mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

January 08, 2006

It Works!

Whatever it was itÂ’s done now I get to play catch up.

A DemocratÂ’s loyalty $27, this clip priceless!

Via Mudville Gazette : Yes sir my name is Mark Seavey and I just want to thank you for coming up here. Until about a month ago I was Sgt Mark Seavey infantry squad leader, I returned from Afghanistan. My question to you, (applause)

"Like yourself I dropped out of college two years ago to volunteer to go to Afghanistan, and I went and I came back. If I didn't have a herniated disk now I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops, three of which have already volunteered to go to Iraq. I keep hearing you say how you talk to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. (applause) The morale of the troops that I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back, despite the hardships they had to endure in Afghanistan.
"And Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just returned from Afghanistan. We never got a letter from you; we never got a visit from you. You didn't come to our homecoming. The only thing we got from any of our elected officials was one letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to but the morale of the troops is very high."

Iran reaps what it sows. Yes now Al-Qaeda has taken twelve Iranians Hostage. It just seems to me that Iran supports Islamic Jihad right? Just once maybe the Middle East might look at the general support of terrorism to achieve goals that leads to the rise of groups like Al-Qaeda. But no got to blame America. I guess killing all those Al-Qaeda and Taliban is Â“aiding themÂ”. Well itÂ’s the kind of aid they need in my book.

Foxnews: The Americans use such groups against Iran since they could not directly approach Iran," the Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Iran's Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi as saying... ..."The kidnappers are under the influence of the Taliban," .

But there is more.

Foxnews : Don't you think that continuation of genocide by expelling Jews from Europe was one of their aims in creating a regime of occupiers of Al-Quds (Jerusalem)?" the official Islamic Republic News agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying (last)Sunday. "Isn't that an important question?"

First of all thatÂ’s just nutty secondly just how did the Jews end up in Europe to start with. Is that not in important question? Again the root source of the problem lies with the Near East but there they go again. Not that Muslims really care all that much anyway.

Funny how this statement From Al-Zawahiri was not released just after the two numbnuts blew up last week.

Asshole Via CNN : Â“today I congratulate everyone for the victory in Iraq. You remember, my dear Muslim brethren, what I told you more than a year ago, that the U.S. troops will pull out of Iraq. It was only a matter of time.Â”

Yeah Asshole, if you consider murdering 140 Muslim innocents to get at 11 of our men victory. Oh and you forgot to thank Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and other antiwar Democrats, how rude. We are kicking Al-Qaeda's ass and every time they try it only multiplies the number of those who hate them. They see us as week because thatÂ’s how they perceive you sir. DonÂ’t work to make that that reality.

Al-Jazeera helps out wife of Hostage.

The wife of Norman Kember, a British hostage held in Iraq with three other Western peace activists since November, has appealed through Aljazeera to his captors for his release.

Yes Al-Jazeera has been quite a big help this week. If you are a terrorist and you need to communicate that is. Please, tell us who chose the release time on that tape from Al-Qaeda #2? (we all know what #2 means)

Actually I hope for the release of Norman Kember and the others ASAP. If the terrorists have an ounce of humanity they will release him immediately.

Dusting crops ainÂ’t like flying through hyper-space kid!

Scottsman: The US air force has expressed an interest in the idea and scientists working for the American Department of Energy - which has a device known as the Z Machine that could generate the kind of magnetic fields required to drive the engine - say they may carry out a test if the theory withstands further scrutiny.

IÂ’m sorry that was totally unrelated to anything. Jawa Tradition.

Posted by: Howie at 11:35 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 781 words, total size 5 kb.

No Hostage Taking Here, That's Fershur

Oh, go ahead and call me an intolerant Islamophobe, I could give less than a turd. I find this bottom-of-the-story paragraph quite telling:

About 2 million pilgrims from around the world were expected to perform the rites of the hajj. About 60,000 troops are at the ready to ensure everything runs smoothly. More than 2,000 pilgrims have died at the hajj since 1987.

Unlike, say, the Vatican, or the Temple Mount, no non-Muslim is allowed to step foot inside of Mecca.

If this is the Religion Of Peace, why are 60,000 troops needed to keep order for the hajj?

You are more than welcome to compare this to the number of NYPD used to keep order in Times Square on New Year's Eve, or the number of police used to keep order at the Vatican for the Christmas Mass.

But keep in mind that all manner of faiths, creeds, nationalities, colors, yada yada yada are welcome in Times Square and the Vatican, and Israel.

Seems to me that the real Islamophobes just happen to be Muslims.

Posted by: Vinnie at 02:04 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "Unlike, say, the Vatican, or the Temple Mount, no non-Muslim is allowed to step foot inside of Mecca. If this is the Religion Of Peace, why are 60,000 troops needed to keep order for the hajj?" Gemstones and manure are both valuable. Notice, however, that we only post guards at the former.

Posted by: ShannonKW at January 08, 2006 03:14 AM (dT1MB)

2 "You are more than welcome to compare this to the number of NYPD used to keep order in Times Square on New Year's Eve, or the number of police used to keep order at the Vatican for the Christmas Mass." The difference between posting cops in Times Square and troops in Mecca is that no one calls drunken idiots on New Years Eve members of the something of "peace".

Posted by: Cardinal Martini at January 08, 2006 04:07 AM (nLV11)

3 In the article, the phrase "to ensure that everything runs smoothly" is quite a euphimism. I'm not sure of the years in which they've occured, but I am sure that in addition to the regular stampedes, the hajj has seen numerous gun fights as well as 400 pilgrims being taken hostage in Mecca at one point. That's quite the holy place.

Posted by: Graeme at January 08, 2006 04:11 AM (tUIkN)

4 Notice how they'll say "This is a time when emotions run high," instead of the correct, "This is a time when full-blown psychosis manifests itself."

Posted by: Oyster at January 08, 2006 05:02 AM (YudAC)

5 Someone offer Ali G 10 million to Prank the HAJ next year.

Posted by: Filthy ALLAH at January 08, 2006 07:00 AM (uxn8Q)

6 Good question about the number of troops for the Haj vs the number of participants and a comparison to other celebratory events. Anybody any good at finding this info? The article talked about troops so I do not know if they excluded policemen or not. I found this comment to the SFO Board of Supervisors from a legislative analyst on police support for protest activities: " Similar logic is used for non-protest activities: when the Philharmonic played in Central Park, there were approximately 30,000 spectators and 60 officers (a ratio of 500:1); when Garth Brooks performed there were 100,000 fans and 1,000 police officers (a ratio of 100:1); during the New Year's Eve celebrations in Times Square, there are approximately 100,000 people in the streets and 4,000 to 5,000 police (a ratio of 20:1)." (Note: I have seen estimates that New Years Eve brings out 2 million revelers in NYC but no clarity in number of police employed that one night.) The Hajj takes place over a month and that may impact the number of police/military employed, too. If anyone has a talent in researching this type of info, I would like to know what you find. Wikipedia has some info to start you off and talks about the crowd control problems that have occurred.

Posted by: Dale at January 08, 2006 09:48 AM (Dujiz)

7 Does anyone understand the allusion shannon was trying to make about guarding manure piles? Does he?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 08, 2006 10:15 AM (0yYS2)

8 Isn't the Hajj where they go somewhere to throw stones at statues?

Posted by: Oyster at January 08, 2006 10:16 AM (YudAC)

9 All I wanna know is why, if this is the Religion of Peace, and only members of the Religion of Peace are allowed to go there, do they need any troops at all? Of course massive security is needed at those other places, because everyone knows America and Israel are the real terrorist nations, and the Vatican is where the evil Crusades started. Of course us bloodthirsty Westerners need policing. Heh.

Posted by: Vinnie at January 08, 2006 11:17 AM (Kr6/f)

10 "All I want to know is why, if this is the religion of peace, and only members of the religion of peace are allowed there, do they need any troops at all? An obvious answer, it is not a religion of peace. That simple.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 08, 2006 04:02 PM (rUyw4)

11 All this for a large suspected meteorite? I don't get it.

Posted by: hondo at January 08, 2006 11:41 PM (3aakz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

AP-Ipsos Poll On Warrantless Intercepts Used Biased Sample

The AP-Ipsos Poll making the mainstream media rounds claims that a majority of Americans want the administration to obtain warrants for all "eavesdropping":

WASHINGTON - A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if those calls might involve suspected terrorists, an AP-Ipsos poll shows.

The AP report on the poll acknowledges that results tended to fall along party lines:

Party affiliation is a factor, too. Almost three-fourths of Democrats and one-third of Republicans want to require court warrants.

Then why did the pollsters load the survey with voters registered to the Democratic Party? That's not mentioned in the AP story; you have to visit the Ipsos website and download an Adobe Acrobat file to see just who was questioned [emphasis added]:

REGISTERED
VOTERS
Strongly Republican .......................... 13
Moderately Republican ..................... 27
Definitely Independent/neither........... 8
Moderately Democrat........................ 32
Strongly Democrat ............................ 20
Refused/not sure............................. -
Total Republican ............................ 40
Total Democrat ............................... 52

In 2004, according to Pew Research, Democratic voters had gained a small advantage over Republicans; 33% to 29%.

So why did AP-Ipsos choose to magnify that split by 300% in their poll? Three guesses, and the first two don't count.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:20 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Er, to give lil' ernie a new factoid to screech about?

Posted by: hondo at January 08, 2006 01:53 AM (3aakz)

2 AP and Pew measure party ID very differently. Both methods are defensible but you cannot compare the results the way you have. There was much discussion of party ID measurement before the 2004 elections; check the archives at mysterypollster.com for details.

Posted by: Joe Incognito at January 08, 2006 09:58 AM (Yw+ky)

3 So, Joe Incognito, what you're saying is that Ipsos makes a reasonable claim that only 40% of the electorate is Republican compared to 52% Democrat? I disagree. Btw, AP is the news agency; Ipsos does the polls. Therefore, you "cannot compare" AP and Pew the way you have done.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 08, 2006 10:29 AM (RHG+K)

4 Exactly, Joe Incog, that is the reason we had the networks refusing to call states like No. Carolina for Bush when he had a double digit lead. It was obviously done in an attempt to influence the election in favor of the Democrats. What we needed immediately after the election was an investigation into the pollsters and their methods. I see they are still using their same flawed methods in an attempt to influence public opinion. Of course, they think that reporting the news is no longer their job, but facilitation, now brother, that is what the media is here for. Now we have a media that has entered the realm of Stalinism. And once they embark on their Stalinist adventure, they should not be surprised by the reception they receive from the American people.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 08, 2006 01:24 PM (rUyw4)

5 Maybe they did it to counter-act the results of last week's Rasmussen Poll: http://mediamatters.org/items/200601030004

Posted by: Drew at January 08, 2006 04:17 PM (UHKaK)

6 Yeah, Dave, Media Matters has a worldwide reputation for objectivity. I would certainly believe anything I read there.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 08, 2006 05:39 PM (rUyw4)

7 Kinda like that untarnished cradle of objectivity, the DPB

Posted by: Drew at January 08, 2006 06:02 PM (oxMjD)

8 I don't pretend to be objective, Drew. I'm not an oh-so-fashionable citizen of the world. I'm on America's side.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 08, 2006 11:23 PM (RHG+K)

9 Understood and appreciated.

Posted by: Drew at January 08, 2006 11:38 PM (oxMjD)

10 This is just manufactured outrage. It's an artifact of their coding scheme and the nuances of how people will respond when asked about party identification, which of course is not 1:1 with what they do in the voting booth.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 11, 2006 11:47 AM (CG5Pe)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

This Is Their Rising Star?

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Sen. Barack Obama on Saturday said the United States will not be successful in Iraq unless the political landscape better represents the country's minorities.

I keep writing something and then erasing it and writing something else. Then I erase it. So I'll sum my thoughts up with one word:

Idiot.

If you read the whole article, note the minority that is noticeably absent from Monsewer Obama's list.

I'll say one thing, the last thing a fledgling democracy needs is exported American liberal stupidity like affirmative action.

Posted by: Vinnie at 12:09 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

January 07, 2006

Sarah Bench-Salorio Gets Prison for Child Sex

(Orange County, California) Following up on previous reports (here and here), former teacher and prominent child molester, Sarah Bench-Salorio (photos), was sentenced to six years in prison after pleading guilty to 29 counts of lewd conduct with three schoolboys.

From NBC4.tv:

In pronouncing sentence, Orange County Superior Court Judge Richard Toohey said Sarah Bench-Salorio, 29, had violated the trust parents put in teachers.
"One thing the court cannot escape as it relates to this matter ... is it involved the violation of trust ... the defendant being a teacher in the school system," Toohey said.
The judge said parents "expect there will be appropriate conduct" when they put their children in school.
"I realize there is no excuse for what I did," Bench-Salorio said Friday.
Bench-Salorio, an English teacher, entered her guilty plea Sept. 28 and could have been sentenced to a term between three and six years. She would have faced up to 64 years in prison had she gone to trial, defense attorney Allan Stokke said.
According to evidence at a hearing, Bench-Salorio molested three boys ranging in age from 12 to 14.

I contend that Bench-Salorio is being given a gift. Think of the damage she's done. Think of the victimized boys, their families, her own family, the school. Think of what would be the punishment for a man committing similar crimes.

We must also remember that one boy "estimated the number of times he and his teacher had sex by the condoms in a box that he went through -- 22 of them, he said -- and added that sometimes no condom was used." Bench-Salorio experienced no momentary lapse of judgment. She was engaged in the seduction and long-term, serial sexual molestation of children. The victims' parents called her a "pedophile and sexual predator." I agree.

Given all the circumstances, is six years reasonable punishment? I don't think so. Not even close. Bench-Salorio should be looking at double or triple that amount or more.

Nonetheless, her attorney, Allan Stokke is planning on wheelbarrowing a buttload of boo-hoos on the judge to get her sentence reduced. He'll say the married mother of three foster children is bipolar and suffers from depression and he will present doctor's reports and "all kinds of information" from "various people to show her absolutely excellent background."

What happens next is anyone's guess. Will the judge reduce the sentence? Maybe. It's a California judge in a California court.

