May 24, 2005
Mexico Uber Alles
Overheard at a rally at the Baldwin Park, CA, Metrolink station,
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
"Too bad Osama Bin Laden didn't have a hydrogen bomb
to drop on that Jewish shit hole called Manhattan..."
"Osama Bin Laden Rules!
"Zarqawi the Gringo killer, yes!, yes"
I've been out of the loop for awhile so maybe you've already seen this. They've got video. It's pretty freaking disgusting.
Hat tip: Pixy Misa
Parenthetically I used to live about 3 or 4 miles down the road from the Baldwin Park Metrolink station and had been there dozens of times. I never once noticed the anti-American slogans until I saw this story explode on the blogosphere several weeks ago.
Posted by: Rusty at
11:29 AM
| Comments (151)
| Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Well, I guess even 200 years later some people still feel like they were exterminated or taken over...which, mind you is what really happened. BUT, that does not justify clocking old ladies or extreme hate. Seems like a mosquito trying to bite an elephant's ass. Off the subject...a different point of view on the News"weak" thing: http://villagevoice.com/news/0521,tomorrow,64227,9.html
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 24, 2005 11:48 AM (XXCz1)
2
sick f*cks. If I was thet old lady I'd sue the crap out of anyone and everyone who was responsible for the rally, and especially whoever supplied the bottles. Even if it was just Ralph's.
Posted by: caltechgirl at May 24, 2005 11:58 AM (Yf8BQ)
3
Idiots like these are going to keep on until white people are forced to start killing anyone with brown skin in this country, and I think that's what they want, to start a war. Idiots. It shouldn't be long now. I figure 10,000 rounds of ammo should last me a while, but no need to take chances, I'll feel much better when I have about ten times that stashed away.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2005 12:26 PM (0yYS2)
4
These seditious pigs should be stripped of citizenship and deported to the further reaches of Guatemala never to be seen from again.
Aztlanism wants to turn the American Southwest into the shithole that is Meso America. And if they succeed, in another 50 years, that shithole will still be an economic basketcase, only this time it will include the American Southwest. And its refugees will still be flooding across the border looking to whitey for relief.
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 12:47 PM (8e/V4)
5
Improbulous,
they'll be plenty of us with brown skin joining you when times comes to plug these seditious pigs. I got myself 2,000 rounds ready to go.
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 12:49 PM (8e/V4)
6
Notice in the clips that the Aztlanists are joined by the islamists and communists.
Hey Lefties, nice job.
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 12:56 PM (8e/V4)
7
Leftism is bound together with one, and only one, common thread: HATRED OF AMERICA.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 24, 2005 01:15 PM (JQjhA)
8
Poor Whitey. He thinks he's stronger than the brown and black man. But the brown man and the black man are outbreeding Whitey, so they are actually "fitter" in a Darwinian sense. How ironic. The browning of America is inevitable. Quick, kill them all and don't trust Carlos, he's one of them.
Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 01:25 PM (/+dAV)
9
Quick, kill them all and don't trust Carlos, he's one of them.
greg,
the Aztlanists are doing their best to start a race war, just like the islamists are tying to make it a religious war. It's neither.
I know which side I'll be fighting on when I gleefully plug these seditious indians full of 762 x 39 armor piercing.
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 01:33 PM (8e/V4)
10
I want to be the evil evil kenevil. I'll try to jump over 50 or so pregnant illegal border hoppers in a steam roller.
Posted by: Andre at May 24, 2005 01:44 PM (mfvPa)
11
That's mighty white of you Carlos.
Kill all those dirty Meskins!
I nominate Carlos/David as an inductee into Whitey's Hall of Fame with the status of "Honorary Gringo".
Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 01:48 PM (/+dAV)
12
greg,
I won't be the only honorary inductee when the hunt begins, and we won't only be huntin' after indians and meskins, but Lefties and traitors too.
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 01:55 PM (8e/V4)
13
Oh good, a civil war! That's just what this country needs. A Blue Country and a Red Country.
Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 01:58 PM (/+dAV)
14
"Oh good, a civil war! That's just what this country needs."
I know! That's exactly what I said when I saw those video clips! Let's rock!
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 02:01 PM (8e/V4)
15
Funny isnt it how the friggin Mexicans dont even know their own bloody history of "stealing" land from the native Indians in Mexico and the southwestern USA before the "gringos" came...The Spaniards wiped out entire ancient Indian civilizations in South, Central and parts of the southern areas of North America...they {The mexicans" are just as uneducatd and ignorant of their past as the Islamics are....as far as im concerned they are the same people....backwards and ignorant , all of them....they took it from the native Indians and we{gringos} took it from them{Mexicans} and they cant stand it...Fuckem all i say...go back to youre dirty and filthy Mexico and stop ruining America....So Sad, Too Bad
Posted by: THANOS35 at May 24, 2005 02:04 PM (h53Dl)
16
THANOS,
those mexicans/"Latinos" fancy themselves the ancestors of the indians slaughtered by the spanish. They miss their pathetic bloodthirsty child-sacrificing indian civilization. It's no wonder the Spaniards were so revolted by it and decided to erase its memory from the earth.
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 02:08 PM (8e/V4)
17
oh, and greg, youre a filthy, snake in the grass, ignorant commie pinko traitor to the USA...why dont you get the fuck out and go live in Mexico or Iran where you can fuck sheep, camels and goats to youre hearts content you fucking bastard...i hate, no, DESPISE "people" like you...you deserve every bad thing that comes youre way......you and youre sick, degenerate kind, the traitors, the illegals, the islamicnazis and whoever else tries to bring down the USA are all gonna wind up face down in a pool of youre own blood if you keep up youre stupid shit...angry am i???...daym friggin straight i am and i got a right to be after watching the total ignorance you display...crude am i???....i can be, since its the only thing fuckheads like you seem to understand....but im also stronger and smarter than you and 1000 others like you combined will ever be in youre wettest fantasies...crawl back under youre rock boy, before you get stomped on....nuff said
Posted by: THANOS35 at May 24, 2005 02:14 PM (h53Dl)
18
Ayayayayay caramba! Long live Mexico. Give 'em back Texas and California, and they'll like you again. (fine, you don't need them to like you, you just need to stop them from sneaking across the border) Mexico has biochemical weapons, right? Invade 'em and make New Mexico the whole Mexico.
Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 02:16 PM (lGolT)
19
Hahaha...I love the world according to Carlos:
-If there is ever a problem, or anything that is wrong or blameful: IT"S THE LEFT'S FAULT! BLAME THE LEFT!! Pblththt. I'm sure it's Kerry's fault that this lady got clocked in the head, eh? Those dirty gay hippies are helping the terrorists win the Iraqi war, huh? Shiiiiiiit. Last time I checked it was Bushy, Inc. that was greasing the palms of Islam...
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 24, 2005 02:16 PM (+Wvep)
20
fine, you don't need them to like you, you just need to stop them from sneaking across the border)
Finn,
if we give them the Southwest and move the border farther north, those wetbacks will be sneaking across that border too because the Aztlanists will make a shithole out of whatever patch of land they manage to control.
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 02:18 PM (8e/V4)
21
"They miss their pathetic bloodthirsty child-sacrificing indian civilization. It's no wonder the Spaniards were so revolted by it and decided to erase its memory from the earth.-Carlos the Honorary Whiteman, shoot he's half Spanish.
