>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bobknight33:
Raciest in the extreme.

There are legitimate reasons to hate Israel, and illegitimate reasons. Me? I hate people who can spell.

can or can't? ;3

I aint no fan of Israel, but throwing punches because you think they lied about being Jews? Aint no rhyme nor reason. The fact they can prank people like this because they reaction is so expected is worrying tbh. Where else in the world could this happen. No wonder the Jews were anxious when Mubarak went...

ps. That woman is beautiful.

Calling someone a "Jew" for being stingy or preoccupied about money is an insult, and the song does not seem to be only about blacks (why does it begin with "skin head, dead head"?) but I won't argue about it because a)it's possible that it simply is racist and b)I don't care about MJ that much.

>> ^messenger:

For the "Kick me kike me" line, I might let that go as very, VERY poor writing if that were all there was, but it's not.
First, this is a song about unfair treatment of blacks specifically, not minorities in general.
How can you suggest that "Jew" is a bad word/calling someone names? That's the normal word, not a racist epithet. So the argument doesn't fly.
Here's another way to read it: to "Jew" someone (as a verb, as in the song) commonly means to use money/the legal system to cheat/screw someone over. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jew) The full line: "Jew me sue me" makes it clear this was his intent. Evil lawyers are stereotypically Jews ("Shysters"), so this fits too well.
I'm sticking with my racist verdict.>> ^hpqp:
@rex84 and @messenger
I looked up the lyrics out of curiosity, as well as the controversy surrounding them, and frankly, they do not seem discriminatory in context, au contraire. I'm no fan of MJ - as a person or a singer - but I don't like when things get labeled over misunderstandings. The lyrics (if I understand correctly) are about minorities being abused by society ("they"), including verbally, hence "Jew me" and "kike me" read as 'insult me/call me names' (I don't see how else it could be read tbh). It's very poor writing, for sure, but the intention does not seem racist. /my 2cents

For the "Kick me kike me" line, I might let that go as very, VERY poor writing if that were all there was, but it's not.

First, this is a song about unfair treatment of blacks specifically, not minorities in general.

How can you suggest that "Jew" is a bad word/calling someone names? That's the normal word, not a racist epithet. So the argument doesn't fly.

Here's another way to read it: to "Jew" someone (as a verb, as in the song) commonly means to use money/the legal system to cheat/screw someone over. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jew) The full line: "Jew me sue me" makes it clear this was his intent. Evil lawyers are stereotypically Jews ("Shysters"), so this fits too well.

I'm sticking with my racist verdict.>> ^hpqp:

@rex84 and @messenger
I looked up the lyrics out of curiosity, as well as the controversy surrounding them, and frankly, they do not seem discriminatory in context, au contraire. I'm no fan of MJ - as a person or a singer - but I don't like when things get labeled over misunderstandings. The lyrics (if I understand correctly) are about minorities being abused by society ("they"), including verbally, hence "Jew me" and "kike me" read as 'insult me/call me names' (I don't see how else it could be read tbh). It's very poor writing, for sure, but the intention does not seem racist. /my 2cents

@rex84 and @messenger

I looked up the lyrics out of curiosity, as well as the controversy surrounding them, and frankly, they do not seem discriminatory in context, au contraire. I'm no fan of MJ - as a person or a singer - but I don't like when things get labeled over misunderstandings. The lyrics (if I understand correctly) are about minorities being abused by society ("they"), including verbally, hence "Jew me" and "kike me" read as 'insult me/call me names' (I don't see how else it could be read tbh). It's very poor writing, for sure, but the intention does not seem racist. /my 2cents

The "debate" is inherently unfair because one side has to defend indefensible stupidity. As for what's on the air in "professional news outlets" (and I'm no fan of CNN), her intelligence seems to be only slightly beneath the average of Fox News' presenters. S'all fair and balanced. >> ^bobknight33:

I'm not here to defend her or the Pastors sermon content. All I'm saying if you are going to have a debate make it fair. Have equal intellectual capacities to present their ideas. As a professional news outlet they should have know not to have her on the air. >> ^Januari:


@bobknight33 You HAVE to be kidding... any interest in defending those statements yourself?... Devil's advocate even?... i mean ANY defense/excuse/rationalization/explination... anything? I'd really love to hear it. Or just consider for a moment the possibility that the comments made by this bigot and the folks who support him, reflect VERY well on the intelligence level of the person in this video. I suspect you'd have an incredibly hard time finding someone who isn't this stupid to go on camera and actually support them...
>> ^bobknight33:
What a poor interview. This should have been with someone who had the intellectual capability to have this discussion. Where was the Pastor, Deacon or such who could have properly defended, justified the statements from the sermon.

