Seriously, what happened to the rebel spirit and legacy of your forefathers?
It's still there. It's just that we've set up a Federal court system so we express our discontent using lawyers instead of guns. It takes longer and makes fewer headlines, and is cost-prohibitive to all but the wealthiest of the bourgeoisie.
FTFY.
Revolutions are fought with guns on battlefields, not lawyers in courtrooms.
Thus allowing all spam bots to automatically encrypt their spam straight to your mailbox without intervention by system spam filters like spamassassin.
So then, the spam filter has to move to your mailbox.
Good thing those nasty old Republicans aren't running the show. They might force the Feds to get a search warrant or something.
Not quite. The Republicans would do exactly the same thing and this is why we desperately need a viable third party. The Libertarians would never propose or stand for this. Ditch both parties, become a Libertarian - honestly about a small, far less intrusive government.
Que the R and D shills, attacking Libertarianism with outright lies and misinformation, only to shrink back and pretend to be a victim when someone calls them out on their B.S...
Or when the pigeon shooter gets gets 10-15 in the clink for shooting neighbors with the rounds that missed when the dipshit fired his rifle in the air.
Anyone that hunts pigeons with a rifle can and should be arrested, since that's already an illegal act.
People who don't understand enough about hunting to know that one does not pigeon hunt with rifles should probably avoid joining conversations on topics they obviously know nothing about.
And we come to this..."Citation required" and "You're a bigot".
The last words of someone out of ideas and arguments.
Except, I've been making that point since post one, and you have yet to A) provide a citation, or B) prove your not a bigot (quite the opposite on that front, your hatred for everything Arab is quite evident at this point).
You seem to think this is some sort of argument - in that, you are incorrect. In an argument, both sides posit beliefs and subsequently define their position using source citation.
This has been a one-way conversation of me pointing out facts that refute your obviously ignorant and pre-conceived ideology, to which you respond by changing the subject and, of course, throwing up strawmen.
A conversation that is now over, as you've made it quite plain that you have no intention of listening to rationality, facts, or anything else so much as resembling reality, and I have better things to do with my time than scream at a wall; a bigotted, ignorant, incapable-of-cogent-thought-or-reasoning wall.
I only hope that you do not infect any future generations with your poorly-reasoned nonsense, and that any and all attempts you make at doing so are immediately shut down by someone far more intelligent than yourself... I think the common 4th grader would suffice. Preferably in a way that causes you great public embarrassment.
You don't forgive someone unless they've done something wrong, so to say that you forgive someone is to implicitly accuse someone of doing something wrong.
So rather than saying out loud that they forgive you, many Christians will forgive you silently so as not to cause offense.
Imagine you're having a bad day and are rude to someone, and that someone says "I forgive you". What you're likely to hear in your mind is that person saying "I forgive you for being such an @ss and I'm soooo much better and more righteous than you." So instead the person simply forgives you without saying anything, and continues to try to be nice.
I think they need to invest in a drone that can fire back. Problem solved.
Problem solved, indeed, when the 'activists' get 10-15 in the clink for attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, trespassing, vandalism, etc., etc.
When you can offer an example of 3000 instances (to start with) then people might pay attention.
I know it will do no good as you'll just move the goalposts again, but I'll humor you anyway
Where are your links to major Christian clerics advocating murder? Where are your links to entire Christian (if you can find any) nations being dedicated to the destruction on non Muslim nations?
Man, can I call 'em, or what?
And the Crusades? Please. Even if you wanted to say that something that happened in the 12th Century is relevant, those were regional power struggles under the guise of religion.
A) Malarkey, you just don't want to admit to being wrong.
B) I take it, then, you didn't even bother to visit the Wikipedia link I provided in that same paragraph, that details many instances of Christian terrorism dating no further back than 60 years? Oh, right - doing so might have shown you facts that counter your pre-conceived notions, I should have known better than to try and taint your worldview with reality.
You want Evidence?
Yes. Preferably, reputable sources such as university studies, but I'll take a random news clip or two provided they aren't supplied by blatantly biased propaganda machines thinly disguised as "journalists," ala InfoWars or FOX news.
Hell, quote FOX if you want, it's a better source than the none whatsoever you've presented so far.
I encourage you to test it as I mentioned previously. Let us know how it turns out.
