Every working person should realize that they are just cogs in a machine. You don't matter to your employer, you are just a body easily exchanged for another body or better yet some machine.
I know this is true far too often, but it isn't always true.
I work for a small privately owned company and it really isn't like that at all. I work long hours at times, but I am always offered time off to make up for it. I don't always take it, since I do have a lot of work to do and I actually enjoy what I do. I worked about 80 hours the week before I left on vacation (spending the holidays in England with the wife's family) but that was mainly paranoia since I haven't been more than an hour away from the data center for longer than a weekend since I started working there.
Last year, the whole company got taken to the Rolling Stones in the front section with the exception of a few people who didn't want to go and they were compensated comparably in some other way. We get quarterly bonuses and annual stock grants and they're performance based, so those that work harder do get more. And heck, since I do have so much work to do, my boss told me before I left that they're getting me a flunky next year (yes, he really said flunky, but he's also fond of calling me "fuckhead" when I screw something up so there is that;-)
Anyhow, I don't disagree that everything you said is true somewhere, but there are still places where "the boss" understands that the employees make the business run and keeping them happy is the best way to make sure the business keeps running smoothly.
This is what the Left calls discussion and reason. This is a perfect display of their Hate.
Laughable on so many levels. First, I'm not on the Left. Second, you spouted a bunch of idiotic lies that nobody except extremist partisan hacks buy into and I called you on it. You are apparently entirely unable to back up your ridiculous statement so instead you turn it into an attack on the strawman "left" and pretend that's actually an argument. That's reason for you.
So, you still can't name one and you *are* a lying sack of shit. That's a simple statement of fact which you've done nothing but validate in this discussion.
MS could have told media cartels to F@$# Off!, but that would have COST them money, not made them any.
What a bunch of crap. They would have been ahead the massive expense of implementing this technology which is completely useless to their customers and then they would have *more* people who actually wanted to buy Vista.
How could it possibly have cost them money to *not* blow a bunch of money on worthless technology. That expense plus the massive alienation of their potential customers cost them a lot.
The reality is that no one (reasonable) is going to refuse to buy Vista because it CAN do something, and go out and find an alternative that will not support HD media, because they can just choose to NOT purchase the media.
However had Microsoft actually stood up for *their* customers, instead of against them, then their customers would have *more* options since all DRM can possibly do is limit options. All it does is remove rights that they already have.
No one (reasonable) ever said, 'I wont buy an IPOD, because it can play AAC, and isnt just limited to MP3s'. Why should they do this with Vista?
You, of course, are redefining "reasonable" to mean exactly that, since it's the only way that statement could be true.
You are ignoring the fact that I am explicitly allowed to do everything that DRM is designed to prevent me from doing.
It adds nothing and removes a lot.
Your delusional belief appears to be that I have no rights whatsoever and I should consider myself lucky to only get fucked over as far as it goes.
That's complete crap. I'm a citizen and you are a subject. There is a deep fundamental difference.
The Real Problem is that the New York Times insists on publishing again and again secrets that ultimately end up damaging the U.S.
Name one you lying sack of shit.
Damaging the reputation of the administration by reporting the actual facts about what they've done is the fucking reason we have the freedom of the press you idiotic fascist scumbag.
You make yourself a fool when you blindly repeat nonsense spouted by the pack of liars and traitors currently occupying the white house.
Unfortunately, the Times has not been prosecuted for printing leaked classified intellegence in the recent past which has significantly damaged our efforts in the war on terror.
Can you back up your idiotic lie that there has been any damage caused by the NYT?
No, of course you can't, since there has been none.
What they did was very responsibly report on acts of treason by the current administration.
Now, since all you're doing is repeating nonsense lies spewed by the current treasonous administration, you have done nothing but demonstrate your complete lack of integrity or even basic common sense.
Now kindly take your treasonous lies elsewhere you stupid terrorist supporting shitbag.
When the movement is as large and concerted as it is, you cannot simply frame it as a typical crime
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Al Queda was a large organization? Of course you don't, because it never was. That was another lie fed to you that you lapped because you didn't have the integrity to do any research and blindly swallowed the story the administration was selling. Hell, they've lied about just about everything else, so what makes you so completely out of touch with reality as to suppose they were telling the truth about that?
You may lie to yourself, but the rest of us see (save for the sheep).
You are one of the sheep you fucking nitwit. You're the one spouting unsupportable nonsense in order to justify destroying the US constitution.
When you make decisions based solely upon fear that is fed to you, you prove yourself to be a coward. This is the home of the brave, Sparky. You don't belong here. You're a fucking liability to our liberty.
They predictably won so much power and funding as a result, it's hard not to think they would want it to happen.
Well, you can take it that far without just "thinking" it. We know with 100% certainty that they wanted it to happen, since they stated exactly that back in 2000. Just read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" here.
They stated flat out that "in order to ensure American economic world domination in the 21st century" it would be necessary to invade Iraq. Further they said that they knew full well that the American people wouldn't go along with their lunatic plot so that it would be necessary for there to be an attack on the order of Pearl Harbor which they could then misuse for the purpose of convincing the American people to invade Iraq.
So, we don't have to think that they wanted it, we know it for certain. We know further that it was the single most important event required for them to put their prelaid plans in motion which they bagan doing immediately after 9/11 regardless of the fact that they knew full well that Iraq had no involvement.
Now, none of this proves any involvement with the actual attacks, but it most certainly does make suspicion of them the only rational course as if everything else they did hadn't already made it impossible for any sane person to support them.
However, the fact that Vista ALLOWS you to make this choice (good or bad) is a BENEFIT.
It most certainly is not a benefit to computer users. It is a benefit solely for the media cartels.
Had Microsoft acted as if they were an ordinary business competing in a free market, then they would not have blown billions of dollars developing technologies whose sole purpose is to prevent their customers from using their computers as they see fit. They would have told the media cartels to fuck off and that would have been the end of the story with DRM.
That would have been a benefit to their customers.
Name me one other company that spends billions to protect a cartel of which they aren't even a member?
This is great. You just made my argument, but you don't even realise it.
<me>Hardly. If the specifics of their religion contradict reality, then reality wins. Failure to realise that is stupid. Don't blame me for that fact.</me>
This is my point! You are equating faith to stupidity. Let me quote Einstein.
Below you define faith: "faith (which means belief without evidence)". I agree with that definition.
I didn't equate faith with stupidity. I equated belief in *contradiction* of evidence with stupidity.
Believing that some being put it all in motion does not contradict reality.
Believing that that same being has nothing better to do than screw with people about what they eat, who or how they fuck and sets them up against each other by having them kill each other in his name, does.
God the petulant 6 year old, great.
I think you'll find that your Einstein quotes actually back up my position as well.
You should read beyond the first chapter before you claim to speak from a position of authority. You really should not argue against things you know nothing about.
First chapter of what? The Iliad? Koran? The point I made doesn't rely on the specifics of any particular religion.
All you have to do is look around.
Say, for the sake of argument, that there is a God. Say, further, that he loves us and wants us all to be nice, happy, not blowing up buildings full of people sort of folks.
Then the simple fact that he told a bunch of different people so many contradictory things about himself isn't really the best way to go about that.
Or, if you're of the mind that your team got it right and all the rest got fake revelations, well that's a pretty piss poor way to achieve those goals as well, don't you think?
So, that's a pretty simple message, delivered ineffectively as was my claim. You want to add in even more specifics than just that simple of a message and yet there are plenty of people still worshipping "false" gods. And killing and getting killed for largely trivial differences.
Heck, the only way God doesn't come off looking incompetent is if you conclude he's just a dick. He's pretty good at that.
and how's that? By putting a Christmas tree on the town square?
I've never had a problem with Christmas trees. That tradition goes way back before your religion. It could well predate your god even, but I don't know that there's any evidence on that one way or the other.
And if the "extremist Christians" are taking over America and destroying the Constitution, then they are doing a really crappy job because I see the number of Mosques increasing and number of churches declining. I think your fears are unfounded, or at least pointed in the wrong direction.
Plus the scumbag fag haters, the clinic bombers and other terrorists.