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 06:58 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Could you imagine what sentence I, a 40-something male teacher, would get if I did something like this with female students? Or male students, for that matter.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at January 08, 2006 10:38 PM (iy7Eg)

2 Hmmn. I think it's very interesting that you haven't heard anything in the media from the boys involved. I wonder if they feel victimized, or if this was consensual. If they feel no harm, and they do not feel victimized, six years is far too harsh a sentence. J

Posted by: Jordan at January 08, 2006 10:55 PM (kTN4S)

3 Jordan, by law an underage child cannot be "consensual". Feeling "no harm" or not "feeling victimized" has no merit on child rape.

Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at January 09, 2006 05:57 AM (maXzk)

4 Sara made mistakes in her life, and we cannot let it go unpunished. Does she deserve 6 years NO. She needs to be sentenced to a program where she can get the help she needs. I think it runs far deeper then we will ever know. Maybee look to her parents, and what happend to her as a child. Who can ever tell, but Sara is a good person, and has done 2 year almost in OCJ, I think she should be in a program where she can get the help she deserves, instead of set to prison where she will learn nothing, and have no responsability for her actions, in prison you only lose time, and DONOT get the help that as a human being you should recieve.

Posted by: PC OCJ 01 at January 09, 2006 03:13 PM (D+Me0)

5 Yes, "BY LAW" no minor may be consensual. I think that's pretty stupid. What exactly happens.. .what epiphany occurs on your 18th birthday? I know there's no easy answer to this (and I'm playing devil's advocate a bit

, but I think that it's somewhat silly to arbitrarily set an age. I just think it's interesting that the world is drawn to these "newsporn" stories... but we never get to hear from the "victim". I think it's because we want to impose an innocence on them that may or may not be there. And we're afraid to hear the truth. J

Posted by: Jordan at January 09, 2006 11:48 PM (kTN4S)

6 I think she just went into the wrong line of work.

Posted by: Cindy at February 23, 2006 11:32 AM (sMpRz)

7 No matter what anyone thinks, the boys were victims. They were underage and the teacher is in a position of authority over them. You might consider now what are parents or society to think if our morals and values are no longer upheld or respected. It's a shame that our society has anyone who pursues children to satisfy their deviant sexual behavior. What puzzles me is how many view a female predator differently from a male one. This woman got 6 years because she should have known better first of all, and secondly she was an authority figure. She is NOT a victim herself. I agree she may have underlying conditions which lead to her deviant behavior, but it was also her responsibility to seek help when she first realized her thoughts towards the young boys was more than acceptable friendly. We can't feel more sorry for her because she is female. A male or female should be given the same punishment for the same crime. I see some have also questioned why 18 year old is the age that society has chosen to use as the magic age children become adults. This was the most logical age based on mental development of MOST, not all. Maybe it's not the best age to choose, but society needs to set an age for many legal reasons. Some states say as young as 16. But, in order to give children the best chance at being ready to face lives in society as adults that line the sand is drawn at 18 years old as being the age an child is mentally capable of making a reasonable, educated decision for themselves. Consider just how ready is a 14 year old to make a decision that will affect them long term like having a child ??? I think most of us when we're young understand that what we thought we knew at that age.. when we got older we understood things in a different light. So, yes, those boys were victims and they may not realize it until later in life. The fact that the one boy told her parents of the incident says something to that effect. Nobody forced him to talk. Just my 2 cents worth. She got what she deserved...and it probably should be been more considering it was 3 boys.

Posted by: Bob at March 16, 2006 12:45 PM (zz9te)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Female American Journalist Kidnapped In Baghdad

Terrorists have kidnapped a female American journalist and killed her Iraqi translator:

ScotsmanÂ—According to Mohamadawi, the translator told police before he died that she had been kidnapped and that they had been heading to meet Adnan al-Dulaimi, head of the Sunni Arab Iraqi Accordance Front who lives in the Adel neighbourhood - dominated by Sunni Arabs and considered one of toughest in Baghdad.
According to Samir Najim, a guard at al-Dulaimi's office, three armed men in a red Opel car intercepted the journalist's car and shot the translator before taking her in their car and driving away. ...

The journalist's name hasn't been revealed.

Cross-posted at OpinionBug.com

Update (1/7/2005 12:16pm):

The identity of the kidnapped woman remains unconfirmed, but two sources indicate she is Jill Carroll, a correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor:

Sources:

Euro News [ Euro News has removed all references to Jill Carroll ]
Kuwait News Agency (KUNA)
La Repubblica

Hat tip: Free Republic

Update (1/9/2005 3:58pm):

The Sunday Times Online had a story yesterday in which they said Al-Qaeda had released a statement claiming responsibility for her kidnapping:

Times OnlineÂ—Attempts were being made last night to locate an American journalist who was kidnapped in Baghdad yesterday after a meeting with a senior Sunni politician. Her Iraqi translator was killed, writes Ali Rifat.
Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the kidnapping in a statement posted on the internet. ...

Jill, we're praying for your safe return.

Posted by: OpinionBug at 07:33 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

1 A number from 2 to 9, no questions, I'll check tomorrow.

Posted by: A Finn at January 07, 2006 08:38 AM (lGolT)

2 Apparently she didn't get the memo - these people are crazy fanatics who accept the most ruthless indiscrimate violence directed at innocent men, women and children as completely legitimate - and anyone not with them are either infidels or heretics. I guess she wants to understand them. good luck.

Posted by: hondo at January 07, 2006 09:25 AM (3aakz)

3 If she's a euro-commie, she'll live. They're on the same side.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 07, 2006 09:35 AM (8e/V4)

4 Anti-American - yes. But the left walks a strange fineline with radical islamic fundamentalists. Beyond the first line they have nothing in common, except suppressed hatred and fear. One day, it will blow up in their faces - what is apparent is the left's fear and willingness to be intimidated by it. In an odd way - being anti-American is safe.

Posted by: hondo at January 07, 2006 09:46 AM (3aakz)

5 Note - typically the MSM and leftists would be tripping all over themselves to physically embrace and interview these guys - but this is not the case. They will do it only from afar - less the make a mistake like her.

Posted by: hondo at January 07, 2006 09:51 AM (3aakz)

6 It's extra-special news when a *female* journalist gets kidnapped, so that goes right out in front of the headline. I'm kinda jaded lately, so female journalists aren't high enough on my pity hierarchy to work me into a lather. Now, if she had been a developmentally disabled, blind, Jewish, HIV positive female journalist, that would have made my day, but the media let me down again. I feel so unmotivated.

Posted by: ShannonKW at January 07, 2006 10:04 AM (dT1MB)

7 Common sense would say that if one chose to travelling to a notoriously dangerous neighbourhood in a dangerous country, that necessary precautions would surely constitute more than just a translator - perhaps pay for armed body guards or an unmarked police escort or maybe just do the interview over the phone. Whatever the case, I hope she makes it out okay.

Posted by: Graeme at January 07, 2006 10:35 AM (xI1Fi)

8 I read this article last night at blackfive: http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/01/cnn_despicable_.html#comments note this reference: When we were doing offensive operations out here, we had 25 plus reporters from CNN, USA Today, the NY Times, Time Magazine, among others. Now that the bombs aren't dropping and the cities have been stabilized... we had 1 reporter here for the elections. She is from the Christian Science Monitor. He was talking about elections, around the Syrian border. might not be referring to the same, however.

Posted by: dave at January 07, 2006 12:24 PM (CcXvt)

9 These female terrorist sympathizers seem to be deadly for the males involved. The poor driver killed. It was also the Intelligence Agent that was killed trying to ransome the horrid Italian communist journalist Sgreana. Of course, the Italians have handled this very maturely by deciding to charge the American soldier at the checkpoint instead of the cavalier communist whose antics led to the agent's death. If the journalist does not issue a sympathetic statement on behalf of her misunderstood captors, I apologize for being too harsh.

Posted by: Kate at January 07, 2006 01:20 PM (n6ufo)

10 She's American, not a communist European. The four peacekeepers are probably dead but I could be wrong.

Posted by: George Ramos at January 07, 2006 02:10 PM (5E0ex)

11 And yes, apparently she didn't get the "GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ" memo. We'll being seeing her in a hostage video in a few days. She's an American so she will be held for some political demand.

Posted by: George Ramos at January 07, 2006 02:13 PM (5E0ex)

12 She may be as anti-American as can be, but just the fact that she is American will probably get her killed. I hope she makes it out OK, but like I've said before, anyone walking around that country without a belt-fed machine gun pretty much deserves to be kidnapped simply out of principle. Darwin at work maybe?

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at January 08, 2006 01:18 AM (CtVG6)

13 Does anyone know the name of the translator who was murdered?

Posted by: byrd at January 10, 2006 03:06 PM (G8flx)

14 The Christian Science Monitor says his name is Allan Enwiyah; other sources say he is Alan John Ghazi.

Posted by: Tim at January 10, 2006 03:42 PM (5rYy9)

15 Shes crazy tring to make a report, while in middle of a battle zone! but she'll be missed when her deadline expires & gets killed. I wonder if they're going to have a video of her execution like they do the other american or other hostages?

Posted by: Jeremy at January 18, 2006 06:23 AM (ZqEK2)

16 Now is the time to Pray, Pray, Pray!

Posted by: Sue at January 19, 2006 04:23 PM (xzwzw)

17 It is time to Pray but also time to understand that what She did was for the common good and that should be for both American and Iraqi people! And as the people for common good I apeal to the hearts of those who have her. Please free her she is full of love and grace you can see it her face!

Posted by: Omyra at January 19, 2006 11:51 PM (O+jgl)

18 She is anti-American, she deserves it!!!

Posted by: Jay at January 23, 2006 12:54 AM (KgZHj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Drudge: Dems Will Try To Bork Alito

Matt Drudge Report is reporting that Senate Democrats are planning a final, scorched-earth attack against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito:

Democrats hope to tie Alito to Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP).
Alito will testify that he joined CAP as a protest over Princeton policy that would not allow the ROTC on campus.
THE DRUDGE REPORT has obtained a Summer 1982 article from CAPÂ’s PROSPECT magazine titled Â“Smearing The Class Of 1957Â” that key Senate Democrats believe could thwart his nomination!
In the article written by then PROSPECT editor Frederick Foote, Foote writes: Â“The facts show that, for whatever reasons, whites today are more intelligent than blacks.Â”

Alito had no part in writing or endorsing the CAP article, but apparently the Dems are going to launch a guilt-by-association assault. Read the whole article; the cast of characters in the Dem lineup includes a man who likes to compare farm animals to victims of the Holocaust.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:21 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I'm looking forward, too, to Dianne Feinstein further expounding on her morbid fascination with whom she thinks we should allow, by law, to be killed "out of compassion". The old, the sick and the unborn. That woman has real issues. Just listen to her. She glides effortlessly from the topic of abortion to euthanasia with smug, superior morality. She gives me the shivers.

Posted by: Oyster at January 07, 2006 06:36 AM (YudAC)

2 Good chance hearings will degenerate solely into grandstand playing to Dem lib/left base for '06. Could just as easily backfire - in full view on national TV. Dems still can't figure out how to reach or motivate anyone else outside base - and I'm not talking about conservatives. Could get real wacky with lots of BDS on display on issues having nothing to due with hearings. Hondo's always looking for an opportunity.

Posted by: hondo at January 07, 2006 09:32 AM (3aakz)

3 Does not matter. Democrats suck. People know this.

Posted by: newc at January 07, 2006 11:27 AM (f/QTU)

4 Dems will give long speeches in the form of a "question." The MSM will provide ample coverage and hightlight all the "vital" details.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 07, 2006 11:42 AM (8e/V4)

5 Yer right newc, but not enough people yet, and if the idiot Republicans don't clean up their act, the dhimmis might actually gain in November.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 07, 2006 11:44 AM (0yYS2)

6 Does anyone know where to get streaming video of the hearings? I should have saved the link to it from the Roberts hearings.

Posted by: Oyster at January 08, 2006 06:36 AM (YudAC)

7 Oh hey Oyster, regarding your first comment, I have some suggestions about who should be killed. Out of compassion, of course. Well it could be considered a compassionate act to kill liberals for the good of the future of civilization, wouldn't it? We could let them starve to death, which according to them, would be a wonderful way to die.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 08, 2006 10:24 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 06, 2006

New Study: Forests Aggravate Global Warming

From the Edmonton Journal:

Canada's forests may actually worsen global warming rather than cool the planet, says a controversial study by a Stanford University physicist and environmental scientist.
Trees soak up massive amounts of energy from the sun. Much of this, he argues, is gradually released in the form of heat, especially in dark evergreen forests in the north, but also in temperate forests.
Unlike tropical forests, Canadian forests don't release much cooling moisture.
His computer model indicates that this warming influence is more powerful than the cooling job that forests do when they soak up carbon dioxide.

There you have it. It's Canada's fault. Those bastards.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 02:24 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Not surprised. Ronald Reagan said as much back in the 80s, and Libs laughed at him, but as with everything, they are eventually proven wrong. Libs want to do things the "new" way, we conservatives believe in time-tested ways. It's no wonder they're wrong so often.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 06, 2006 02:45 PM (8e/V4)

2 Damn liberal Canadians! And they've been blaming the US and western Canada for all the GW problems in No. America while they disguised their diabolical plot to keep the Canadian forests from being cut and blaming GW on my pickup. Oh, the humanity! That liberal government in Canada should fall! Oh, it already fell. Serves them right, I say! Haha!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 06, 2006 03:34 PM (rUyw4)

3 You've got to give the Canadians credit - their military may be on life support, but their special weapons projects kick ass: forests of mass destruction, killer cows, Celine Dion. Forget Iran. Get El Baradei over to Ottawa immediately!

Posted by: Graeme at January 06, 2006 04:08 PM (YOYhS)

4 "forests of mass destrution, killer cows, Celine Dion..." FOTFLMAO

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 06, 2006 04:20 PM (rUyw4)

5 Save the Earth, destroy the trees! Honestly, this crap is getting riduculous. I wonder what it'll be tomorrow, oven-fresh biscuits?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 06, 2006 05:42 PM (0yYS2)

6 IM, What Bluto is trying to convey is the fact that GW is caused by a myriad of factors, most of which we do not understand. Our tampering might even cause the problem to worsen, rather than helping. I think that he might agree with my position, which is to causiously approach the problem, rather than saying we know what to do when in fact we don't. I agree that reducing all emissions wouldn't hurt anything, that's for sure, but we don't need to jump on the Kyoto bandwagon. That treaty is flawed, and I really don't want to discuss the Kyoto protocols here because it will attract the moonbats.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 06, 2006 06:33 PM (rUyw4)

7 I get it JJ, I was just trying to be clever.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 06, 2006 08:34 PM (0yYS2)

8 Canadian ass kissers probably imported muslim trees to satisfy the rag head immigrants.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 06, 2006 09:21 PM (ZsYgO)

9 ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!. For the second time in less than a year TEAM GREYROOSTER won first place in the recent yellowfin tuna tournament in Venice Louisana. Everyone on board is a conservative. Proof is in the ice chest. We kicked ass. Most fish. Biggest fish. 168 Lb Yellowfin Tuna. Lost many that I consider would have been Louisana record. Liberal asses. Open your canned tuna. Your betters eat better. Ah!