Sorry, but I'm not one to stir a hornets nest just to see if I get stung. I'm also not so much of a bigoted asshole as to subsequently refer to all hornets as lunatic extremists as a result.
You're welcome to your opinion, bigoted though it may be. What you are not entitled to is your own facts. I have laid out plenty, backed with source citation, whereas all you have offered thus far is vitriol, bigotry, and a complete absence of anything so much as resembling fact. While that may play out well for you at the Wonderland that is the RNC, here it only serves to prove how little you know about the topic at hand.
You can make all the outrageous claims you want, but without any source citation you're just blowin' in the wind.
When you can offer an example of 3000 instances (to start with) then people might pay attention.
So far you have offered nothing that can't be explained by a random nut jobs.
I know it will do no good as you'll just move the goalposts again, but I'll humor you anyway:
Of course, those are but a few examples of many, up-to-and-including the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition (which no one expects), the KKK's influence in southern America, or any of innumerable examples about the world
Of course, as your original premise was to imply that any and every Muslim would cut a person's throat for offending (in spite of the fact you can't seem to muster even a single source to back your outrageously bigoted claim), but that not a single Christian would, my earlier example of a "random nutjob" suffices to disprove your hypothesis, your lack of agreement notwithstanding.
You know as well as I do that the murder of Dr. George Tiller is, by far, not the only example of Christian extremists taking the lives of others.
Of course, you don't care, since every rebuttal I offer will result in you once again moving the goalposts, as you've done here. Ironically, such behavior is often indicative of the very extremist attitude you're trying oh-so hard to convince us that Muslims exhibit en masse.
Before you try and deny goalpost relocation, allow me to summarize the conversation thus far:
Tsingi: "All you have to do to offend a Christian is question his God."
You: "At least he won't cut your throat." (Presumably, you meant to imply that a Christian wouldn't cause a person harm for offending them)
Me: "Christians killed Dr. Tiller because he offended them; your premise is flawed."
You: "This is a volume issue."
Classic example.
Now, if you like, I can provide several other incidents of "Christians" intentionally harming others for offending them. However, considering your above response, I feel it would be a futile effort as thus far my exhortations have fallen on deaf ears. You're welcome to prove me wrong on that point.
A bastion of openness and counterculture, Silicon Valley imagines itself as the un-Chick-fil-A.
When has Chick-fil-A ever called for censorship?
Well, I don't know if you would call it 'censorship,' but Chick-fil-A does require their employees to respond to the phrase "thank you" by stating "my pleasure."
For maximum entertainment value when visiting a Chick-fil-A, make sure to thank the employees profusely. For everything.
Huge Difference: The author of the blog is not calling for the assassination of the President, nor is he spouting incredibly hateful and racist shit about him.
Perhaps not, but he is endangering the lives of other people by posting their addresses online.
In some instances, that could be considered a "direct and actionable threat" on the lives of the people he's outing. At the very least, he's opening himself up to potential civil consequences, if not criminal.
Threatening other people's lives is illegal; being a hateful, racist moron is not.
John Hinkley shot President Reagan after seeing Taxi Driver, in an (supposed) attempt to impress Jodie Foster, yet neither Foster nor anyone else involved in making the film were charged with conspiracy to assassinate the President.
Slashdot Mirror
It's still there. It's just that we've set up a Federal court system so we express our discontent using lawyers instead of guns. It takes longer and makes fewer headlines, and is cost-prohibitive to all but the wealthiest of the bourgeoisie.
FTFY.
Revolutions are fought with guns on battlefields, not lawyers in courtrooms.
Considering that most of the email I receive is from people I'd rather not communicate with, I think I can live with that.
Thus allowing all spam bots to automatically encrypt their spam straight to your mailbox without intervention by system spam filters like spamassassin.
So then, the spam filter has to move to your mailbox.
Doesn't seem like that daunting of a task.
Guardians of our Liberties and Privacy!
Good thing those nasty old Republicans aren't running the show. They might force the Feds to get a search warrant or something.
Not quite. The Republicans would do exactly the same thing and this is why we desperately need a viable third party. The Libertarians would never propose or stand for this. Ditch both parties, become a Libertarian - honestly about a small, far less intrusive government.
Que the R and D shills, attacking Libertarianism with outright lies and misinformation, only to shrink back and pretend to be a victim when someone calls them out on their B.S...
