foeofthelance
-
Posts
1,696 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
27
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by foeofthelance
-
-
Ok, I'm on Hughes Net hi-speed. Got it on Thanksgiving so I'm still learning how to deal with it..
Yesterday, system was slower than my old dial-up. So hey, figured I need to do some maintainance on the PC. Downloaded some registry clean-up software, installed all these new MS upgrades, Defragged, etc, etc, etc.. Spent four hours doing all this crap. To no avail!! The speed got even WORSE last night..
So I shut down Satellite system, initiated full reboot (Ok, had problem right after Christmas, so technical support had already walked me through all this - and I write things down in case I need them again).... Etc, etc, etc..... After another hour - problem got worse. By now I couldn't even connect to internet!! Forced to call 'India' technical support. At least this guy spoke good english this time!
After another thirty minutes we FINALLY tracked problem down. Fair Access policy was enacted when there was continuous downloads from 6pm-10pm the night before.. Hmmmmm... That's when I sat in my room watching TV and my two younger kids were playing on the net. (They're usually looking up cheats for Sims, though they've found youtube since we got hi-speed)...
Ah-HA!!! Course the culprits CLAIMED to have only watched 2-3 youtubes each. Then under 'dad' interrogation admitted 'well, um, maybe we watched more? I-dunno!' So now they are banned from youtube, and probably the one PC with internet access.. Not sure how long I'll decide to keep them off this PC though... I'm still ticked..
So if I've ever wanted to ducttape my two younger ones to the ceilings of their rooms - and/or - shoot them... It's now!! God I can't wait until they're off in college like my first is fixing to do!! (Well, I say that now... We'll see how I feel then. Maybe I'll just buy a cockatoo if I get lonely?)
Why would four hours of youtube cause your computer to slow down? I've watched more hours of porn than that on free sites in a single sitting and its never bugged my laptop like that.
-
Ok, I'm on Hughes Net hi-speed. Got it on Thanksgiving so I'm still learning how to deal with it..
Yesterday, system was slower than my old dial-up. So hey, figured I need to do some maintainance on the PC. Downloaded some registry clean-up software, installed all these new MS upgrades, Defragged, etc, etc, etc.. Spent four hours doing all this crap. To no avail!! The speed got even WORSE last night..
So I shut down Satellite system, initiated full reboot (Ok, had problem right after Christmas, so technical support had already walked me through all this - and I write things down in case I need them again).... Etc, etc, etc..... After another hour - problem got worse. By now I couldn't even connect to internet!! Forced to call 'India' technical support. At least this guy spoke good english this time!
After another thirty minutes we FINALLY tracked problem down. Fair Access policy was enacted when there was continuous downloads from 6pm-10pm the night before.. Hmmmmm... That's when I sat in my room watching TV and my two younger kids were playing on the net. (They're usually looking up cheats for Sims, though they've found youtube since we got hi-speed)...
Ah-HA!!! Course the culprits CLAIMED to have only watched 2-3 youtubes each. Then under 'dad' interrogation admitted 'well, um, maybe we watched more? I-dunno!' So now they are banned from youtube, and probably the one PC with internet access.. Not sure how long I'll decide to keep them off this PC though... I'm still ticked..
So if I've ever wanted to ducttape my two younger ones to the ceilings of their rooms - and/or - shoot them... It's now!! God I can't wait until they're off in college like my first is fixing to do!! (Well, I say that now... We'll see how I feel then. Maybe I'll just buy a cockatoo if I get lonely?)
Why would four hours of youtube cause your computer to slow down? I've watched more hours of porn than that on free sites in a single sitting and its never bugged my laptop like that.
-
Fact: We might as well start off exterminating the Catholics first. All dogmatic thinking should be elminated.
Congratulations PS, you just killed me and probably a rather good portion of the forum. Not to mention all those Catholic doctors. And all those Catholic teachers. And all those Catholic engineers. And...
Maybe I'm crazy, but it's just quite possible that not everyone who is Catholic is some God-blinded bible thumper who runs around condemning everyone they come across to a fiery eternity in Hell. Or were you planning on making special exceptions for those of us you like or find useful?
