Fulchrum posted:

PETA are annoying, when have they ever engaged in something that could be credibly called terrorism?

quote:

And our next contestant on [dramatic voice]”Idiot…Of…The…Week”[/dramatic voice] [fading echo]…

quote:

I’ve always enjoyed posting on message boards, but because I enjoy a nice debate, and too many people don’t really comprehend what a debate is, I find myself often without one to post on. The one I’m currently using (other than a few I run myself) is one run by what would be considered by some, “extremist” Christians. By “extremist” I’m using the media’s definition, which is actually laughable, since other than a handful of nutcases that few people really consider Christians, what the media portrays as “extremist” Christians are simply those who believe the Bible.

Anyway, the topic of Iran’s treatment of homosexuals came up, and the response was rather interesting. “Extremist” Christians are often accused of hating homosexuals and wanting them executed. But the tongue-in-cheek response to the issue of Iran’s death penalty for homosexuals was “Let’s start with the adulterers…” What the poster meant was sin is sin and if society is willing to tolerate executing people for adultery (and what society ever did within the past 500 years?) then they can talk about execution for other moral sins.

Several years ago I participated in a message board specifically for debating religion and homosexuality. In was a lively discussion. One morning, though, the debate was interrupted as terrorists flew airplanes into buildings–that would have been September 11, 2001. One of the homosexuals who posted frequently and also lived in New York, wrote to say that while he was okay his “partner” was missing. Immediately the Christians that had been debating him, sent notes of encouragement, concern and told him they were praying for his friend’s safety. While there were other homosexuals and Liberals who participated, defending homosexuality as moral, they oddly remained silent. Finally the man posted that his “partner” had managed to contact him, and he was okay. After that, though, the “fire” had gone out of many of the homosexuals who posted, because they saw that rather than being hate-filled bigots, those they were debating against were more willing to show love and compassion than those taking their side. The debate never again rose to the level it had, and the site itself closed down a few months later as the company hosting it closed down in the wake of 9/11.

We are now in a war against people that see all homosexuals as criminals needing death, and all women as chattel to be hidden and subdued. While the term “extremist” means little when referring to Christians, it marks a wide difference between mainstream Islam, and those that use it to further violence and bloodshed. But isn’t it interesting that the Left are so willing for us to cut and run, and abandon those they claim to have such compassion for?

Few noted that while Matthew Shepherd became a martyr for “hate crimes” the reality was that those that killed him received a more lenient sentence than the vast majority on the right wished for. The two murderers, indeed, should have been executed for the crime. It was the “compassionate” left that pushed a prison sentence instead.

As I noted on my blog a while back…

Now, me, when four Black girls beat three white women while shouting racial slurs, I would call that a hate crime, but the police, using their amazing powers of “discernment” labeled it a mere assault, and the girls were given minimal sentences.

When a homosexual man raped, stabbed, strangled and beat a coworker who he knew was a devout Catholic, because he disagreed with her religious views, then stuffed her bloody body in a crawl space under the floor of his apartment, I would have thought it was a hate crime. But no, the police said it was just another murder.

When three self-proclaimed Satanists burned nine churches to the ground, me, in my naïveté assumed it was definitely a hate crime. But no, the police in their inimitable wisdom declared that it was merely a college prank.

When a gunman, shouting anti-Christian slurs, murdered nine church members in a Fort Worth church, I also, foolishly, assumed it would have been hate crime. But, once again, the police declared that the incident was definitely not a hate crime, but simply the act of a deranged man.

In the news a while back Senate Democrats attached their so-called hate-crime amendment to an appropriations bill for our military in Iraq, attempting to hold our troops for hostage to force an unconstitutional law down America’s throat. Those in the Middle East that enjoy hanging homosexuals benefited as military appropriations were held up. It passed the Senate, which forced Bush to veto it, and therefore delayed funding for the troops. Bush wisely vetoed it every time, because law enforcement has demonstrated, as I pointed out above, that “hate crimes” are arbitrarily and capriciously determined, making them meaningless and abusive.