Or the activists get shot and killed in self-defense.
In the immortal words of Uncle Jimbo...
IT'S COMIN' RIGHT FOR US!
Or when the pigeon shooter gets gets 10-15 in the clink for shooting neighbors with the rounds that missed when the dipshit fired his rifle in the air.
Anyone that hunts pigeons with a rifle can and should be arrested, since that's already an illegal act.
People who don't understand enough about hunting to know that one does not pigeon hunt with rifles should probably avoid joining conversations on topics they obviously know nothing about.
And we come to this..."Citation required" and "You're a bigot".
The last words of someone out of ideas and arguments.
Except, I've been making that point since post one, and you have yet to A) provide a citation, or B) prove your not a bigot (quite the opposite on that front, your hatred for everything Arab is quite evident at this point).
You seem to think this is some sort of argument - in that, you are incorrect. In an argument, both sides posit beliefs and subsequently define their position using source citation.
This has been a one-way conversation of me pointing out facts that refute your obviously ignorant and pre-conceived ideology, to which you respond by changing the subject and, of course, throwing up strawmen.
A conversation that is now over, as you've made it quite plain that you have no intention of listening to rationality, facts, or anything else so much as resembling reality, and I have better things to do with my time than scream at a wall; a bigotted, ignorant, incapable-of-cogent-thought-or-reasoning wall.
I only hope that you do not infect any future generations with your poorly-reasoned nonsense, and that any and all attempts you make at doing so are immediately shut down by someone far more intelligent than yourself... I think the common 4th grader would suffice. Preferably in a way that causes you great public embarrassment.
Good day.
"a property owner/renter "owns" the airspace up to about 500-ft (150m)." Which is about the maximum range of a shotgun.
For slugs/sabot rounds, yea, about 150 yards is max range.
For birdshot (the type of ammo you'd typically see in a pigeon hunt), you're looking at more like 40-60 yards.
You don't forgive someone unless they've done something wrong, so to say that you forgive someone is to implicitly accuse someone of doing something wrong. So rather than saying out loud that they forgive you, many Christians will forgive you silently so as not to cause offense. Imagine you're having a bad day and are rude to someone, and that someone says "I forgive you". What you're likely to hear in your mind is that person saying "I forgive you for being such an @ss and I'm soooo much better and more righteous than you." So instead the person simply forgives you without saying anything, and continues to try to be nice.
Fair enough, thanks for the clarification.
It says "pigeon shootings" above... do people actually eat those flying rats? WTF?
Beats eatin' crow
Were standard rounds shot into the sky?
What kind of dumbass would go pigeon hunting with slugs?
That in itself is illegal most places, FYI.
I think they need to invest in a drone that can fire back. Problem solved.
Problem solved, indeed, when the 'activists' get 10-15 in the clink for attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, trespassing, vandalism, etc., etc.
No, check out Air Rights.
Beat me to it.
Essentially, a property owner/renter "owns" the airspace up to about 500-ft (150m).
And no, that doesn't mean you can take pot-shots at passenger aircraft. Unmanned drones I would think are another story.
When you can offer an example of 3000 instances (to start with) then people might pay attention.
Where are your links to major Christian clerics advocating murder? Where are your links to entire Christian (if you can find any) nations being dedicated to the destruction on non Muslim nations?
Man, can I call 'em, or what?
And the Crusades? Please. Even if you wanted to say that something that happened in the 12th Century is relevant, those were regional power struggles under the guise of religion.
A) Malarkey, you just don't want to admit to being wrong.
B) I take it, then, you didn't even bother to visit the Wikipedia link I provided in that same paragraph, that details many instances of Christian terrorism dating no further back than 60 years? Oh, right - doing so might have shown you facts that counter your pre-conceived notions, I should have known better than to try and taint your worldview with reality.
You want Evidence?
Yes. Preferably, reputable sources such as university studies, but I'll take a random news clip or two provided they aren't supplied by blatantly biased propaganda machines thinly disguised as "journalists," ala InfoWars or FOX news.
Hell, quote FOX if you want, it's a better source than the none whatsoever you've presented so far.
I encourage you to test it as I mentioned previously. Let us know how it turns out.