I don't suppose greed and disease had anything to do with it. No no, the Spaniards did them a favor by killing them all.
Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 02:19 PM (/+dAV)
22
I'm sure it's Kerry's fault that this lady got clocked in the head, eh?
osama,
It's par for the course that wherever there is a wiff of anti-Americanism there you will find Leftist enablers and symps.
Was I surprised to see Lefty commies chanting right alongside those pathetic aztlanist scum? Of course not. par for the course. We know what side you Lefties will be on when the shooting starts. I can't wait to plug a few of you.
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 02:22 PM (8e/V4)
23
greg,
greed had plenty to do with it, but yes, did those savages a big favor when they shut down the human sacrifice mills.
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 02:23 PM (8e/V4)
24
I dont totally agree or disagree with you carlos....yes, some of the Indian civilizations in the Americas that the Spaniards wiped out were blodthirsty and violent, but they were wiped out by sneaky backstabbing Spaniards looking for gold that the Indians mistook for returning gods and the Spaniards took advantage of that,as far as i have seen, the Spaniards where just as bloodthirsty as the Indians they came across....its the same thing that the Mexicans are doing today...taking advantage of Americans to get our money....look at what the Mexican goverment is still doing to what native Indians are still left in Mexico...look at the Zaptistas...they are being persecuted still and being denied any dignity and rights whatsoever and the illegal Mexicans in America have the nerve to ask for it here???....send em all back, all the illegals, man woman and child...no more anchor babies, no more sneaking across the border...mine it, barb wire, trenches, pill boxes with machine guns, i dont care, but keep out the illegals...want to come in, go threw the paper work like lots if immigrants do...youre nothing special just because you think you can sneak across the border....my ancestors had to go threw Ellis Island and lots of paperwork and problems, but they endured it all and became PRODUCTIVE CITIZENS of the USA....dont like it, dont come here...stay in youre pigshit strewn villages and try and do something to improve youre oppresive Mexican government...these people come from some of the worst countries because their own governments ruin the countries and give the people nothing but poverty,disease and civil war, and the USA is supposed to take anyone who wants to sneak in???....i dont think so....So Sad, Too Bad
Posted by: THANOS35 at May 24, 2005 02:28 PM (h53Dl)
25
"crawl back under youre rock boy, before you get stomped on"-Thanos
Thanos doesn't know the difference between 'your' and 'you're'. Poor uneducated bastard.
Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 02:29 PM (/+dAV)
26
A question has come to my mind...
How many of you are actually over 12-years old and a citizen of US?
And also, why can't I go to www.goarmy.com without using a US IP-address?
Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 02:34 PM (lGolT)
27
Yeah, if only he had a Ph.D. found in a box of Cracker Jack like you, greg.
No surprise of course that you are sympathetic to these anti-semitic slime.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 24, 2005 02:35 PM (xauGB)
28
THANO,
I'm not defending the spaniards. They made a mess wherever they went (except California. They had a pretty good thing going there). I'm just saying that even the greed of spaniards had a silver lining-- the obliteration of a barbaric Aztec civilization.
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 02:35 PM (8e/V4)
29
Let's see....California was Spanish for 52 years. It was a province of Mexico for 27 years. It has been American for 157 years. I think this argument is over. The only people who want it to be part of Mexico again are the Mechistas, who no one listens to anyway. Very glamourous, very revolutionary, and very, very, irrelevant.
Posted by: Scott in CA at May 24, 2005 02:40 PM (9gsbH)
30
Carlos is a fool if he thinks the Spaniards were less barbaric than the Aztecs
Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 02:42 PM (/+dAV)
31
Oh yeah, now that there is a conversation about Indians, syphilis:
Was it from the Vikings, who spread it around Europe and gave it to Indians?
or
Was it from the Indians, who gave it to Vikings, who then spread it around Europe?
or
Was it from the Indians, and the Vikings didn't go to Vinland and their syphilis wasn't the syphilis?
Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 02:46 PM (lGolT)
32
Greg,
If you're going be the self-appointed grammarian of The Jawa Report, you really should learn proper punctuation. It should be "Poor, uneducated bastard." Imbecile.
Posted by: Vonski at May 24, 2005 02:47 PM (AHaCg)
33
Vonski,
Whatever you say, bitch meat.
Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 02:49 PM (/+dAV)
34
Well done! Now THAT is proper punctuation. I knew you'd learn something here eventually. Congratulations and kind regards.
Posted by: Vonski at May 24, 2005 02:53 PM (AHaCg)
35
Fuck off!
Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 02:54 PM (/+dAV)
36
Oh, come on, Carlos...we all know you're suffering from Spanish guilt *chuckle*... Don't worry though, my ancestors had slaves in Virginia & the other side was forced to serve as Nazi soldiers! Anyway, the only thing I agree with you about is that Cali is a good thing...fuck, just for inventing the burrito. Not many people know that it's origin is northern CA and not Mexico. If you went to Mexico 100 years ago and asked for a burrito, they'd give you a small donkey. EEEeeeeaaaaaaw...
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 24, 2005 02:55 PM (kd6rm)
37
Oh, come on, Carlos...we all know you're suffering from Spanish guilt *chuckle*...
osama,
I used to back in my Lib days. Now I say fuck all you Lib guilt mongers and the burro you rode in on.
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 03:00 PM (8e/V4)
38
Carlos is a fool if he thinks the Spaniards were less barbaric than the Aztecs
greg,
one word: humansacrifice.
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 03:02 PM (8e/V4)
39
Hahaha, you think I subscribe to that guilt bullshit? You are responsible for your own actions...not other's actions. You are only guilty of being a scumbag lawyer in my eyes, C!
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 24, 2005 03:03 PM (kd6rm)
40
Another word:
multiple genocide
Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 03:03 PM (lGolT)
41
Another word: Guero
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 24, 2005 03:06 PM (kd6rm)
42
one word: humansacrifice.
That's two words.
And the Spanish didn't? I'm thinking Inquisition here.
The Aztecs survived for 20,000 years despite human sacrifices. The Spaniards killed more Aztecs in 100 years than the Aztecs did in 20,000 years.
one word: idiot!
Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 03:06 PM (/+dAV)
43
>>>"And the Spanish didn't? I'm thinking Inquisition here."
case closed. You lose.
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 03:08 PM (8e/V4)
44
You are only guilty of being a scumbag lawyer in my eyes, C!
Steve,
then we're agreed, I'm only guilty of the things I've done, not for whitey, not for Cortez, not for the Crusades, blah blah blah.
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 03:10 PM (8e/V4)
45
That one loud mouthed Mexican female who said "go back to Europe." I'd have to say if it wasn't for Europeans, she'd be on a cot with her legs spread to get a bite to eat for herself and her brood. Wait, she'd have welfare and charity coming from Europeans, errrr, well, maybe not.
I can't help but contradict this "work ethic" that people claim Mexicans have over Europeans. I work mowing lawns to keep my FAFSAs coming for my Bachelors degree. I work 9 hours a day somedays and only 6 other days. Even when I work 9 hours I am still ready for more but my boss isn't. Today when I was walking back to my place as the roads are all torn up fromo construction work being done on them. I saw a mexican in a bobcat taking a nap on the job. WORK ETHIC I TELL YA! I bust my ass working and I never take a nap on the job. Cheap labor I guess, you get what you pay for.
