2007-02-13 05:58:05 PM mp3sum

Since when was sane, rational thought held in high esteem by the majority?

I am not hear to prove religion right. That's not even the poitn of the thread (although we all know that doesn't stop farkers).

I was just pointing out to mindbuzz that reality is that only 16% of the world considers itself "nonreligious" (and only 8% of that as atheist, apparently). He seems to be under the delusion that any day now the atheists of the world are going to rise up and slaughter the religious like some kind of *coughHolocaustcough*.

mindbuzz Whatever, Friction8r. I read what you wrote, own it be proud of it. Don't try to back out of it now.

Trust me, I'm proud of my ability to structure inflammatory comments designed to agitate and excoriate resentful farkers who have a dearth of intellect (not to put you in that category, of course). Although, come to think of it, Wydok did do a fine job with his pie-chart PWN3GE of you.

technicolor-misfit: You know I frequently hear people suggest that TGOT might be on someone's payroll... If that IS the case, they may want to inquire about his policy on refunds.

Before I clicked on the link, I was saying, "surely! surely he would avoid this thread to avoid any attention to him since it's long suspected that he's a poster on payroll!"

Colored me surprised.

And now ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to the "Dick Cheney Go Fark Yourselves Choir". Yes, appearing live on the Senate floor. Suck it Neo-con-artists.

Edwards is the reincarnation of John Ritter.

Christian bashing is highly unorignal and lame.

/Buddhist

mindbuzz

am only postulating that rational thinking appears to be gaining a stronghold in this country and the believers will be slowly giving way. Those that remain, will probably be shunned or feared.

if being rational and enlightened means being intolerant of religion, then those enlightened people are no better than the "intolerant religious believers." fascism and intolerance can take on many forms. the remaining believers who will be shunned or feared may have good reason to believe their beliefs are under attack and would want to resist. tell me, what happens when your belief system that you hold dear is slowly replaced by a new way of thinking?

Well, O'Reilly isn't really off the mark. He's actually being pretty fair. Even the Democrats have said that she oughta be fired. And these bloggers really did plop a big black mark on the Edwards campaign.. if it has any traction anyway.

These two blogger hacks tried coming up with a half assed apology and then when they get axed they turn around and make it meaningless.

Two women learning that what you say on your blog really can come back and bite you in the ass.

It's not just the "christian hate" - it's the man hate too. Did you read what they wrote about the Duke case? Idiots like these two twats is what causes problems like that in the first place. They had already tried and convicted the Duke lacrosse players in their own court of public opinion.
That's not what we need.

Rethorn - He's was saying they should be fired for having a different opinion than he does. That doesn't exactly seem like he's supporting free speech, now does it?

If they worked for some company sure, but they are PR people for a Presidential candidate. Free speech doesn't apply when public image is part of your job.

doinky - Where is the Christian "help we're being persecuted" pie chart when it's needed? Seriously, I really need it. Help me, Jebus.

I'm not a fan of that pie chart. Plenty of majorities have been oppressed by minorities. Now a pie chart of members of Congress (which would be a far greater majority, and much more relevant) would be better. I'm too lazy to make one though.

And to all of you paid posters, I got some holy man juice for you.

Because you're loosing.


Thx.

You have got to be kidding. Stalin suppressed religion to a huge degree. Under communist rule, all churches in Poland were destroyed.

No, they weren't. The church resisted Communist rule, and the churches there most certainly weren't destroyed. Poland is an extremely Catholic nation.

In China, religion is suppressed as well--that's why Christians meet secretly and there are a number of priests who can't enter the country legally because they preach and do religious things.

Bullshiat. I've lived in China, and I can assure you that churches and temples are open. Christians can worship openly in China. However, the PRC requires churches to register with the government, which has inspired Chinese Christians to set up independent churches that meet in private homes. As long as Christians don't threaten the authority of the party, the government leaves them alone. That's what got Falun Gong in trouble.

I detest the Chinese government, but you ought to know that the situation there is more complex than "religion is suppressed".