This country was founded, formed and populated by those trying to escape such persecution.
That describes some of those who first came here, although most of those are described as extremists who were thrown out of their home countries for their intolerance and savage ways to those who didn't buy ito the particular brand of crap they were peddling.
Our forefathers wanted to create a country where its citizens could worship free from prosecution.
This is so entirely typical of the deeply dishonest historical revisionism commonly practiced by Christian extremists.
They wanted a country where people were free from the persec
My point was that you are a true asshole for insulting someone's religion and their intelligence for believing in that religion. That makes you a grade-A, class 5 asshole.
Hardly. If the specifics of their religion contradict reality, then reality wins. Failure to realise that is stupid. Don't blame me for that fact.
You are no more right than anyone else, and it shows your terribly misplaced conceit to think otherwise.
Depends on the subject. I'm much more right than most people on some obscure topic that I know about but most people don't care in the least about, for example. Any religion more specific than "God created the universe and hasn't been back since" is silly because it has as its fundamental belief that God is great enough to create the entire univers but he's too pathetic to deliver a simple message effectively.
Living in denial about that fact doesn't help anybody.
You have no right to force your beliefs on others, just as others can not force their beliefs on you. That's what the freedom or religion is all about. I'll kill or die defending that right, and any true patriot will do the same for the Constitution. If you have a problem with that document, I hear Cuba does not have such backwards ideals as a freedom or religion. I also hear it's quite nice this time of year.
I'm not trying to force my beliefs, or lack thereof, on anybody. That's generally the realm of the religious. In fact the extremist Christians are currently taking over America with the *stated* goal of the destruction of the constitution and its replacement with a Christian theocracy.
So, clearly, my sort ain't the threat.
Of course, you fail to even understand what freedom of religion is all about since you're hideously misusing the concept.
You're welcome, as far as I'm concerned, to believe whatever ridiculous nonsense that you want. You are not welcome to be free from people pointing out that what you do believe is, in fact, ridiculous nonsense.
So, maybe Cuba or Saudi Arabia or somesuch place where criticism is banned would be better for you? You're the only one who has a problem with people speeking freely.
In other words, that makes you a pussy. See, it takes no courage to sit there behind your keyboard and type your drivel. However, if you had real guts and conviction, you'd go a bar that serves the a nearby military base and tell them how you think it's patriotic to murder Republicans, and I assume anyone else that has different views than your own.
And again, you demonstrate your ignorance of the difference between "different views" and "treasonous action". I don't condone killing Republicans becasue of what they believe, it's for what they do. And what they do is launch savage assaults on America. Setting up death camps is an action, not a belief. Of course, you have knowledge and belief inextricably muddled in your head, so I don't really expect you to be able to make sense of such simple ideas.
Who the hell are you to tell this guy his belief system is wrong? Are some sort of deity yourself, or do you just think you are God? Fact is, evolution is theory, much like the theory of gravity or big bang theory . So you are either telling a lie yourself or you don't know the difference between theory and fact. Your post supports both theories.
Ahhh, don't you just love idiots who keep repeating the same delusional lies even right after having reality pointed out to them.. Seriously, Sparky, you're making yourself look very ignorant when you repeat idiotic nonsense like this.
Evolution is a fact. 100% absolutely proven beyond any possible doubt. Here, I'll prove it to you: Ever seen a dog? There you go.
The Theory of evolution is a scientific theory that does a good job of explaining the various mechanisms it uses.
See, it's really simple, and you've had this explained to you several times so you have no excuse for your blind ignorance.
Heck, even if you are stupid enough to try to argue those facts you should at least have the basic common sense to come up with an argument rather than repeating the same exact crap that you me and everybody else in the world knows is a crap.
It makes you a fool and it makes you a liar.
Note: I'm not claiming that evolution is wrong. I am claiming that you are an asshole for insulting this guy's religion.
If the guy's religion is dependent on evolution being false, then it is a stupid religion and should be made fun of until he shuts up in public about his delusions or gets a religion that isn't so easily proven false.
Some would be good. You still haven't provided any.
Like I said, if you can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes researching something, you really shouldn't bother piping in on the subject. It's not like it's hard to find contradictions and inaccuracies throughout the bible. You want to believe that it's magically true so you refuse to put in any effort to be informed on the issues. Not a big deal to me, but you really should try to be honest about it.
Look I can't be bothered to read the rest of your comment. You are not arguing based on facts, you are arguing on emotion. I see no point in aruging any further. Go argue with your strawman, that seems to be what you really want to do.
By which you mean that you're not happy with the facts and so prefer remaining in denial of reality.
Your choice, but don't bother piping up on subjects you refuse to learn anything about. You just look silly.
This is a claim for which you have provided no proof.
Wow, just wow. How much proof do you need? Seriously.
Nice work twisting my words. I am saying that people should not question what they believe to be true based on fiction.
Well, you're saying they should not question what they believe based on facts either. Logically, it follows that you believe people shouldn't question their beliefs.
What does that have to do with anything? There is a lot in the Genesis that is similar to contemporary stories. The Geneis creation story is very similar (with important changes, largely the removal of muliple gods and the replacement with one God).
What it has to do with anything is that you're trying to claim that the existence of some old manuscripts is proof that a person mentioned in said manuscripts existed. Therefore, the fact that the myths being recounted in the manuscripts predate the "person" who is supposed to have been an actual character in said myths is entirely relevant.
Your point there is entirely equivalent to finding a copy of the Iliad written a hundred years after Homer died and claiming that that is proof that Achilles existed 100 years after the time of Homer.
The problem with that attempt at reasoning is that not only do we have no proof that there ever really was an Achilles, but even if there was such a person, he didn't live at the time you'd conclude he did.
And once again you think I have not done that research. Why is this a circular argument? There are strong reasons why the gospels have credibility. One is that there are early manuscripts (which I mentioned), and manuscripts up til today that satisfy historians that the gospels we have today are original or very close to. In other words the "church" has not doctored them.
I didn't say that the church (or anybody for that matter) doctored them. The previous point, that the stories were far older which you just admitted to knowing (or at least very strongly implied as much) proves that to be false. They can't really be the originals, now can they?
Secondly there are methods historians apply to texts such as these to test the authenticity. I'd list them out but I don't think you are really listening.
You keep making the same silly mistakes. Nobody is saying that when whoever wrote the particular documents in question that they were later altered.
What I am saying is that the authors are unknown and were not contemporary with the supposed lifetime of Jesus. Further, the stories they were telling were older even than that.
As for the Josephus quote, could you substantiate that please.
Since you're the one clinging desperately on to it as your sole hope of finding any evidence whatsoever for your viewpoint don't you think you owe it to yourself to spend 5 minuted checking it out instead of blindly swallowing nonsense spouted by whoe3ver sold you that line of crap?
However, just so you can pick out some trivial meaningless detail to use as an excuse to ignore the whole subject, here's one link.
Hey thanks. I love being called an idiot and a liar by someone who claims in the face of all historical evidence and all credible historians that the person of Jesus never existed.
Well, when you keep pretending that "no historical evidence whatsoever and no credible historians" means "all historical evidence and all credible historians", how can you expect any decent person to treat you as anything but an idiot and liar? When you continue to repeat idiotic lies, you *are* an idiotic liar. Don't blame me, that's just how it works.
Throughout these comments you have been insulting, closed minded and pretty much everything Christians are accused of.
I'm not closed minded at all. The thing is that I have researched these issues, and so I *know* that you
I'd disagree with that. An anecdote, my sister in law read the Da Vinci code and her immediate comment was this it made her doubt the accuracy of the bible.
Which really does nothing to address my point. The Bible is inaccurate. That's no big surprise to anybody (well, loony fundies aside, but they're not really known for either sanity or common sense). What the daVinci Code does though, is propogagte the silly myth that there even was a Jesus. If it went for the historically accurate picture, then that would have been a far more negative picture of the state of Christianity.
The Da Vinci code is fiction on fiction, but people read it as fact. FWIW I think everyone should test their beliefs however they should no test it on the basis of fiction.
