>> ^quantumushroom:

islam is a gutter 'religion' founded by a pedophile/gigolo/warlord.

>> ^quantumushroom:

It takes a liberal to oppose Christians while supporting islamofascists ready to cut off his head with a scimitar.


These are the views of a radial extremist if I've ever seen one. Now I just hope you don't walk the walk...

This one made me laugh tho:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Christianity evolved, islam has not.


Man you can't be that naive. Who managed to inject you with so much fear of Islam anyways? Two collapsing towers and you shit your pants as if Muslims (in general according to you) were a serious threat to the world. American warmongering and dumb fuck foreign policies (funding Bin Laden, hello) are far more dangerous than a couple of terrorists will ever be.

>> ^Fletch:

Why would you think I have a grievence with you?

Perhaps I invited your response by not providing my explicit context in the first place.
...
I see grievance because you re-quoted my post without in a seemingly sarcastic fashion without providing context, hence the first sentence in my retort explaining the premise I was basing my assertions on. If it's a shift I'm being transparent in doing so, which is the best we can do when conversing via text only. My purpose in initially quoting the First Amendment with little description or opinion was to underscore my belief that it is written in a straightforward enough fashion that further discussion on the topic is unwarranted. It is well within our rights to continue to do so, but I stand by my statement that regardless of the discussion our rights as prescribed by A1 (acronym, not sauce ) should remain unchanged.
>> ^Fletch:
And accusing peeps of P-A is just so... choggish.

I said "if" for a reason; passive aggressive stuff is hard to spot without being able to read body language. That clown only wears one emotion on his sleeve. On to a finer point though, I propose "Choggish" as a new official adjective. I was only lurking when he was on the prowl, but from the little I've seen I'm sure he'd wear it as a badge of honor.

Why would you think I have a grievence with you? Your assumption may be a convenient premise for your rant, but it's not true. I think you read way too much into it.

As I saw it, you were telling people to drop it, that the discussion was over. I found it ironic that you posted the first Amendment in support of that opinion, yet the first Amendment contains more than just the Establishment Clause.

JFC, it was bold-faced simply so you would understand what I was referring to, the part I felt you either hadn't gotten far enough to read, didn't understand, or chose to ignore. Your reaction, as well as your assumptions about me, speak volumes, though.

"Context shift is the war tool of the self-obsessed."

Strange that you chose it.

The post prior... try reading the whole thing, and the post it was replying to. I was being critical of his telling others to shut up. Basically, a similar reason to why I replied to your post. People being able to discuss and say whatever they wish without being pricks to each other (guilty, on occasion) is why this isn't YouTube. But hey, you live in the world you want to live in and view it through whatever color glasses you choose. I don't care.

And accusing peeps of P-A is just so... choggish. If I truly had a "grievence", I'd have just spit it out.

>> ^Truckchase:

>> ^Fletch:
Yes, please read, more carefully this time.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since you're being sarcastic, the premise of this post is based on the assumption that your grievance with me is that you support this destruction of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (as I would put it; you feel however you want) and you recognize that I don't.
If you're attempting to imply in a passive-aggressive fashion that I'm somehow encroaching on your first amendment rights to discuss breaking our first amendment rights, I'm not. I recognize your right to continue debating how you can go about (in this case literally) dismantling the first amendment, but you're still placing higher priority to the freedoms that you want than the freedoms of others.
I find it especially telling how you've used bold emphasis to illustrate the portion you have deemed important because you think it represents your viewpoint while you completely ignore the standard typeface portion. Context shift is the war tool of the self-obsessed.
.. and in the post before this you told someone to shut up. Need I even point out the hypocrisy?

>> ^Fletch:

Yes, please read, more carefully this time.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Since you're being sarcastic, the premise of this post is based on the assumption that your grievance with me is that you support this destruction of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (as I would put it; you feel however you want) and you recognize that I don't.

If you're attempting to imply in a passive-aggressive fashion that I'm somehow encroaching on your first amendment rights to discuss breaking our first amendment rights, I'm not. I recognize your right to continue debating how you can go about (in this case literally) dismantling the first amendment, but you're still placing higher priority to the freedoms that you want than the freedoms of others.