BMFPitt,

You have not helped me in any way, shape, or form. In fact, you've caused me direct harm by posting stupid shiat in a place where you could have just posted the image, which I REALLY REALLY NEED.

Why do you hate America?

Wow, O'Reilly actually does the side-scrolling text thing? I thought that was just an amusing Steven Colbert invention.

mp3sum

would love to see an intelligent post from a conservative point of view. Than it wouldn't be so one sided :(

TEH LIBERALS WANT TO EAT TEH CHRISTIANS BABIES. there. :D

they are there, you just have to sift through the trash in this thread and try and keep an open mind.

2007-02-13 06:02:09 PM Rethorn

He's was saying they should be fired for having a different opinion than he does. That doesn't exactly seem like he's supporting free speech, now does it?

How do you equate the two? People are allowed to say what they want, but need to take responsibility for their actions. If, for example, McCain's Chief of Staff is caught on tape saying "we should kill all those damn towelheads", even if that tape was from years ago, isn't that something McCain and the rest of the Republican party would want to distance themselves from?

>>Wow, O'Reilly actually does the side-scrolling text thing? I thought that was just an amusing Steven Colbert invention.

Did Steven Colbert do it before CNBC?

Supercheeks: If I was as ugly as these two heifers, I'd be bitter, too.

You, typing with one hand, have never gotten close to any woman as good looking as either of those two in your entire life. I imagine you are pretty bitter about that, but tough shiat, loser. You will never know any woman half as smart as either of them either.

Conservatives just love to get "up in arms" about everything, don't they. While idiots, the bloggers were working for a politician, and politicians are supposedly working to protect our Constitutional rights, including the First Amendment. Since when did protecting everybody's feelings take priority over that? Why is this even being taken seriously?

Bill Donahue, the hack who runs the catholic league, is one of the most anti-semitic people ever, but no one will bring that up. He's only the president of the organization that started these attacks, but you know, no scrutiny for him because he's "religious". fark that.

These two FOX analysts--Michelle Malkin and that Kirstin Whateverhernameis--are kinda hot.

And remember, kids, you can't spell "analyst" without "anal."

Yes, but O'Reilly never answered what I considered a very good question they raise about the religious right: What DON'T those lousy motherfarkers understand about keeping their noses out of our britches, our bed and our families?

wydok
2007-02-13 05:58:05 PM mp3sum said:
Since when was sane, rational thought held in high esteem by the majority?

I am not hear to prove religion right

I know, that's impossible. Unless faith is your proof, in which case you've already won. Or lost. I can't tell.


esda
Edwards is the reincarnation of John Ritter.

Christian bashing is highly unorignal and lame.

/Buddhist

Can I bash Buddhists then? I find their metaphysical circular reasoning and surprisingly rigid dogma to be almost as frightening as most sects of Christianity.

/Everything is relative. Except this sentence.

mojeepmike beat me to it. This audio clip must live in history.

>>Conservatives just love to get "up in arms" about everything, don't they.

I keep waiting for a sweeping generalization that someone makes about one side that wouldn't sound pretty much the same if made toward the other side.

maskedloser So no, I'm not Amanda Marcotte, if that's what you're thinking; but I'm flattered.

A real job is anything by which one earns the money to survive.

No, that wasn't what I was thinking or I would have said it. Neither did I read your apparently bolded post. But I'm glad you know how to speculate just like I do.

We'll have to agree to disagree on "real job", since it's not in any dictionary. I am not applying anything to anyone that I haven't applied to myself, by the way. I've been in jobs that weren't "real" (basically were dead end).

BMFPitt

If they worked for some company sure, but they are PR people for a Presidential candidate. Free speech doesn't apply when public image is part of your job.

Yeah, God forbid that someone who wishes to be President actually practice any of the stuff that he vows to protect. We wouldn't want our Forefather-turbine source of power to run dry would we?

