And the bitch thinks she's being tortured. Quick, someone bring me a a water board and some water.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/lindsay-lohan-defends-her_n_638913.html
From the article:
Later Lindsay vented about "cruel" and "inhuman" punishment. Over several rambling tweets she quoted from the UN Declaration of Human Rights:

It is clearly stated in Article 5 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights that...., "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." this was taken from an article by Erik Luna.. "November 1 marked the 15th anniversary of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. But there were no celebrations, parades, or other festivities in honor of this punishment scheme created by Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission... Instead, the day passed like most others during the last 15 years: Scores of federal defendants sentenced under a constitutionally perverted system that saps moral judgment through its mechanical rules."

In a surprising twist, Lindsay linked to a Newsweek story about Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the Iranian mother of two who may be stoned to death for adultery, and asked her followers to retweet. It's unclear whether she meant to lump her 90-day jail sentence with the inhuman punishment Ashtiani faces.

>> ^smooman:

it would be like invading Italy after WWII........
except Italy didnt enslave its own people, Italy didnt suppress womens civil rights, stoning them to death for adultery, they didnt execute homosexuals, they didnt put to death Italians who didnt agree with or left roman Catholicism (or whatever major religion it was in Italy in that period), and Italy didnt repress higher education.
Ya but besides all that, its totally like invading Italy.....or something


Mussolini(you know, the Italian dictator) INVENTED fascism, he not only wrote a book about it, he wrote THE book. He even used the ideas in seizing power BEFORE Hitler did the same in Germany.

The analogy fails, but not for the reasons you point out. The real question is if we are during or after the war ended, and to point out the allies absolutely DID invade Italy DURING WWII.

it would be like invading Italy after WWII........

except Italy didnt enslave its own people, Italy didnt suppress womens civil rights, stoning them to death for adultery, they didnt execute homosexuals, they didnt put to death Italians who didnt agree with or left roman Catholicism (or whatever major religion it was in Italy in that period), and Italy didnt repress higher education.

Ya but besides all that, its totally like invading Italy.....or something

Depends.. is it your dog?
>> ^westy:

what if your having sex with another speices is that still loyall ?

This is great, but it doesn't even scratch the surface of how crazy being a Spartan wife was.

First was the marriage, wherein the bride would have her head shaved, be dressed in men's clothes then made to lay alone in the dark on a pallet waiting for her husband (who she may have never met) to abduct her, have his way with her, then return her to her parent's house.

This was the start of a marriage which, for the first few years, consisted of the husband showing up at night once in a while for sex and otherwise having no real contact. After the husband reached the age of 30 he was allowed to live outside of the men's barracks so he would finally be able to live with his wife. Things didn't get much more "normal" from there though...

As the Spartan marriage was primarily for procreation, it was not unheard of for an older man to give permission for younger men to have sex with his wife in order for him to have strong, healthy children (the marriage's duty was to bear strong children for the state after all). There is no evidence that Spartan women were opposed to this though. They had greater rights than many other women throughout history with respect to property ownership (it is estimated that women owned 35% of all Spartan holdings), they probably received benefits from these arrangements. According to ancient historians like Plutarch these Spartan customs ensured that adultery, illegitimacy and prostitution were nonexistent in Sparta.

Further, unlike Athenian women who wore heavy, concealing clothes and were rarely seen outside the house, Spartan women wore short dresses and went where they pleased.

So being a Spartan wife was quite the interesting life. It could be difficult, but the benefits were a greater freedom, autonomy, wealth and power than any other women in the ancient world.

Pretty much. >> ^StukaFox:

Wait, did I just watch a cartoon that explained adultery to children with singing animals?

Wait, did I just watch a cartoon that explained adultery to children with singing animals?

That bunny's still a sinner because even though he didn't commit adultery, he still coveted that young temptress. And remember kids, thoughts can be sins too! (She was totally HOT! I'd fuck that bunny in a heartbeat. Well, since male and female bunnies look pretty much the same to me, I guess I'd fuck the dude too.)

@rougy
Afghans arent benefiting from being able to acquire an education (especially the girls)? They arent benefiting from tens of millions of dollars sent to build clinics and local hospitals? They arent benefiting from thousands upon thousands of man hours put forth to build infrastructure like schools, wells for clean water, and the plumbing to keep it clean and sanitary? The afghan women arent benefiting from NOT being stoned for things like adultery or NOT wearing a burka? They arent benefiting from being able to form trade unions? Their military and police arent benefiting from the training, mentorship, and equipment we've given them to help them protect their country themselves?

we'd be in agreement in most respects on the deplorable conduct of this war, but pardon me if I cant create blanket statements and instead find the good from our mess and go from there

Okay ladies, the cleric said "Many women who do not dress modestly, lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes."

He clearly means it's sex with chaste young men that causes the earthquakes.

When you organize a day of that, I suspect even Christian "clerics" will start a fuss about it.