Posted by: Andre at May 24, 2005 03:14 PM (mfvPa)
46
Let's see...
Indians: Few occasional sacrifices for 20'000 years...
~1'000'000 people perhaps
Spaniards: Wipeing out dozens of Indian tribes/nations while systematically killing all non-Christians and heretics in Europe...
about the same numbers Hitler had with Jews
Conclusion: Yup, Spain was definitely more murderous and brutal. Even in ritual religious killings, if counted per year.
Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 03:15 PM (lGolT)
47
"Zarqawi the Gringo killer, yes!, yes"
I guess it would be useless to point out to the Aztlan a**holes that some of the troops that Zarqawi has killed are hispanic. And might I add that they have a damn good kill to loss ratio against Zarqawi.
greg:
The Aztecs were only in existence for a few hundred years, not 20,000 nor 2,000.
Posted by: Don Miguel at May 24, 2005 03:22 PM (+KixN)
48
Oh, and if there were no Europeans in Americas, then there wouldn't be that woman, or anything at all in it's current form, due to large parts of history changing. (well, maybe some forests in Siperia that no one has even touched after 1490s) Religion might've stayed strong for longer and the Dark Ages would've stretched far beyong 1600s, if Americas were never invaded.
Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 03:23 PM (lGolT)
49
"The Aztecs were only in existence for a few hundred years, not 20,000 nor 2,000."-Signor Don Miguel
The Native Americans crossed the Bering Strait some 20,000 years ago.
Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 03:27 PM (/+dAV)
50
"The Native Americans crossed the Bering Strait some 20,000 years ago."
--greg
Native americans, Aztecs, whatever. All the little brown people look the same to greg.
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 03:36 PM (8e/V4)
51
Not really native Americans back then, more like Mongols exploring their northern areas. Indians and eskimos still look quite like Mongols, their genetic mapping was only slightly changed by the need to adjust to different environments. (Jungle indians grew skinnier, eskimos smaller and stronger-boned, prairie indians got browner when the intense sunshine eliminated the paler shaded ones, and ,excluding eskimos, facial features softened because they no longer lived in such harsh conditions)
Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 03:38 PM (lGolT)
52
Is this a neonazi site ?
Posted by: Michel Meyer at May 24, 2005 03:39 PM (Hj/G2)
53
Poor Carlos. He is a "little brown" person who hates himself, his mother and his brothers.
So, so sad! So sad!
Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 03:40 PM (/+dAV)
54
"Is this a neonazi site ?"-Michel Meyer
Pretty close. Very perceptive of you. It's a Zionazi site.
Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 03:44 PM (/+dAV)
55
To compare the Spanish inquisition to the ritual slaughter of the Aztecs is Liberal MORONITY. Shows how dumbed down Libs are.
"....the Spanish Inquisition, in spite of wildly inflated estimates of the numbers of its victims, acted with considerable restraint in inflicting the death penalty, far more restraint than was demonstrated in secular tribunals elsewhere in Europe that dealt with the same kinds of offenses. The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts."
--Inquisition by Edward Peters (The Free Press/Macmillan, 1988 [Univ of CA Press, 1989])
the numbers were even fewer in the rest of Europe. But the Aztecs? Behold:
"In 1487 Aztec priests sacrificed more than 80,000 prisoners of war at the dedication of the reconstructed temple of the sun god in Tenochtitlán."
http://encarta.msn.com/text_761593151__1/Aztec_Empire.html
Like I said, case closed, you lose.
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 03:59 PM (8e/V4)
56
Oh, well for heaven's sakes, they did deserve to be exterminated!
Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 04:06 PM (/+dAV)
57
Carlos was being a bit deceitful.
The actual quote was, "In 1487, ACCORDING TO LEGEND, Aztec priests sacrificed more than 80,000 prisoners of war at the dedication of the reconstructed temple of the sun god in Tenochtitlán.
IT'S JUST A LEGEND.
Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 04:21 PM (/+dAV)
58
Carlos will be telling us fairy tales next.
Shame on you Carlos! You thought you could pull one over on the My Pet Jawa crowd.
Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 04:43 PM (/+dAV)
59
greg,
legend according to Liberal brown people apologists.
How about this:
One sixteenth-century account states that 20,000 were sacrificed yearly in the capital city alone, another reports this as 20,000 infants, and a third claims the same number as being slaughtered throughout the Aztec empire on a single particular day. The most famous specific sacrifice took place in 1487 at the dedication of the main pyramid in Tenochtitlán. Here, too, figures vary: one source states 20,000, another 72,344, and several give 80,400.
Recently, Borah, possibly the leading authority on the demography of Mexico at the time of the conquest, has also revised the estimated number of persons sacrificed in central Mexico in the fifteenth century to 250,000 per year, equivalent to one percent of the total population. According to Borah, this figure is consistent with the sacrifice of an estimated 1,000 to 3,000 persons yearly at the largest of the thousands of temples scattered throughout the Aztec Triple Alliance. The numbers, of course, were fewer at the lesser temples, and may have shaded down to zero at the smallest.
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/sacrifice.htm
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 05:18 PM (8e/V4)
60
Aztecs Cooked, Skinned, Ate Humans
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050124/aztec.html
they were savages, and the Lord God himself erased that civilization from the memory of men.
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 05:20 PM (8e/V4)
61
"Is this a neonazi site?"
It's a pro-sanity site.
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 05:22 PM (8e/V4)
62
I lived in Baldwin Park for a while when I was nineteen. It is a god forsaken shit-hole. Let them have it. Let them declare it a leftist sanctuary where every penny goes to the new city-state of Baldwin Park.
Pehaps they can issue state-sanctioned toothbrushes to the dude with the fist-wide gaps in his jew-chewing grill. Or perhaps a bra and nair for the Leftist former-hotties. Look on the bright side, we would finally have a city in the USA where a man can go to have some good clean fun like a Donkey-show.
Posted by: Sean the INFDL at May 24, 2005 05:29 PM (ptLBd)
63
Greg, once again, you manage to show your ignorance. Do you relish the though of being a minority? Of course if after the transition, more girls look like this, it won't bother me much: http://www.babalublog.com/archives/001727.html
Carlos, you won't be alone in standing with us on the right, because those who truly love liberty only see Red, White, and Blue. I have no doubt that a lot of Mexicans and other Latinos will choose the right side.
To everyone else, www.cheaperthandirt.com has great deals on ammo.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2005 05:59 PM (0yYS2)
64
"Leftism is bound together with one, and only one, common thread: HATRED OF AMERICA."
Boy Rusty, that's the pot calling the kettle black.
By the way, can someone explain to me why the Bush Administration is harboring a known terrorist?
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2005/mayo/mart24/22congre.html
Posted by: deccles at May 24, 2005 06:41 PM (UCtX/)
65
Oh, in case you thought the link in my previous post was nothing more than propaganda (not that you would ever do the same thing), here's a link to the Miami Herlad detailing the crimes of the terrorist the Bush Administration is harboring.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/cuba/11705859.htm
Posted by: deccles at May 24, 2005 06:46 PM (UCtX/)
66
"By the way, can someone explain to me why the Bush Administration is harboring a known terrorist?"
deccles,
because this known terrorist doesn't have a hatred of America-- as per Rusty's comment-- but rather of Castro. So how does an anti-Castro terrorist make the kettle black when it's completely unrelated to the Left's hatred of America. I don't get it. Where you just looking for any thread on any blog to copy and paste that?
Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 07:30 PM (8e/V4)
67
I already saw that one, it was called the Democractic National Convention.
Posted by: Insomniac at May 24, 2005 08:42 PM (HoSBk)
68
IM, I'm looking for cheap CETME magazines. Seen any?
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 24, 2005 10:36 PM (xauGB)
69
Oh wait, if 250'000 was 1% of the population, does it mean the conquistadors killed 25'000'000 people, and that's just the Aztec numbers?!
Damn... I thought Hitler was bad...
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 04:21 AM (cWMi4)
70
Finn,
the spaniards did not eradicate the indian population to the extent that the english did in north america. They simply toppled the indigenous aristocracies and then intermarried with the population over the centuries. Your average mexican today is a spanish/aztec mix.
Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 08:20 AM (8e/V4)
71
"the spaniards did not eradicate the indian population to the extent that the english did in north america."-Carlos
Oh, heaven's no. The 25,000,000 Aztecs became very shy and are just hiding.
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 08:32 AM (/+dAV)
72
greg,
the only Aztecs in hiding are the ones here illegally.
Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 09:09 AM (8e/V4)
73
And how many million Maya are in "hiding" too?
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 09:24 AM (/+dAV)
74
greg,
the Maya are further south than Mexico, in Guatemala. And my understanding is that the Mexican government is very strict about any of them trying to cross north into Mexico. Nice double standard.
Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 09:27 AM (8e/V4)
75
I meant to say further south than the Aztecs, mostly in Guatemala and the southern end of Mexico.
Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 09:29 AM (8e/V4)
76
Wow!!! Not sure what to do with this. Good post. Hmmm......
Posted by: Howie at May 25, 2005 09:34 AM (D3+20)
77
So everything south of Mexico is Portugals fault and has nothing to do with conquistadors?
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 09:44 AM (lGolT)
78
"I meant to say further south than the Aztecs, mostly in Guatemala and the southern end of Mexico."-Carlos
I've been to, arguably, two of the finest examples of Mayan architecture and both were in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico - Tulum and Chichen Itza.
Are the Mayans hiding too?
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 09:47 AM (/+dAV)
79
Oh I know, the Aztecs and the Maya are just taking a long, long siesta, as is the custom is Mexico.
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 10:01 AM (/+dAV)
80
greg,
Are you just feigning ignorance out of boredom? Modern mexicans and guatemalans are the descendants of Aztecs and Mayans, with some spanish blood sprinkled in. They're called 'mestizos'.
And FYI-- because it isn't common knowledge-- the Maya civilization collapsed hundreds of years before the spaniards even arrived. Nobody knows why, but you can probably blame the Aztecs for that.
Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 10:08 AM (8e/V4)
81
So, are you half mestizo Carlos?
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 10:14 AM (/+dAV)
82
"By the way, can someone explain to me why the Bush Administration is harboring a known terrorist?"
deccles,
because this known terrorist doesn't have a hatred of America-- as per Rusty's comment-- but rather of Castro. So how does an anti-Castro terrorist make the kettle black when it's completely unrelated to the Left's hatred of America. I don't get it. Where you just looking for any thread on any blog to copy and paste that?
Posted by Carlos at May 24, 2005 07:30 PM
Actually Carlos, my comment to Rusty has nothing to do with my terrorist post. I was referring to another post he made.
I added the link regarding the terrorist because this original article seemed to at least refer to the subject of terrorism.
I only do this because Rusty will never post anything that might show Bush's true colors.
Posted by: deccles at May 25, 2005 10:47 AM (UCtX/)
83
greg,
I'm not really sure. She looks spanish, not indian.
Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 10:54 AM (8e/V4)
84
Well Carlos,
It seems like you have a touch of self-hatred.
What a shame that you can't embrace your Mexican culture. There's plenty to embrace.
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 11:26 AM (/+dAV)
85
Hey deccles, I suppose the fact that the man has been acquited of the crime Castro accuses him of means nothing eh? In fact, he has been acquitted twice. Is it your intention to keep trying him until you get the 'correct' verdict? To hell with the concept of double jeopardy. Keep drinking the tyrant approved Kool-aid there buddy.
Posted by: Defense Guy at May 25, 2005 11:31 AM (jPCiN)
86
Carlos,
I’m reminded of a psychological study that was done some 25 years ago. In the study, 5 year old American black boys and girls were asked to draw “a pretty girl”. Invariably they drew a white girl with blond hair. Such is the insidious nature of Whitey’s program that by the age of 5 one has already been indooctrinated. You have been indoctrinated by this same program to the extent that you have become a self-hatter. It’s ugly and I feel for you.
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 11:34 AM (/+dAV)
87
oops, "hater".
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 11:36 AM (/+dAV)
88
greg,
I would have to be an Aztec indian to be a self-hater.
To the extent I am mestizo, I don't hate mexicans, therefore no self-hate. My sister-in-law is mexican and we get along wondrously.
Also, even if I WAS an Aztec indian, then I am as self-hating for condemning the barbarity of that satanic culture as you are for condemning the barbarity of the Crusaders. Are you a self-hater? What's the diff?
Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 11:41 AM (8e/V4)
89
and ps., I often visit mexico on vacation and enjoy it tremendously, so you are hardly the one to lecture me on how much of Mexico there is to appreciate. And no, I don't do the gringo resorts, I stay with friends and family.
But I enjoy Mexico precisely because that nasty satanic Aztec culture was wiped out.
Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 11:44 AM (8e/V4)
90
Actually I wasn't calling anyone names, but I will now. Oyster is a CUNT.
Oyster, don't you have some fries that need cooking in your resaurant?
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 11:57 AM (/+dAV)
91
oops, "restaurant"
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 11:59 AM (/+dAV)
92
I agree with Carlos--a culture that sacrifices its young for whatever purposes is a barbaric one.
But what does that say about America, with its abortion rate in the thousands per day?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 25, 2005 12:40 PM (x+5JB)
93
Its long past time Greg was banned for his filthy mouth.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 25, 2005 01:11 PM (xauGB)
94
Oyster,
Two more large orders of fries please.
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 01:19 PM (/+dAV)
95
nah, don't ban greg. He amuses me.
Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 01:21 PM (8e/V4)
96
But hold the secret sauce!
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 01:22 PM (/+dAV)
97
If Oyster had a second brain he'd be a half-wit.
That makes him either a nit-wit or a dim-wit.
Where are those fries damn it?!
Hold the sauce!
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 01:42 PM (/+dAV)
98
YBP,
Sorry, but there is a big different between sacrificing
youths, (aka a living breathing person) and abortion (the removing of
a parasitic growth that has the "potential" of becoming a living
breathing person.)
Posted by: Butch at May 25, 2005 02:17 PM (Gqhi9)
99
You guys need to do a little more homework. Mexicans are not Aztecs and never were. First of all, a mestizo is a person of mixed European and native American ancestry (not just Aztec) -- the mestizo Mexicans of today are the descendents of Europeans (primarily Spaniards) and multitudes of indigenous peoples from Mexico (Tetzcocans, Zapotecans, Matlatzincans, Mixtecans, Mayans, Tlaxcalans, Totonacans, Huaxtecans, Tarascans, etc., etc. and Aztecs).