Posted by: greyrooster at January 06, 2006 09:52 PM (ZsYgO)

10 Where's Cindy Sheehan ???. Heh, heh, heh. Last report I had, was that she was enjoying a traditional muslim thanksgiving of Salmon and rice. Yep! One thing about those sand dunes is that they produce a lot of Salmon and rice. How dumb can the bitch get?

Posted by: greyrooster at January 06, 2006 09:57 PM (ZsYgO)

11 Good job Rooster.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 06, 2006 10:38 PM (0yYS2)

12 Graeme, you made my morning! That was great.

Posted by: Oyster at January 07, 2006 06:50 AM (YudAC)

13 It's always good to start the day with the "Blame Canda" song singing in your head! Thanks!;0)

Posted by: Lisa at January 07, 2006 11:13 AM (oJ7a4)

14 oops, meant Canada, but does it really matter!

Posted by: Lisa at January 07, 2006 11:14 AM (oJ7a4)

15 Lisa, nobody here would try to blame Canada for anything really, because Canada is completely inconsequential.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 08, 2006 10:26 AM (0yYS2)

16 fukin dumbass american ignorant redneck bastards u got no clue...

Posted by: derek at January 21, 2006 12:39 AM (vY/OT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Ariel Sharon Dead?

Reports are circulating that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has died. Certainly he is very ill and he may very well be brain dead. Reports of favorable brain scans are for bleeding only.

World Tribune : Sharon was declared dead by physicians at Jerusalem's Hadassah Hospital before 1 p.m. Israeli time [6 a.m. EST]. Authorities have already been notified of the death, and a government announcement was expected to be issued over the next hour.... Â… A computed tomography scan taken on Friday morning showed little to no brain activity in Sharon. At that point, Sharon's son, Omri, called aides and senior officials to the hospital to prepare for an announcement of the prime minister's death.

Hat Tip : Filthy and Jay at Stop the ACLU who put it best.

If he isnÂ’t dead, he is at deathÂ’s doorway.

Also Michelle Malkin has updates and a roundup of Sharon Related links.

No major MSM source so far has confirmed this. But considering the complications Mr. Sharon has suffered the last 24 hours I feel it is likely that he may indeed pass on.

CBC's Adrienne Arsenault reports the following :

The CBC's Adrienne Arsenault, who has outside the hospital awaiting word of Sharon's condition, said there is intense interest in his prognosis, and some incorrect information is circulating. "There have been many rumours over the past 24 hours that Sharon had, in fact, actually died or was on life support," she said.

Developing....

Mere Rhetoric has more

Another doctor they got on the phone: "... despite this good news, the damage is undoubtedly extensive..."

Updated: Mr Sharon has indeed survived and is showing some response to pain. Demosophist adds that sever strokes can be survived. I agree My grandfather had two in a row and althouhg it took two years he did recover very well. So it's possible Mr. Sharon will do OK. But it''s a long hard road back and only time will tell.

Posted by: Howie at 10:35 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 325 words, total size 3 kb.

Bail Denied in Lodi Terror Case

There's a new development in the Lodi terror case.

From SacBee.com:

U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. ruled that the Lodi properties proposed as collateral and the owners of the properties do not offer adequate assurance that Umer Hayat will not flee to his native Pakistan.

Judge Burrell made the most prudent decision. I think that, had bail been granted, Umer Hayat would have disappeared.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 04:30 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

And You Thought OJ's Lawyers Were Weasels

Haroon Rashid Aswat, one of the men who was trying to set up an al Qaeda training camp in Oregon, is fighting his court-ordered extradition to the US on the basis that he might be tortured. Many thanks to liberal imbeciles motivated by partisan politics, notably Senator Dick Durbin, who have so mangled the definition of torture that virtually anything now qualifies.

But that's not the outrageous part.

Read what Aswat's lawyer, Gareth Peirce, has to say:

Â“It shows the extent to which the United States is manipulating evidence and pressuring witnesses. All that is said about Haroon Aswat is that in 1999 he travelled to a farm in the US which was considering setting up a Muslim community and, after a few days, left. ThatÂ’s it Â— thatÂ’s the evidence.Â”

Never mind that American James Ujaama, Aswat's accomplice has already confessed and agreed to testify against Aswat, all that was going on was planning for a "Muslim community". You know, like the Amish or the Mennonites.

If the Amish and Mennonites were into global terrorism.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:08 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

January 05, 2006

Sigh

So a commenter sends this in from the trenches:

Pat Robertson thinks God struck Sharon for not keeping the territory intact.

Um...no. He thinks the Bible says that God will strike any Israeli PM that gives land for peace. A twisted interpretation to be sure, but not the same thing. Nice try at moral equivalence, though, given the post it was left on.

Palestinians are just as thankful about Sharon's condition as the Israelis were about Arafat's condition.

Once again, no. You see, the people who were thankful about Arafat's condition thought that maybe, just maybe, it might increase their chance of surviving a simple bus ride to the supermarket. The people thankful about Sharon's condition think that maybe, just maybe, it will increase a suicide bomber's chance at blowing up a bus on it's way to the supermarket.

Perhaps it's just human nature to hate your enemy so much that you rejoice when tragedy strikes.

Gee, thanks, now I have angst. I promise from now on to light a candle on the anniversary of their deaths in honor of the following:

Caligula

Mohammed

Vlad Tepes

Edward the Longshanks

King George III

Vladimir Lenin

Josef Stalin

Adolf Hitler

Chairman Mao

Pol Pot

Ho Chi Minh

Kim Il Sung*

And I promise to wear a black armband in honor of my sorrow when Osama is found with a .50 cal round in the skull, Saddam is swinging from the gallows, and Kim Jong Il's shadow is found on the irradiated remains of his presidential palace.

Because I see the light now. All men are not created equal. All men are created evil.

Pat Robertson's goofy Bible interpretation, well, that's no different than that PFLP joker's exhortations. The fact that Pat Robertson's followers aren't detonating themselves in a crowd of civilians is irrelevant.

As for the Israelis, how dare they show their hate by allowing their enemies, Arab Muslims, full citizenship, including voting rights, and seats in the Knesset. They're no different than the Palestinians, who allow no Jew to hold office, and routinely kill the members of rival factions.

Thank you, Dale the commenter, for showing me the shining light of the gray areas. more...

Posted by: Vinnie at 10:41 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 380 words, total size 2 kb.

1 A refutation without condescension would have been preferred. In reviewing my comments, I believe it is a viable summary to say Pat Robertson thinks this way. He cites the Bible and we know that his life is guided by the Bible. He cautions that future leaders should follow this biblical warning. "Sharon "was dividing God's land and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU (European Union), the United Nations, or the United States of America," Robertson said. The rest of my comments were meant to reflect that it is human behavior to rejoice when our opponents have trouble and that it is just as common on one side as another. There was no intent to support evildoers of any hue. I regret that my comments were not clear.

Posted by: Dale at January 06, 2006 06:52 AM (Dujiz)

2 I don't do condescension, just sarcasm. Or snark, if you will. That's one problem with the internets, you can't hear the voices in my head.

Posted by: Vinnie at January 06, 2006 07:14 AM (Kr6/f)

3 Anyone who takes one word from Pat Robertson's mouth seriously is about as big an idiot as Robertson himself. I used to watch the 700 Club when I was a Christian, and even back then in my brainwashed state I knew he was as full of shit as a Christmas goose.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 06, 2006 08:26 AM (0yYS2)

4 The rest of my comments were meant to reflect that it is human behavior to rejoice when our opponents have trouble and that it is just as common on one side as another. Why we should not simply resign ourselves to such "human behavior": Proverbs 24:17-18 17 Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice, 18 or the LORD will see and disapprove and turn his wrath away from him.

Posted by: kyer at January 06, 2006 10:05 AM (4LLbh)

5 Pat Robertson is not representative of Christians, and does not speak for anyone but himself. That the media reports his stupidity is more a statement on the media than on Christianity.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 06, 2006 10:06 AM (rUyw4)

6 Just an aside from the Peanut Gallery: Anyone who takes one word from Pat Robertson's mouth seriously is about as big an idiot as Robertson himself. I used to watch the 700 Club when I was a Christian, and even back then in my brainwashed state I knew he was as full of shit as a Christmas goose. The difference between Left and Right. We denounce our looneys. Yet everyone wants a photo-op with theirs (e.g. Crazy Al Sharpton)

Posted by: Gordon at January 06, 2006 10:24 AM (JwR1N)

7 A refutation without condescension would have been preferred. Funny, I thought the comments being refuted were condescending.

Posted by: McGehee at January 06, 2006 10:46 AM (lAOTn)

8 So is everybody on this board saying it WASN'T the will of God?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 06, 2006 11:58 AM (8e/V4)

9 Well this might be splitting hairs... but do I think it was the will of god. Specifically Loki, the Norse god of mischief and the deity Libs call to when they pray for an American defeat.

Posted by: Gordon at January 06, 2006 12:56 PM (JwR1N)

10 Right. And Pat Robertson wasn't chosen to head up the RNC either.

Posted by: Oyster at January 06, 2006 02:15 PM (YudAC)

11 Pat Robertson is the head of the Republican National Committee?

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 06, 2006 03:21 PM (rUyw4)

12 I wonder what Robertson or Osama would have to say about the structural failure at Mecca which killed a bunch of hajjis?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 06, 2006 05:46 PM (0yYS2)

13 Ah! I'm with IM on this one.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 06, 2006 09:32 PM (ZsYgO)

14 JJ - You and I are having a communication breakdown, I think ;-) I was implying that the dems gleefully chose Dean as their spokesman and embrace all the looney comments he spews, yet scream about republicans by quoting the likes of Robertson. The difference is that we didn't choose Robertson to head up the RNC. Sorry. I'm expecting people to read my mind.

Posted by: Oyster at January 07, 2006 07:52 AM (YudAC)

15 Oyster, I got it. (only because I had to read your mind though)

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 07, 2006 09:37 AM (8e/V4)

16 Damn, Oyster, I get no sarcasm these days. I'm uptight and out of sight about this damn dry weather. Christian or no, you need to pray for some rain in Texas. It is bone dry.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 07, 2006 01:25 PM (rUyw4)

17 Pat Robertson had better spend all his time praying that he dies peacefully in his bed from no apparent cause. What's the saying? "Payback is Hell"

Posted by: Lokki at January 07, 2006 04:27 PM (qlgl+)

18 Yeah, I hope the weather gets damper, JJ. Maybe Filthy can sacrifice a goat or something for you. I'll say a prayer.

Posted by: Oyster at January 08, 2006 07:24 AM (YudAC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Clearing the Air, The War Is Not "Lost"

For almost a year now, I've maintained an irregular email correspondence with Sandy Shanks, an American who writes editorials for al-Jazeera. My first post about Shanks, questioning his motivation for collaborating with al-Jazeera, appeared only a couple of days after I started this blog. I've featured Shanks' columns in several posts in the months since.

It's become one of those relationships peculiar to the Internet era; people you've never laid eyes on, but feel that you "know". Not all of that correspondence has been "business"; we've exchanged recollections of personal histories and banter about sporting events. Sandy seems like the kind of guy I'd enjoy having a beer with.

But we all have those folks in our life who, though likable, have an embarrassing flaw or two. The friend who slurps his soup, or farts explosively in public. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 01:43 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 562 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Okay... So what does this guy think we were aiming at doing? Staying there forever? Turning Iraq into a U.S. colony? We haven't tried something like that since the Philipines, and look at the fine result we got there. My guess is that we'll maintain permanent military bases in Iraq, but that doesn't necessarily entail keeping the country under foot--take a look at Gitmo. I wonder if the Sunni preference for civilian targets should diqualify them as insurgents. The Viet Cong, if I recall correctly, learned rather quickly that civvies make better targets than Marines. The difference between the V.C. and the Sunnis doesn't appear to be their targets or their methods, but the quality of their operatives. The V.C. had a plan and used some cleverness in making it work, manipulating the press, intimidating collaborators, etc. The Sunnis seem more interested in just blowing stuff up for the glory of it.

Posted by: ShannonKW at January 05, 2006 04:07 PM (dT1MB)

2 Over and over, the left drones on that we must withdraw. Then, as we prepare to withdraw, they crow, "AHA! Proof that the war is a failure!" How can anyone take such children seriously?

Posted by: Mr. Snitch! at January 05, 2006 04:22 PM (2CNDQ)

3 A tomato/tomatoe argument - or who's on first ... Does it matter once you realize the motive is for both entertainment and ulterior purposes?

Posted by: hondo at January 05, 2006 04:26 PM (3aakz)

4 >>>Over and over, the left drones on that we must withdraw. Then, as we prepare to withdraw, they crow, "AHA! Proof that the war is a failure!" bwahaha! exactly. Liberalism is such a childish game.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 04:30 PM (8e/V4)

5 Liberalism is one form of a mental disorder that prevents people from accepting reality. I don't know what causes it, except that it seems to be predominant among right-brained people, i.e. creative types.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 05, 2006 10:01 PM (0yYS2)

6 IM: You've nailed it, it's those artsy-fartsy creative Hollywood types we gotta watch. Except for maybe Charlton Heston and Ron Silver. They're OK.

Posted by: Drew at January 05, 2006 10:59 PM (oxMjD)

7 Heston and Silver are more balanced, as is evinced by the fact that they don't end up on the pages of the National Enquirer. John Wayne's Hollywood is long dead, and the place is now inhabited almost solely by braindead morons. It's like one of those zombie movies, with the idiot liberals trying to eat everyone's brain while wearing their best Vera Wang.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 06, 2006 08:28 AM (0yYS2)

8 I like Silver, an unusual character in the role of conservative spokesman...supporter of gay rights, stem cell research, gun control and universal health, while being a past supporter of Reagan's missile defense and current terrorism efforts. Certainly pragmatic, he said once, "In the words of Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, 'I don't care if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.'"