-
It's good to see a heated discussion that is still kept in check. (no flaming) A topic such as this generally has the ability to bring out the worst in people when they enter the debate. Everyone here has made good points, but people need to remember that the Catholic Church (like any other church for the most part) is based upon certain tenants. One tenant is that the word of their God is ABSOLUTE. One of their core beliefs is that they are supposed to enforce the Lord's law, and history has shown, time and time again, that they will make every attempt to do so. Sometimes violently even. To them, they are doing as their God commands and therefor are holy and just in their actions. The Catholic Church's interpretation of God's Word is that abortion is illegal. Therefor, by their own beliefs, they MUST take action. Had this been a thousand years or so, the Catholic Church would have sent a huge army to destroy us. One of the beliefs at the time was that if your doing the work of the Lord, (i.e. killing unholy infidels) then nothing you did was a sin. This even went as far as the rape, torture, and brutal murder of everyone opposed, INCLUDING little children. As a matter of fact. it was encouraged. Compared to how the Catholic Church has been in the past, what we are dealing with today is minor. I myself am not Christian. I DO believe in God, just not in the same sense as most others.
Point is though, this isn't a thousand years ago. This isn't even a century ago. This is today, so why worry? The Catholic church has a rather bloody history, just like most major religions throughout history. Still has a bunch of knuckleheads who missed the bus to school that day. But now it operates under the dictates of the rules of society, instead of trying to dictate the rules to society. Yes, religious folks have a view on how society should be run; I don't see how this differs from Greenpeace associates, Black activists, Latino activists, Asian activists, moderates, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, Independents, Democrats, or Republicans. All have an idea of how society should be run, the only major difference seems to be their motivation. But rather than running around raping, killing, looting and blowing shit up, they all agree to do it through political action, by trying to convince the majority to agree with their views, or to at least accept them.
-
Wouldn't surprise me. The Bible itself is a screwy read, until you realize that there are large portions of it missing. There are some good morals in there, but once you get away from the prophets and more into the people who were supposed to be acting under the Will without any actually voice for it, eh.
-
It's a bigger and longer-lasting fix than targeting each individual. It might also get them to stop attempting to dictate religious doctrine to the government.
Ah, my bad. I should have made it more clear. I didn't mean to go after the individuals as peoples, but to go after the specific churches these bishops work for. Partly because as Shin has pointed out not every member of the clergy approves of their actions, and partly because I'm not entirely sure the Catholic faith has as much of a coherent control over the churches that spring up in its name as people think. As far as I know, most churches operate rather independently, or as small groups, not one unified force.
They don't have the right to force THEIR religious beliefs on the entire population. Honestly, I'm beginning to think you just like to be argumentative. The politicians they mentioned are pro-choice, they just happen to be Catholic. They have a problem with them being pro-choice politicians, they feel that they should push a shove the pro-life agenda down our throats. And as I said, they're being proper politicians by putting what might be their personal religious beliefs aside to represent the whole.They're using the tools at their disposal to achieve a political goal through political means. They disagree with the current policies, admittedly as a result of their faith. I don't see how what they are doing is any different from any other political activist group out there. I've also agreed that they should pay the price of that right, which is as Keith pointed would be the forfeiting of their tax exemptions. What I want to know is why basing their political actions on their faith should preclude them from being politically active at all.
They don't have the right to force the ideals of their faith on those who don't share it. Acting on your faith is making sure that you PERSONALLY do what you have to do, not trying to force others to believe what you do.Actually...they're not. They believe that abortion is wrong, and are acting on that belief to try and do away with it. There's a difference between feeling it is part of your faith to protest something, and try to having it changed, and going out and saying that everyone has to become Catholic just because you say so. Would you have the same problem if they were a bunch of soccer moms instead of bishops?
Honestly, I think the label of anti-abortion is a bit of a fallacy, as if being pro-choice makes you pro-abortion. I wonder how many 'anti-abortion' people are not so because of their faith.Probably a regional difference. I've been taught that referring to one side as "Prolife" means that the other side is out to kill as many babies as they can, whereas Anti-abortion means they just don't like abortions, and Prochoice just means having a choice of your own.