Ultimately neither the House nor the Senate were willing to show true compassion, both for the troops as well as for Americans who will suffer from a bad law that should never have made it out of either house.

America needs more protection from the “compassion” of Liberals than from the “hate” of those that Liberals themselves obviously hate.

quote:

Polls & Other Fairy Tales

quote:

The man gushed joyously as he spoke of the wonders of modern architecture, it’s purposeful design, ingenious versatility and open functionality.

“Take these doors for example,” he said with a flourish of his hand, “They tell us that the architect designed the building to be an open structure, available for people to enter and exit. The doors allow us the freedom to enter and leave but also bring in items and take items out. Such foresight makes the building more functional as we can then include those things we deem necessary as we use the building.”

With that he lifted a chain saw laying near him, and revved it up. With a quick turn, to smile at us, he proceeded to cut a large hole in the wall of the building. As the wall material fell away, he stepped aside, then walked through the hole. Once inside he beamed back out at us, shut the chainsaw down and stood, looking proudly at the damage he’d done.

Finally another watching him asked, “What point are you trying to make ruining the wall?”

“Ruining the wall, I simply utilized the architectural concept of entry to enter the building.”

“But the door’s right over there. Why cut a hold in the wall?”

“I didn’t want to walk to the door, so I made my own ‘door’ following the buildings open entry design.”

“What?!?” we all asked totally baffled at his explanation.

“If the architects designed the building with a doorway, then they intended for the building to be open to entry from the outside. Cutting my own entry simply makes that process easier.”

“But it also makes a mess, not to mention an insecure opening. The building isn’t safe now. Anyone can walk through there.”

As he spoke another man cut yet another hole in the building and walked through. He placed something inside the building approached another wall, and cut an exit.

Our speaker turned to us with glee.

“See, it’s an open design, made to be adapted to the need of the time.”

He was still smiling as we heard the building creak, and the smile only left his face once he noticed the wall shifting. A split second before the building collapsed on him we saw a momentary glimpse of realization. Then there was nothing but rubble.

Our Constitution was designed with Amendments, originally an effort to assure several states that the new Federal government would not attempt to wrest too much power. The US Constitution was intended as chains, so to speak, on the Federal government to limit it’s power. Originally that was the limit of its “jurisdiction”—the Federal government. But it allowed for Amendments.

I was raised being taught that the US Constitution is an “elastic document” which was not very clearly explained then. Now I understand that as a rationalization for bypassing the Amendment process and allowing the courts to redefine the meaning of the Constitution to something the Founders never intended. The idea that the Constitution allowed Amendments was used as a rationalization for further changing the Constitution by other means—judicial fiat. The equivalent of ripping a hole in the wall with a chainsaw because the door is either too far away, or too difficult to open. With similar consequences.

Fulchrum posted:

Oh no, now they'll be able to strike INDIVIDUALS in the US....just as soon as they get there. Aaaaany day now.

Fulchrum posted:

You know Ben Ghazi. He's the closest the Republicans have to a credible opponent against Hilary.

Fulchrum posted:

Boywhiz88 posted:

Why would they cite Reagan's first election and not his re-election where he carried 49 states?

Dirt5o8 posted:

Because Reagan got all 50 states and 100% of the vote - anything else you hear are lies.

Boywhiz88 posted:

Good pull this week, Fulchrum! They honestly seem to be running out of ways to make rage. Like a lot of these quotes and comics are just plain dumb or unfunny.

Bloodnose posted:

One of the dumbest things right wingers have been up to lately has been this idea that "entitlements" means the exact opposite of what it actually means.

Like "how dare they call this social security money, which I worked for and paid into my whole life and am therefore entitled to, an entitlement?! Like it's some kind of free handout!?"

Bloodnose posted:

One of the dumbest things right wingers have been up to lately has been this idea that "entitlements" means the exact opposite of what it actually means.