Posted by: Drew at January 06, 2006 09:31 AM (UHKaK)

9 I'm going to take the editorial at it's word. The guy argues the US should stay as long as necessary with necessary force. So confusing him with advocates of withdrawal as some here do is idiotic and dishonest. I think the idea that there is a lot that can explode in Iraq and that we are the only ones that can keep a lid on it is fairly reasonable. Hopefully it's wrong and the withdrawal is the right course along with the pullback in Afghanistan and ending aid for both countries, but I think the issue is subject to debate. If it's a mistake a lot of sacrifice is for nothing. Or even worse, it was for making the world more unstable.

Posted by: randy at January 07, 2006 05:20 PM (9kZbq)

10 That is about the funniest thing I've read in a while! Thanks for this post, Jawa!

Posted by: Rudolph Carrera at January 07, 2006 11:17 PM (IuMdC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Idiot of the Year

Well, we haven't even gotten a full week into 2006 and the Idiot of the Year has already reared his ugly head. There may be bigger idiots as the year goes on, but I certainly don't see how at this point.

This idiot makes the ACLU look almost tame by comparison as he attempts to fell the entire Catholic Church in one fatal blow. Luigi Cascioli of Italy has decided to try and force the Italian court system to prove that Jesus never existed.

"I started this lawsuit because I wanted to deal the final blow against the Church, the bearer of obscurantism and regression," Cascioli told Reuters.

Cascioli says Righi, and by extension the whole Church, broke two Italian laws. The first is "Abuso di Credulita Popolare" (Abuse of Popular Belief) meant to protect people against being swindled or conned. The second crime, he says, is "Sostituzione di Persona", or impersonation.

"The Church constructed Christ upon the personality of John of Gamala," Cascioli claimed, referring to the 1st century Jew who fought against the Roman army.

Now, I'm no lawyer, but I seem to see a TON of loopholes here. First and foremost being that even a large number of athiests admit that Jesus was a real person. They don't necessarily attribute any diety to Him, but they do admit his existence. Heck, even Muslims go that far. It would seem to me that you're going to have an extraordinarily hard time convincing a judge of ANY stripe to conclusively rule that Jesus never existed.

Secondly, you're going to have just as hard a time trying to find a judge that will label the entire Catholic Church as a giant "pyramid scheme." That's just ludicrous to begin with. The public fallout of such a decision would be disasterous. Not to mention the political hornet's nest you'd open up.

Yes, I know there have been specific churches that have been called up on charges of fraud and other such activities. I have never denied that there are some corrupt pastors who use God to make money. But I'd think if you're going to target an entire religion, you might want to start with one that everyone (except Tom Cruise) recognizes as a scam. Even L. Ron Hubbard admitted that Scientology is nothing but a joke.

At least the Italian court is attempting to do the right thing. According to the story, the judge had tried several times to dismiss the case, but only ends up getting tangled up in appeals from the plaintiff. I'm fairly sure of the outcome of this idiot's case, but I'll have to follow the story closely anyway to make sure.

Posted by: Drew at 08:06 AM | Comments (65) | Add Comment
Post contains 453 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Hell, they've already made a movie which, I'm sure, will be praised by the Hollywood left as being worthy of some award or another.

Posted by: Oyster at January 05, 2006 08:22 AM (osKlJ)

2 I hope they didn't think they were going to gain credibility by associating themselves with the "Jesus Seminar." I thought they were debunked as loonies a LONG time ago.

Posted by: Drew at January 05, 2006 08:32 AM (Ml8z/)

3 Why dose that idiot judge think we clebrate christmas for? he needs a lightning bolt in his rear end

Posted by: sandpiper at January 05, 2006 08:34 AM (4pkrX)

4 Thanks for reminding me why I'm not a Leftwinger anymore.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 09:51 AM (8e/V4)

5 15 minutes.

Posted by: hondo at January 05, 2006 10:03 AM (3aakz)

6 If these people had any balls they would make a film about why Allah doesn't exist. They know they can pick on Christians, but I will guarantee you they won't take the Muslims on. As a matter of fact, I remember something about Muslims filing a criminal complaint against a writer in Italy who criticized Islam. Do Christians not have the same rights in the EU as Muslims?

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 05, 2006 10:29 AM (rUyw4)

7 Religion in general is losing in the EU (unless it involves crystals and chants). Islam has a temporary luxury - the Euros are scared of them. Terror does work with some people.

Posted by: hondo at January 05, 2006 10:47 AM (3aakz)

8 Yeah, let's see them make a movie about the life and whacky antics of Moooohammed. Sean Penn would make a good Mohammed.

Posted by: Oyster at January 05, 2006 10:56 AM (osKlJ)

9 >>>"the Euros are scared of them. Terror does work with some people." I read somewhere some Hollyweirdo pretty much admitting as much.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 11:04 AM (8e/V4)

10 >>>"the Euros are scared of them. Terror does work with some people." I read somewhere some Hollyweirdo pretty much admitting as much.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 11:04 AM (8e/V4)

11 Who cares what a silly little man in Italy does?

Posted by: greyrooster at January 05, 2006 11:11 AM (XioYD)

12 Ah crap, here we go again. Okay, let me, as somwhat of a scholar on religion generally, and Christianity specifically, state the following: There has never been a living person named Jesus Christ. This is not a name, but rather a title, conferred after the man, Yeshua bin Yusef, (Joshua, son of Joseph) had died and been made a legend many years after his death. Jesus is the Anglicized form of the Latin Iesu, pronounced ee-yeh-soo, (Latin had no hard j sound, but rather used the letter i instead, with a pronunciation more like a y), which itself was a form of the Greek Isus (ee-soos), which means the good, and can be demonstrated to be etymologically related to an archaic word for good, i-yah, which in context is interchangable with holy, and from which the name Yahweh is derived, which basically means he who is good. The ancient Hebrews called their god Yahweh, but since it was forbidden to speak this name, he was called El, which means in this context, he who is. The ancient Indo-Europeans had a god called Issus, who was a general purpose god and was called by the ancient Celts the good striker. The name Christ is a derivative of the Greek chrysos, which means gold, or golden, and which is itself derived from the Semitic word khrus. Incidentally, the name of the Egyptian goddess Isis is also related to the name Jesus by the same means. So, it is quite easy to prove that no person named Jesus Christ ever lived, but that doesn't really settle the issue of the legendary Jesus compared to the real Yeshua bin Yusef, who obviously lived and made quite an impression on the Pharisees and, unfortunately for him, the Romans too, who had no sense of humor regarding anyone calling themselves the king of anything, and especially not regarding someone who was rumored to claim that he was the son of a god, as the Emperor was the foremost deity in any territory controlled by the Romans, and suffered no rivals. The whole Jesus legend is taken from parts of other legends and traditions, such as divine lineage as practiced by the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians, and from other religions such as the cult of Mitra, who was coincidentally born in a stable on midwinter to human parents, though being of divine lineage himself. There is even anecdotal evidence that Yeshua may have been exposed to Zoroastrianism, Mitraism, Buddhism, and other religions during his "missing years", from the age of 12 until his reappearance at 33, shortly before his death. In conclusion, the truth has been lost for so long, and the legend has not grown less in the telling and down through the generations, but has rather been embellished by successive adherents to the faith, that not even all Christians can agree on specific details of the birth, life, death, or even divinity of Jesus, who was not even universally considered divine until the Council of Nicea, called by the Emperor Constantine to unify the faith so that he could control the faithful and consolidate his hold on a declining empire. So believe what you want to believe, because one legend is as valid as another, since none of them have anything more to do with reality than the others. As the prophets Bill and Ted said, "Be excellent to one another", and don't get bent out of shape over the details.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 05, 2006 01:30 PM (0yYS2)

13 Maximus, this little rant of yours can be made right with the sacrament of reconciliation (confession). But shit son, we got to get your but into Mass!

Posted by: Brad at January 05, 2006 02:02 PM (3OPZt)

14 C'mon Brad, you read it on the internet, it must be true, right?

Posted by: KG at January 05, 2006 03:07 PM (eRMCR)

15 <spelling flames are lame> athy, athier, athiest </spelling flames are lame>

Posted by: Ed Flinn at January 05, 2006 03:29 PM (RRq7w)

16 Maximus is the smartest man alive. You should listen to him.

Posted by: krut at January 05, 2006 03:36 PM (nN8V/)

17 Maximus doesn't realize that God had all this information as well, and, being so fond of literary allusion as to have included it in His Creation, instructed Gabriel to forward the name "Jesus" to Mary. (It is speculated that it may also be because the fifth level of Hell, which was designated for keyboard philosophers fond of popping out steamers like "So, it is quite easy to prove that no person named Jesus Christ ever lived", was looking a little underpopulated.)

Posted by: a4g at January 05, 2006 03:50 PM (cKUf6)

18 The name Jesus comes from the Greek Iesous, from the Hebrew Yeshua or Yesua, the word meaning "Yahweh is Salvation." The name was given to Mary via God the Father from the angel Gabriel and signifies the redemptive act of love, the salvation of man from sin through Jesus' sacrifice on the cross as part of the New covenant. The Greek word Christos means "annointed," from "chriein." It was used as a proper name after the death of death of Jesus, particulary in the writing of St. Paul )Phil. 1:1-2). Its use by St. Paul declared the apostles' belief and affirmation of the divinity if Jesus, wxplicit in Phil. 2:5-11. However, the word Kyrios in Greek is a translation of the Aramaic equivalent of "the prophesied king." Thus, Jesus fulfilled in His Incarnation the promise made to Abraham, as given in the geneology found in the first chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel. The fact that a Savior would one day be born was common knowledge in the Midle East and surrounding territories. There are references throughout the Old Testament. Thus, other and false religions were easily able to add some elements of truth to their ultimately made-up fantasies. Buddhism, etc., make no claims to their founders being divine. Christianity alone has the boldness (and authority) to make this claim. Pax to all.

Posted by: youngbourbonprofessional at January 05, 2006 04:38 PM (tdhAh)

19 Greetings YBP, and thanks for the informative comment. I'm too stupid to make an intelligent post on this subject, so I'm enjoying reading other's ideas. Gracias!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 05, 2006 04:47 PM (rUyw4)

20 [Oyster's brain explodes]

Posted by: Oyster at January 05, 2006 04:53 PM (YudAC)

21 L. Ron Hubbard never said anything about Scientology being a joke - and I doubt that a man would devote one half of his life, working 12-14 hour days for all that time, just for the sake of a "joke". Not everyone thinks that Scientology is a "scam". I've been a Scientologist for over 20 years and I'm quite happy and proud to be one. So is my wife. We have a great life, good income, two happy kids and we have a great relationship, and our practice of Scientology is no small part of this. Neither do the 8 million Scientologists worldwide think it a joke, nor do the Governors and Senators that have praised our volunteer efforts. The thousands of Katrina survivors we helped (www.volunteerministers.org), delivering food and water to them and helping them get to safety, don't think we're a joke either. In fact, the only people who think we're a joke are self-ascribed Internet pundits who've never as much as read one single Scientology book in their lifetime.

Posted by: Greg at January 05, 2006 04:58 PM (QVrUo)

22 ...And, before I get flamed for being off-topic (though my religion was part of the original post), let me contribute this: There's an excellent book called "In Search Of the Historical Jesus", and another called "Who Was Jesus" - both excellent references. In the first one, I read that archeology has gone as far as proving the existence of Pontius Pilates - but that the existence of Jesus himself is still not proven. Then there's the shroud of Turin - but many have doubted its authenticity. My two cents, should anyone care for change.

Posted by: Greg at January 05, 2006 05:02 PM (QVrUo)

23 [Oyster's brain explodes] Thereby disproving the Big Bang Theory. There has to be something to bang before you can have a big bang. You can't get something from nothing. Haha, now everyone can call me stupid, and frankly, I deserve it.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 05, 2006 05:06 PM (rUyw4)

24 (hondo's brain tunes out - good time to take down some of those Christmas lights)

Posted by: hondo at January 05, 2006 05:06 PM (3aakz)

25 HAHAHAHA! Why does it not surprise me that 'tinfoil' Greg practices a religion based on 'murdered space aliens' possessing the living? How's Xenu?

Posted by: dave at January 05, 2006 05:19 PM (CcXvt)

26 Greg has two kids? Crap! I have three kids, I wonder if there is a chance they will ever meet. Nah, my kids are rednecks!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 05, 2006 05:26 PM (rUyw4)

27 Hi Dave, What you're referring to is not Scientology practice, but the stolen documents of case research that Hubbard did in the 1960s. It's out--of-context distorted crap taken from transcripts of sessions exploring the possibility of past lives. Get over it. You don't learn about someone's religion by reading hate-sites.

Posted by: Greg at January 05, 2006 05:30 PM (QVrUo)

28 Jesusland Joe: Et tu Carlos???

Posted by: youngbourbonprofessional at January 05, 2006 05:33 PM (tdhAh)

29 You guys can believe what you want, but prophesied kings and deliverers are no less common than goats in the ME, and the Hebrews were no more or less afflicted with such prophesies than any other Semitic culture, they just happened to find a willing audience in the Romans to perpetuate their myths. The Romans were extrememly accepting of others' religions and myths, and readily incorporated them into their own, often combining names and aspects of mythological beings to create new ones, such as when they combined Egyptian, Zoroastrian, and Hebrew aspects and traditions in the myth of Jesus, who was no less a creation of Paul, et al. As I said before, the hard facts are long lost, and everyone who wishes to believe will find what they want, regardless of the truth, and personally, as long as people don't go around murdering and oppressing others in the name of myth they follow, I don't really care, just don't expect me to buy it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 05, 2006 05:34 PM (0yYS2)

30 Did the Scientologists tell you, to tell me that? How the hell would you know what I'm referring to you've not paid enough money to "achieve the level" of the super duper top secret OTIII religious instruction! What with their attempts to filter the internet results on members machines, and the "creator" being a science fiction writer, I think I'll take those documents at face value. XENU LIVES!