Wow, that's truly dizzying. People should question their fictional fantasies, but not do it on the basis of fiction. If that was even possible, it would certainly be interesting to try.
First off the gospels are credible historical evidence for the existance of Jesus.,/i>
Nonsense. Circular reasoning in the first place. In the second place, they are nothing of the sort. Who wrote them? Oh yeah, nobody knows. They do know it wasn't contemporary with the supposed lifetime of Jesus.
They are 4 independant accounts of his existance.
Wow, amazing. It's like never before have stories circulated in the world. It's almost as if the biblical flood story wasn't a blatant ripoff of Gilgamesh.
Perhaps you should look into the origin of those myths and how they predate the supposed birth of Jesus by a century. Seriously now. A *little* bit of research would do you good. Repeating half truths and flat out lies is just silly.
In addition there is corroborating historical evidence from contemporary historians (eg Josephus).
So I ask for *credible* evidence and you respond with a circular argument and then this. In the first place, there is nothing from "historians". There is one item from one historian "Josephus" as you said, but had you done any research whatsoever (no, checking fundie sites obviously does not count as they are pathological liars) you would know that the passage from the Josephus document is a thoroughly debunked forgery.
Look, it's obvious that you do not know a damn thing about the subject. You have a belief and you want to try to justify it. I understand that you desperately need for this to be true, but sorry, reality does not need to bend itself to be what you want it to be.
This is a difficult question to answer, equally your question about who created the "christian faith". Which christian faith? What do you mean by Christianity? Catholic? Orthodox? Protestant?
The New Testament.
If you really want to learn about why we have the bible as it stands today, read "The Canon of Scripture". However from your comment it appears you would prefer to keep your current views, regardless of the evidence.
What's clear is that you will buy into whatever allows you to keep your delusions. I have no preconcieved notions, and no need to prove or disprove anything. The facts are all on my side though.
When you repeat silly lies like the Josephus nonsense, you demonstrate that you don't care one bit for what's actually true and just seek to prop up your delusional needs.
If you actually study the history, the Christian faith was created by the Catholic Church.
Uh? What? Reading the Da Vinci code doesn't count as studying history.
I'm well aware of that fact. The Da Vinci code did more to back up Christianity than to hurt it anyhow, which is pretty funny. Perhaps if you're such a history expert, you'd care to point me to one single credible scrap of historical evidence that there ever even was such a person as Jesus?
No? Thought not.
Back to the original point, perhaps you can name some other group than the Catholic Church that creeated Christianity? They selected and edited the books that would become the New Testament to push political goals. What more do you need to invent a religion?
There is so much rubbish in your post, I don't even know where to start.
Yet you're unable to point out any... Odd that.
Second, most of the abuses you mention are directed at a specific form of Christianity, Catholicism and they all occurred when the Catholic Church was more than just a religion, it was a political power.
Well, the Catholic Church was Christianity while it was being spread by the sword, so, you're still not pointing out anything inaccurate. Of course, the Salem witch trials and various other atrocities were, of course, the Catholics.... Oh wait, it wasn't. So not only are you failing to point out anything inaccurate about my poist, you're making blatantly false statements. Of course, the fact that the Catholic Church became a political power backs up my point entirely, not yours. If you actually study the history, the Christian faith was created by the Catholic Church. The various ridiculous matters of dogma were created as a way to declare a different political group as heretics and murder them. That is how Catholic dogma got where it is, but it's also how the New Testament was created so every Christian church uses the same politically motivated, selectively edited and often completely made up crap.
As for forcing women to have babies, since prior to the early 60s, there really wasn't effective birth control, it seems that religious and non-religious types were having lots of babies. Here I just thought that prior to the industrial revolution, people had a lot of babies, because they needed a lot of help on the farm or the factory. I didn't know it was a secret conspiracy to get converts.
It's no secret. It was quite clear out in the open. It's not only religions who pull that one though. It's typical of warlike societies. Of course, birth control and abortion have existed for a long time contrary to the false statement you made. Trying to eliminate those options is how the church has and still does force women to have babies.
Damn, just look at the atrocity that is Vatican policy in Africa. Oh wait, Catholics. Well, for other Christians, jsut look at how the lunatic contingent in America has shaped our policies on reproductive freedom. Hell, the only nations we're in agreement on "moral" issues are extremist islamic countries.
It seems like your rant and anger are really is directed at the Catholic Church and/or G*d.
No, my "rant" was directed at the blatant falsehoods in the OP.
. Since we live in a tolerant religious society, you're welcome to those feelings.
Wow, are you allergic to making honest statements? Since we live in a tolerant *secular* society, I'm welcome to those feelings. You might notice that the seperation of church and state is the one thing that most made America stand out when it was founded, right? Democracy and Republics were both already very old when America was founded.
I'm welcome to those feelings *in spite* of the religious community. You might notice that they are fighting tooth and nail to destroy exactly that if you actually looked around a little.
But please, don't assume that Christianity is the only religion and that the whole world agrees with you.
But the power structure or manifesto for controlling people only applies to those who "choose" to follow that religion, not those who chose not to.
Right, sure. Hence all the murder, torture, burning alive, and general asshattery which was the *primary* tool used to spread all major religions. Oh wait, your statement was actually totally false and nonsensical.
Now from a very basic organizational view, if you are intolerant of outsiders and chase them all away, your organization or in this case, religion is going to die out, because there will be no new members. That has not been the case throughout history.
You do know why gay hatred and forcing women to have as many babies as possible is the number one agenda item for most religions, right? This is basic historical knowledge and common sense.
It's that sort of ignorance that religion promotes. You can argue reasonably on other subjects, but here you completely abondon reason. That was the simple obvious conclusion to draw and entriely consistent with reality.
Ask yourself how you could possibly have missed that?
No, it seems that the intolerance, in the way you are using it, has to deal with when religion is used to control the masses or is used to target a population. That isn't the purpose of any religion (which in some form or another is to find G*d or enlightenment or other such expressions).
Ah, but it is the purpose of religion. That's the baisc historical fact you're failing to get. Sure, it's *sold* as a search for enlightenment, but please don't be so horribly naive as to assume that religious leaders have ever been stupid enough to buy into what they're selling to the rubes.
It is only when the real purpose of religion is co-opted, whether by religious leaders or others and it becomes a tool to further personal and political goals that the intolerance that leads to hate and war and other atrocities occurs.
Not true. Again, that is the true purpose of religion. Show me a time and place in history when it hasn't been used for that purpose....Crickets chirping...
Again, that isn't religion doing it, but is people using religion.
It is people using religion exactly as it was intended to be used.
Seriously, do you really believe that god is so fucking stupid as to be that big of a failure at getting a simple basic message across?
That's what really blows my gourd about religious types.
They claim to believe in an all powerful all knowing being. Yet he's too entirely incompetant to deliver a simple message to his creation.
Now if you're going to insist, nonsensically, that he did, then you'll have to explain exactly which religion got the right message and exactly how you know with 100% certainty that it is actually the right one you believe.
If you can't do that, then you are saying that you god is an incompetant moron. If he were not, there would not be multiple religions killing each other over trivial bullshit which had he just done his job correctly would never have happened.
Well, unless god intended it that way, in which case he's an asshole.
,i> On the other hand, if you're talking about a non-christian marriage which grants gays the same benefits as marriage, then sure. I see nothing hypocritical about that. It's just that when people are talking about marriage it is still easily understood to mean christian marriage, and you should be careful to spell it out if you don't mean it.
Given that marriage far predates Christianity and has always been more of an economic institution than a religious one, you might want to quit it with the moronic attempt at revisionist history. Also, there are far more marriages than there are Christians in the world.
t may come up in calculations and solutions but any physicist would be laugh out of the conference room if ever equated a measureable quantity to an number with imaginary component.
Well, you're just factually incorrect (and, of course, you know you are).
Not at all. While there are bad people out there, the extent of the threat was completely overblown for political purposes. Al Queda, while it does exist has also been blown way out of proportion. There is no huge world spanning massive conspiracy of terrorists out to hate on us for our freedom or any of the other ridiculous nonsense that has been the Republicans' entire stock in trade for a long time.