Second, the Aztecs were ALWAYS a minority in Mexico. They occupied a relatively small area of central Mexico and commanded an empire that lasted less than three hundred years. Their empire was large but it was mostly populated by the native people who generally governed themselves. Only the peoples geographically close to the Aztecs even spoke the same language (Nahuatl). In the end, a large portion of the Aztecs were killed by the Spaniards by starvation, disease or in battle.
So to sum up for the Aztlan and Mecha losers, modern Mexicans are not Aztecs and the chances that they have a drop of Aztec blood are slim to none.
Posted by: Don Miguel at May 25, 2005 02:21 PM (+KixN)
100
"modern Mexicans are not Aztecs and the chances that they have a drop of Aztec blood are slim to none."-Signor Don Miguel
Yes, because the Aztecs and Maya were exterminated.
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 02:28 PM (/+dAV)
101
gregcito:
Thanks for proving that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Neither the Aztecs nor the Maya were exterminated. Their civilizations are gone, but not the descendents. And please tell me, great fountain of knowledge, how the Mayans were "exterminated?"
BTW, I'm not Italian.
Posted by: Don Miguel at May 25, 2005 02:38 PM (+KixN)
102
Butch: You consider unborn children to be "parasitic growths"?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 25, 2005 02:48 PM (x+5JB)
103
So, Butch. When does "it" become a person? When it can debate its very existence with you on a blog? That was an incredibly amoral statement.
Posted by: Oyster at May 25, 2005 03:00 PM (fl6E1)
104
"modern Mexicans are not Aztecs and the chances that they have a drop of Aztec blood are slim to none.-Don M
Well, if they weren't exterminated then modern day Mexicans are likely to have more than just a drop of Aztec and Mayan blood. No?
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 03:05 PM (/+dAV)
105
Butch must use that language so that he can justify an abhorant act. If he were to say it will most likely become a person unless someone kills it, it would be too close to the truth for comfort.
Posted by: Defense Guy at May 25, 2005 03:08 PM (jPCiN)
106
I know, I know, every Mexican wants to think he is pure Spanish. I remember when I was growing up there was a Mexican I knew from a prominent family who claimed he was Italian. Poor fuckers.
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 03:08 PM (/+dAV)
107
I don't know why they would. The spanish have proven themselves to be terrorist appeasing pussies.
Posted by: Defense Guy at May 25, 2005 03:19 PM (jPCiN)
108
Don Miguel,
my basic point was that the Aztecs weren't exterminated. They were removed from power and their descendants live today. I failed to consider there were also other tribes living under the Aztec empire.
So, greg, I'm more way more right than you are, you self-loathing christian.
Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 03:23 PM (8e/V4)
109
There, there, Carlos, of course you are, of course you are!
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 03:30 PM (/+dAV)
110
Carlos,
You are, as you say, way more right than the pendejocito.
Posted by: Don Miguel at May 25, 2005 03:33 PM (+KixN)
111
Hey hold on just one gosh darn second pendejos!
Pinche puta!
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 03:43 PM (/+dAV)
112
A viente abadesa!
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 03:50 PM (/+dAV)
113
Killing young people was the Aztec way of birth control. Brutal? Yes, but they didn't have the food or the space for them in big Aztec cities.
If they had had condoms or known the week in the period circle sex is childless they wouldn't have had to slaughter them. So they had to, but for starvation, not a career or body figures that can be easily fixed (well, the body everywhere, career pretty difficult in most countries) after the 1,5 years the child needs it's mother most of the time.
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 04:02 PM (lGolT)
114
An embryo is just what I described it. As for when do I consider it
to be human, DUH, when it is born and breathing. As in LIVING AND BREATHING. And yes it is a parasite. Until it is born, it is feeding
off it's host, weaking it's host. It is much like a tumor. The only
difference is that the embryo has much more "potential". If we are
going to say that getting rid of a potential life is a sin, then
any woman who has had a menstrual cycle or any man who spanked his monkey is committing sin. They are wasting the potential of life.
Actually any man who unloads for any other reason then to create a
child is committing sin. (Using condoms, his partner is on the pill,
sponge ect.)
The problem is that the majority of people in this world
are so egotistical, that they truly believe that they do not consider
themselves animals which is what they really are. Do you think that if a starving lion sees any one of us is going to stop and think, woah, I'm hungry, but they guy has a soul so I can't eat him. I don't think so. Or what if some ET(outworlder) visit our planet. I am sure
they are going to think we are another class of guinea pigs to study
just like the rest of the animals in the world. Don't get me wrong,
I still think Humans are the top of the animal kingdom, but we are animals none the less. Soul or souless, just look at the actions
of every animal on the planet and you can see a lot of things in common.
Posted by: Butch at May 25, 2005 04:46 PM (Gqhi9)
115
Hmmm... not having sex and letting the cells go with the flow or die in the testicles would be a sin as well by that logic. So let's get horny and have unprotected sex at least once a week for men and once a month for women, so that we are not offending the will of Butches religious interpretation. Ok, good night, almost 1 am already and I got to be up at... 7:30 sumthin'
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 04:53 PM (lGolT)
116
Butch: "...it is feeding
off it's host, weaking it's host. It is much like a tumor."
Babies and children are dependent on parental nourishmnet, too. Are they tumors?
"The problem is that the majority of people in this world
are so egotistical, that they truly believe that they do not consider
themselves animals which is what they really are."
Butch, I'm going to make your day and concede that you are an animal.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 25, 2005 07:04 PM (q2lQK)
117
Butch,
I appreciate your honesty. If you live in a universe where there is no God, then it is as you say and we are nothing but animals. Logically, abortion would therefore be no more disturbing to you than slaughtering a chicken or swatting a mosquito, and logically it would also justify all the crimes committed by godless atheists in the 20th century. And horrible as those crimes seem, in a Godless universe, no big deal. That's what made the 20th century such a bloody one.
Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 07:28 PM (8e/V4)
118
sighhhhh.....im just too friggin tired and disgusted to say anything at the moment....goodnite
Posted by: THANOS35 at May 25, 2005 09:00 PM (6Xt4D)
119
Been gone most of the day. Whuh? Ancient Mexico debate into abortion? What a tangent.
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 25, 2005 11:54 PM (XXCz1)
120
YBP: "Babies and children are dependant on parental nourishment, too. Are they tumors?"
Nah, from 0-12 they're more like very, very difficult and timetaking pets, and leeches after they turn 13.
Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 04:04 AM (cWMi4)
121
Finn, It is not my religion to have unprotected sex. I am trying
to point out (to the extreme) what the Conservative Right wants us
to believe. That life begins at conception, and I am saying only
the potential for life begins at conception. Life does not begin until
one is born ( as in ,once again, Living Breathing.)
YBP, Merrian - Webster (MW) defines a parasite as "an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism" and parasitism
as "an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures". An embryo meets this definition. It is obtaining benifits (nourishment) while it injures (fatigue, pain to
name a few things) the host. Babys do not fit the term because they are no longer causing harm to the mother. And there was no need for
you to conceed the point, I already state I was an animal. The point
you need to conceed is that everyone else in the world is also. As Carlos state (with a slight modification), "horrible as those crimes", "what made the 20th century such a bloody one"
Carlos, first off, It is not the atheists that are causing most of the horrible acts, but "religious people" (Muslims, Protestants (IRA), Catholics (child abuse).