Posted by: dave at January 05, 2006 05:35 PM (CcXvt)

31 To Dave: 1) Take a deep breath, man. Relax. 2) I'm not sure what you mean by the "Scientologists" telling me that. I AM them. (They is me. I am it. Whatever.) 3) You're perpetuating a stupid Internet urban legend. You can walk into any Scientology organization and ask to buy a taped lecture called "Ron's Journal 1967" and you get to hear what you're referring to. Some of this stuff is also in the book "Have You Lived Before This Life?", and you can also find much of it in lectures and seminars of that period. It's research into the concept of past lives. It's not such a big deal. Someone's been screwing with your head, and you've bought into it hook, line and sinker. Incidentally, you don't achieve OT3 by paying - you achieve it through religious counseling, good deeds and dedicated introspection. But enough about that! Back to the topic. I'm glad someone brought up Mithraism into this. We're days away from "the day of the 3 Kings" (for hispanic catholics) - did any of you know that the "3 kings" were actually most likely Zoroastrian Magi, pursuing the birth of Mithras? The similarities between the Birth of Christ story and the Mithras legend are astounding.

Posted by: Greg at January 05, 2006 05:53 PM (QVrUo)

32 Hey, this is to all you folks. And sorry for my ignorance. But it seems I've walked into a room of "I hate Islam" club - is this correct? Anyway, my question is, how come you hate Islam? I know very little about Muslims, but when I volunteered in Indonesia this year (tsunami), I met a ton of really cool, decent muslims. Sure, I realize that some a&&ho1es have done some real nasty things in the name of Islam, but, hold on, haven't other a&&ho1es done bad things in the name of Christianity as well? It seems to me that it'd be better to be "anti-a&&ho1e" instead of anti one religion or the other.

Posted by: Greg at January 05, 2006 06:02 PM (QVrUo)

33 >>>You guys can believe what you want, but prophesied kings and deliverers are no less common than goats in the ME, LoL!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 06:32 PM (8e/V4)

34 >>>Jesusland Joe: Et tu Carlos??? esqueeze me?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 06:33 PM (8e/V4)

35 perhaps you and your fellow nutballs, could get together and sue (most likely) or educate all of the masses on wikipedia that have been duped by a "urban legend" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu Funny thing is, the discussion page is the only one on wikipedia I've ever seen that starts with: This is not a joke article. Check the references if you want verification. This is a genuine religious belief. " Despite your claim of it being an urban legend, it has been used as a source, and cited as being one of the best articles.

Posted by: dave at January 05, 2006 06:43 PM (CcXvt)

36 The entire collection of idiots on this board should collectively be given "IDIOT OF THE MILLENIUM AWARD".

Posted by: Norris at January 05, 2006 07:07 PM (wkSmR)

37 Norris, bug off. Nobody is forcing you to come here.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 05, 2006 07:58 PM (rUyw4)

38 JJ Gotta admit - a lotta people really got into this "Idiot Of The Year" topic!

Posted by: hondo at January 05, 2006 08:05 PM (3aakz)

39 The thing that gets me is how this is such a juicy topic, ripe with potential, yet so many idiots still manage to go completely off the damn map.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 05, 2006 09:57 PM (0yYS2)

40 It got a lot of traffic because it comes up in a search of google news on Luigi Cascioli. It would be nice if there was a possibility of critical discussion of the lack of evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus in the US. However, as you even see in this forum, such a topic brings up such a viseral negative reaction, and such cemented ignorance that it effectively closes the discussion down. People posit Muslims as the opposite of Christians, when they are a part of the same tradition. Do they disagree? Oh, with bloodshed! There's no conflict quite as bloody as internecine warfare. The fact that there may be a committed athiest somewhere convinced that there was an historical Jesus, only points to the pervasiveness of the frauds perpetrated by the church and the lack of real dialog on the subject. Not that it matters...

Posted by: durga bhakti at January 05, 2006 10:49 PM (NL2Cs)

41 A fellow attorney here in Houston wrote a book a few years ago entitled Faith on Trial, a superbly documented legal analysis...to show that almost every event surrounding the fundamental testimony of the Gospels can be verified today. Perhaps Pam can join the defense team in that silly Italian trial.

Posted by: Jason at January 05, 2006 11:01 PM (TwSjW)

42 Well Dave, I guess then you must know more than I do about my own religion. Funny thing, considering I've been a practicing Scientologist for twenty-two years, and all you know about it is what you've read on Wikipedia. Hmmm... (Another case of "I read it on the Net, it MUST be true!) Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -- Albert Einstein If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done. --Peter Ustinov I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance. --Socra+es (Can you *believe* the posting interface objected to my use of Socra+es as a word??)

Posted by: Greg at January 06, 2006 01:18 AM (QVrUo)

43 "Thereby disproving the Big Bang Theory. [...]" ??? WTF, JJ? I'll let that one slide, but I'm curious ... Who pissed in your cornflakes?

Posted by: Oyster at January 06, 2006 05:27 AM (YudAC)

44 durga must be reading a different koran than the one entitled "The Holy Koran", for that is the only way he can say that Christianity and Islam have anything in common. They are as different as night and day. Christianity is 600 years older than Islam. Its method of salvation is based on grace (i.e. it is the free gift of God to those who believe), while in Islam you have a set of proscribed duties (making the Hajj, praying five times a day, etc) and if those are accomplished then you might get into paradise, which is also completely different from the Christian idea of Heaven. Oh, and then there is that whole jihad thing. Jesus didn't spend his time massacring those who disagreed with him, nor did enjoin his followers to force others to convert by the sword. The Koran specifically states that muslims are to fight with the infidels until they are subdued (see Sura 9) or the infidels pay the tax.

Posted by: Tick Master at January 06, 2006 06:10 AM (aDhQM)

45 L. Ron Hubbard never said anything about Scientology being a joke - and I doubt that a man would devote one half of his life, working 12-14 hour days for all that time, just for the sake of a "joke". No, but all that cash, lavish attention, drugs, and nubile young girls might induce a dishonest man to run such a scam.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at January 06, 2006 07:34 AM (n5eDP)

46 Durga, Christianity was a new faith based on the teachings of a man who had travelled far and probably been influenced by Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, as well as his own native Judaism of course. Islam was begun by a man who had never travelled much, but who had been exposed to Judaism and Arab paganism, and who tried to make himself a prophet in the style of those in the OT. The only similarities between Christianity and Islam is that both try to be successors to Judaism, but neither really is because Judaism is still around and is distinct from both. The reason muslims hate Jews so much is because muslims want to take the Jews place as the "chosen people", a self-given appelation which means nothing, and has even been abandoned by all but the most orthodox of Jews and fundamentalist Christians. Christianity learned to accept the Jews only in this century, and given that islam is always behind the times, it may be another hundred years before muslims do too, but first, muslims have to stop hating themselves before they can stop hating others.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 06, 2006 08:38 AM (0yYS2)

47 Tick Master: Actually, I believe durga refers to Abraham's two sons Isaac and Ishmael. In Abraham's time, God told him that he would be the father of a great nation through his son. Of course at the time Abraham was in his 80s and he and his wife had never had children, so Abraham was a bit skeptical. Since his wife thoght she coudln't have kids, she arranged for Abraham to have a child with their maid. He was born and named Ishmael. 14 years later, Sarah (Abraham's wife) became pregnant and gave birth to Isaac. Since Ishmael was illegitimate, Abraham pushed him to the side and Isaac was proclaimed the rightful heir through which a great nation would appear. Long story short, Ishmael is the founder of the Muslim religion and Isaac is the father of the Jewish nation. I'm telling this off the top of my head, so if I've got any of my specifics twisted, please let me know, but that's the gist of it and a whole lot of the reason for the animosity between the Jews and Muslims. Or between the Muslims and everyone else.

Posted by: Drew at January 06, 2006 08:43 AM (Ml8z/)

48 Y'all wanna hear something crazy from me? Well, it will sound crazy, considering I'm an avoiwed atheist; I think the teachings of Jesus, (whether he was real or imaginary is irrelevant), are a damn good set of guideposts by which to live one's life. But, (You saw this coming, didn't you?), unfortunately, most people who call themselves Christians have about as much to do with the actual teachings of Jesus as does the average satanist. This isn't to say that there aren't some damn fine people among the Christians, because there are and plenty, but hypocrisy and ignorance are all too common among the flock, and they give the rest a bad name. I left Christianity, but I didn't forget the lessons taught me by people who truly believed in doing what was right by all, and not just on Sunday morning when they dress up and play pretend at being good people, but all the time. One of my most vivid memories from childhood comes from when I was no more than three or four years old, when I was sick and my dad's old '55 Chevy truck wouldn't start because the six volt electrical system wouldn't work in the cold. He called people from our church to find someone with a four wheel drive truck or jeep to get us down the snowy mountain roads, but none of them had time to help save a sick child in the middle of a freezing cold night, so he called an old drunk who was roundly despised by all the good god-fearing people of the community, and all the old man said was "I'll be right there." He drove us over fifty miles to the hospital and stayed with us until I was released, then drove us home, and wouldn't even accept gas money from my dad. It was about that time that our churchgoing dropped off sharply, and the good people of the community saw fit to look down their noses at us. The church can go to hell for all I care, and every Bible-thumping sonofabitch with it, because all the churches and Bibles in the world can't make someone be what they're not, they only let them pretend to be better than everyone else.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 06, 2006 10:09 AM (0yYS2)

49 Oyster, Sorry, what I meant to convey is that there has to be something to bang for there to be a "big bang theory". And since you obviously had a brain to begin with then there could be a bang. It was a bad joke, obviously. I apologize.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 06, 2006 10:18 AM (rUyw4)

50 And some people call this an echo chamber? If all of us got together for a few beers, a fight would break out before the 3rd round. BTW: I bought a copy of Dianetics just so I could throw it in the toilet this am. Do Scientologists issue FatwaÂ’s?

Posted by: Brad at January 06, 2006 10:30 AM (6mUkl)

51 What I meant was that, mistaken about each other or not, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all a part of what is properly identified as Abramic monotheism. Each lays claim to following the true directives of the God of Abraham. Islam claims Jesus as a prophet and his mother Mary as a sacred figure. Durga is the name of a Hindu Warrior Deity. I am outside of this system we are discussing. But as I pointed out, the harshest, bloodiest conflicts are internecine, between brothers. I personally think that this is because it takes so much energy to de-humanize and internally alienate people who are so very very like you. I friend of mine was brought up in a Jewish family, but later studied Arabic, and confessed to me that the languages were far more alike than they were different. These are brothers who are hating and killing each other century after century. It is horrifying to watch. Durga Bhakti

Posted by: durga bhakti at January 06, 2006 11:19 AM (P1NKh)

52 Regardless of the fact that there have been so many wars fought over religious beliefs, they all boil down to social engineering and control. And there are other secular social engineering experiments which have proven to be far more deadly to those subjected to them. Honestly, as far as I can see in this day and age though, Islamic fundamentalism has proven to be the most dangerous to human rights, equality and individualism among the religious ones. And I'm not talking about what's written in the books, but what is actually widely accepted and practiced. Hearing about a Christian man gouging his wife's eye out for dishonoring him is an aberration. Hearing about a Muslim man doing it is daily news. Any religion or ideology that mandates certain behavior in everything from which hand to wipe your ass with to what size stick is proper to beat one's wife with under threat of any manner of repercussion is bad news. Any deviation does not necessarily just get one sent back to re-education camps or "Koran school". Depending on the infraction, one can easily get permanent disfiguration or death. Justice is arbitrary, inconsistant and often the punishment no where near fits the "crime". No matter what the Koran says, these are behaviors we regularly observe from followers of Islam. Islam's God is not even remotely like Christianity's God, nor anything like the Creator mentioned by our own forefathers. Nor is Mohammed even close to Jesus (I don't care who really existed or not). Mohammed had sex with a 9 year old and no one blinks an eye. Dan Brown writes a book that Jesus might have been married to a full grown woman and everyone screams about the hypocrisy of the Christians. Give me a break. Finding similarities between the religions is just a silly game and an exercize in moral relativism. When there are differences so vast in the practices, it kind of negates those minor likenesses or what derived from what. [/rant] Sorry. I get angry sometimes.

Posted by: Oyster at January 06, 2006 12:22 PM (YudAC)

53 Damn good rant, Oyster!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 06, 2006 03:24 PM (rUyw4)

54 Damn Oyster, I like it when you get riled up. Durga did make a couple of valid points though, just don't read too much into them.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 06, 2006 05:48 PM (0yYS2)

55 Greg: You are a dumb shit. So's your wife for believing you.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 06, 2006 09:39 PM (ZsYgO)

56 To greyrooster: Thanks for that constructive criticism. It's nice to know there's people like you in the world, making everyone's day a little brighter.

Posted by: Greg at January 07, 2006 12:05 AM (QVrUo)

57 To Robert Crawford: No, but all that cash, lavish attention, drugs, and nubile young girls might induce a dishonest man to run such a scam. Robert, while it's interesting in some way to disagree with things that don't exist and never happened, it would be much more useful to discuss things related to reality. You might be referring to Mick Jagger's life, but not to Hubbard's. http://www.lrh.org

Posted by: Greg at January 07, 2006 12:10 AM (QVrUo)

58 Interesting! the Bacofoil king, and the master of the loony tune website URL, criticized me for believing something I read on the Internet. If you know "so much more" about your faith Greg, why don't you go and correct them, instead of letting them propagate "urban legends" as you call it? you do realize anyone can edit a article at wikipedia? you might hit a snag: they require sources for reputing/verifying facts. I'm guessing you can't refute the Xenu/Xemu/whatever article.

Posted by: dave at January 07, 2006 12:18 AM (CcXvt)

59 Hey Greg, don't let them get you down, they're only ignorant unbelievers. The head of cabbage in my refrigerator tells me so.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 07, 2006 09:27 AM (0yYS2)

60 Greg... After you pay around $400,000, you will learn that all these engrams you have been working on these last decades are actually body thetans (space alien spirits clustering to you): it's a higher knowledge level where you learn what really engrams are. Many former scientologists that have reached OT3 and beyond confirm this. The unfortunate things, it seems there is no end to get rid of all these body thetans, you will have to go through auditing until you run out of money, or you die, or you wake up to the scam. Many have woken up, they feel freer than ever nowayds. Of course, you "church" won't tell you that, you bring in the dough. Conveniently for the "church", we are just suppressive, so you will discard this information we bring to you, and keep on feeding this sinister organization. I suggest you read www.xenu.net, but cognitive dissonance being what it is, it is unlikely you will accept that you gave 20 years of your life into an organization consider the following a religious scipture: "If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace." L. Ron Hubbard (only one out of so many sinister policies)...