-
Old Testament or New? Most of the religious right likes to base their claims on the new, but their attitudes on the Old, which can be kinda screwy.
And Keith, seriously? You actually tried to have the computer plot the Bible's genealogy? How did it handle Cain and Able?
-
Religious doctrine
Can you explain to me how you have a religion without some form of religious doctrine? A doctrine is just a codified system of rules/beliefs, really. The Catholic doctrine happens to be really down on abortion. They're acting on it.
If it's an issue in which a certain decision interferes with another's beliefs, then yes it does. You should not be basing any decisions made for the general public on your religious beliefs, if that decision could encroach on the belief's of others. On the issue of abortion a person can not let their religious beliefs determine how they act on behalf of the general public, because there are those of the general public, who they were elected to represent, that don't share those same religious beliefs (there are even those within the same faith who don't hold the same religious beliefs).The problem is, that's your opinion. One I share, admittedly, but its just an opinion. Which is probably why when you vote, you vote for people who share your opinions and ideals. Its a politician's job to act on behalf of the people that elected him. People vote for him based on his campaign platform. Therefore, if you get a person whose campaign platform is anti-abortion, expect them to try to do something against abortion. If you get someone elected who is prochoice, then expect them to protect the ability to make a decision as an individual.
This is actually something I got into with Agaib a while ago, and you can check the legal discussions thread for the main view of opinions, but what it sounds like to me isn't that you're upset that they're anti-abortion, but that they're anti-abortion because of their faith. I don't like what they have to say either, but that doesn't mea that I'm going say that they have no right to act on their faith. They are just as much a part of the political process as anyone else, and have just as much right to have themselves be heard by anyone who is interested in listening.
-
Separation of church and State means that religious doctrine has no place is gov't and lawmaking. Why? Because we are a country of MANY religions, including the many atheists and agnostics. Catholic beliefs are Catholic beliefs and should have no place in deciding how to govern over all, including the non-Catholics. The Catholic church, they're not campaigning, they're going on the attack. 'Do what we say or else?' It's ridiculous.
No, seperation of church and state does not mean that there is no place in government for religion. What it means is that the Church has no power to automatically dictate to the government what action the goverment must take and be obeyed, and that the government has no power to dictate to the people what faith they must follow and how to practice it. It does <i>not</i> mean that belonging to a church or being a leader in a church automatically precludes you from basing your political choices on your faith. You can't tell people what they can and cannot base their political decisions on. I choose history. Others choose whatever campaign promises the canidates make. Others vote a straight party ticket. And yes, some base it on their faith, and not just Catholics at that.
I'm all for it. Reclassify the Catholics as a political action committee and tax them like any other.Narrow it down a bit. You can't target every church because of a few activist bishops. Instead go after the groups like Catholics United, and any churches that directly support them, or clergy employed by it. You need a bit of a fine brush on this one, but if you stick to those who are publically active, then you should be fine. There will be some complainers, but if they do it, theyve earned it.
-
Have these people ever heard of seperation of church and state? Sometimes, what you believe and what is best for a society are not the same things. If you're a catholic politician, you should listen to the people and act accordingly, not your religious leaders. If you can't make that distinction, you shouldn't be in politics. It may be harsh for religious people, but you have to make that choice. I hope Obama has the spine not to change his views just because of some religious rabble.
What does seperation of church and state necessarily have to do with this? Just because you become a priest doesn't mean you automatically lose the right to be politically active. These guys have a series of social beliefs that stems from their faith. They have just as much right to campaign for it as someone else. And the comment attacking Biden is probably spot on.