Also, gays are not a threat to marriage. Democrats are not going to burn people's bibles.
You see, those are essentially everything that the Republicans consider to be issues.
Do you care to dispute that those last two are entirely nonsense, completely made up threats of no real consequence?
Or are you more of the "it never happened" camp?
No, I'm of the "It happened, but I'm not going to piss away my birthright out of cowardice". All of the new "security" bullshit does more to strip innocent Americans of their rights than it does shit to stop terrorists. Add that to the fact that the terrorist threat was way overblown, the Iraq invasion did nothing but increase that threat as was predicted by most credible obbservers long before we did invade.
Since then, fellow humans in places like Madrid or London would probably have no trouble convincing you that the threat from people deliberately planning, and executing, murderous attacks is not "made up," however comforting it must be to you to think that's the case.
Well, we have outscored them on deliberately planning and executing murderous attacks, keep that in mind at all times. Add in the number of innocents sent off to death camps. Add in the Patriot act, the unconstitutional wiretaps, the completely made up bullshit to sell the war in Iraq, and maybe you'll start to see what the real credible threat to America is.
Terrorists haven't done shit compared to what this Republican party have done to destroy freedom in this country.
So, no, it has nothing to do with thinking there are no threats. It's the simple fact that by *any metric you care to come up with* the Republicans are a far greater threat to me my life, my liberty and my family than all of the terrorists in the world put together.
The cowardice you're accusing me of exhibiting is - to cite a little PSY101 - pretty much you projecting your own head-in-the-sand about this. I
Not at all. I am aware that there are threats. My approach is to face them like a man on my feet defending my liberty.
Your approach is to pull your panties over your head and cry to big government to take away all our freedoms as long as they tell you they're making you safer.
That is a canonical example of cowardice. The fact that due to the support of cowards like you for treasonous actions, we are much less safe, and the largely made up threat of terrorism is growing. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.
Do you have any idea how absurd your point is? Your B Movie villain nonsense doesn't make any more sense in real life than it would in a cheesy movie.
Well, you're the one making up crap. You still haven't addressed the 100% proven fact that we haqve tortured innocent people and murdered them in these camps. You also have done nothing to *prove* that the people in these camps are guilty of anything. Most importantly, you haven't done anything to address the fact that they are death camps.
So, until you can *prove* that the people being tortured and murdered in these death camps are all guilty of the most heinous of crimes, you lose. You lose on moral grounds, you lose on constitutional grounds, and you lose by making *anything* no matter how disgusting, that is done to our soldiers legitimate. You can't piss away the moral high ground and then deny responsibility for the consequences. Of course, avoiding responsibility for their actions is a theme with Bushies.
Do you really find that to be different, qualitatively, from "OMG! The republicans want people like Michael J. Fox and your grandmother to die!"
Absolutely.
There is actually some truth to that, twisted though it might be.
There is no truth whatsoever to the Republicans' made up threats.
Just out of curiosity, would you consider all prisons to be "death camps?"
No, but camps designed for the purpose of torture and murder of *innocent* peopl are death camps period.
Now, if you would like to *prove absolutely* that everybody in all of these death camps are a major threat then *and only then* would you have made a point.
You can't though. In fact, you have no legitimate reason whatsoever to believe that *anybody* there is guilty of a god damned thing. That is the major reason that the existence of those camps and the made up powers for the current president are lethal to freedom, and entirely treasonous actions.
Hell the *only* reason wholely illegitimate as it is, you have for believing that anybody there is guilty of shit is the word of Bush who has been proven a liar on almost everything he's said.
You might want to use just a little perspective (and maybe talk to someone who actually survived a real one).
You're the one wholely lacking in any sort of perspective.
"Durr.... welll what if somebody there was actually guilty of something?"
That's not how it works. Your arguments are based solely on cowardice. You need far more courage and integrity than you have to live in a free society.
The question to ask isn't "well what if some of them are guilty". It's "What happens when ScentCone gets shipped off to be tortured and murdered on the whim of a fool".
That's rich, that is. You're spouting tinfoil-lined stuff without any sense of context whatsoever.
They're called facts. You have yet to come up with anything to disprove them, and there has been a metric assload of effort by the Repugs to spin, lie, mislead and misdirect the whole conversation on this issue and not one of them have managed to come up with one single legitimate defense of any of these programs.
Again, just like yours, all of their arguments boil down to "We're cowardly little pussies and we want to piss away everything this country used to mean in order tp pretend we're safer. We do not give a flying fuck how many innocent people we're torturing and murdering in death camps to do it."
Or do you recognize that he's the tip of a big, toxic, actively murderous iceburg, and that you'll lose precious opportunities if you make his capture (and the operational details of it) readily known?
More cowardly delusional fear mongering. Those situations can be handled quite well by normal, *legal* channels. There is no need whatsoever to have changed any laws after 9/11. So you propose essentially completely suspending the constitution becasue your panties are all bunched up. Grow up, be a man, not a whining little pussy and everything wiull be fine without your cowardly treasonous gestapo tactics.
Look, I get it. You're a coward quaking in your boots at every turn. You are not fit to live in a free society since your complete lack of courage, honor or integrity is a liability. So here's a good idea for you: Move to Saudi Arabia. They're your sort of people there. You'll get along just fine and then you won't be here to keep trying your damndest to make America into a clone of Saudi Arabia. Plus then you'll have plenty of torture and murder around to make you feel safe.
I pointed out that the campaign (on the dem side) revolved pretty much entirely on pointing out why the electorate should be afraid having the republicans in control of the legislature. This seems to be your point, too.
No, there is a very large difference.
For an example of fear based campaigs, just look at all the recent Republica races. "Oh no, the evil Demoncrats will ban your bibles if they're elected".
That was one of their actual tactics.
Now, that's clearly completely divorced from reality and designed for the purpose of making people believe ridiculous nonsense through blatantly dishonest fear mongering.
Now, look at the current situation in the US. We are running a network of *death camps* in third world shitholes where Bush can, solely on a whim, send you me or anybody else he pleases to be tortured and murdered with no recourse to the law.
No matter how you try to whitewash it and excuse treason those are the facts, and those situations are worlds apart.
On the one side you have typical Republican nosense fear mongering, which is so insane that only a deeply delusional fool would but into it.
On the other hand you have people stating simple basic facts.
That's basically the crux of your failure to get it.
You don't seem to understand the very large difference between flat out lying in order to create fear which has been pretty much the whole of the Republicans' campaign strategies for the last couple of decades: "Ohs nos duh eval Demoncrats duh eval faggotzorz!!!!one!!!"
And reality.
The current Republican party is far and away the single largest threat that this nation has ever faced. That's reality. Pointing that out is no more fear mongering than stating the temperature.
Fear was their primary tool, and they used it - a lot.
As I've already demonstrated - a lot, dealing with reality is different than using fear. Again, just look to Republican campaign strategy for actual examples of fear mongering.
It was a much more unifying theme across that party's campaigning than any other topic (since they were, as usual, highly fractured on most actual matters of substance, as are many republicans).
Again, you're just demonstrating Orwellian doublethinking.
Go count the number of "OMFG we have to ass rape the constitution to save us all from the eval terroristorz" from the Repugs over the last several years, add up the number of orders of magnitude of difference between that and anything the Dems have done and then try to start actually dealing with the real world instead of just repeating the same tired old idiotic lies.
Let me know if any of my words were too big or anything, OK? Have a nice weekend.
I'm sure you can read all of the words just fine. Your problem appears to be an inability to tell the difference between reality and right wing echo chamber fantasies.
Slashdot Mirror
Though the monkey would probably be cheaper to care for...
I'd think that with the training and the weaponry the war ape would be quite happy to feed itself
Every working person should realize that they are just cogs in a machine. You don't matter to your employer, you are just a body easily exchanged for another body or better yet some machine.
;-)
I know this is true far too often, but it isn't always true.
I work for a small privately owned company and it really isn't like that at all.
I work long hours at times, but I am always offered time off to make up for it. I don't always take it, since I do have a lot of work to do and I actually enjoy what I do.
