

How about this - why don't you just go ahead and do what you feel you have to do, whether the government officially "recognizes" it or not?

Or maybe you can become a Shaker and die out, taking your DNA with you already?

[Dinsdale]

By secularizing Christian holidays... Thanksgiving

When did the christians claim Thanksgiving as their own holiday?

It's an American holiday, tard. I've celebrated Thanksgiving with Jews, Muslims, and atheists.


Newsflash -- there's a whole buncha christian countries around the world. And all of them but one have never heard of Thanksgiving.

The Ten commandments are historically one of the earliest societal laws. They are the cornerstone upon which western civilization was built.

And the biggest, baddest Western Civilization ever built came up with a new cornerstone on which their laws and society were built. And it forbids the government from endorsing any particular religion. It also forbids anyone from preventing you from practicing yours, provided you don't violate that same law which allows you to do so. Not that a thumper would ever consider the merits of a two-way street.

Yet we are not to display them in any way that might catch the eye of somebody who is not familiar with them.

Do I really need to quote the Amendment that explains this?

Along with the freedom of religion, also comes freedon from religion. Again, that whole two-way street thing.

Don't try to overthrow my country, asshat, and I won't be forced to kill you when you undermine civil liberties.

Christian fundamentalists (of which I am one) are routinely demonized by the media.

And?


You really do hate America, don't you. You're really missing out on two key principles of the "cornerstone" of American law.

You exercise your freedom of religion(which of course, isn't enough for you...you're right, dammit, and that takes precedence over everyone else's rights...which you people just don't seem to get). The media exercises their freedom of the press.


And frankly, you thumpers deserve every last bit of derision you get. The unbelievably anti-American rhetoric you spew is vile to most people with a brain. Your knack for placing your rights above those of others is deplorable, which you've cemented in this thread. The question is, if you're so convinced you're right, why do you care what the media says about you?

[Dinsdale]

How are you doing these days? Missing many meals? Out in the streets? Just look at the lifestyle that you, a blithering idiot, enjoy.

Ouch.

Game, set, match.

[BSmack]

You need to learn to accept the fact that not everybody is born with the same opportunities in life.

I'm quite comfortable with the fact. Equality of opportunity does not mean that everyone is supposed to start rich or poor for that matter. The only thing it means is that you can succeed in this country. Nobody is going to stop you from trying.

I'm not talking about starting rich or poor. Equality of opportunity means that you or I, based on the merit of our work have the same access to the capital needed to succeed as any other person. That is simply not the case.

[BSmack]

You don't need capital to succeed, fuckwit. You need a brain and work ethic.

Let me know when the next stock offering backed by brains and work ethic alone is floated on the NYSE.

[BSmack]

Bill Gates built a 44 billion dollar a year business out of his garage.

Bill Gates had every possible advantage along the way. He attended the best prep school in Seattle and had a mother who's connections with John Akers played prominently in the development of MS-DOS. He is the classic example of our time of a kid who was born relatively rich who, by dint of hard work, some theivery and family connections was able to amass a colossal fortune.

In short, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Dr_Phibes]

You don't need capital to succeed, fuckwit. You need a brain and work ethic.

So you're just regurgitating a page from The Gotha Programme:

"Labor is the source of wealth and all culture, and since useful labor is possible only in society and through society, the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society."

Sorry, but Marx took that and gave it a dialectical bitch-slapping:

Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power. the above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct insofar as it is implied that labor is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments. But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.

so much for 'equality'.

[BSmack]

In short, you continue to make excuses. His parents had nothing to do with the business he built, but he did have two of them who supported and encouraged him in his efforts.

Your forgetting that they had the means to provide for the best possible education, including providing access to a mainframe computer well before the average public school student ever had similar access.

I'm not disputing that Gates worked his ass off to get where he is. I'm simply saying that the opportunity he had to do what he did was a direct result of his family's money and contacts.

That's why Asians consistently outperform every other minority. While the rest of these shitskinned dumbfucks are sittting around crying and making lame excuses for their pitiful failures, the Asians are busting their asses and leaving those other morons in the dust.

I've seen classic examples of the Asian family and work ethic up close. I used to manage several just off the boat Vietnamese workers at a scrap metal yard. These guys had a capacity for hard work that knew no end. I haven't seen any of these guys in over 10 years, but I have no doubt that they all still working their asses off. And I wouldn't be surprised to find that they are pooling their money together to bring more family over/start a business. Of course their chances of building a 44 billion a year enterprise are zero to none whatsoever. But, if they work hard enough, their kids might be able to get a decent education and do something with it.

Which brings me to some other guys I worked with. We also hired some 2nd generation Vietnamese and they were absolutely fucking worthless. We had to let them go after a week. I should have known they wouldn't work out when they showed up the first day wearing clothes that could have been straight out of an NWA video.

I guess the moral of the story is that every race and ethnicity has their share of fuckups.