And several prelates promised to call out Catholic policy makers on their failures to follow church teaching. Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Pa., singled out Vice President-elect Biden, a Catholic, Scranton native who supports abortion rights."I cannot have a vice president-elect coming to Scranton to say he's learned his values there when those values are utterly against the teachings of the Catholic Church," Martino said. The Obama-Biden press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
"They cannot call themselves Catholic when they violate such a core belief as the dignity of the unborn," Naumann said Tuesday.ITs simple in my opinion. If you claim to be something and to practice something, you don't get to pick and choose which rules you follow and which you can just violate. If you run around trumpeting your religion, or use it in any way during a campaign, then yes, I would expect you to follow the tenet of said religion, whether you be Democrat or Republican or Independent, or Christian or Bhuddist or am African Bush Shaman. To do otherwise is being dishonest in my opinion. To do otherwise would be like me running on the Communist Manifesto, while trumpeting the glory of the free enterprise system. And even then its not a universal thing:
But some bishops said church leaders should take care with the tone of the statement.Bishops differ on whether Catholic lawmakers should refrain from receiving Communion if they diverge from central church beliefs. Each bishop sets policy in his own diocese.
So, yeah. They're merely using their right to act according to their faith. Doubt much will come of it, too many people disagree with them as the poll numbers showed, and even some of their own followers were wondering whether they shouldn't tone it down a bit. Not entirely sure hwo I feel on the risk of Chrisitian hospitals losing federal funding over abortion, but eh. One part says the law is the law, the other says the law isnt allowed to interfere with faith so long as no one is getting harmed by it. So that's kinda up in the air.
-
Well, then here's to hoping he, Reid, and Pelosi dont fuck up too badly.
-
The problem is those are pot luck sites. The majority of what they host is guy oriented, and trying to crawl through page after page after page for the one item that might be what I'm looking for would take too long. B)
-
Can anyone link me to free, online, but most importantly female oriented porn? I don't mean slash or anything like that, but hetero porn that appeals to a woman's interests. I know it should be out there and exists, but my google fu is not helping me in this case, and its something we're both interested in...
-
Chapter 8 is now up. Who wants to go for a bus ride?
-
I hearby nominate that as the single most bizzare thing I've seen this campaign season. And yeah, it is a little worrying. It was an odd twist of what looked like a step dance team rehearsal and a television ad... But yeah. That kind of devotion to a cause can be a real bad thing at times.
-
Probably. I think part of the problem is that some stories were given automatic disclaimers, others got purged when they got ID'd as plagiarism or troll attempts, and part of it might just be that the author up and left and so the story got axed for not being changed accoridng to requirments. Then there was the whole mess that was the change of servers, which seemed to have killed a few off as well. That just means more room for us to write and post our own!
-
Anyways, you say it's scary. I say, it's not any scarier to me than anything the gov't already has in place. I guess we can just agree to disagree.
This is truth.
-
Personally, I don't see how that's any scarier than what we already have in place now. Who knows, maybe if they're all together we can actually get things done better, with all the pieces of the puzzle in one place. Instead of 10 here, 5 there, another 10 over there and nobody willing to share.
Mostly because of the scope he was talking about. None of those organizations have even a fraction of the power or funding of the military, and even taken together they would represent a minor blip in comparison.
He compared this new force to the military. The military is based on the idea that it can break a lot of things and kill/incapacitate a large number of people very quickly. It spends several trillion dollars a year making sure it is capable of doing this. It spends this money on tanks, planes, ships, bullets, and people to use them. Obama wants his new force to be just as well funded and just as powerful. His own words, no messing around.
What kind of civilian police force needs several trillion dollars in funding? Where is he planning on getting the money for it? Why would they need the kind of combat/staying power of the military? What would they be using it on?
-
Civilian as in non-military. How's that scary? Sounds like the police to me.
Because we already have federal police forces. Their known as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Parks Service, the Bureau of Alchohol, Tobaaco, and Firearms, the Secret Service, the Drug Enforcement Agency and to a certain point the Department of Homeland Security in its role as border guard. Above that we have the National Guard units, which are each responsible for the defense of their own state, responding to local emergancies, and serving as a reserve for the military.
Out of all of them, the only one with anything close to the funding and power of the military is the National Guard units. They exist as a way around the limits of Posse Comitatus, which prevents the military forces from actively deploying in the U.S. They get around this rule by deploying under the independent authority of the state governors rather than under any federal orders.