I worked about 80 hours the week before I left on vacation (spending the holidays in England with the wife's family) but that was mainly paranoia since I haven't been more than an hour away from the data center for longer than a weekend since I started working there.
Last year, the whole company got taken to the Rolling Stones in the front section with the exception of a few people who didn't want to go and they were compensated comparably in some other way.
We get quarterly bonuses and annual stock grants and they're performance based, so those that work harder do get more.
And heck, since I do have so much work to do, my boss told me before I left that they're getting me a flunky next year (yes, he really said flunky, but he's also fond of calling me "fuckhead" when I screw something up so there is that
Anyhow, I don't disagree that everything you said is true somewhere, but there are still places where "the boss" understands that the employees make the business run and keeping them happy is the best way to make sure the business keeps running smoothly.
This is what the Left calls discussion and reason. This is a perfect display of their Hate.
Laughable on so many levels.
First, I'm not on the Left.
Second, you spouted a bunch of idiotic lies that nobody except extremist partisan hacks buy into and I called you on it.
You are apparently entirely unable to back up your ridiculous statement so instead you turn it into an attack on the strawman "left" and pretend that's actually an argument.
That's reason for you.
So, you still can't name one and you *are* a lying sack of shit. That's a simple statement of fact which you've done nothing but validate in this discussion.
MS could have told media cartels to F@$# Off!, but that would have COST them money, not made them any.
What a bunch of crap.
They would have been ahead the massive expense of implementing this technology which is completely useless to their customers and then they would have *more* people who actually wanted to buy Vista.
How could it possibly have cost them money to *not* blow a bunch of money on worthless technology. That expense plus the massive alienation of their potential customers cost them a lot.
The reality is that no one (reasonable) is going to refuse to buy Vista because it CAN do something, and go out and find an alternative that will not support HD media, because they can just choose to NOT purchase the media.
However had Microsoft actually stood up for *their* customers, instead of against them, then their customers would have *more* options since all DRM can possibly do is limit options. All it does is remove rights that they already have.
No one (reasonable) ever said, 'I wont buy an IPOD, because it can play AAC, and isnt just limited to MP3s'. Why should they do this with Vista?
You, of course, are redefining "reasonable" to mean exactly that, since it's the only way that statement could be true.
You are ignoring the fact that I am explicitly allowed to do everything that DRM is designed to prevent me from doing.
It adds nothing and removes a lot.
Your delusional belief appears to be that I have no rights whatsoever and I should consider myself lucky to only get fucked over as far as it goes.
That's complete crap. I'm a citizen and you are a subject. There is a deep fundamental difference.
The Real Problem is that the New York Times insists on publishing again and again secrets that ultimately end up damaging the U.S.
Name one you lying sack of shit.
Damaging the reputation of the administration by reporting the actual facts about what they've done is the fucking reason we have the freedom of the press you idiotic fascist scumbag.
You make yourself a fool when you blindly repeat nonsense spouted by the pack of liars and traitors currently occupying the white house.
Unfortunately, the Times has not been prosecuted for printing leaked classified intellegence in the recent past which has significantly damaged our efforts in the war on terror.
Can you back up your idiotic lie that there has been any damage caused by the NYT?
No, of course you can't, since there has been none.
What they did was very responsibly report on acts of treason by the current administration.
Now, since all you're doing is repeating nonsense lies spewed by the current treasonous administration, you have done nothing but demonstrate your complete lack of integrity or even basic common sense.
Now kindly take your treasonous lies elsewhere you stupid terrorist supporting shitbag.
When the movement is as large and concerted as it is, you cannot simply frame it as a typical crime
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Al Queda was a large organization?
Of course you don't, because it never was. That was another lie fed to you that you lapped because you didn't have the integrity to do any research and blindly swallowed the story the administration was selling. Hell, they've lied about just about everything else, so what makes you so completely out of touch with reality as to suppose they were telling the truth about that?
You may lie to yourself, but the rest of us see (save for the sheep).
You are one of the sheep you fucking nitwit.
You're the one spouting unsupportable nonsense in order to justify destroying the US constitution.
When you make decisions based solely upon fear that is fed to you, you prove yourself to be a coward.
This is the home of the brave, Sparky. You don't belong here. You're a fucking liability to our liberty.
They predictably won so much power and funding as a result, it's hard not to think they would want it to happen.
Well, you can take it that far without just "thinking" it. We know with 100% certainty that they wanted it to happen, since they stated exactly that back in 2000. Just read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" here.
They stated flat out that "in order to ensure American economic world domination in the 21st century" it would be necessary to invade Iraq. Further they said that they knew full well that the American people wouldn't go along with their lunatic plot so that it would be necessary for there to be an attack on the order of Pearl Harbor which they could then misuse for the purpose of convincing the American people to invade Iraq.
So, we don't have to think that they wanted it, we know it for certain. We know further that it was the single most important event required for them to put their prelaid plans in motion which they bagan doing immediately after 9/11 regardless of the fact that they knew full well that Iraq had no involvement.
Now, none of this proves any involvement with the actual attacks, but it most certainly does make suspicion of them the only rational course as if everything else they did hadn't already made it impossible for any sane person to support them.
However, the fact that Vista ALLOWS you to make this choice (good or bad) is a BENEFIT.
It most certainly is not a benefit to computer users. It is a benefit solely for the media cartels.
Had Microsoft acted as if they were an ordinary business competing in a free market, then they would not have blown billions of dollars developing technologies whose sole purpose is to prevent their customers from using their computers as they see fit.
They would have told the media cartels to fuck off and that would have been the end of the story with DRM.
That would have been a benefit to their customers.
Name me one other company that spends billions to protect a cartel of which they aren't even a member?
Yeah, thought not.
This is great. You just made my argument, but you don't even realise it.
<me>Hardly. If the specifics of their religion contradict reality, then reality wins.
Failure to realise that is stupid. Don't blame me for that fact.</me>
This is my point! You are equating faith to stupidity. Let me quote Einstein.
Below you define faith: "faith (which means belief without evidence)".
I agree with that definition.
I didn't equate faith with stupidity. I equated belief in *contradiction* of evidence with stupidity.
Believing that some being put it all in motion does not contradict reality.
Believing that that same being has nothing better to do than screw with people about what they eat, who or how they fuck and sets them up against each other by having them kill each other in his name, does.
God the petulant 6 year old, great.
I think you'll find that your Einstein quotes actually back up my position as well.
You should read beyond the first chapter before you claim to speak from a position of authority. You really should not argue against things you know nothing about.
First chapter of what? The Iliad? Koran?
The point I made doesn't rely on the specifics of any particular religion.
All you have to do is look around.
Say, for the sake of argument, that there is a God.
Say, further, that he loves us and wants us all to be nice, happy, not blowing up buildings full of people sort of folks.
Then the simple fact that he told a bunch of different people so many contradictory things about himself isn't really the best way to go about that.
Or, if you're of the mind that your team got it right and all the rest got fake revelations, well that's a pretty piss poor way to achieve those goals as well, don't you think?
So, that's a pretty simple message, delivered ineffectively as was my claim.
You want to add in even more specifics than just that simple of a message and yet there are plenty of people still worshipping "false" gods. And killing and getting killed for largely trivial differences.
Heck, the only way God doesn't come off looking incompetent is if you conclude he's just a dick. He's pretty good at that.
and how's that? By putting a Christmas tree on the town square?
I've never had a problem with Christmas trees. That tradition goes way back before your religion. It could well predate your god even, but I don't know that there's any evidence on that one way or the other.
And if the "extremist Christians" are taking over America and destroying the Constitution, then they are doing a really crappy job because I see the number of Mosques increasing and number of churches declining. I think your fears are unfounded, or at least pointed in the wrong direction.
I'm talking about folks like these:
ID Loons trying to cram their religion into science classes to dumb down our future.
Universities dedicated to gettig religious extremists i positios of power.
And other groups driven by their hatred for American values
Plus the scumbag fag haters, the clinic bombers and other terrorists.
This country was founded, formed and populated by those trying to escape such persecution.
That describes some of those who first came here, although most of those are described as extremists who were thrown out of their home countries for their intolerance and savage ways to those who didn't buy ito the particular brand of crap they were peddling.