If she was to represent any one else on any other topic she would have been just as bad.

She was railroaded for the pleasure of CNN and its audience.
That's not news that abuse.

Wow, I just lost a lot of respect for Dan Rather.

I am no fan of Bush, but looking over the history of the whole Killian documents scandal on Wikipedia, it's pretty clear that all the people who lost their jobs at CBS did so because they ran a news story without authenticating documents that were produced by someone who was notoriously anti-Bush and was only willing to turn them over if CBS helped him get a book deal. They then went on to misrepresent statements made by people connected to the event in a way that seemingly corroborated the documents. After learning all these facts, Dan himself said he would not have used the documents to run the story... but without the documents there WAS no story. Only an anti-Bush zealot claiming misconduct with no proof to back up his claims.

>> ^Barbar:

If you actually believe he is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile. I expect you're smarter than that, but sufficiently dim to expect nobody to follow the link. Yeah, he mentions Jesus, but I rather suspect it's an attempt to reduce the deficit that's driving him, not a religious compass. He's just saying in an offhand way, 'Hey republicans, here's a way to square this with the ministry of Jesus.' presumably to preemptively take the wind out of their sails in the future head butting.
Yes, Obama is campaigning. I'm no fan of Obama any more, that is for sure. Never really was a fan of either party, although Obama briefly gave me Hope(tm) before flushing it down the toilet. I don't see how it's relevant that some of his grassroots efforts are in churches. Is that not typically the case? Either way it's a complete straw man.
What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy. It was based on a misunderstanding not only of the text, but also of the practical implementation of the ammendment over centuries of history.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".
Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/i
ndex.htm
And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU
So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.




I pretty much agree with Barbar.

And, criticizing Santorum doesn't mean I can't criticize Obama. His appeal to religion is nowhere near the same level as Santorum's, but I don't like either tactic. I think it's more in line with how things are "supposed" to run to leave religion out of the entire process, no matter who is running.

I use more than two brain cells when I think, and when I do, I infer that the right usually have specific social policies in the crosshairs when they try to get us revved up by using religion. Abortion, contraception, gay marriage. These are all specific issues that are directly impacted by the Right's appeal to Christian voters. They aren't shy about name calling (neither is Winstonfield_Pennypacker it seems). They tend to forget, if they were to be elected, they would have to represent all Americans, not just Christians.

And so, while I'm not a fan of Obama's appeal to churches or religion, it's different from the way Republican candidates, namely Santorum, invoke religion to get a vote. If you look at my previous posts, I make a pretty clear distinction between an individual stating his believe and a government official letting his personal religion guide policy. The thinking seems to be: Since most of us are Christians let's use religion to our political advantage.

So, when religion becomes a justification of the decisions our government makes, we need to call them out.

If you actually believe he is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile. I expect you're smarter than that, but sufficiently dim to expect nobody to follow the link. Yeah, he mentions Jesus, but I rather suspect it's an attempt to reduce the deficit that's driving him, not a religious compass. He's just saying in an offhand way, 'Hey republicans, here's a way to square this with the ministry of Jesus.' presumably to preemptively take the wind out of their sails in the future head butting.

Yes, Obama is campaigning. I'm no fan of Obama any more, that is for sure. Never really was a fan of either party, although Obama briefly gave me Hope(tm) before flushing it down the toilet. I don't see how it's relevant that some of his grassroots efforts are in churches. Is that not typically the case? Either way it's a complete straw man.

What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy. It was based on a misunderstanding not only of the text, but also of the practical implementation of the ammendment over centuries of history.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".
Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/i
ndex.htm
And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU
So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.

