Fucking bigoted haters. *hurls*

It takes a very special kind of person to be a goalie in hurling. Earlier today I listened to the Monty Python coverage of the men's Being Eaten By A Crocodile event. I think both require the same qualities of extreme speed, skill, bravery, and suicidal tendencies.

I agree with his overall message. I dislike labels because you are automatically assumed to have all the traits of others with that label.

This is rarely the case, of course, and it's sad to see a genius such as NDT make this point and then turn around and say, essentially, that all atheists are activists.

If you're not a theist, you're an atheist. That's it.

Why does the term exist? Because the religious ancient Greeks needed a pejorative to hurl at non-believers. It's comparable to calling someone 'godless' or 'heathen' today.

And of course, while NDT may be an agnostic (it would seem to be consistent with how he's talked about knowledge elsewhere), he defines it incorrectly. Agnosticism is the view that the truth about the existence of gods is unknowable.

(A)theism is about what you believe. (A)gnosticism is about what you think can be known.

It is interesting how the horse gallop is more like the horse on very quick occasions, hurls itself forward. Not like us bipeds, we have to keep both legs at full speed the entire time to achieve our prime running status. Cheetah's do the same thing, the front legs hurl, then the back legs hurl, rinse and repeat. The way quads and bis run is really completely different, I never really examined it before. Quads really do own the running game...but good luck opening a Capri Sun, suckers!

@MonkeySpank

Every time you label things like "communist-founded ACLU," etc., you bring down the entire discourse to poop-hurling and name-calling.

Do you know why I "labeled" it communist-founded ACLU? Because it was!

I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself … I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

--Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU in 1920, speaking in 1935

I'll ask you the following questions:

1) Do you believe in evolution?

>>> A Creator created evolution.

2) Do you think that government, a protocol of civil conduct, is always flawed; and therefore it should be minimized or eliminated?

>>> It's always flawed in the sense that it's run by humans, not angels. Corruption is the grease of democracy; the greater the size of the government, the more tyrannical.

3) Do you believe in the passage "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back." Luke 6:35; do you live by it?

>>> As much as possible, but I imagine everyone thinks that. Also, sometimes the best way to love your enemies is to end their karma in this lifetime.

4) Do you believe in divorce and interest rates? Would you oppose them if you could vote against them?

>>> No, but we pay a heavy price for each.

5) Do you believe in a non-profit Universal Healthcare, or something similar? Mark 3:10

>>> It doesn't work, so no. Do I believe in helping those who truly need help? Yes.

6) What countries do you like besides the United States?

>>> There are other countries? I like some aspects of some countries. Japanese ninjas, Canadian Shatner, etc.

7) Would you support a war against Iran?

>>> Yes, as needed. You really want to allow nutjobs to have The Bomb? Say goodbye to Nuked York.

Do you believe that Mexicans, the original owners of this land, are free loaders when we arbitrarily set a border south of AZ, NM, CA, and TX and decided to call their migration "illegal"?

>>> We won those states by winning wars with Mexico. We are all trespassers on dinosaur land.

9) What would be one good thing can you say about Obama, although I am not a fan of his, to show any lack of bias?

>>> He's an eloquent speaker.



1) Do you believe in evolution?
2) Do you think that government, a protocol of civil conduct, is always flawed; and therefore it should be minimized or eliminated?
3) Do you believe in the passage "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back." Luke 6:35; do you live by it?
4) Do you believe in divorce and interest rates? Would you oppose them if you could vote against them?
5) Do you believe in a non-profit Universal Healthcare, or something similar? Mark 3:10
6) What countries do like besides the United States?
7) Would you support a war against Iran?
Do you believe that Mexicans, the original owners of this land, are free loaders when we arbitrarily set a border south of AZ, NM, CA, and TX and decided to call their migration "illegal"?
9) What would be one good thing can you say about Obama, although I am not a fan of his, to show any lack of bias?

>> ^quantumushroom:


The communist-founded ACLU has taken upon itself to decide that all mentions of religion in the public circle are, in fact, establishing a government religion, which is rubbish.


Every time you label things like "communist-founded ACLU," etc., you bring down the entire discourse to poop-hurling and name-calling. A good argument is one that sits on the fence. I'll ask you the following questions:

1) Do you believe in evolution?
2) Do you think that government, a protocol of civil conduct, is always flawed; and therefore it should be minimized or eliminated?
3) Do you believe in the passage "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back." Luke 6:35; do you live by it?
4) Do you believe in divorce and interest rates? Would you oppose them if you could vote against them?
5) Do you believe in a non-profit Universal Healthcare, or something similar? Mark 3:10
6) What countries do like besides the United States?
7) Would you support a war against Iran?
Do you believe that Mexicans, the original owners of this land, are free loaders when we arbitrarily set a border south of AZ, NM, CA, and TX and decided to call their migration "illegal"?
9) What would be one good thing can you say about Obama, although I am not a fan of his, to show any lack of bias?