Our forefathers wanted to create a country where its citizens could worship free from prosecution.
This is so entirely typical of the deeply dishonest historical revisionism commonly practiced by Christian extremists.
They wanted a country where people were free from the persec
My point was that you are a true asshole for insulting someone's religion and their intelligence for believing in that religion. That makes you a grade-A, class 5 asshole.
Hardly. If the specifics of their religion contradict reality, then reality wins.
Failure to realise that is stupid. Don't blame me for that fact.
You are no more right than anyone else, and it shows your terribly misplaced conceit to think otherwise.
Depends on the subject. I'm much more right than most people on some obscure topic that I know about but most people don't care in the least about, for example.
Any religion more specific than "God created the universe and hasn't been back since" is silly because it has as its fundamental belief that God is great enough to create the entire univers but he's too pathetic to deliver a simple message effectively.
Living in denial about that fact doesn't help anybody.
You have no right to force your beliefs on others, just as others can not force their beliefs on you. That's what the freedom or religion is all about. I'll kill or die defending that right, and any true patriot will do the same for the Constitution. If you have a problem with that document, I hear Cuba does not have such backwards ideals as a freedom or religion. I also hear it's quite nice this time of year.
I'm not trying to force my beliefs, or lack thereof, on anybody. That's generally the realm of the religious. In fact the extremist Christians are currently taking over America with the *stated* goal of the destruction of the constitution and its replacement with a Christian theocracy.
So, clearly, my sort ain't the threat.
Of course, you fail to even understand what freedom of religion is all about since you're hideously misusing the concept.
You're welcome, as far as I'm concerned, to believe whatever ridiculous nonsense that you want.
You are not welcome to be free from people pointing out that what you do believe is, in fact, ridiculous nonsense.
So, maybe Cuba or Saudi Arabia or somesuch place where criticism is banned would be better for you? You're the only one who has a problem with people speeking freely.
In other words, that makes you a pussy. See, it takes no courage to sit there behind your keyboard and type your drivel. However, if you had real guts and conviction, you'd go a bar that serves the a nearby military base and tell them how you think it's patriotic to murder Republicans, and I assume anyone else that has different views than your own.
And again, you demonstrate your ignorance of the difference between "different views" and "treasonous action".
I don't condone killing Republicans becasue of what they believe, it's for what they do. And what they do is launch savage assaults on America. Setting up death camps is an action, not a belief.
Of course, you have knowledge and belief inextricably muddled in your head, so I don't really expect you to be able to make sense of such simple ideas.
Who the hell are you to tell this guy his belief system is wrong? Are some sort of deity yourself, or do you just think you are God? Fact is, evolution is theory, much like the theory of gravity or big bang theory . So you are either telling a lie yourself or you don't know the difference between theory and fact. Your post supports both theories.
Ahhh, don't you just love idiots who keep repeating the same delusional lies even right after having reality pointed out to them..
Seriously, Sparky, you're making yourself look very ignorant when you repeat idiotic nonsense like this.
Evolution is a fact. 100% absolutely proven beyond any possible doubt.
Here, I'll prove it to you:
Ever seen a dog?
There you go.
The Theory of evolution is a scientific theory that does a good job of explaining the various mechanisms it uses.
See, it's really simple, and you've had this explained to you several times so you have no excuse for your blind ignorance.
Heck, even if you are stupid enough to try to argue those facts you should at least have the basic common sense to come up with an argument rather than repeating the same exact crap that you me and everybody else in the world knows is a crap.
It makes you a fool and it makes you a liar.
Note: I'm not claiming that evolution is wrong. I am claiming that you are an asshole for insulting this guy's religion.
If the guy's religion is dependent on evolution being false, then it is a stupid religion and should be made fun of until he shuts up in public about his delusions or gets a religion that isn't so easily proven false.
Some would be good. You still haven't provided any.
Like I said, if you can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes researching something, you really shouldn't bother piping in on the subject. It's not like it's hard to find contradictions and inaccuracies throughout the bible.
You want to believe that it's magically true so you refuse to put in any effort to be informed on the issues.
Not a big deal to me, but you really should try to be honest about it.
Look I can't be bothered to read the rest of your comment. You are not arguing based on facts, you are arguing on emotion. I see no point in aruging any further. Go argue with your strawman, that seems to be what you really want to do.
By which you mean that you're not happy with the facts and so prefer remaining in denial of reality.
Your choice, but don't bother piping up on subjects you refuse to learn anything about. You just look silly.
This is a claim for which you have provided no proof.
Wow, just wow. How much proof do you need? Seriously.
Nice work twisting my words. I am saying that people should not question what they believe to be true based on fiction.
Well, you're saying they should not question what they believe based on facts either. Logically, it follows that you believe people shouldn't question their beliefs.
What does that have to do with anything? There is a lot in the Genesis that is similar to contemporary stories. The Geneis creation story is very similar (with important changes, largely the removal of muliple gods and the replacement with one God).
What it has to do with anything is that you're trying to claim that the existence of some old manuscripts is proof that a person mentioned in said manuscripts existed. Therefore, the fact that the myths being recounted in the manuscripts predate the "person" who is supposed to have been an actual character in said myths is entirely relevant.
Your point there is entirely equivalent to finding a copy of the Iliad written a hundred years after Homer died and claiming that that is proof that Achilles existed 100 years after the time of Homer.
The problem with that attempt at reasoning is that not only do we have no proof that there ever really was an Achilles, but even if there was such a person, he didn't live at the time you'd conclude he did.
And once again you think I have not done that research.
Why is this a circular argument? There are strong reasons why the gospels have credibility. One is that there are early manuscripts (which I mentioned), and manuscripts up til today that satisfy historians that the gospels we have today are original or very close to. In other words the "church" has not doctored them.
I didn't say that the church (or anybody for that matter) doctored them. The previous point, that the stories were far older which you just admitted to knowing (or at least very strongly implied as much) proves that to be false.
They can't really be the originals, now can they?
Secondly there are methods historians apply to texts such as these to test the authenticity. I'd list them out but I don't think you are really listening.
You keep making the same silly mistakes.
Nobody is saying that when whoever wrote the particular documents in question that they were later altered.
What I am saying is that the authors are unknown and were not contemporary with the supposed lifetime of Jesus.
Further, the stories they were telling were older even than that.
As for the Josephus quote, could you substantiate that please.
Since you're the one clinging desperately on to it as your sole hope of finding any evidence whatsoever for your viewpoint don't you think you owe it to yourself to spend 5 minuted checking it out instead of blindly swallowing nonsense spouted by whoe3ver sold you that line of crap?
However, just so you can pick out some trivial meaningless detail to use as an excuse to ignore the whole subject, here's one link.
Hey thanks. I love being called an idiot and a liar by someone who claims in the face of all historical evidence and all credible historians that the person of Jesus never existed.
Well, when you keep pretending that "no historical evidence whatsoever and no credible historians" means "all historical evidence and all credible historians", how can you expect any decent person to treat you as anything but an idiot and liar?
When you continue to repeat idiotic lies, you *are* an idiotic liar.
Don't blame me, that's just how it works.
Throughout these comments you have been insulting, closed minded and pretty much everything Christians are accused of.
I'm not closed minded at all. The thing is that I have researched these issues, and so I *know* that you
I'd disagree with that. An anecdote, my sister in law read the Da Vinci code and her immediate comment was this it made her doubt the accuracy of the bible.
Which really does nothing to address my point. The Bible is inaccurate. That's no big surprise to anybody (well, loony fundies aside, but they're not really known for either sanity or common sense).
What the daVinci Code does though, is propogagte the silly myth that there even was a Jesus. If it went for the historically accurate picture, then that would have been a far more negative picture of the state of Christianity.
The Da Vinci code is fiction on fiction, but people read it as fact. FWIW I think everyone should test their beliefs however they should no test it on the basis of fiction.
Wow, that's truly dizzying.
People should question their fictional fantasies, but not do it on the basis of fiction.
If that was even possible, it would certainly be interesting to try.