So, in ascending rank of jurisdiction, you have:
Local police, who deal with everything inside their city county
State Police, who deal with everything on the highways/cross county lines
FBI, which handles all crimes that cross state lines, or may have
Parks Service, which is responsible for all Federal parks and land
Secret Service, which handles counterfeiting and other Treasury crimes
Drug Enforcement Agency, which is responsible for counter drug ops
BATF, which does the same thing for guns and such
DHS, which handles the borders, generic smuggling, and the airports
Then there is the military, which can't deploy inside the United States for combat operations against Americans, and can only be deployed for so long at the President's will before he has to either get permission from congress to leave them there, or bring them home. They're also the most expensive of the lot, because maintence and purchases of their equipment, not to mention personnel, puts them heads above the rest.
So again I ask: for what do we need a Federally controlled, country wide police force, and why should they have as much power as the military?
-
That sucks, PS, it really does. Words fail at a time like this. Just know you have my sympathy, as one cat owner to another.
-
Let me directly quote what I said: "I haven't heard nearly as much nonsense coming from Obama or those supporting him." If you misunderstood what I said, that's not my fault. I said I wasn't hearing as much nonsense coming from Obama, the man.
And I find that disconcerting, because its been fairly evident to me that both sides have been slinging as much mud as fast as it takes to get the dirt wet.
Well..... if his supporters are going to rallies with stuffed monkeys with Obama's name on it and screaming out slurs calling him an Arab (which is also a slur against Arabs).... what else can you call it but Racism.McCain is too old: Agism.
Palin shouldn't take the post because she's a mother: Sexism
"Abort Palin": I'd say sexism again, but considering what we mean when we generally talk about aborting someone that strikes me more as a wish the person was dead.
Are we then supposed to then bind everyone up in one group and paint them all with the same brush? Because I'm more than willing to bet that I'm as much a racist homophobe as you are a sexist/agist bigot. I'm not denying that there are idiot fanatics on both sides; we've already seen plenty of evidence of that on this forum, and I've seen much worse on others. I'm more than willing to claim our side's exists; why not acknowledge yours?
I said I'm not hearing nearly as much crap from Obama or those supporting him as I am from McCain. If you see that as vilifying, okay, but I'm stating what I see.Becuase what's good for the goose is good for the gander, but all I've heard so far is deny, deny, deny. Obama's associations shouldn't be counted, because they've either reformed, or I wasn't there to validate the claims. His past actions shouldn't be judged, because they were in the past. Obama's campaign isn't playing dirty because there are racist Republicans. These are the arguements I'm hearing.
.... I find myself wondering why a quote from a book by Obama is using his name instead of I. He addresses himself in the third personWhat? All the quotes I posted were in the first person. I pointed out that the book they were from was written by him...
And if we're covering dumb, stupid mistakes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ-WZut0iYM...id=event_975451
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEIzEfm6N6Q...feature=related
And you know what's really scary?
That got raised on another forum I frequent. It was passed off that he was referring to the Peace Corps and Americorps.
in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
I've added my own emphasis to a few key phrases. We'll start with the first one, national security. Generally we use this when we talk about preventing an actual attack, or responding to such. In this case I'll assume Obama meant that he was going to try and prevent attacks on U.S. holdings. Ok, I can see how expanding the Peace Corps might help in that case. Buying goodwill from other nations has always been a good way to keep them from getting ticked off at you for other things. I don't see how expaning Americorps would help all that much though...
But then we get to the second half of the statement. He says the force needs to be "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded." As what? The lead in mentions the military, so based on the way the English language works we'd have to assume that's the organization he's comparing this hypothetical civilian national security force to. Well, what makes the military strong and powerful? It's ability to deploy and use force of arms to break, take, and hold objectives. Sure the modern infrastructure has the ability to deployed in a variety of support roles, but let's be honest. The military was established to break dams, not build them. So if you want to make a force "just as powerful, just as strong" you're effectively telling me that you want a force that could stand toe to toe with the military, because that's what you're basing strength and power on. We already have plenty of different groups assigned to protecting the nation in one degree or another, but none of them have the "power" to take on the military in a stand up fight. Instead they are limited to what would be expected of trying to deal with armed civilians. (Actually, figuring the black market and congressional panic attacks, the civilians are probably better armed.)