Chaste young men will praise God if you do it, though.

>> ^maximillian:
>> ^xxovercastxx:

1st commandment.... anything that takes the place of God is an idol. Friends, family, job, hobbies. Of course, this doesn't mean these things should be completely avoided. Not taking care of our family is sinful. It's a matter of priorities.
2nd commandment.... this is the physical interpretation of the first commandment.
7th commandment.... any relationship outside the bounds of marriage is sinful. Between the husband and a wife the "bed is undefiled". Also, Jesus said that lusting after another person is equivalent to adultery. It's the same with murder. Jesus said that hating a person in your heart is equivalent to murdering that person in your heart.

The purpose of the old testament law is to show that we cannot uphold the law of God, or God's standard of living. It is impossible. The new testament calls the law a "school master". The purpose is to show man's inability to live on his own righteousness. The old testament is filled with examples of how Israel (God's chosen people) were unable to live according to the law. The law thus points to the need of a Christ as the fulfillment of the law. In him we are justified.
Throughout the Bible a person's faith in God is counted as righteousness. This faith then results in good works. The Bible is clear that good works is not how we please God, but through faith. Then after faith, good works are a result of our obedience towards God. Old testament people are in Heaven today because of their faith. Their works are a result of their faith. The patriarchs of Genesis who are listed in the hall-of-faith in the book of Hebrews were far from perfect sinless people. But their continual faith in God is what differentiated them from the rest of the people of the world. Christians view this as "looking forward to Christ". After the new testament we now look "back at Christ". Regardless of how you look at it the Bible is clear, man's nature is sinful. Faith in God is the only way to please Him.


Test of faith = God being a dick

>> ^xxovercastxx:



1st commandment.... anything that takes the place of God is an idol. Friends, family, job, hobbies. Of course, this doesn't mean these things should be completely avoided. Not taking care of our family is sinful. It's a matter of priorities.

2nd commandment.... this is the physical interpretation of the first commandment.

7th commandment.... any relationship outside the bounds of marriage is sinful. Between the husband and a wife the "bed is undefiled". Also, Jesus said that lusting after another person is equivalent to adultery. It's the same with murder. Jesus said that hating a person in your heart is equivalent to murdering that person in your heart.


The purpose of the old testament law is to show that we cannot uphold the law of God, or God's standard of living. It is impossible. The new testament calls the law a "school master". The purpose is to show man's inability to live on his own righteousness. The old testament is filled with examples of how Israel (God's chosen people) were unable to live according to the law. The law thus points to the need of a Christ as the fulfillment of the law. In him we are justified.

Throughout the Bible a person's faith in God is counted as righteousness. This faith then results in good works. The Bible is clear that good works is not how we please God, but through faith. Then after faith, good works are a result of our obedience towards God. Old testament people are in Heaven today because of their faith. Their works are a result of their faith. The patriarchs of Genesis who are listed in the hall-of-faith in the book of Hebrews were far from perfect sinless people. But their continual faith in God is what differentiated them from the rest of the people of the world. Christians view this as "looking forward to Christ". After the new testament we now look "back at Christ". Regardless of how you look at it the Bible is clear, man's nature is sinful. Faith in God is the only way to please Him.

>> ^eric3579:
I had always thought of myself as a good person, untill I took the "Are you a good person" test.

There's a few things I found funny about that test...

The first commandment is "You shall have no other gods before me." To me this means either A) We can't hold any other gods higher than God; or B) We can't believe in any other gods besides God; depending on which way you define "before" (prior-to in a sequence; or in front of or in the presence of). As one who doesn't believe in any gods, I have never put another god before God nor believed in any other gods in his presence. That Kirk says this commandment means I can't prioritize anything higher God tells me that he's putting his own spin on things.

Commandment 2: "You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." The applicable definition of an idol in this context is "an image of a deity other than God, or that deity itself". Considering having the wrong impression about God's nature as idolatry is kind of a stretch. Worshiping the Golden Calf is idolatry.

Commandment 7: "You shall not commit adultery." They then go on to imply that adultery includes lusting after any woman, marital status of her or you irrelevant. According to Kirk's interpretation, this would even include lusting after your own spouse. If only we were so lucky.

Surprised not to see any honor killings of women who were raped, and thus committed "adultery". This occurs as well, though perhaps not so much in the US.

>> ^chilaxe:
Is adultery cause for resigning? We don't think Clinton should have resigned, so I think it depends on whether or not we think a politician in question is a good person or not. What do you think?


Disappearing from the state for 5 days (10 days planned, supposedly), without telling staff and family where you're going, without security, or a way to be contacted, is probably grounds for calling for resignation.

Also, vehemently trying to turn down stimulus is also probably grounds for calling for resignation, but that's just me...

I think the affair is none of our business, except for the exceptional hypocrisy, given how holier than thou he's been in the past, especially with regard to one William Jefferson Clinton.