Posted by: Ray at January 07, 2006 10:06 AM (ZCLuk)

61 Well, now, isn't this coming back around to the point? And it's so easy for it to spread out like a wildfire. But back to the point... People will believe what it best suits them to believe. Some beliefs, in spite of how fantastical they seem to others, work very well for a great number of their followers. I see no problem with that. We seem to get into trouble with each other when each one insists that they have the single monopoly on the truth and the others better catch on quick or either face the consequences of the unseen divine, or better yet the wrath of the true believers. Oyster said "Any religion or ideology that mandates certain behavior in everything..." which reminded me of something I find problematic, fundamentalism, the insistence on a single literal interpretation of a text. The question of "historical accuracy" feeds right back into this debate. There are certain believers that use historical accuracy hand in hand with fundamentalism to insist on a single truth... for everyone. One god, one text, one way. I think at some point someone is bound to say "Prove it" and then we get back to the news story that has sparked this debate. When I read Ray's post to Greg, it seems very similar to Luigi Cascioli's perspective on the Catholic Church.

Posted by: durga bhakti at January 07, 2006 10:39 AM (tNPSF)

62 Hubbard: "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion." http://www.whyaretheydead.net/krasel/aff_sm_930414.pdf Ps. Xenu is realy a part of Scientology, otherwise scientology would't have raided indivuduals and my ISP, nor dragged to court 24 defendants in one swoom in The Netherlands for supposed copyright violation. They lost, but it took ten years and a huge bag of money. If you want to quick guide to the alien Scientology beliefs then watch South Park. Scroll down here http://www.xenu.net/news/ Mike

Posted by: Mike Gormez at January 07, 2006 07:02 PM (9c/DO)

63 Hubbard didn't say that, Orson Welles did. Court affidavits say so. You guys can believe whatever you want. But I find it kinda stupid that you'd believe Internet rumors over the word of an actual, practicing Scientologist who's been in Scientology for over two decades. And, Hi Mike Gormez, why don't you tell the group who you really are, and all the lawsuits you've been involved in? To the rest of you, like I said before - you're being fed a bunch of bs by anti-Scientologists like this Mike Gormez here (who's devoted much of his free time to attacking my religion on the Net). Some day, you may want to actually learn for yourselves what Scientology is really about. In the meantime, feel free to hang on to your alien stories if they amuse you.

Posted by: Greg at January 09, 2006 10:00 AM (QVrUo)

64 Greg, I'll believe the cabbage in my fridge any day over a brainwashed religious cult fanatic, whether you, or Osama, or the Pope, because cabbages don't lie and they're useful for something, unlike religious fanatics who are dangerous and should all be exiled to anthrax island or some such place.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 09, 2006 10:37 AM (0yYS2)

65 Hi Improbus, I can empathize with your logic - but it has a couple of holes. First of all, you may find that the people that you dub "religious fanatics" are not any more so than you. Challenge your assumptions. I happen to follow a philosophy which helps me deal with the problems of everyday life, and (I hope) makes me a better person. This philosophy is what took me to volunteer for three weeks in Indonesia in January, and for another three weeks in July in Mississippi - at my own expense. This philosophy does not teach me to hate, does not advocate any of my fellow human beings "exiled to anthrax island" or any such thing. Scientology appeals to me because it encourages introspection and allows -encourages- people to think for themselves. (Sure, that's not what you hear in the Media, but Hello? the Media twists things.) I don't think it's fair to compare any Scientologist to Osama. On the 20th of September of 2001 I, along with 800 other Scientology volunteers, was on a plane to New York to pitch in. We helped the firefighters and the relief workers for days at a time right in Ground Zero, and were commended by Giulianni's office for it. So I believe the Osama reference is a bit out of place. Look, all I'm asking you is to realize that I'm not here telling you that you should believe as I do, nor am I here to convince you of anything other than this: Allow for the possibility that the bullshit you read about Scientology on the Internet and the National Enquirer MAY not be the absolute truth. Peace. Greg www.liveandgrow.org PS: Ask the cabbage in your fridge, it may agree with me. :-)

Posted by: Greg at January 09, 2006 11:56 PM (QVrUo)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Once Again, Should We Be Surprised?

AP via Fox News

But a radical Palestinian leader in Damascus, the Syrian capital, called Sharon's health crisis a gift from God. We say it frankly that God is great and is able to exact revenge on this butcher. ... We thank God for this gift he presented to us on this new year," Ahmed Jibril, leader of the Syrian-backed faction Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, a small radical group, told the Associated Press.

Dear Mr. Ahmed Jibril,

One elderly man has an all too common elderly man stroke.

Tens of thousands of your fellow Muslims have tragically perished recently in earthquakes and tsumanis.

Just who is God taking revenge on here?

I'm sorry if that seems harsh, I realize you only speak for a "small band of radicals" but really, I fear you've lost sight of the bigger picture.

I would never be so arrogant as to think that I know the mind of God, but based on the evidence He provides, I would be willing to hazard a guess that He may not be too happy with your particular brand of monotheism at this point in history.

Sincerely,

Vinnie

p.s. watch out for that IDF Hellfire Miss.......damn, too late.

Posted by: Vinnie at 12:42 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

1 It's a mean thing to say but, Those people in West Virginia were thanking God that He let everyone live, right up until they found out that He didn't. Then they forgot all about God and started yelling at a corporation. Christians and Muslims have this in common: When fortune smiles on them, they say it is the work of God. When things go badly, they say it is the work of bad men.

Posted by: ShannonKW at January 05, 2006 04:21 AM (dT1MB)

2 In this case, Shannon, I have to agree. However, had they lived, the anger at the company would only have been deflected for a short time. I'm not convinced God has anything to do with any of this. Mother Nature, on the other hand ....

Posted by: Oyster at January 05, 2006 05:30 AM (YudAC)

3 That quote is from Syria? Shoot, I thought it was from U.C. Berkeley's Daily Californian. Oh right, sorry. The God reference would never fly there. Nevermind.

Posted by: Gordon at January 05, 2006 05:52 AM (i0N3d)

4 Equating a known terrorist with the families of WVa coal miners. Yup, I'd say that was pretty mean.

Posted by: Vinnie at January 05, 2006 07:12 AM (Kr6/f)

5 If Sharon dies, at least it would have been from an unavoidable, sudden illness. As opposed to that other guy who most likely died from complications due to numerous Brokeback Gaza encounters.

Posted by: Graeme at January 05, 2006 07:48 AM (bwywQ)

6 I keep up with a lot of things but I must admit that I'm not really knowledgeable about Israeli politics, but I was under the impression that Sharon is/was considered more of a liberal (by their standards) and someone like Netanyahu is considered more to the right. Am I wrong about that? If not, I would think the Palestinian thugs would rather have Sharon in power. It was under Sharon's watch that Israel left Palestinian settlements. The last I kept up with these things, Netanyahu was still a powerful person in Israel and could easily regain control. I seem to remember that his position was more toward pushing everyone of them into the sea. Be careful what you ask for. Of course, that was many hours of sleep and several beers ago, so I could be wrong.

Posted by: slug at January 05, 2006 09:51 AM (wcNc2)

7 I wonder what they consider the death of Yassir Arafat...

Posted by: mychimo at January 05, 2006 10:06 AM (+xZR1)

8 Mychimo, Uh, murder. Most claim that the Jews somehow poisoned Arafat. Some of them even claimed that harmful rays from Jewish women's hair killed him. I'm not kidding, that is how backward these people are, and everyone wants to give them a country. Unbelievable!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 05, 2006 10:35 AM (rUyw4)

9 Yep! God did it. Knew it all the time. He also did Katrina and the flood in Indonesia. Whoa wait. Indonesia worships the camel jockey? Earthquakes in Pakistan? Probably not god. Must be Bush.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 05, 2006 11:16 AM (XioYD)

10 He wasn't being mean Vinnie, just pointing out the duplicitous nature of people, and he was right.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 05, 2006 01:32 PM (0yYS2)

11 After seeing photographs of Palastinian people rejoicing at his stroke, including the banners "Sharoon go to hell" I hope his replacement is someone that does not concede anymore land, and ratchets up the reprisals in return for Palastinian terrorist attacks.

Posted by: dave at January 05, 2006 02:22 PM (CcXvt)

12 I hope the next Israeli PM accidentally orders the carpet bombing of about half a dozen paleostinian hives.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 05, 2006 05:35 PM (0yYS2)

13 >>>But a radical Palestinian leader in Damascus, the Syrian capital, called Sharon's health crisis a gift from God. Proving once again that these assorted paleos, arabs, and muslims have zero class. Yes, everyone wanted Arafat dead when he caught the AIDS, for instance, but did any of our leaders go around holding press conferences to say it? Class vs no class.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 06:39 PM (8e/V4)

14 You know I had been kinda hoping with Sharon pulling out of the Gaza and the Westbank. The Palestinians would get their act together and build a peaceful society. Not a chance as soon as Sharon dies their going to start lobbing mortars from the Westbank. This is going to end bad for the Palestinians. Watched PBS last night One God three religion thingy. I started to try to understand them a little more. Then of course they pull this crap today. Frankly the Isrealis are going to run out of patience and Palestine will just be one big smear that will wash away in the next rain.

Posted by: Jeff Cosford at January 05, 2006 08:53 PM (PsShO)

15 Pat Robertson thinks God struck Sharon for not keeping the territory intact. Palestinians are just as thankful about Sharon's condition as the Israelis were about Arafat's condition. Perhaps it's just human nature to hate your enemy so much that you rejoice when tragedy strikes.

Posted by: Dale at January 05, 2006 09:26 PM (Dujiz)

16 Dale, yes, but we expect our leaders to show a little class. The president of Iran is practically dancing a jig he's so happy. No class.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 09:40 PM (8e/V4)

17 P.S.S If GOD gives Israel to Benji, YOU will be pushed into the ocean. End of that "State" you have been seeking. Straighten up now and become civilized, Palestine. Leave Israel alone.

Posted by: Newc at January 05, 2006 10:19 PM (d5V18)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Fired NSA Analyst Offers To Testify To Congress

From the Washington Times via The Drudge Report:

A former National Security Agency official wants to tell Congress about electronic intelligence programs that he asserts were carried out illegally by the NSA and the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Russ Tice, a whistleblower who was dismissed from the NSA last year, stated in letters to the House and Senate intelligence committees that he is prepared to testify about highly classified Special Access Programs, or SAPs, that were improperly carried out by both the NSA and the DIA.

Tice was fired in May, 2005. He reportedly suspected that a co-worker was a Chinese spy. When Tice reiterated his suspicions two years after the initial investigation, his security clearance was pulled following a psychiatric evaluation.

Tice reportedly sent letters to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees in mid-December.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:22 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

1 No... no chip on the shoulder there.

Posted by: Russ at January 05, 2006 12:51 AM (utsLN)

2 There probably is... but the Chinese spy thing... that makes me not want to dismiss him so readily. But that's just me.

Posted by: Ariya at January 05, 2006 12:55 AM (uxW3N)

3 Hm, this is something I mentioned a while back, I think. I did some cursory looking into it, and couldn't find anything to suggest he was off his rocker. What I do know is there's a documented pattern of retaliation of this type against national security whistleblowers such as Tice, and under current law, they have virtually no recourse. Congress is set to hold hearings on the topic sometime this month. I'll have to look up exactly when...

Posted by: IO ERROR at January 05, 2006 02:42 AM (FVbj6)

4 Our plan is to pretend to like the Chinese while we make money off of them. Their plan is to pretend to like the U.S. while they make money off of us. I hope our plan works before their plan does.

Posted by: ShannonKW at January 05, 2006 04:05 AM (dT1MB)

5 I wouldn't be a bit surprised if we still had some questionable Chinese in sensitive positions, given the proclivity the Clinton Admin had for fraternizing with the Chinese throughout the entire second half of the 90's. Some were bound to fall through the cracks. And the CIA and NSA (and a few other acronyms) still have many devout Clintonites willing to protect his reputation by dismissing any accusations about Chinese spies. Hell, Janet Reno was busier than a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs deflecting attention and stopping investigations into many Chinese nationals who were granted very sensitive positions. I won't speak to the legalities of the NSA wiretapping because I'm not well versed in that law, but this Chinese spy accusation wouldn't surprise me in the least. As a matter of fact, I think the deep sixing of Able Danger had something to do with the Chinese too even though all the attention is on its finding of al Qaeda cells. [/conspiracy theorizing]

Posted by: Oyster at January 05, 2006 05:55 AM (YudAC)

6 Pulling someone's security clearance is a career-ending move, and as stated it seems a bit overblown. I suppose that depends on what his exact behavior happened to be. (The Chinese spy is communicating with her handlers by virtue of a foil hat and an implanted HRF chip in her brain, etc.) Everything lies in the details. Besides, because of the nature of the work NSA is bound to include a number of "marginal personalities." That's the tradeoff you make. But there ought to be some sort of probationary situation where a person may lose their clearance until the circumstances are cleared up. Knowing what I know about how these bureaucracies operate it's fairly easy to believe that they might be unfair and oppressive, as well as ineffective. They're bound to be full of people with grievances.

Posted by: Demosophist at January 05, 2006 08:58 AM (trrfW)

7 Unless his "information" also includes why he believed a co-worker was a Chinese spy, then .. what? Interesting accusation (baggage) isn't it? Anyone here even been familiar with co-workers making accusations against fellow co-workers on any hosts of subjects? And you give credibility immediately becasue - why?

Posted by: hondo at January 05, 2006 10:18 AM (3aakz)

8 I've been there on this one - I've worked with a fellow employee who had a re-occuring habit of making accusations against fellow employees. Including "he's a Chinese spy - she's really a lesbian - he got promoted 'cause he's white - he's a muslim and you know about them - I could easily go on. I'll wait.

Posted by: hondo at January 05, 2006 10:26 AM (3aakz)

9 Ah shit! He might me right. Play the odds.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 06, 2006 09:42 PM (ZsYgO)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 04, 2006

Cocktails in Space

The Russians want to make liquor available to the crew of the International Space Station.

"They fly in orbit for half a year and perform a heavy workload, especially during exhausting space walks when they shed several kilos in weight over a few hours," said a source in the Russian medical support teams for the manned space program. "Many people think a small ration of alcohol would help restore their strength."