Just as well funded... Well, the average battle vehicle, whether tank, plane, or battleship, can run anywhere from a few hundred million to a small billion or so. What kind of civilian force, in any capacity, would need to spend that kind of money? On what? We (sort of) know what the military spends its money on. New equipment, maintence of old equipment, paying the soldiers and buying ammo, up to date communications technology and satellites, experimental tech, even the maintence of all those nukes we keep in the closet. What would this "civilian" force be playing with that could cost that kind of money?
If Obama really meant a more public works oriented group, why not refer to the Roosevelt programs of the New Deal? Why not refer to the Peace Corps and Americorps? These are all much better references for a new public works program he might be envisioning. So either he meant what he said, or he made a very stupid (in my opinion) public gaffe. Because otherwise what he's talking about is essentially a domestic military under the control of the President. Not something akin to the national guard that is beholden to the states; not an investigative branch like the FBI; not an intelligence agency like the CIA or NSA. But essentially a force that gets around the Posse Comitatus rule that keeps the military from acting inside the U.S. That scares me.
-
When I was talking about people talking trash, I was more addressing candidates themselves than their supporters. But some of those things sound like your own speculation and none of it sounds as bad to me as McCain supporters going around screaming 'Barack Osama Bin Laden' or 'Kill OBama' or walking around with a stuffed monkey with an Obama sticker on it's head, proclaiming it to be the man.
Actually, you're remark was that all you were hearing was bad stuff about Obama, and that there wasn't anything coming out of his camp. My point was that both sides were being just as bad. Both sides have been more than willing to let their proxies make the attacks for them. Obama is trying to make sure he has the ability to deny everything, and McCain is doing everything he can to avoid the cries of racism that have been dogging Republicans since Obama won the nominiation. But trying to villify the McCain campaign for playing the politics game when the Obama campaign has been doing the same is somewhat hypocritical to me. And no, I'm not really surprised that there's an emphasis on the smears from the Right while the ones from the Left get played down, not when Obama's managed to raise, and spend, about twice as much as McCain...
Then there's this little gem:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/25/ob...ida-tv-station/
So as far as I've heard, no one really knows who hacked her account, but you know? In the end, we've just found yet another thing she's doing wrong. Can you imagine her as VP or president, using hotmail or yahoo to send out sensitive information. The hacking should be considered a lesson to her. Don't be so damn stupid in the future.Actually, the kid who did it got caught and confessed. Do you really think I would have referred to him as the son of a Democratic Legisturalist/Governnor, if I hadn't seen that? I'll try to find the cite for later. And no, it wasn't sensitive information involving her work; it was her personal account, and he was looking for ammo for personal attacks to distribute.
Ah, wait, here we go!
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-scienc...ak-w-2008-09-19
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/palin_h.../22/133155.html
And of course, it might be hard for Obama to argue against some of the claims, all things considered.
'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.''I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'
'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'
Those quotes are all courtesy of Dreams of My Father, by Barack Obama.
My point stands. You can be upset about smear campaigns all you want, I'm not going to stop you. Some of them have even been really stupid, like the recent rumors that Obama isn't actually an American citizen or that he's secretly a Taliban sleeper agent. But seriously? The idea that the Left has clean hands in all of this is ludicrous.
-
Well, as one of those evil, racist, society killing Republican bigots who thinks Obama's proper place is just under the lash, I can assure that there is plenty of hate coming out of both sides. "McCain is going to die in office." I know its because of his age, but everyone seems so sure of it I can't help but think there's plans out there to assassinate him if he fails to croak on schedule. "Abort Palin" also comes to mind. I take it you heard her private emails were hacked and distributed? I'm not talking about by any investigative agency, I'm talking about a Democratic legislature's son (might have been a governor).