The reason abortions do not bother me and it should not
bother you or YBP, because we will never have to have one, unless either of you two are doctors asked to perform one. To me that is the
whole point about abortion. It is a choice between a woman, her doctor, and her Beliefs. But the CR (Conservative Right) want to make the Government part of that choice. The CR wants to force their
belief onto these women. YBP once stated in a different post that it is a sin for Christians to force their faith on to anyone. Well there
been a lot of sinning up on Capital Hill.(But of course there is always a lot of sinning up on Captial Hill.)
One more for Finn, you are wrong, children are leaches up to 18, and with todays economy, even longer. 
Posted by: Butch at May 26, 2005 08:36 AM (Gqhi9)
122
IRA is a protestant faction?! Why do they fight for joining Catholic Ireland then...
Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 09:23 AM (lGolT)
123
Oh, I guess you just had to come up with something to blame on Protestants, so wouldn't have just blamed Catholics and Muslims for everything...
Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 09:30 AM (lGolT)
124
I think Hitler was some sort of Christian at some point of his life, blame him on Protestants. Stalin must've been Orthodox as kid, so blame them for him. Also, Anglicans are Protestants, so blame what ever the British Empire did around the world to poor defenceless idiots on Protestants too.
Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 09:44 AM (lGolT)
125
Oh wait, was Stalin from Khazar? He could've been a Jew then.
Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 09:58 AM (lGolT)
126
I argue that babies can and do cause fatigue to parents,m who have to wake in the night to see to their needs, and can cause "harm" as well. (Breastfeeding, emotional upset, etc.) Let's kill all kids, as long as it's our "choice"!
Many things in life cause "harm." Like relationships. The "harm" of bearing children must be a blessing. Ask the many women who go to incredible means of becoming pregnant.
Weird that if abortion is such a great thing we only just realized it thirty years ago. We need to tell these women who have had them that are now speaking out against the practice. Unenlightened dolts.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 26, 2005 10:45 AM (x+5JB)
127
Yeah, that was why I referred to kids are difficult and timetaking pets. You don't kill pets for that, you give them away if you can't handle it and provide the pet what it needs.
Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 11:02 AM (lGolT)
128
Finn,
Even though Hitler's family was catholic, he himself was not a christian. He believed in "Providence" (not a christian concept), and he attempted to create a state religion based on race and ancient teutonic mythology.
Posted by: Carlos at May 26, 2005 11:18 AM (8e/V4)
129
The Secret Service at Booker Elementary: The Dog That Did Not Bark
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11secretservice.html
This is the question the President's flunkies cannot answer about what happened on Sept. 11, 2001:
With an unknown number of planes flying over the nation and crashing into buildings, with the President's presence at Booker Elementary announced in the media three days in advance, and with an airport just 4 miles away, how did the United States Secret Service Protective Detail know for a fact that President Bush was safe as he sat there reading about goats? How did the United States Secret Service Protective Detail know for a fact that they did not need to move President Bush into his bullet proof limo and drive away to foil a possible inbound? How did the United States Secret Service Protective Detail know for a fact that by keeping the children in the same room with the President that they were not risking their lives as well?
Posted by: greg at May 26, 2005 11:34 AM (/+dAV)
130
Well said, Finn.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 26, 2005 12:16 PM (x+5JB)
131
Yeah, I make a good point once every 200 posts =)
Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 01:12 PM (lGolT)
132
Finn, last I knew, the IRA was fighting not to join the Northern Catholics, but to have them join the rest of Ireland as one united
country. They is why they kept attacking the English. Also Finn, you
cannot say there has not been any violent conflicts caused by "religious" people. Some big ones that come to mind at least to me
might be the CRUSADES. As for pets being given away, yes we give them
to animal shelters, who after a certain amount of time, kill the pets for you. Try again, Finn.
See YBP, that is the difference between me and you. I am not judging
if abortions are bad or good. I am saying it should be a choice between the woman, her doctor and her god. But you and the rest of the
CR want to tell everyone it is evil. YOU ARE FORCING YOUR BELIEFS ONTO
THE REST OF SOCIETY when there is no reason to do so. If a woman
in Texas gets an abortion, is it going to have any impact on your life, NOOOOO. So why are you trying to force the woman to carry it to
term? The problem is that the CR can not defined anything. Life begins
at conception, no birth. A child is an adult at 18 years of age, no make that 21, no make that 15. Pick a definition and stick to it. For me life begins at the baby's first breath. Everything before that, it
is just extra tissue that can be discarde or not, depending on the woman's choice.
Posted by: Butch at May 26, 2005 01:29 PM (Gqhi9)
133
Greg, your post lost me. Is it just about Bush supposebly putting
children at risk?
Posted by: Butch at May 26, 2005 01:34 PM (Gqhi9)
134
Butch,
Sorry to confuse you. Let me try again.
It was public knowledge that Bush would be at Booker Elementary School on September 11, 2001. This had been announced on Sept. 9th.
There is an airport just 4 miles from Booker Elementary School.
Given these two facts, why didn't the Secret Service Protective Detail wisk Bush away from the school when it became apparent that America was under attack? How did they know Bush was safe at the school? The answer is that they were privy to the attack plans, i.e. the Bush administration orchestrated 9-11 with the help of the Israeli Mossad.
I have a mountain of evidence to this effect but I don't want to overwhelm you. Let me start you out with a single item.
Here is a report from Briit Hume of Fox News which describes a huge Israeli spying involving 200 spies here in the US just prior to and after Sept. 11, 2001. This story was spiked (destroyed) by Fox the day after it was reported. It's an incredibly important story. Fortunately copies have been archived and are available at:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
Posted by: greg at May 26, 2005 01:51 PM (/+dAV)
135
Butch: "YOU ARE FORCING YOUR BELIEFS ONTO
THE REST OF SOCIETY"
And the Left hasn't, for legalizing a practice that people have reviled for thousands of years?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 26, 2005 02:01 PM (x+5JB)
136
Bitch:
"Finn, last I knew, the IRA was fighting not to join the Northern Catholics, but to have them join the rest of Ireland as one united
country."
That's what I friggin' said, don't think there are terrorist organizations named "Catholic Ireland", jackass.
"As for pets being given away, yes we give them
to animal shelters, who after a certain amount of time, kill the pets for you."
That's not giving pets away, that's just abandoning them. Giving pets away is when you find someone who wants to take care of the pet for you, not dumping them in the nearest butcher facility.
Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 02:26 PM (lGolT)
137
Oh, and:
"Also Finn, you
cannot say there has not been any violent conflicts caused by "religious" people."
I implied that all religion-related conflicts are because of Catholics and Muslims, I didn't deny the bloody history of Christianity and Islam.
Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 02:31 PM (lGolT)
138
Oh, an important correction:
Catholic church acted exactly like modern terrorism when it was spreading like a virus with crusades and "convert or die" -policy, but since it is a majority organization now they can't be called terrorists. More like the biggest influence in US foreign politics. So technically Catholic Ireland as a country is a part of an ancient terrorist organization, but you can't say they are that today.
Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 02:40 PM (lGolT)
139
Good name for the motherfucker Butch-----Bitch. Liberal bitch needs to slapped upside his dumbass head. Bet Bitch is glad his mother didn't abort his ass. Dumbass motherfucker.
Posted by: angryblackman at May 26, 2005 02:47 PM (x+5JB)
140
Bitch? Oops, those two are too close on the keyboard. (Yeah, I noticed it, but eventually decided not to switch to U... seemed like a subconcious decision)
Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 03:04 PM (lGolT)
141
Finn, your post stated that the Protestants want to join the Catholic (which was part of the UK.) There is a big difference between
them join the UK, and the Catholic breaking away and joining the rest of Ireland. Also you are wrong again. There have been different wars
fought over religion besides the Catholics and the Muslims. The civil
wars in England where the Protestants and Catholics were butchering
each others comes to mind. Ever hear of Bloody Mary, and I'm not talking about the drink. Now I do not disagree that the Catholics and
early Christians were not brutal. I know most of Norway was covert to
Christianity by the sword. But we have strayed from my point, which
was addressings Carlos remark of the atheists doing all the killing and evil things in the world. I tried to point out this was not true.
Now if you want to rant and rave about the evils of the Catholics, you can go ahead. I do not care one way or the other. Now YBP might. As for the supposedly accidental mispelling and deliberate not correcting of my name, I did have more respect for you because I thought you were one of the few who could carry on a debate with out
childish name calling. I guess I was wrong. So if want to start
digressing into name calling, just let me know. I can think of all kinds of names especially since I have a lot more years on you.
And just to show you, here is one for anusbitchman. Gee, Bitch works for your sorry ass name also. If you don't have anything to say besides profanities and violences, maybe you be just keep your fat ass dick sucking lips shut. Now if you wish to comment on why my views are wrong in a friendly debate, by all means I will be glad to hear your view. If you just want to show how stupid you are go play with yourself, because I know you cannot get any woman to be with you.
YBP, how is it forcing people to your beliefs by allowing
other people to do something you personally don't believe in.
There was a time when some people believed that drinking booze was wrong. There are some people who still believe this way. By allowing you or me to drink, does this force them to go against their belief. No. Also you stated "Weird that if abortion is such a great thing we only just realized it thirty years ago." but then you turn around and state "for legalizing a practice that people have reviled for thousands of years?" So how old is abortion, 30 years or thousands?
One more thing, I would like to comment you on how to hold a debate. I can see this is a touchy subject for you, but you have presented yourself far above, and not in just this post but different ones, most people on this blog.
Posted by: Butch at May 26, 2005 04:33 PM (Gqhi9)
142
That is commend and should not be comment.
Posted by: Butch at May 26, 2005 04:54 PM (Gqhi9)
143
Hmm... Some other Protestant related wars:
The 30-year northern war Lutherans vs. Catholics and Orthodox. Scandinavia, Russia and Germany+neighbours involved.
"Uskonpuhdistus", cleansing of the faith, looting all Catholic churches in all of Scandinavia and North-Germany and switching to less extravagant Lutheran faith.
"Ristiretkisodat", pagan peoples of the north and east teaming up with Mongols to fight off Crusades to the north. (more like a protesting war)
How was it... "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but touch my heart and I'll crush yours"? That's the Finnish version at least... If someone insults you, you should retaliate with ten times the insult, not start saying "let's not start doing this, I'd win anyway", since you never know what kind of insult skill the person might have unless you try. Besides, I enjoy a bit of insults comment wrestling, played a bit too many Monkey Island games to not love it.
Posted by: A Finn at May 27, 2005 03:05 AM (cWMi4)
144
To return to the original subject of this article(well, at least to comment something on it), why did they think Manhattan is a Jewish shithole? I'd say it's more like a paved, polluted boil in Americas belly button (if Florida is the winkie, Northpole is the head and brains, Canada being the upper body) sucking life out the not-so-overpopulated waist-areas below it. (Mexicans are pushing in from the backside...=P)
Posted by: A Finn at May 27, 2005 03:36 AM (cWMi4)
145
And I do hope you meant it's just YBP whos presenting himself as "far above most people on this blog"
I try not to do that, since that sort of behaviour is selfabsorbed and makes the ego fragile against attacks.
Posted by: A Finn at May 27, 2005 06:26 AM (cWMi4)
146
Butch: Good morning and thank you for your kind words. I'll try to avoid religious arguments here! It ain't easy!
Abortions have probably been around since mankind started, but have always been considered reprehensible and a crime against humanity until recently. Calling abortion a "right" is a new trend. Prtoecting human life is not a radical new thing, but fundamental to the the sanity of any civilized society. I'm positive the Founding Fathers, who discuss the God-given rights of those created by parents (and indirectly, through Him), would be aghast. Practically, 100% of a person's genetic makeup is determined at the moment of conception. Science and medicine define being a person (human) by genetic means. According to science and medicine, a fetus is a distinct organism. Thus, killing a fetus is killing a potential baby. Killing a child is killing a potential man or woman. It's killing innocent life, and that's what those who oppose abortion are against. No one is saying that babies should have "rights equal to or superior to a woman's." Pro-life proponents are simply saying that babies have a right to life. Regarding Development: Some imply that a fetus is not a thinking, feeling, conscious human being. Current, valid science indicates that a fetus is not a senseless mass of tissue, as some people have believed in the past. According to Planned Parenthood, a fetus is "the organism that develops from the embryo at the end of eight weeks of pregnancy and receives nourishment through the placenta; the fetus continues to develop until the pregnancy ends." According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, an organism is "an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being". In other words, Planned Parenthood admits that a fetus is an individual, and a living being. According to Dr. Ruth's Encyclopedia of Sex, "The beginning of the fetal period [is] arbitrarily designated by most embryologists to occur eight weeks after fertilization. At this time, the embryo is nearly one and one-half inches long. Few, if any, major new structures are formed thereafter; development during the fetal period of gestation consists of the maturation of structures formed during the embryonic period." In other words, the basic structure of the baby has already been formed. Planned Parenthood admits this. Now, remember, this is still within the first "trimester." The baby has a small brain. The baby can feel pain. The baby can feel vibrations. The baby has vague vision and hearing. The baby has reactions which indicate a simple intelligence. Admittedly, the baby is undeveloped enough at this point that its sensations and thoughts are not similar to adults'. However, the baby is a thinking, feeling human being. I believe that laws should support this fundamental belief.
Another set of arguments against abortion would be philosophical arguments. A key philosophical question is where do you draw the line? Put another way, when does a human being become a person? The Supreme Court's decision of Roe v. Wade separated personhood from humanity. In other words, the judges argued that a developing fetus was a human (i.e., a member of the species Homo sapiens) but not a person. Since only persons are given 14th Amendment protection under the Constitution, the Court argued that abortion could be legal at certain times. This left to doctors, parents, or even other judges the responsibility of arbitrarily deciding when personhood should be awarded to human beings. The Supreme Court's cleavage of personhood and humanity made the ethical slide down society's slippery slope inevitable. Once the Court allowed people to start drawing lines, some drew them in unexpected ways and effectively opened the door for infanticide and euthanasia. Look at the situation of the poor woman in Florida, starved to death. Reagrdless of her thinking capabilities, SHE WAS STILL A WOMAN.