I hate to say this, but good. The only way Hillary loses in the primary is if all but one of her opponents drop out first. That is, there's a Hillary vote, and an anti-Hillary vote. Almost nobody has Hillary as thier second or third choice; they either love her or hate her. The total sum of the anti-Hillary vote is greater than the Hillary vote, but if it's split ten ways in the early primaries, Hillary wins solely on momentum. Currently, Obama is the strongest non-Hillary canidate, for political, character, and policy reasons, and the canidate I am rooting for. Therefore, right now, everybody else has to get out of the way, or we get Hillary.

That being said, this isn't going to kill Edwards' candidacy, or even hurt it much. It's too "insider baseball". The Scooter Libby trial is similiar; not something that matters much amoungst the population at large.

Friction8r: Trust me, I'm proud of my ability to structure inflammatory comments designed to agitate and excoriate resentful farkers who have a dearth of intellect

O RLY?

Malkin is hawt, I'd do naughty things to her.

wkiernan :

I gotta tell you, they're not that good looking.

Kirsten Powers, on the other hand...

...ooh, yeah. She can fellate my falafel any day.

This thread has been like a tennis match and just as exciting. One faction unable or unwilling to sit back and rationally consider another factions argument or reasoning. I suppose that's America for you though; almost a 50-50 split in everything you do, think and believe in. In fact very little consensus or rationale behind the most basic of decisions or actions.
Great leadership is passion, perspective, organizational skills, team work, open mindedness, tolerance and integrity and I'm afraid that one of your Presidential candidates just doesn't cut it here. As an outsider looking in Edwards in fact scares me, just as other American Presidents have scared me in the past.
The man has no integrity nor any 'guts' , he is driven by politics and not passion, he has no perspective on why backing down to left wingers would affect the centrists and there is apparently no team work in his team.
There are many arguments in this thread which are now coming down to atheism, religious fervour or Christian "bashing" which is quite childish, as the original story was about a Presidential candidate who didn't have the balls to sack two hired staffers who were out there in blogland stirring up the masses with completely inappropriate comments and innuendo.
The reason the comments were inappropriate is that many Americans (and world citizens) consider themselves Christian. Islam and other religions also recognise Mary to be the mother of a Prophet so therefore Mary is not only highly respected by many people from different religions but she is also worshipped in her own right. To disrespect her or to support those that do, shows intolerance and bigotry what is not what I'd be looking for in a Presidential candidate.
The other thing that scares me is that people in the States actually support him and his ideals, are you one?

Friction8r

If you read what I wrote, I was speaking towards the future. I agree that Wydok's speaks to the now. I'm thinking that with the internet and cell phones, people are getting smarter and in the future this God business will cease to exist among the majority.

Thats got to be one of the dumbest moves ever by a presidential hopeful.


But from looking at some of the posts here, I can see who he was trying to reach...

>>The total sum of the anti-Hillary vote is greater than the Hillary vote, but if it's split ten ways in the early primaries, Hillary wins solely on momentum.

And that's the problem, isn't it?

Right now, I see the primaries as the biggest problem for both the Democrats and the Republicans. I think 2008 is the year of the moderate. I'll vote for a moderate from either side. But how do you get a moderate through the primaries?

06:12:43 PM KrispyKringle: Wow, O'Reilly actually does the side-scrolling text thing? I thought that was just an amusing Steven Colbert invention.

Watch O'Reilly and you'll see where a lot of Colbert's format originated.

>>Thats got to be one of the dumbest moves ever by a presidential hopeful.

Handling the Daily Kos is going to be the toughest job any Democrat has. Trying to negotiate that minefield will be rough.

jjorsett :

Yeah, I knew Colbert was an O'Reilly satire. I just never watched enough O'Reilly to see all the similarities in format.

Sadly, I have read enough of what O'Reilly's said in other news sources that I still get the satire.

MrToast: Are you referring to The War Between The States?

I believe he is refering to the War of Northern Aggression.

pearly8067 Bill Donahue, the hack...

Thanks for clarifying the nature of this person in your post, for I surely thought you were referring to Phil Donahue.