Like "how dare they call this social security money, which I worked for and paid into my whole life and am therefore entitled to, an entitlement?! Like it's some kind of free handout!?"

Ghost of Reagan Past posted:

Fun fact! Nobody outside the right wing outrage machine, and those of us who get our kicks from it, actually knows what Benghazi is. And of those, only the right wing outrage machine knows what we're supposed to be pissed off about.

VitalSigns posted:

The President is black and therefore a Muslim.

Bloodnose posted:

One of the dumbest things right wingers have been up to lately has been this idea that "entitlements" means the exact opposite of what it actually means.

Like "how dare they call this social security money, which I worked for and paid into my whole life and am therefore entitled to, an entitlement?! Like it's some kind of free handout!?"

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

He didn't publish the drawing he made of a giant spider tank bristling with guns, each with a continuous stream of bullets firing in every direction.

hamster_style posted:

But it's not his blackness they have a problem with...

Swan Oat posted:

That's because Douglas Adams can't draw.

SquadronROE posted:

So an acquaintance mentioned that he would envy the opportunity to kill an intruder. I always knew that was a thing people dreamed about (especially middle aged suburban dads who play too many video games) but weird to hear him talk about it just like it was a perfectly normal thing.

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

It's probably a normal reaction to recent trauma. I wouldn't hold it against someone that much if they were the recent victim of violent crime. Of course, the real answer is therapy to learn constructive ways to manage anxieties.

Seven Force posted:

Isn't "Ben Ghazi" a joke? Did they take a joke response to a nonsense cause seriously??

Fulchrum posted:

So wait, the devil is the liberal here? Why even bother color coding speech if you're not gonna stick to it?

SquadronROE posted:

So an acquaintance mentioned that he would envy the opportunity to kill an intruder. I always knew that was a thing people dreamed about (especially middle aged suburban dads who play too many video games) but weird to hear him talk about it just like it was a perfectly normal thing.

Guavanaut posted:

That's probably deliberate, like the whole "the Devil was the first liberal" type thing.

The Bee posted:

That's pretty much it. I'll link the pic.



Like, its pretty clearly trying to explain that numbers aren't big monolithic entities, and you can break them up to make simpler numbers easier to add on the fly. Its just explained/asked kind of poorly, and looks silly when done for an example like 8+5 even if we need to teach it that early to make it a building block of math.

I actually effortposted to try and help explain, too, because I thought it was just a reblog confused about math. Then I checked the source, saw it was liberallogic101, and couldn't believe my eyes.

Brawnfire posted:

I've been musing about this on facebook, they literally think they're being called "entitled" like they're bratty kids or something.

Too bad they'll never absorb how true that is, though not in this particular case.

Mo_Steel posted:

Got this one in my feed too, with someone else commenting on the post afterwards "The teachers comment of adding three at the end would still make this equation come out to 13. duhhhhhhhhh"

I can't even..

The Bee posted:

I dunno, I feel the wording of the question could've been better, but all these hyperbolic posts like "I’m taking loving Calculus and I don’t get what the teacher is trying to do." just really confuse me.

The Bee posted:

I dunno, I feel the wording of the question could've been better, but all these hyperbolic posts like "I’m taking loving Calculus and I don’t get what the teacher is trying to do." just really confuse me.

Fulchrum posted:

Samuel Clemens posted:

I can't figure out what this is trying to say. Obamacare will lead to the zombie apocalypse?

Fulchrum posted:

And thats another week.

Fulchrum posted:

Wow, just blatant "No true scotsman".



"This is for fighting the small imaginary bad guys. This one is for when I figh the US army and win! So stop telling me I'm delusional!"

Deuce posted:

Fulchrum died embraced the darkness for our sins.

Mornacale posted:

Islam, unlike Christianity, encourages violence.

Now let me tell you about who I want to kill with all these different guns.

Rick_Hunter posted:

I know it's been mentioned before, but why aren't we making 'Conservative Logic 101' parodies? Is it because it would muddy the waters or give LL101 more attention or...