The Court, in the tradition of previous line-drawers, opted for biological criteria in their definition of a "person" in Roe v. Wade. In the past, such criteria as implantation or quickening had been suggested. The Court chose the idea of viability and allowed for the possibility that states could outlaw abortions performed after a child was viable. But viability was an arbitrary criterion, and there was no biological reason why the line had to be drawn near the early stages of development. The line, for example, could be drawn much later.
Ethicist Paul Ramsey frequently warned that any argument for abortion could logically be also used as an argument for infanticide. As if to illustrate this, Dr. Francis Crick, of DNA fame, demonstrated that he was less concerned about the ethics of such logical extensions and proposed a more radical definition of personhood. He suggested in the British journal Nature that if "a child were considered to be legally born when two days old, it could be examined to see whether it was an 'acceptable member of human society." Obviously this is not only an argument for abortion; it's an argument for infanticide.
Other line-drawers have suggested a cultural criterion for personhood. Ashley Montagu, for example, stated, "A newborn baby is not truly human until he or she is molded by cultural influences later." Again, this is more than just an argument for abortion. It is also an argument for infanticide.
More recently some line-drawers have focused on a mental criterion for personhood. Dr. Joseph Fletcher argues in his book Humanhood that "Humans without some minimum of intelligence or mental capacity are not persons, no matter how many of these organs are active, no matter how spontaneous their living processes are." This is not only an argument for abortion and infanticide; it's adequate justification for euthanasia and the potential elimination of those who do not possess a certain IQ. In other writings, Joseph Fletcher suggested that an "individual" was not truly a "person" unless he has an IQ of at least 40.
There are a number of biblical arguments against abortion. But there are also medical, legal, and philosophical arguments against abortion.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 27, 2005 08:15 AM (x+5JB)
147
YBP,
Very well argued. I'm in agreement with you. That said, I'm going to play devil's advocate (just figuratively I hope).
There is a controversial "theory" in Biological thought that states that, "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny". This was put forward by Ernst Haeckel in the 1800s.
Dr. Spock was one of the most famous pediatricians in the world. He is also the author of many best selling books. Read the following quote from his book "Baby and Child Care" and notice just how much HaeckelÂ’s "theory" influenced the world. "Each child as he develops is retracing the whole history of mankind, physically and spiritually, step by step. A baby starts off in the womb as a single tiny cell, just the way the first living thing appeared in the ocean. Weeks later, as he lies in the amniotic fluid of the womb, he has gills like a fish..." Quote is from Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care. (Forget the nutty reference to spirituality).
The statement means that the human embryo during early development goes through stages, first appearing fish like, then frog like, then chicken like, then pig like, and so on, until it comes to look human.
Those who hold this belief might argue that the early embryo, while technically human, is more like an "animal" developmentally. Of course this is only during early development.
Those who disagree with the theory call it, “Haekel’s Lie”.
Posted by: greg at May 27, 2005 08:54 AM (/+dAV)
148
Greg: Thanks. I remember reading about the theory, too, in college. Some evolutionists may assume that because of the similarities in the appearance of the these embryos, humans are "harkening back" to the species from which they derived rather than believe that the animal fetuses or feti are themselves harkening back to the developmental stages of of the higher creature: mankind.
I love the line from "Annie Hall," where Woody Allen tells Diana Keaton that (paraphrasing) "All the things our parents told us were GOOD for us are BAD for us: Red meat, sunshine, college."
How's Texas, amigo?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 27, 2005 09:28 AM (x+5JB)
149
Texas is great as usual.
I'm going on vacation in Italy for 3 weeks beginning June 29th. I canÂ’t wait to get away from this stupid war for a few weeks and to be around some laid back people for a while.
I'm going to start in the North and then eat and drink my way down South.
Posted by: greg at May 27, 2005 09:56 AM (/+dAV)
150
Drive safely and watch your top knot.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 27, 2005 10:18 AM (x+5JB)
151
YBP,
I do agree that there has been some type of abortion procedures around for long time. I believe usually it was some type of potion that often as not hurt both mother and fetus. But if abortion is so “reprehensible and a crime against humanity” why is it still around in force. Cannibalism and Human sacrifices are “reprehensible and a crime against humanity” and they are for the most part extinct. I am not arguing that protecting human life is not a fundamental need of sane societies. What I am arguing is the definition of what constitutes a human life. Just because 100% of ones genetics are determined at time of conception (and I am taking your word on this, I have not looked into it), does not necessary make that a person. One can gather all the materials needed to make a house in
a yard and have the blue prints for the house. Once you have everything there that is needed to make the house, it does not mean you actually have a house. I agree 1000% that killing an embryo or fetus is killing a “potential baby”. But it is not a baby yet. As such, societies should not make laws based on potentials. If a society does, then we could make a law declaring Finn to be a potential terrorist, and he should be arrested and turner over to the US authorities. He did say he was glad about 9/11. Now the instant a baby is born, then they should be given 100% equal rights as any other human on earth.
As for Terri in Florida, we both know we disagree on this point. I believe it was a mercy that she was allow to die, (once again I did not like the method. I believe it could have been done quicker and less painful.) Now, to give you some information to use against my own arguments, I am going to contradict myself. When I said a baby who is born should gain 100% rights as any other, I believe there is one exception to that. That is if the baby was born with no real brain activity, (ie brain stem only, poor delivery resulted in a brain damage child in the same state as Terri, ect.) If a body can only produce brain waves to a maximum of just keeping up body functions, then maybe it is not a human. If a body can not experience any type of emotions, then does this not take away at what makes us human. As for your last statement about biblical, medical, legal, and philosophical arguments against abortion, I will be happy to listen to the medical, legal and to some extent the philosophical. The biblical issues should not be consider due to our Separation of Church and State clause in the Constitution. If we start allowing Christian views into our laws, (and I know there are some already), then we should start allowing other religions also. How would you feel if we passed a law that no more cows can be killed. I think I would go crazy if I could never have another cheese burger or T-bone.
As for you Faggot Finn, I was trying to be nice, but since your dumb ass wants to get into a pissing match, well lets go. First off, where in the hell in my “earlier” post did I off you an insult. The only thing I can think of was that maybe I insulted your intelligence, but if I did it was not intentional. I thought you were smarted then it now appears you are. So why don't you go back to humping your sheep, and leave people who know how to debate, debate. As for me commending YBP on how he handles himself on these posts, I can assure you I handle myself much better then you, you Finnish pond scum.
Any one know why women hate have sex with men from Finland? Because they are always Finnish before they even drop their pants. Why did the Russian Cabinet hate Stalin?
Because he kept destroying the Finnish.
Why did Finn fall off the cliff?
He did not see the ewe turn.
Why did Finn want to join the German Navy?
He heard they had ewe boats.
Why does Finn like making love on cliff sides?
The ewe pushes back harder.
Why does Anus bitch man wear Button Fly?
Sheep can hear a zipper at 30 yards.
Why does Finn where Button Fly?
Cause Anus Bitch man can hear a zipper at 50 yards.
Posted by: Butch at May 31, 2005 11:02 AM (Gqhi9)
98kb generated in CPU 0.0745, elapsed 0.1595 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.1432 seconds, 387 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
118 queries taking 0.1432 seconds, 387 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