Why not? It always helps me. In fact, I remember one time years ago that I had my strength restored to the point where I was strong enough to lift a car. Boy, it's a good thing someone stopped me because I might have accidently dropped it.

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 11:56 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

See Vinnie Post, See Vinnie Run, Run Vinnie Run!

Hook 'em Horns!

UPDATE:

Hooked!

Two observations:

This sets USC up for even greater humiliation Sept. 16th, 2006.

In two-three years, no one will remember the names Reggie Bush, Matt Leinart, and Vince Young. It's the Heisman Curse (anyone outside of Nebraska remember Eric Crouch?).

That's it for my football blogging. My favorite pro team isn't even in the playoffs.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled mayhem.

Posted by: Vinnie at 08:25 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

1 hey Shackelford, get this cow off your page

Fight On Trojans!

Posted by: caltechgirl at January 04, 2006 08:33 PM (uI/79)

2 Hey, it's just a Big 12 thing. I'll be happy to go back hating Texas when the game's over.

Posted by: Vinnie at January 04, 2006 08:50 PM (Kr6/f)

3 Am I the only one who finds it amusing that the Longhorns are playing the Trojans?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 04, 2006 09:17 PM (RHG+K)

4 No, Bluto, I'm laughing my ass off too. And even though I am from Texas, I went to school at the University of Arkansas, so, I still want Texas to win. Haha! WhooooPigggssSooieeeee!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 04, 2006 09:21 PM (rUyw4)

5 I must have missed something - is this a Forrest Gump thing like ... RUN VINNIE RUN

Posted by: hondo at January 04, 2006 09:31 PM (3aakz)

6 hondo, when Rusty sees one of his contributors rooting against USC, my name may as well be Forrest Gump. Actually, it'll be more like Forrest Gimp.

Posted by: Vinnie at January 04, 2006 09:54 PM (Kr6/f)

7 Hey, Vince can avoid the Heisman Curse. Go in the draft, after all He never won it; therefore no Curse. Now ducking Longhorn curses!!!!

Posted by: jmiked at January 05, 2006 02:37 AM (FYsfk)

8 USC wins stupidity award....Reggie Bush's idiotic lateral cost them points in the 1st quarter, not kicking the field goal in the first quarter because of miscommunication from the bench cost them three points, and more than anything...Pete Carroll- are you on crack? 2nd down and 7..less than 3 minutes to go and up five- incomplete pass stops the clock and leaves team in 3rd and long! Dummy! CLOCK MANAGEMENT! and then, two plays later, you punt you jackass!!!! never go for it at midfield, particularly when a TD can beat you and your defense SUCKS!

Posted by: Steve Sharon at January 05, 2006 05:11 AM (S1ta7)

9 Don't forget the most brilliant coach of our time [at least according to the hype] also called his last time out on a meaningless 2 point conversion trailing by 1 with 26 seconds left on the clock; thus costing his team at least one additional play to attempt to tie or win. Frankly, Texas played like crap for most of the game and couldn't get out of their own way, but won anyway because of three factors: 1. PRIDE. Young picked up the team, put it on his shoulders and carried them to victory, but not without the Texas defense [finally] asserting itself in the last 5 minutes. 2. TALENT. Texas just had more of it, especially defensively. and 3. STUPIDITY: Did Pete Carol watch ANY film on Texas? His defensive game plan took away Jamal Charles and Seldon Young and forced the ball into the hands of Vince Young. How dumb is that? Mac Brown, on the other hand, correctly decided to take away Reggie Bush and force Matt Leinart to win or lose the game. Hook'em Horns!!!

Posted by: Charlie at January 05, 2006 08:37 AM (2ZhL/)

10 (Unbiased opinion as a non-fan of either team) Re: Pete Carroll/USC hype Remember Pete was an NFL coach who couldn't make it due to, among other things, clock mismanagement, bad game plans, etc. So this is really no surprise. He has been talked about as getting another chance in the NFL but I think he's just a good college coach who has been blessed with good talent. USC spent much of the season pulling victories out of a hat in the 4th quarter against weaker teams. I'm not saying that they didn't deserve to be in the game because they did win when they had to but most of #3 - #10+ were pretty weak compared to other years. Even at 11-1, I think Penn State is one of the weaker #3 teams in a long time. It took them 3 OTs to beat the #23 team. I think Ohio State should have finished at #3. Penn State reminds me of 'that' team every year that comes from out of nowhere for one season and then slinks back to reality the following year. Even though he'll probably be the #1 pick, it appears that Reggie Bush might be human after all and his value may have dropped just a little. I have a buddy with season tickets to the Texans and go to a few games with him and Reggie won't have a good OL as it stands right now and will be going up against pro defenses that are designed to stop the run first. I do think he'll be a good player eventually but don't think he'll be an impact player without someone to block. I also heard hype last night about USC's defense 'possibily being the best ever' and how they might be able to beat a few NFL teams. Uh, yeah. I will say one good thing about Pete Carroll since it was mentioned that he didn't have a game plan for Young. I don't think any college defense can shut him down for long so it looks like Carroll was hoping to shut down his main targets and cross his fingers that the line could contain him. That's the problem with a QB who is as good a running back as a QB and the reason a lot of pro teams are going that direction - because the QB doesn't usually have a man assigned directly to him unless it's a blitz. Again, (mostly) unbiased but I haven't bought into all the hype for USC for most of the year and got real sick of it. Now I can go back to hating UT.

Posted by: slug at January 05, 2006 11:15 AM (wcNc2)

11 Eric Crouch is just the tip of that iceberg. Jason White - 2003 Chris Weinke - 2000 Danny Wuerffel - 1996 Rashaan Salaam - 1994 Charlie Ward - 1993 Gino Torretta - 1992 Andre Ware - 1989 And that's just the last 20 years. Just shows that you can be an average athlete and still put up huge numbers in college.

Posted by: Mark at January 05, 2006 01:25 PM (ga+7P)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Ancient Global Warming Discovered

From Breitbart.com via The Drudge Report:

An extraordinary burst of global warming that occurred around 55 million years ago dramatically reversed Earth's pattern of ocean currents, a finding that strengthens modern-day concern about climate change, a study says.
The big event, the Palaeocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), saw the planet's surface temperature rise by between five and eight degrees C (nine and 16.2 F) in a very short time, unleashing climate shifts that endured tens of thousands of years.

But wait. Mankind was certainly not around 55 million years ago, and as we know from environmental activists, only evil, greedy capitalists cause global warming.

What unleashed the PETM is unclear. Most fingers of blame point to volcanic eruptions that disgorged gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, or coastal reservoirs of methane gas, sealed by icy soil, that were breached by warmer temperatures or receding seas.

You know, I could have sworn that Rush Limbaugh was excoriated as a Neanderthal for suggesting that volcanoes could cause global warming.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto .

Posted by: Bluto at 07:22 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

1 You mean that dinosaurs and palm trees living in Antarctica, and glaciers in Ohio had nothing to do with my pickup truck? Damn, imagine that.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 04, 2006 07:31 PM (0yYS2)

2 Mars could be undergoing major global warming http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1660 Looks like those SUVs aren't just warming the earth-- they're warming the whole solar system!!!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 04, 2006 09:10 PM (8e/V4)

3 Damn, I better go shut that engine off on my truck. Well, I was watching the game and forgot about it. Piss on Mars!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 04, 2006 09:24 PM (rUyw4)

4 I've got gas heat n' so far this winter its been quite mild here in NY - 52 today - no need for heat! so JJ - turn that engine back on - please!

Posted by: hondo at January 04, 2006 10:19 PM (3aakz)

5 A meteor, perhaps?

Posted by: Guess at January 05, 2006 05:39 AM (lGolT)

6 OR that huuuuge volcano under Yellowstone, that is scheduled to blow up again within the next 500 years.

Posted by: No need to say at January 05, 2006 05:42 AM (lGolT)

7 Or the Sun's output. Someone turn that damn Sun off!

Posted by: Oyster at January 05, 2006 05:58 AM (YudAC)

8 And they did,nt have factories or SUVs back then it was cuased by volcanos and burping dinosuars and perhapes some dino fetulence as well eeeuuwww the dipldocus just cut one

Posted by: sandpiper at January 05, 2006 08:43 AM (4pkrX)

9 Of course, there weren't billions of people living along coastal areas 55 million years ago, either. Hence, the concern now. Unless, of course, you're willing to billet some of these people out of the goodness of your heart.

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 09:15 AM (dbxVM)

10 Venom, the point is not a lack of "concern" about all those people on the coasts. We all know they're up shit creek. The point is WHAT is causing global warming. Is it the evil corprayshuns or is it a natural cycle. Warming on Mars would suggest the latter.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 09:49 AM (8e/V4)

11 I'll billet a few of them coasties if they got the money, but I didn't take 'em to raise. Last time I checked(this AM) land was available here in Texas, and there's still plenty of room. Except for liberals. We don't need or want any more liberals down here.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 05, 2006 10:18 AM (rUyw4)

12 Well, Mars is a little different from Earth...but that's neither here nor there. Besides, who cares if volcanos contribute to global warming? They're beyond the scope of humanity's control. The fact is that emissions caused by corporations, cars, etc. can be controled and/or dealt with. Since they contribute to global warming (notice I didn't say "are the main cause of"), why not try to reduce them?

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 10:21 AM (dbxVM)

13 THE END IS NEAR - REPENT NOW! Sorry, not interested - but you are absolutely free to live in a grass hut and make your own butter.

Posted by: hondo at January 05, 2006 10:31 AM (3aakz)

14 >>>Well, Mars is a little different from Earth...but that's neither here nor there. Actually that statement is neither here nor there given that the warming on Mars suggests that our own warming isn't "global", but SOLAR. And switching to hybrids and shutting down the corprayshuns isn't going to change that. As far as reducing emissions, I'm sure that's a worthy cause (I guess), but not if other polluters don't also participate. I don't think whitey should be penalized, while China and India, and all the 3rd worlders get a pass. Eff that.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 11:12 AM (8e/V4)

15 Vote for Rush.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 05, 2006 11:19 AM (XioYD)

16 You miss the point, Carlos. Who gives a shit if it's warming on Mars? Do Volcanos contribute to global warming here on Earth? Sure. Do emissions from factories, cars, etc. contribute to global warming, too? Yes. Can something be done about volcanos erupting? No. Can something be done about the latter? Yes. Soooo....maybe, um, reducing emissions could have a positive impact for you and I? It's not really that kwazy an idea. Oh, and sure, China and India contribute a lot of greenhouse gasses. But I don't see why the West can't continue to reduce said emissions even if other countries won't. Unless, of course, you don't consider the West to be better than third-world countries. Besides, they're in the middle of their Industrial Revolution, so they're not going to stop. That doesn't mean the West should hold off on further reductions until they're ready.

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 11:49 AM (dbxVM)

17 >>>"Yes. Soooo....maybe, um, reducing emissions could have a positive impact for you and I? It's not really that kwazy an idea. You're going to have to do better than "maybe" if you intend on putting people out of jobs and getting folks's homes foreclosed when you slow down our economies because of "maybe". Maybe "maybe" just aint gonna cut it.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 12:55 PM (8e/V4)

18 >>>But I don't see why the West can't continue to reduce said emissions even if other countries won't. Venom, you're a perfect example of why I think Liberalism is so idiotic. If other countries don't reduce-- especially China and India-- then it won't make a difference whether we reduce. It just becomes a Liberal exercise in feel-good and self-loathing. If you REALLY cared about global warming you Libs would INSIST that China and India, and all the little brown people's of the world sign onto Kyoto. But you don't. It's all targeted at the West. And what does this prove? That Kyoto is more about self-loathing and Liberal notions of "fairness" than it is about global warming. And in the meantime, Solar warming progresses and China's and India's billions pump out more pollution in one year than the West would in 10, but Libs FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES!!! YIIIPEEE! Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 01:09 PM (8e/V4)

19 Went the "solutions" to a "problem" happen to be identical to the same "solutions" they have been advocating for "other problems" for the past many decades - one wonders. The lib/left's position - we need to change the socio-industrial-economic-political structures because .....

Posted by: hondo at January 05, 2006 01:26 PM (3aakz)

20 REPENT! (er, change - less it sounds like some new kind of religion) THE END IS NEAR! CONFESS YOUR SINS! (er, crimes - same problem) Don't you all just love all the religious analogies found in the Evironmental movement. quite apocalyptic - isn't it?

Posted by: hondo at January 05, 2006 01:33 PM (3aakz)

21 Once again, Venom takes a swing and misses completely. Of course, it's hard to hit a ball coming over the plate when you're in the parking lot.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 05, 2006 01:34 PM (0yYS2)

22 IM, everyday the evidence mounts-- Liberalism is a mental disorder. It's a scourge upon Western civilization. A civilizational AIDS virus.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 01:42 PM (8e/V4)

23 Carlos, are these the same jobs that have already gone to China and India? I mean, most true American companies have abandoned their patriotism to secure higher profits in those countries already. Especially those manufacturing jobs that can take advantage of the lower emission standards in those countries you already stated. Please, don't play the job card. It's already been done. And Carlos, appreciating the environment isn't liberalism. I'm a Conservative. Maybe not of the douchebag variety you've succumbed to, but a conservative nonetheless. Oh right, anyone who doesn't think like you is a raving lib. Gimme a break. It's dumbasses like you who continue to marginalize middle-of-the-road conservatives that are going to get the Dems back in power. Oh, and I'd really like to see your science that says that the West reducing emissions would have no measureable impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. Or, is it that you're talking out of your ass again? Ah, thought so. Sure, India and China spout more, but you don't seem to get it that we're all on this planet together and that any kind of progress is GOOD PROGRESS. Get India and China to sign on to Kyoto? Who gives a fuck. Why doesn't the U.S. sign it outright? Oh yeah, that "jobs" thang. The ones that have for the most part, are already gone. Right. Why do you need a third-world country to go first? America is going to lose jobs to those countries regardless of if they sign on or not. Maybe if America signed on, it could flex its muscles and get others to sign on.

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 01:48 PM (dbxVM)

24 Once again, Clueless Maximus types away, but no one really cares. Of course, it's hard to be taken seriously when most posts are about killing off all the Muslims and liberals.