First off the gospels are credible historical evidence for the existance of Jesus.,/i>
Nonsense. Circular reasoning in the first place.
In the second place, they are nothing of the sort.
Who wrote them? Oh yeah, nobody knows. They do know it wasn't contemporary with the supposed lifetime of Jesus.
They are 4 independant accounts of his existance.
Wow, amazing. It's like never before have stories circulated in the world. It's almost as if the biblical flood story wasn't a blatant ripoff of Gilgamesh.
Perhaps you should look into the origin of those myths and how they predate the supposed birth of Jesus by a century.
Seriously now. A *little* bit of research would do you good. Repeating half truths and flat out lies is just silly.
In addition there is corroborating historical evidence from contemporary historians (eg Josephus).
So I ask for *credible* evidence and you respond with a circular argument and then this. In the first place, there is nothing from "historians". There is one item from one historian "Josephus" as you said, but had you done any research whatsoever (no, checking fundie sites obviously does not count as they are pathological liars) you would know that the passage from the Josephus document is a thoroughly debunked forgery.
Look, it's obvious that you do not know a damn thing about the subject. You have a belief and you want to try to justify it.
I understand that you desperately need for this to be true, but sorry, reality does not need to bend itself to be what you want it to be.
This is a difficult question to answer, equally your question about who created the "christian faith". Which christian faith? What do you mean by Christianity? Catholic? Orthodox? Protestant?
The New Testament.
If you really want to learn about why we have the bible as it stands today, read "The Canon of Scripture". However from your comment it appears you would prefer to keep your current views, regardless of the evidence.
What's clear is that you will buy into whatever allows you to keep your delusions.
I have no preconcieved notions, and no need to prove or disprove anything. The facts are all on my side though.
When you repeat silly lies like the Josephus nonsense, you demonstrate that you don't care one bit for what's actually true and just seek to prop up your delusional needs.
Sorry to have to break it to you.
If you actually study the history, the Christian faith was created by the Catholic Church.
Uh? What? Reading the Da Vinci code doesn't count as studying history.
I'm well aware of that fact. The Da Vinci code did more to back up Christianity than to hurt it anyhow, which is pretty funny.
Perhaps if you're such a history expert, you'd care to point me to one single credible scrap of historical evidence that there ever even was such a person as Jesus?
No? Thought not.
Back to the original point, perhaps you can name some other group than the Catholic Church that creeated Christianity?
They selected and edited the books that would become the New Testament to push political goals. What more do you need to invent a religion?
There is so much rubbish in your post, I don't even know where to start.
Yet you're unable to point out any... Odd that.
Second, most of the abuses you mention are directed at a specific form of Christianity, Catholicism and they all occurred when the Catholic Church was more than just a religion, it was a political power.
Well, the Catholic Church was Christianity while it was being spread by the sword, so, you're still not pointing out anything inaccurate. Of course, the Salem witch trials and various other atrocities were, of course, the Catholics.... Oh wait, it wasn't. So not only are you failing to point out anything inaccurate about my poist, you're making blatantly false statements.
Of course, the fact that the Catholic Church became a political power backs up my point entirely, not yours.
If you actually study the history, the Christian faith was created by the Catholic Church. The various ridiculous matters of dogma were created as a way to declare a different political group as heretics and murder them. That is how Catholic dogma got where it is, but it's also how the New Testament was created so every Christian church uses the same politically motivated, selectively edited and often completely made up crap.
As for forcing women to have babies, since prior to the early 60s, there really wasn't effective birth control, it seems that religious and non-religious types were having lots of babies. Here I just thought that prior to the industrial revolution, people had a lot of babies, because they needed a lot of help on the farm or the factory. I didn't know it was a secret conspiracy to get converts.
It's no secret. It was quite clear out in the open. It's not only religions who pull that one though. It's typical of warlike societies.
Of course, birth control and abortion have existed for a long time contrary to the false statement you made.
Trying to eliminate those options is how the church has and still does force women to have babies.
Damn, just look at the atrocity that is Vatican policy in Africa. Oh wait, Catholics. Well, for other Christians, jsut look at how the lunatic contingent in America has shaped our policies on reproductive freedom.
Hell, the only nations we're in agreement on "moral" issues are extremist islamic countries.
It seems like your rant and anger are really is directed at the Catholic Church and/or G*d.
No, my "rant" was directed at the blatant falsehoods in the OP.
. Since we live in a tolerant religious society, you're welcome to those feelings.
Wow, are you allergic to making honest statements?
Since we live in a tolerant *secular* society, I'm welcome to those feelings.
You might notice that the seperation of church and state is the one thing that most made America stand out when it was founded, right? Democracy and Republics were both already very old when America was founded.
I'm welcome to those feelings *in spite* of the religious community. You might notice that they are fighting tooth and nail to destroy exactly that if you actually looked around a little.
But please, don't assume that Christianity is the only religion and that the whole world agrees with you.
I assume nothing of the sort.
But the power structure or manifesto for controlling people only applies to those who "choose" to follow that religion, not those who chose not to.
Right, sure. Hence all the murder, torture, burning alive, and general asshattery which was the *primary* tool used to spread all major religions.
Oh wait, your statement was actually totally false and nonsensical.
Now from a very basic organizational view, if you are intolerant of outsiders and chase them all away, your organization or in this case, religion is going to die out, because there will be no new members. That has not been the case throughout history.
You do know why gay hatred and forcing women to have as many babies as possible is the number one agenda item for most religions, right?
This is basic historical knowledge and common sense.
It's that sort of ignorance that religion promotes. You can argue reasonably on other subjects, but here you completely abondon reason. That was the simple obvious conclusion to draw and entriely consistent with reality.
Ask yourself how you could possibly have missed that?
No, it seems that the intolerance, in the way you are using it, has to deal with when religion is used to control the masses or is used to target a population. That isn't the purpose of any religion (which in some form or another is to find G*d or enlightenment or other such expressions).
Ah, but it is the purpose of religion. That's the baisc historical fact you're failing to get.
Sure, it's *sold* as a search for enlightenment, but please don't be so horribly naive as to assume that religious leaders have ever been stupid enough to buy into what they're selling to the rubes.
It is only when the real purpose of religion is co-opted, whether by religious leaders or others and it becomes a tool to further personal and political goals that the intolerance that leads to hate and war and other atrocities occurs.
Not true. Again, that is the true purpose of religion. Show me a time and place in history when it hasn't been used for that purpose.
Again, that isn't religion doing it, but is people using religion.
It is people using religion exactly as it was intended to be used.
Seriously, do you really believe that god is so fucking stupid as to be that big of a failure at getting a simple basic message across?
That's what really blows my gourd about religious types.
They claim to believe in an all powerful all knowing being.
Yet he's too entirely incompetant to deliver a simple message to his creation.
Now if you're going to insist, nonsensically, that he did, then you'll have to explain exactly which religion got the right message and exactly how you know with 100% certainty that it is actually the right one you believe.
If you can't do that, then you are saying that you god is an incompetant moron.
If he were not, there would not be multiple religions killing each other over trivial bullshit which had he just done his job correctly would never have happened.
Well, unless god intended it that way, in which case he's an asshole.
There really is no upside to religion.
,i>
On the other hand, if you're talking about a non-christian marriage which grants gays the same benefits as marriage, then sure. I see nothing hypocritical about that. It's just that when people are talking about marriage it is still easily understood to mean christian marriage, and you should be careful to spell it out if you don't mean it.
Given that marriage far predates Christianity and has always been more of an economic institution than a religious one, you might want to quit it with the moronic attempt at revisionist history. Also, there are far more marriages than there are Christians in the world.
t may come up in calculations and solutions but any physicist would be laugh out of the conference room if ever equated a measureable quantity to an number with imaginary component.
Awww, come on, there's nothing wrong with complex measures
The only part that adds up is that she's that rarest of creatures, a totally hot female mathematician.
Meh. I went to UC Santa Barbara and I had 3 in one class. Graduate Real Analysis even.
Still, congratulations
Whatever she may have, Ms. Hilton has contributed more to the common good (pace Smith's invisible hand) than you and I ever will.