>> ^dag:

Good job on the no swearing thing.
His energy is intoxicating. I would follow him into battle.


Some bagpipes, a few spears, with this guy hurling abuse at the enemy, few could withstand such terror. Well except for the deaf, so you'd need to get someone on sign language.

Jackass: India. Thanks for the warning, the amount of body hair in this video almost made me hurl.

Oh WP, that vine swings both ways. Just do me a favor and try not to cover those of us in the middle with the fecal rhetoric while you feel the need to sling it out with "the far left fringe"

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I will be genuinely surprised if these protesters remain non-violent for much longer.
Elements of OWS have been violent for for some time. This particular incident was preceeded by (essentially) a riot where OWS goons were hurling rocks, bottles, and other crap at the police. The order went out for the crowd to disperse. They ignored it. At that point once the crowd has been warned and still refuses to obey the police it is pretty stupid to pretend that rubber bullets and tear gas are somehow out of line. Whatever point they may have ever had is now entirely lost in a sea of their own bad behavior. Behaving like jackasses and then whining about it when grown-ups are forced to put you in line doesn't make you a hero or noble. It makes you a giant douche.
But what can we expect from a group kickstarted by known anti-capitalist Kalle Lasn, fronted by his rag Adbusters, and trained by a professional anarchist running around conducting sessions on how to get arrested? The good book says, "By their fruits ye shall know them."
http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstre
et-the-rap-sheet-so-far/
It will eventually turn to violence if people aren't allowed to be heard
Lol. They've been 'heard' for weeks. The news media has been giving them almost constant coverage, and on the national side it is mostly positive. The NYT alone has published over 180,000 words on OWS. But of course OWS and other prog-libs are still angry because they think they haven't gotten ENOUGH coverage, or that their coverage hasn't been as positive as they wanted.
And like most things, I know exactly why they feel this way. These hooligans are at the far left fringes of society. On a 100 point scale where 1 is "crazed liberal" and 100 is "crazed conservative", they are probably somewhere around 10 or 15. They aren't mainstream. They are out there. WAAAAY out there in many cases.
The news media coverage has been left-positive, but not AS left-positive as they want. If we scaled it, the overall media coverage of OWS has been around 35-40. Mostly centrist, leaning left. But that is not good enough for OWS and the prog-lib sympathizers. Unless the coverage mirrors their own bias (10 or 15) they consider it 'right wing'. This is not because the coverage isn't leftist. They feel this way because the coverage happens to be to the right of THEMSELVES.
So essentially they are mad because the entire national media isn't an OWS propoganda outlet. Anything less than that is somehow "unfair" or "not enough coverage". People who are chimpanzees swinging on the radical vines of the far left fringe will continue to fling their poo until everyone is as covered with it as they are.

I will be genuinely surprised if these protesters remain non-violent for much longer.

Elements of OWS have been violent for for some time. This particular incident was preceeded by (essentially) a riot where OWS goons were hurling rocks, bottles, and other crap at the police. The order went out for the crowd to disperse. They ignored it. At that point once the crowd has been warned and still refuses to obey the police it is pretty stupid to pretend that rubber bullets and tear gas are somehow out of line. Whatever point they may have ever had is now entirely lost in a sea of their own bad behavior. Behaving like jackasses and then whining about it when grown-ups are forced to put you in line doesn't make you a hero or noble. It makes you a giant douche.

But what can we expect from a group kickstarted by known anti-capitalist Kalle Lasn, fronted by his rag Adbusters, and trained by a professional anarchist running around conducting sessions on how to get arrested? The good book says, "By their fruits ye shall know them."

http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstreet-the-rap-sheet-so-far/

It will eventually turn to violence if people aren't allowed to be heard

Lol. They've been 'heard' for weeks. The news media has been giving them almost constant coverage, and on the national side it is mostly positive. The NYT alone has published over 180,000 words on OWS. But of course OWS and other prog-libs are still angry because they think they haven't gotten ENOUGH coverage, or that their coverage hasn't been as positive as they wanted.

And like most things, I know exactly why they feel this way. These hooligans are at the far left fringes of society. On a 100 point scale where 1 is "crazed liberal" and 100 is "crazed conservative", they are probably somewhere around 10 or 15. They aren't mainstream. They are out there. WAAAAY out there in many cases.

The news media coverage has been left-positive, but not AS left-positive as they want. If we scaled it, the overall media coverage of OWS has been around 35-40. Mostly centrist, leaning left. But that is not good enough for OWS and the prog-lib sympathizers. Unless the coverage mirrors their own bias (10 or 15) they consider it 'right wing'. This is not because the coverage isn't leftist. They feel this way because the coverage happens to be to the right of THEMSELVES.