I find it especially telling how you've used bold emphasis to illustrate the portion you have deemed important because you think it represents your viewpoint while you completely ignore the standard typeface portion. Context shift is the war tool of the self-obsessed.

.. and in the post before this you told someone to shut up. Need I even point out the hypocrisy?

Yes, please read, more carefully this time.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

>> ^Truckchase:

I still can't believe this is a topic of discussion. Read:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nothing more to discuss here folks, move on.

Britain thought Sharia would never stain their shores, either. But hey, who am I to argue with a doctor?

A case of overimportance (sic)? Who else but the expert in over-importance, doctor Yogi, could make that diagnosis? Umm, this is a "comments" section for a video about the NYC mosque. It's where people post their thoughts/reactions/perceptions/jokes/gripes/etc about said video. Just because QM's opinion isn't exactly held in the highest regard by many here doesn't mean he can't post whatever the hell he wants (iaw the FAQ, of course). You may have thought attacking someone with widely unpopular opinions here would grant you some VS juice, but I don't see anybody jumping on your little wagon. So please, feel free to take your own advice, and shut up.

>> ^Yogi:
2. Building one Mosque doesn't mean we're going under Sharia Law. Wanting everyone to follow Sharia Law is the goal of every religion, just their different brands. You don't like a Mosque there, that's your right...you don't have a say in where people build things though...in fact I think people are suffering from a case of overimportance. Nobody asked for your permission, nobody asked if you cared about the city allowing a Mosque to be built in New York. So shut up.

Why does anybody care what Seth MacFarlane thinks about this?






(PS - Family Guy sucks!)

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

"I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I don't see, see, what the, the the, the, problem, what the problem, is. I, I, I, I, I, er, it's, er, uh, uh, uh, I, I don't see what the, the, the, problem is."


I had a bit of difficulty watching this myself what with all the stuttering.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The imam behind it is a POS radical

Takes one to know one, huh?

Your video, Seth MacFarlane Slams The ADL For Not Doing Their Job!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 2 Badge!

>> ^criticalthud:

The more we rail against any particular ideology, the more power we give it. See it for the foolishness that it is and leave it be.


Everyone nodded in agreement that criticalthud's idea was indeed the best one. Just then, Hitler invaded the rest of the world. The end.

Right... let evil fester and march forward unhindered. Brilliant.

I say fight fire with napalm.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Despite what Barack Hussein Vacation says, muslims have never played a significant role in American history, just minor negative roles.
Religious freedom is a two-way street. Tolerating one religion which then demands all others live by sharia law or die is suicide.


1. Scientific Revolution. You seriously didn't know about this you need to pick up a history book. Baghdad was one of the most scientifically exciting places in the world.

2. Building one Mosque doesn't mean we're going under Sharia Law. Wanting everyone to follow Sharia Law is the goal of every religion, just their different brands. You don't like a Mosque there, that's your right...you don't have a say in where people build things though...in fact I think people are suffering from a case of overimportance. Nobody asked for your permission, nobody asked if you cared about the city allowing a Mosque to be built in New York. So shut up.

Also replace Mosque with "Community Center funded by a major share holder of Fox News."

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Mountain, Climber, Groom, Bride, Priest' to 'Mountain, Climber, Groom, Bride, Priest, seth macfarlane' - edited by rasch187

>> ^TangledThorns:
>> ^KnivesOut:
>> ^TangledThorns:
Seth Macfarlane is a closet homosexual who hates breeders like Sarah Palin but to go after her through her child is pretty low. Would he of made the same joke if she didn't have a down syndrome child?
This is another reason why America dislikes the mean spirited Left.

Seth said nothing disparaging about Down's Syndrome, or about Trig. The character in the sketch is a girl, but Sarah Palin doesn't actually have a daughter with Down's Syndrome.

Are that obtuse or are you just faking it? I suspect it's the latter.


We're either "Bleeding heart liberals" or we're the "mean spirited left."

I'm beginning to think TT is either retarded or delusional.

>> ^TangledThorns:
This is another reason why America dislikes the mean spirited Left.


You do realise that the mean spirited Left makes up about half of America, yes?
Congratulations, you've just projected your own personal point of view onto the entire country.