Sorry, but I'm not one to stir a hornets nest just to see if I get stung. I'm also not so much of a bigoted asshole as to subsequently refer to all hornets as lunatic extremists as a result.
You're welcome to your opinion, bigoted though it may be. What you are not entitled to is your own facts. I have laid out plenty, backed with source citation, whereas all you have offered thus far is vitriol, bigotry, and a complete absence of anything so much as resembling fact. While that may play out well for you at the Wonderland that is the RNC, here it only serves to prove how little you know about the topic at hand.
You can make all the outrageous claims you want, but without any source citation you're just blowin' in the wind.
When you can offer an example of 3000 instances (to start with) then people might pay attention. So far you have offered nothing that can't be explained by a random nut jobs.
I know it will do no good as you'll just move the goalposts again, but I'll humor you anyway:
There was the firebombing of a theater in response to a movie Christians didn't like
Timothy McVeigh and Anders Breivick were both identified as Christian terrorists.
The IRA was well known for it's acts of Christian terrorism.
Of course, those are but a few examples of many, up-to-and-including the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition (which no one expects), the KKK's influence in southern America, or any of innumerable examples about the world
Of course, as your original premise was to imply that any and every Muslim would cut a person's throat for offending (in spite of the fact you can't seem to muster even a single source to back your outrageously bigoted claim), but that not a single Christian would, my earlier example of a "random nutjob" suffices to disprove your hypothesis, your lack of agreement notwithstanding.
Forgiving the transgressions of others against oneself is a (the) key tenement of the true Followers of Jesus Christ.
Not really sure what you're trying to say here...
Elucidate?
One nut job vs. a few million nut jobs.
You know as well as I do that the murder of Dr. George Tiller is, by far, not the only example of Christian extremists taking the lives of others.
Of course, you don't care, since every rebuttal I offer will result in you once again moving the goalposts, as you've done here. Ironically, such behavior is often indicative of the very extremist attitude you're trying oh-so hard to convince us that Muslims exhibit en masse.
Before you try and deny goalpost relocation, allow me to summarize the conversation thus far:
Tsingi: "All you have to do to offend a Christian is question his God."
You: "At least he won't cut your throat." (Presumably, you meant to imply that a Christian wouldn't cause a person harm for offending them)
Me: "Christians killed Dr. Tiller because he offended them; your premise is flawed."
You: "This is a volume issue."
Classic example.
Now, if you like, I can provide several other incidents of "Christians" intentionally harming others for offending them. However, considering your above response, I feel it would be a futile effort as thus far my exhortations have fallen on deaf ears. You're welcome to prove me wrong on that point.
A bastion of openness and counterculture, Silicon Valley imagines itself as the un-Chick-fil-A.
When has Chick-fil-A ever called for censorship?
Well, I don't know if you would call it 'censorship,' but Chick-fil-A does require their employees to respond to the phrase "thank you" by stating "my pleasure."
For maximum entertainment value when visiting a Chick-fil-A, make sure to thank the employees profusely. For everything.
At least he won't cut your throat.
But he might murder a doctor.
You ever tried to offend a christian?
Yea, that's the only effective way to tell real ones from fake ones.
The real ones are really, really hard to offend. They tend to just smile, touch your shoulder, and say, "I forgive you."
Decency standards be damned, this is 100% legal to air.
Reminds me of this Xbox 360 ad that was also barred from airing.
Considering that the advert is far, far more tame than typical prime-time programming, it's beyond logic why the ad would be banned...
Huge Difference: The author of the blog is not calling for the assassination of the President, nor is he spouting incredibly hateful and racist shit about him.
Perhaps not, but he is endangering the lives of other people by posting their addresses online.
In some instances, that could be considered a "direct and actionable threat" on the lives of the people he's outing. At the very least, he's opening himself up to potential civil consequences, if not criminal.
Threatening other people's lives is illegal; being a hateful, racist moron is not.
Yea, if that one poorly worded sentence is all you read of the summary, I can see how it could be confusing.
Those of us who read the entire summary, however, suffer from no such befuddlement.
India be trollin' the ol' video archive, I see...
Addendum:
John Hinkley shot President Reagan after seeing Taxi Driver, in an (supposed) attempt to impress Jodie Foster, yet neither Foster nor anyone else involved in making the film were charged with conspiracy to assassinate the President.