So essentially they are mad because the entire national media isn't an OWS propoganda outlet. Anything less than that is somehow "unfair" or "not enough coverage". People who are chimpanzees swinging on the radical vines of the far left fringe will continue to fling their poo until everyone is as covered with it as they are.

As a partial answer to myself, I found this showing that indeed, Iraq did, at least to this point, cost more than the Stan. I guess that does make since as there was an actual army that needed killing there and an entire urban warfare scene that got out of control. In my reading, though, it does talk about logistics being a MAJOR problem in the Stan. For every dollar you want to spend there, you have to spend even more dollars to get that money on the ground...more so than Iraq which is just a drive up the road from Kuwait. Which means that out of that 400 billion spent on the Stan, much less of that money was spent on actually fighting than in Iraq, the Stan is a very ineffective war in comparison. Like Napoleon invading Russia, or the Soviet Union in.... Afghanistan (sigh), this is a great war to spend lots of money doing very little. On a positive note, I guess, this is the last spinning war plate. Well, that is until we decide to hurl missiles at some other person we don't like, in the name of freedom of course.

Complete waffle.

You are making nearly all of this up.

>> ^NaMeCaF:

I love how there's no context offered in this clip or by the "reporter".
These protesters said they were peaceful and would leave when asked. They were left alone and allowed full freedom to practice their protest. Days later, when they were finally asked to leave the protesters went back on their word and ignored all requests to vacate the area, instead planting themselves and refusing to move.
Finally after repeated requests to leave peacefully, a small number of police were called in to try and encourage them to move on. However when the police arrived, the protesters started hurling abuse and called everyone they knew (on sites like facebook, etc) to come down and outnumber the cops.
Of course the cops had to call in reinforcements of their own to ensure a full scale riot wouldn't break out (hence the riot and search and rescue police) and were tasked with using reasonable force to physically move the protesters who had well worn out their welcome. Of course this last few minutes is all that is reported and posted up here.
Disgrace.

I love how there's no context offered in this clip or by the "reporter".

These protesters said they were peaceful and would leave when asked. They were left alone and allowed full freedom to practice their protest. Days later, when they were finally asked to leave the protesters went back on their word and ignored all requests to vacate the area, instead planting themselves and refusing to move.

Finally after repeated requests to leave peacefully, a small number of police were called in to try and encourage them to move on. However when the police arrived, the protesters started hurling abuse and called everyone they knew (on sites like facebook, etc) to come down and outnumber the cops.

Of course the cops had to call in reinforcements of their own to ensure a full scale riot wouldn't break out (hence the riot and search and rescue police) and were tasked with using reasonable force to physically move the protesters who had well worn out their welcome. Of course this last few minutes is all that is reported and posted up here.

Disgrace.

Searching religion and cats got me this sad piece of knowledge:

Beginning in the 11th century, tolerance for cats began to decrease in Europe for religious reasons, and “by the 13th century the church viewed witches as real and cats as instruments of the devil” (Lynnlee, p. 20). Dante (1265–1321), for example, mentioned cats only once in his work and compared them to demons. From the 14th century well into the 18th century, cats were regularly killed on specific religious holidays. “By the late 15th century the persecution of cats and witches was a mainstay of European society. . . . The 15th and 16th centuries are almost devoid of any cat literature and art. . . . During this period the cat still was used to control rodents, but it was rarely seen as a pet, for if so its existence and that of its owner were in jeopardy” (Lynnlee, p. 21). Cats became especially associated with heretical religious sects, such as the Waldensians and Manichaeans, and members of these sects were accused of worshiping the Devil in the form of a black cat.

On feast days all over Europe, as a symbolic means of driving out the Devil, they were captured and tortured, tossed onto bonfires, set alight and chased through the streets, impaled on spits and roasted alive, burned at the stake, plunged into boiling water, whipped to death, and hurled from the tops of tall buildings, all in an atmosphere of extreme festive merriment. (Serpell JA, The domestication and history of the cat, in Turner DC and Bateson P, eds, The Domestic Cat, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 156).

"At Metz, for example, on “cat Wednesday” during Lent, 13 cats were placed in an iron cage and publicly burned; this ritual took place each year from 1344 to 1777" (Kete K, The Beast in the Boudoir, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994, p. 119).

(http://www.stanleyresearch.org/dnn/LaboratoryofDevelopmentalNeurovirology/ToxoplasmosisSchizophreniaResearch/IAllaboutCats/tabid/173/Default.aspx)


Great, as if we needed more reasons to hate religion...