Rethorn - Yeah, God forbid that someone who wishes to be President actually practice any of the stuff that he vows to protect. We wouldn't want our Forefather-turbine source of power to run dry would we?

If you work at Best Buy and you tell every person who comes to your register that the movies/music/electronics/games they are buying are horrible pieces of shiat, should your speech be protected? If not, explain how that differs from this scenario.

Wydok

How do you equate the two? People are allowed to say what they want, but need to take responsibility for their actions. If, for example, McCain's Chief of Staff is caught on tape saying "we should kill all those damn towelheads", even if that tape was from years ago, isn't that something McCain and the rest of the Republican party would want to distance themselves from?

When did I say he shouldn't distance himself from it? He DID distance himself from it. However, Edwards values the right for people to say what they want, even if he disagrees with it. I actually gained a lot of respect for him because he didn't kowtow to peer pressure and puss-out like people say Democrats do all the time. Granted, their resignation was probably at his request, but he didn't take the Republican move and make an example out of them. He, ironically, did the Christian and American thing and forgave them and respectfully distanced himself from them but continued to respect their right to free speech.

If they had said that people who play WoW are fatass losers who live in their mom's basement, do you think anyone would give a damn? No, because the opposition party's demographic does not include fatass losers who live in their mom's basement. It does, however, include Christians so any attacks against them (whether valid or not) are going to trigger the persecution complex.

wydock

I think he was referring to the part where O'Reilly asks the Democratic strategist for her opinion. She responds with something to the effect of "well, I find it offensive, but they have the freedom to say it" and, in typical O'Reilly fashion, he equates recognizing the right to say something with agreeing with it, implying that there should be something that makes it so they CAN'T say it.

Congrats on missing the point.

His point is that what was being said by the bloggers was so over the top, thinking people should immediately find it offensive to the point of immediately condemning it or dismissing it as stupidity. Saying, "they are entitled to their opinion" implies that such out of bounds comments are equally as valid as any others, which clearly they are not.

No, having an opinion doesn't guarantee you employment, and it should NEVER guarantee you employment with a serious political candidate especially if your opinion is as snarky, offensive, and lacking in basic intelligence as those being expressed by these individuals. The fact that John Edwards didn't fire them says that either he doesn't care what his supporters are saying or agrees wth them. Either way, it looks very bad.

06:14:50 PM shaymlss: Conservatives just love to get "up in arms" about everything, don't they. While idiots, the bloggers were working for a politician, and politicians are supposedly working to protect our Constitutional rights, including the First Amendment. Since when did protecting everybody's feelings take priority over that? Why is this even being taken seriously?

There's no question the bloggers and Edwards were exercising free speech rights. And the Christians and O'Reilly were exercising their first amendment rights to pitch a fit about it and raise hell. If Edwards wants to tacitly endorse the statements made by virulent, anti-religion bigots, nobody is questioning his right to do so. And lose a lot of votes thereby, but that's his call.

2007-02-13 06:16:28 PM mp3sum

I know, that's impossible. Unless faith is your proof, in which case you've already won. Or lost. I can't tell.

That does make arguments about it infuriating, doesn't it? Atheists flat out say that religion is not rational, and what is the homest religios reponse? "Yeah, so?" But nobody can live with saying that, so then it ends up as a shouting match or nitpicking about what race Jesus was or what a certain Biblical text means. It's all quite silly, really.

In the end, atheists won't be able to convince the religious, and vice versa. Unless somewhere deep down they have doubts about their stance on the issue.

Somacandra:

Oh yeah. I'd put her in an WWII internment camp anyday.

Haha! Bravo!

Friction8r, you are welcome.

2007-02-13 06:23:11 PM hdhale

1: You spelled my name wrong.
2: I didn't write that.

Obeah Man: what hypocrites! Religion (the major ones particularly) is the source of all the world's evil and we would be better off with them and bill o'rlly.

YES! because the world would be so much better if it only had non-hating and tolerant types like you and Marcotte, right?

/idiot