I'm not American, I'm no fan of the American government and frankly your society scares the hell outta me at times.

But when it comes down to it, I look at what America wants to be (or used to want to be, who the fuck knows anymore?) and I look at what China wants to be, and for all it's faults, I'd much rather have the US in charge than the Chinese.

Oh and just for the record, this is not in any way a slight on the Chinese people. It's their government I have a problem with.

>> ^kceaton1:

I'm no fan of Fluoride or Prozac,


Shhhhhh... she can hear us....

I'm no fan of Fluoride or Prozac, but what Prozac has is a molecule containing three Fluoride atoms that act as a way to keep the body from taking in all of the drug at the same time. I'm not sure how Prozac breaks down, but I doubt it breaks down into the "oh no, it's Fluoride" setup. It most likely stays in that three bonded form and passes out the body. I'll have to look around and see if I can prove myself wrong (remember a molecule setup of Fluoride atoms behaves far differently than that of just the plain atom version--much like Oxygen, the O₃ version of Oxygen is Ozone and is much different than its standalone cousin).

Submissive to authority? - check
Aggressive on behalf of authority? - check
Possessing moderate to little education? - check (an assumption)
Trusting of untrustworthy authorities? - check
Narrow-minded? - check
Intolerant? - check
Dogmatic? - check
Uncritical toward chosen authority? - check
Inconsistent and contradictory? - check
Highly self-righteous? - check
Politically and economically conservative/Republican? - check

At least you're not a fan of violence. Well... unless it's necessary, which means you should be condemning these cops, as this was definitely a peaceful protest. But I doubt you will, because it's acceptable to assault "dumb kids", right? Especially if they don't think the way you do. If the cops assaulted them, it must be the fault of the protesters, right? Marxist radicals? Really? Really? Do you even read the dross on your screen before you hit the submit button? Your comment seems to be nothing but stream-of-consciousness prattle infected with Foxisms, ditto-head mantra, and the voices in your Cheerios.

EDIT: Why no pretty quote box?


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:< br />I'm no fan of unnecessary violence. For shame.
But these dummies at the protests need to dial it back, and stop doing things in such a way as to make a police presence necessary. If they would conduct a peaceful prostest that didn't interfere with business and daily traffic then cops wouldn't be needed. If cops weren't needed, then no one would get pepper-sprayed. Takes two to tango, and if protestors don't want cops giving them a hard time then maybe protestors should not be doing crap that gets police called to the scene. Use common sense. Just because you're protesting doesn't mean you need to be a dingus that requires cops around to keep you in line.
And these NYC bozos are tools. Cornel West, and a bunch of other marxist radicals are there and they aren't there to peacefully protest Wall Street excess. They are there to stir people up. These dumb kids going there need to wake up and realize they are being used as someone else's 'useful idiot'. I'm sure this chick didn't go there thinking she was going to end up in a scene where pepper spray got used.

I'm no fan of unnecessary violence. For shame.

But these dummies at the protests need to dial it back, and stop doing things in such a way as to make a police presence necessary. If they would conduct a peaceful prostest that didn't interfere with business and daily traffic then cops wouldn't be needed. If cops weren't needed, then no one would get pepper-sprayed. Takes two to tango, and if protestors don't want cops giving them a hard time then maybe protestors should not be doing crap that gets police called to the scene. Use common sense. Just because you're protesting doesn't mean you need to be a dingus that requires cops around to keep you in line.

And these NYC bozos are tools. Cornel West, and a bunch of other marxist radicals are there and they aren't there to peacefully protest Wall Street excess. They are there to stir people up. These dumb kids going there need to wake up and realize they are being used as someone else's 'useful idiot'. I'm sure this chick didn't go there thinking she was going to end up in a scene where pepper spray got used.

While I'm no fan of Rand, I think you are very wrong enoch.

see http://videosift.com/video/Is-there-a-Squid-in-the-Room

Ok, I understand that Sarah Palin is automatically an "out there" person as a politician & I'm no fan of her anyways, but when somebody moves in next door to you, spies on you (let's call it for what it is) & then writes a book about it..... isn't that called stalking??