What's the sound of one invisible hand fapping?
Well, you're just factually incorrect (and, of course, you know you are).
Not at all. While there are bad people out there, the extent of the threat was completely overblown for political purposes.
Al Queda, while it does exist has also been blown way out of proportion. There is no huge world spanning massive conspiracy of terrorists out to hate on us for our freedom or any of the other ridiculous nonsense that has been the Republicans' entire stock in trade for a long time.
Also, gays are not a threat to marriage. Democrats are not going to burn people's bibles.
You see, those are essentially everything that the Republicans consider to be issues.
Do you care to dispute that those last two are entirely nonsense, completely made up threats of no real consequence?
Or are you more of the "it never happened" camp?
No, I'm of the "It happened, but I'm not going to piss away my birthright out of cowardice".
All of the new "security" bullshit does more to strip innocent Americans of their rights than it does shit to stop terrorists.
Add that to the fact that the terrorist threat was way overblown, the Iraq invasion did nothing but increase that threat as was predicted by most credible obbservers long before we did invade.
Since then, fellow humans in places like Madrid or London would probably have no trouble convincing you that the threat from people deliberately planning, and executing, murderous attacks is not "made up," however comforting it must be to you to think that's the case.
Well, we have outscored them on deliberately planning and executing murderous attacks, keep that in mind at all times.
Add in the number of innocents sent off to death camps.
Add in the Patriot act, the unconstitutional wiretaps, the completely made up bullshit to sell the war in Iraq, and maybe you'll start to see what the real credible threat to America is.
Terrorists haven't done shit compared to what this Republican party have done to destroy freedom in this country.
So, no, it has nothing to do with thinking there are no threats.
It's the simple fact that by *any metric you care to come up with* the Republicans are a far greater threat to me my life, my liberty and my family than all of the terrorists in the world put together.
The cowardice you're accusing me of exhibiting is - to cite a little PSY101 - pretty much you projecting your own head-in-the-sand about this. I
Not at all. I am aware that there are threats.
My approach is to face them like a man on my feet defending my liberty.
Your approach is to pull your panties over your head and cry to big government to take away all our freedoms as long as they tell you they're making you safer.
That is a canonical example of cowardice.
The fact that due to the support of cowards like you for treasonous actions, we are much less safe, and the largely made up threat of terrorism is growing.
It's a self fulfilling prophecy.
Do you have any idea how absurd your point is? Your B Movie villain nonsense doesn't make any more sense in real life than it would in a cheesy movie.
Well, you're the one making up crap.
You still haven't addressed the 100% proven fact that we haqve tortured innocent people and murdered them in these camps.
You also have done nothing to *prove* that the people in these camps are guilty of anything.
Most importantly, you haven't done anything to address the fact that they are death camps.
So, until you can *prove* that the people being tortured and murdered in these death camps are all guilty of the most heinous of crimes, you lose. You lose on moral grounds, you lose on constitutional grounds, and you lose by making *anything* no matter how disgusting, that is done to our soldiers legitimate.
You can't piss away the moral high ground and then deny responsibility for the consequences.
Of course, avoiding responsibility for their actions is a theme with Bushies.
Ple
Do you really find that to be different, qualitatively, from "OMG! The republicans want people like Michael J. Fox and your grandmother to die!"
Absolutely.
There is actually some truth to that, twisted though it might be.
There is no truth whatsoever to the Republicans' made up threats.
Just out of curiosity, would you consider all prisons to be "death camps?"
No, but camps designed for the purpose of torture and murder of *innocent* peopl are death camps period.
Now, if you would like to *prove absolutely* that everybody in all of these death camps are a major threat then *and only then* would you have made a point.
You can't though.
In fact, you have no legitimate reason whatsoever to believe that *anybody* there is guilty of a god damned thing.
That is the major reason that the existence of those camps and the made up powers for the current president are lethal to freedom, and entirely treasonous actions.
Hell the *only* reason wholely illegitimate as it is, you have for believing that anybody there is guilty of shit is the word of Bush who has been proven a liar on almost everything he's said.
You might want to use just a little perspective (and maybe talk to someone who actually survived a real one).
You're the one wholely lacking in any sort of perspective.
"Durr.... welll what if somebody there was actually guilty of something?"
That's not how it works.
Your arguments are based solely on cowardice.
You need far more courage and integrity than you have to live in a free society.
The question to ask isn't "well what if some of them are guilty".
It's "What happens when ScentCone gets shipped off to be tortured and murdered on the whim of a fool".
That's rich, that is. You're spouting tinfoil-lined stuff without any sense of context whatsoever.
They're called facts. You have yet to come up with anything to disprove them, and there has been a metric assload of effort by the Repugs to spin, lie, mislead and misdirect the whole conversation on this issue and not one of them have managed to come up with one single legitimate defense of any of these programs.
Again, just like yours, all of their arguments boil down to "We're cowardly little pussies and we want to piss away everything this country used to mean in order tp pretend we're safer. We do not give a flying fuck how many innocent people we're torturing and murdering in death camps to do it."
Or do you recognize that he's the tip of a big, toxic, actively murderous iceburg, and that you'll lose precious opportunities if you make his capture (and the operational details of it) readily known?
More cowardly delusional fear mongering. Those situations can be handled quite well by normal, *legal* channels.
There is no need whatsoever to have changed any laws after 9/11. So you propose essentially completely suspending the constitution becasue your panties are all bunched up.
Grow up, be a man, not a whining little pussy and everything wiull be fine without your cowardly treasonous gestapo tactics.
Look, I get it. You're a coward quaking in your boots at every turn.
You are not fit to live in a free society since your complete lack of courage, honor or integrity is a liability.
So here's a good idea for you:
Move to Saudi Arabia.
They're your sort of people there. You'll get along just fine and then you won't be here to keep trying your damndest to make America into a clone of Saudi Arabia.
Plus then you'll have plenty of torture and murder around to make you feel safe.
How is that a losing proposition for anybody?
I pointed out that the campaign (on the dem side) revolved pretty much entirely on pointing out why the electorate should be afraid having the republicans in control of the legislature. This seems to be your point, too.
No, there is a very large difference.
For an example of fear based campaigs, just look at all the recent Republica races.
"Oh no, the evil Demoncrats will ban your bibles if they're elected".
That was one of their actual tactics.
Now, that's clearly completely divorced from reality and designed for the purpose of making people believe ridiculous nonsense through blatantly dishonest fear mongering.
Now, look at the current situation in the US.
We are running a network of *death camps* in third world shitholes where Bush can, solely on a whim, send you me or anybody else he pleases to be tortured and murdered with no recourse to the law.
No matter how you try to whitewash it and excuse treason those are the facts, and those situations are worlds apart.
On the one side you have typical Republican nosense fear mongering, which is so insane that only a deeply delusional fool would but into it.
On the other hand you have people stating simple basic facts.
That's basically the crux of your failure to get it.
You don't seem to understand the very large difference between flat out lying in order to create fear which has been pretty much the whole of the Republicans' campaign strategies for the last couple of decades:
"Ohs nos duh eval Demoncrats duh eval faggotzorz!!!!one!!!"
And reality.
The current Republican party is far and away the single largest threat that this nation has ever faced.
That's reality.
Pointing that out is no more fear mongering than stating the temperature.
Fear was their primary tool, and they used it - a lot.
As I've already demonstrated - a lot, dealing with reality is different than using fear.
Again, just look to Republican campaign strategy for actual examples of fear mongering.
It was a much more unifying theme across that party's campaigning than any other topic (since they were, as usual, highly fractured on most actual matters of substance, as are many republicans).
Again, you're just demonstrating Orwellian doublethinking.
Go count the number of "OMFG we have to ass rape the constitution to save us all from the eval terroristorz" from the Repugs over the last several years, add up the number of orders of magnitude of difference between that and anything the Dems have done and then try to start actually dealing with the real world instead of just repeating the same tired old idiotic lies.
Let me know if any of my words were too big or anything, OK? Have a nice weekend.
I'm sure you can read all of the words just fine. Your problem appears to be an inability to tell the difference between reality and right wing echo chamber fantasies.