Neither does the near-riotous reaction of Obama supporters to a McCain-Palin sign in Democrat-dominated Prince George's County, Md. Buried in a back local section, The Washington Post reported this week that "pandemonium" broke loose when an unsuspecting businessman erected a "Country First. McCain/Palin." message on the marquee at his Colony South Hotel & Conference Center."Operators of neighborhood e-mail group lists cried foul to their memberships. The NAACP logged calls. Community leaders demanded boycotts of the hotel, a common venue for Democratic events," the little-noticed article reported. A black professor called the sign "a stink bomb in the middle of the living room" of Obama land. The poor hotel manager, Alan Vahabzadeh, surrendered. "I didn't even realize it was going to be like this."
-- Obama supporters on the heavily trafficked Democratic Underground website (where such mainstream Democrats as Elizabeth Edwards hang out) saw the ghost of the Ku Klux Klan in Sarah Palin's white suit jacket. Yes, white clothes equal racism."Palin is wearing white again, inciting the racist crowds. She should just drop all pretense and put on her white hood and light up a cross. She is a despicable human being," fumed a DU poster. "Grand Princess of the KKK," proclaimed another. They're "trying to send subtle signals to their rabid base," declared yet another member of Obama's rabid base.
Quotes courtesy of Michelle Malkin
And since we're such fans of videos on this site...
So if all you're hearing is that McCain is evil and doing nothing but sliming the spotless Obama? Maybe its because you're not hearing the other side of the story.
EDIT: Actually, I think Orson Scott Card sums it up best for me:
-
A new story roughly based off of a few poems one of my friends wrote, as well as a continuation of a conversation they inspired.
When a young temple priestess is roughly removed from the world she grew up in, what secrets will she discover about Willowbrook Manor?
This is why I'm not religious
in News/Current Events
Posted · Edited by foeofthelance
Actually, my way of thinking boils down to "You pays your money, picks your horses, takes your chances, and gets what you gets." Sorry, never was one for manufactured faith, personally. Christianity boils down to one thing; God gave Man (and yes, WOman) free will. Also put down a set of rules believed to lead to having a good life, not only personally but with the neighbors as well. Got a bit tempramental here and there when folks on Earth didn't quite cooperate, but that's what happens when you let everyone make up their own mind, you know? Now, I don't know if it's a religious thing, but I was always taught that if you break the rules there's some sort of punishment for it, and the bigger the break the bigger than punishment. So yeah, there's got to be something for the people who can't get a grip on proper behavior. Doesn't necessarily mean there's supposed to be everlasting Hellfiror whatever. The word "redemption" tends to come around a lot, as well as "forgiveness" and "mercy". Not my place to tell you how to live; might give you advice if I think you're about to make a mistake, but then again one really shouldn't stick a lit firecracker down one's pants in order to prove that fireworks can't hurt people.
You? You let your prejudice lead you into making a sweeping generalization on par with me accusing everyone who recycles of being an ecoterrorist like those Earth Liberation Front guys who go around torching ski resorts. You just called for genocide in the name of peace and harmony; You called for the extermination of an entire group of people, simply because you don't agree with how they behave or how they think. How should we go, do you think? Should we be shot? I don't think all that lead would be good for the environment, really. Gassed maybe? Nah, just a little cliche at this point, I'm sure we can all agree on that. Oh! I know! How about you roast all at the stake in a clear case of poetic justice! Sounds fitting to me, how about you?
But in the end I don't really think it matters much. You just judged and sentenced people to pain and death because they are different from you. For thinking different than you. For not BELIEVING what you believe. Tell me, Psychostorm, how does that make you any different from the people you say you hate?
Oh, hell, might as well finish the job since I'm here. Yeah, my best friend is a Druid Priestess, or so she terms it. I don't whack her over the head with holy books and she doesn't get in my face about disrespecting Mother Gaia. (She can get a little picky about me throwing plastic bottles into the trash instead of recycling, but then so does my mother, so I'm not sure that counts.) She also happens to be bisexual and president of the Gays, Lesbians, and Others club at our college. I'm the Senator. So what? Or are you going to accuse me of being a bad Christian and hypocrit for not starting each meeting with, "Just a reminder, when you all die you're going to roast in th eternal fires of HELL!!!!!" Sorry, it seems my priest never got around to delivering the sermon on how to condemn others for their way of life...