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 02:05 PM (dbxVM)

25 >>>Carlos, are these the same jobs that have already gone to China and India? And Kyoto will only turn that outsourcing of our jobs into an unstopable flood. Is that what you mean by "positive impact"? Please, LIBS, don't do us any favors. >>>And Carlos, appreciating the environment isn't liberalism. I didn't say it was. But I prefer the term "conservation" because it doesn't carry all the mental disorder Liberal wacko baggage that environmentalism does. The former entails sound policy and common sense, the latter is nothing but feel-good religion for otherwise atheistic Leftists looking to fill that hole in their lives. >>>Oh, and I'd really like to see your science that says that the West reducing emissions would have no measureable impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. Is science really the issue for you? And yet you glibly dismiss warming on Mars, or ancient global warming. You're a religious nut, and no conservative, you little phony. >>>Get India and China to sign on to Kyoto? Who gives a fuck. hahaha! proof this isn't about global warming. Just more Liberal self-loathing. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 02:08 PM (8e/V4)

26 Hahaha, what an absolute dumbass you are. Please, tell me why 1) I'm a liberal, 2) I'm a religious nut, 3) you have any credibility. You're completely closed-minded to anything that doesn't "jive" with your neocon bullshit. You give the rest of us conservatives a black eye, and then you wonder why liberals and democrats continue to get the support they do. What unstoppable flood? The flood of what meagre manufacturing jobs are still here? Dude, did you just come out of a coma or something? The vasy majority of American manufacturing jobs have already left. To Mexico, China, India, and more. Maybe to you the leaving of a scant few percent of what American jobs used to be here consists of a "flood," but if that's the case, then you're provervially wet behind the ears. Ok, so you prefer the term "conservation." Good for you, give yourself a pat on the back. Maybe I could split hairs, too. I prefer conservatism, you prefer neo-conservatism. The former harkens back to a day of fiscal responsibility, love of one's country, family. The latter, unfortunately, is a philosophy adhered to by those of myopic tunnel vision who see a boogeyman behind everything. Can you see which side you fit on? (hint: it's the latter!) I'm dismissing warming on Mars because I prefer to compare apples to apples, and also because it has no bearing on the here and now. Did Mars experience some kind of warming event? Sure. Did Earth? Sure. Are circumstances different between then and now? Yes. Are volcanos having a measureable impact on global warming now? Maybe some. Do manmade emissions have a measureable impact? Of course. Can we do something about said manmade emissions. Yes. So, why don't we? Carlos is a mental disorder. Read his posts with caution.

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 02:27 PM (dbxVM)

27 >>>"neocon bullshit." You just gave yourself away. Only moonbats use that word. And what a complete fucking moonbat moron you must be if you don't realize that more regulation under Kyoto wouldn't excacerbate the outsourcing of jobs. If that simple fact is beyond your tiny brainwashed Liberal mind then you're completely hopeless.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 02:35 PM (8e/V4)

28 Nope, us conservatives use it also to distance ourselves from frothing-at-the-mouth dumbasses like yourself. If you were able to poke your head out of your cocoon once in a while, you might have noticed. But, since you're unable to distinguish between neo-conservatism and conservatism, you're almost a waste of breath to even attempt to discuss with. I mean, even the president called himself a "compassionate conservative." In your mind, he might as well have called himself Chomsky, right? And hey, at least I've figured out that there aren't a whole lot more jobs (from a Kyoto) standpoint to outsource anymore anyways. But, like I said, you don't seem to get out a whole lot so maybe your ignorance is excusable. Maybe. And like I said, fuck Kyoto. America shouldn't need a pact to see the benefits of a cleaner environment. But you can't figure that out, either. Interesting article, by the way. Too bad it doesn't add to your point. CO2 emissions come from a variety of sources. On Mars, it comes from CO2 ice. On Earth, a lot of it is manmade. Nice try. Would you like to keep trying?

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 02:45 PM (dbxVM)

29 >>>On Mars, it comes from CO2 ice. It comes from the ice because it's MELTING you fucking moron. HEAT causes the MELTING, moron. SOLAR radiation is causing that HEAT on Mars, moron. Just like it causes HEAT everwhere else in the SOLAR system, INCLUDING EARTH. I can barely stand it how stupid you people are. My GOD you people are stupid.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 02:52 PM (8e/V4)

30 And sorry, cocksucker. You ain't no conservative, "neocon" or otherwise. There's no conservative on the planet that buys into your environmental wackoism.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 02:58 PM (8e/V4)

31 Holy fuck, I didn't think I had to actually spell out that the CO2 ice is MELTED for the greenhouse gas to emit. I didn't think I had to dumb it down and connect every dot for you, but based on you batting 1.000 in MISSING THE FUCKING POINT apparently I did. Good for you, the SUN melts it, whoopitydoo....you get a sticker, smarty. It doesn't change the fact that Mars' warming and Earth's is COMPLETELY FUCKING DIFFERENT! How did you even pass high school, you fucking douchebag? Solar warming. Give me a fucking break. Obviously the SUN plays a part in any kind of global warming. Apparently the issue of CAUSE and EFFECT are two terms you've NEVER FUCKING HEARD OF. Do you get it now, dummy? And yup, sorry to say, I am a conservative; just not to your clueless kind, dumbfuck. You know, maybe you aren't a neocon. Maybe dumbfuck is your political stripe. You know, no matter how many times proof is shown at them, they close their eyes and believe something else? Yeah, sounds like you.

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 03:13 PM (dbxVM)

32 Are you actually trying to argue that the Sun is warming up Mars-- as evidenced by it's melting ice and release of gases-- but NOT also warming the Earth? You're saying that the Sun is just picking on Mars for some reason and giving Earth the big pass? Please clarify if that's what you actually think because I don't want to jump to any conclusions about the severity of your mental retardation. Again, the Sun is warming Mars, but not Earth? And if so, tell me how that's possible. Don't go off on tangents and red herrings please. Just how the Sun can warm Mars but not Earth.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 03:24 PM (8e/V4)

33 >>>And yup, sorry to say, I am a conservative; Fanfuckingtastic, and I'm a Liberal who objects to how Liberalism got taken over by all you anti-American, self-loathing moonbats, Leftwingers and communists. See how easy that is? moron.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 03:32 PM (8e/V4)

34 Carlos, did I not fucking say "Obviously the SUN plays a part in any kind of global warming."? Please, nice try in attempting to change the goalposts. Or, maybe your comprehension skills are, shall we say, third-world? Obviously the Sun warms any thing under it - Earth, Mars, even Pluto gets a measly degree Kelvin of warmth from it. The point, which you seem intent on missing, is that global warming happens for a variety of reasons. On Mars, CO2 ice melts (yes, via the Sun) and it's released into what atmosphere Mars has. On Earth, it's released from factories and cars (and yes, from volcanoes). And good golly, the Sun warms it all up and creates a greenhouse effect. Yes, the Sun, because I apparently had to state before, the Sun is integral in global warming. But, as you can maybe fathom, there are no cars on Mars. No factories. Not even a clueless neocon whose best feat so far is converting his oxygen into CO2. So, Mars is warming because of different reasons than Earth. And, because of that, I once again don't see the relevance in bringing Mars into a debate about global warming on Earth. Get it?

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 03:43 PM (dbxVM)

35 Carlos, please tell me how I'm anti-American. I know you can go on and on about how liberals are anti-american and blah blah blah. But please tell me what I've ever said that makes me a liberal, despite the fact that in the 1 1/2 years I've been posting here, I've maintained by conservative values. Please, because I'm really interested in how your thinking works. Perhaps you make things up so they fit what you want to believe?

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 03:48 PM (dbxVM)

36 >>Obviously the SUN plays a part in any kind of global warming."? Venom, progress. So what evidence do you have that given the forces of the universe arrayed against us we can make any noticeable difference by tanking our economies while giving our enemies (China) the big pass? I don't see how that terrible cost can justified the extremely SPECULATIVE benefits. Re your anti-Americanism, your whole bit about putting America under Kyoto and giving 2.5 billion Chinese and Indians a pass reeks of anti-Americanism. Look what the Chinese are doing to their country right now even as we speak. Now imagine them all driving SUVs. Get it?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 03:52 PM (8e/V4)

37 Carlos, the jobs are gone. You seem to think that by signing to Kyoto, you sign away these hordes of jobs. They're long gone. And that's why I said fuck Kyoto. America can go it alone, hell even exceed Kyoto. My fundamental point is that there is a lot of room for improvement with respect to greenhouse emissions and reducing them. If that comes across as being anti-American, then I apologize. Perhaps I love America so much, I want to see it exceed everyone else's expectations. As a leader in the world, it ought to have a place front-and-centre. It can use its clout to encourage other countries to get on board, whether it's Kyoto or some other kind of agreement. American jobs have been disappearing for over 20 years. Most are long gone. A few still remain. Without Kyoto, they're going anyways. Is Kyoto the answer to everything? Of course not. But, it's presumptious to assume a "sky is falling" mentality to even consider it, especially when all the economic damage it might have done has already been committed over years and years. Are the benefits speculative? Sure. But the costs to our planet aren't. It's measureble. I say again, you don't have to be a liberal to love the environment. I know many conservatives like myself who love the environment. We fish, we hunt, we hike. Being environmentally conscious isn't the sole domain of hippies and beatniks. Fuck that. Everyone should see that the environmental damages in the last hundred years could have a monumental impact for centuries, and that we ought to be doing something about.

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 04:11 PM (dbxVM)

38 And if you're really a conservative, I want you to say in all CAPS that Liberalism is a mental disorder. Say it and maybe I'll believe you.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 04:27 PM (8e/V4)

39 Awwww wassamatter venom? Is it irked that I busted it without even having to address its precious little attempt at an argument? Please, you're not smart enough to argue with me, so go grow up, get a job, move out of your mom's basement, and contribute to society, then maybe someone will care what you say.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 05, 2006 05:38 PM (0yYS2)

40 Sniff, sniff, aw gee Mr. Clueless Maximus, please don't make me cry with your big tough words. You're such a powerhouse. lmfao. What a joke you are, CM. Not even Rusty takes you seriously. Not smarter than you? Fuck, you're one of the most ignorant people that's ever posted here. Anyone is smarter than you. And I should give a shit about what you say? Boo-hoo, cry me a river. Why don't you get fucked, you peenass. lol. Carlos, your stance on American jobs seems to be the one that ignores reality. For whatever reason, you're ignoring the fact that the job exodus has been occuring for a very long time. According to the Economic Policy Institute, 1.5 million since 1989. And that's just to China alone. They're gone. You seem to think that the scant few percent still here amount to the full 100% that have been here forever. I say it in simple terms because I can't seem to make it any clearer. Are there jobs still here? Sure, but the shifting of American jobs to other countries is a trend that's not going to reverse any time soon, because America is progressing forward. And signing on to Kyoto or staying off of it isn't going to make a lick of difference. Big business is going to do what it wants, it doesn't really matter what kind of administration is in power. And sure reducing emissions is going to cost money and some jobs. I never said it it wouldn't. But the benefits in doing so could be worth it. Changes often do require a fair bit of expenditure. Just by reducing the dependency on coal, America could reduce it's emissions by 40%. You're saying that's not worth it? It's an ineffecient fuel to begin with. Look, to move forward, change requires a cost. Should we all continue to live in the dark ages because it's expensive to move forward? Job transitioning is part of the business cycle. You can't have change without losing some jobs. It's inevitable. It's realistic. And Carlos, I'm not going to say that, caps or otherwise (because it's dumb, actually). What I will say is that liberalism is misguided and incongruent with progress. The same as neoconservatism. Conservate thinking (the pure, non-shortsighted kind) is the only kind worth considering in this day and age.

Posted by: Venom at January 06, 2006 09:46 AM (dbxVM)

41 Jesus, that's sad. I almost feel bad for dumbass above for being such a lamer. Almost. Hey moron, just so you know, I have about as much regard for your opinion as I do for the dog crap I step over in my back yard, so don't waste your time.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 06, 2006 10:45 PM (0yYS2)

42 "Holy fuck, I didn't think I had to actually spell out that the CO2 ice is MELTED for the greenhouse gas to emit." Actually, CO2 ice sublimates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28physics%29 /pedant

Posted by: MegaTroopX at January 07, 2006 01:56 PM (yT/Rw)

43 lol, Clueless Maximus, the only thing missing from that last post of yours was the trademark "I know you are but what am I" retort.

Posted by: Venom at January 09, 2006 08:52 AM (dbxVM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Indian Director To Glorify Suicide Bombers

Indian moviemaker Mahesh Bhatt plans to film "Suicide Bomber", starring his own son as a confused young man running away from an unsuccessful attempt in the 7/7 attacks.

From Reuters:

"Muslims are demonized by the western nations especially after the so-called war on terror. The gulf between Muslims and the rest of the world is widening," Bhatt said.
"The film will be an attempt to clarify Islam is not demonic and to delve into the mind of a young suicide bomber to try to find out what drives him to reject life for a violent death."

This is not a big mystery. What drives suicide bombers is indoctrination into the cult of violence espoused by radical Islam. Oh yeah, also personal greed and lust (72 virgins, anyone?).

Bhatt doesn't explain how western media are "demonizing" Islam while maintaining a stout embargo on images from the 9/11 attacks.

Bhatt should research the cult of Kali, which murdered thousands of innocent victims before being exterminated by the British in the nineteenth century. If Bhatt and other so-called moderate Muslims don't wake up, and stop seeking excuses for the barbarians sheltering within their own religion, history could repeat itself.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 02:17 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I'm missing the part where suicide bombing is supposed to be glorified. If you want to see suicide attacks glorified on film, the best examples I can think of are the propaganda posters put out by the IJA toward the end of WW2. This guy just says he's going to make the film from the bomber's POV. It might turn out to glorify terrorism, but you'll have to watch it to find out. "All Quiet on the Western Front" was written from the German POV, but it hardly glorified Prussian imperialism.

Posted by: ShannonKW at January 04, 2006 03:03 PM (dT1MB)

2 ShannonKW: The difference of course, is that the German armed forces, from their point of view were serving their country. However, if you can suggest that their is a side story, to people decimated by glass / ball bearings / nails at the hands of a suicide bomber, that does not hit military, nor a Government targets, perhaps you could fill us all in? I guess that must sound rather noble to you?

Posted by: dave at January 04, 2006 03:20 PM (CcXvt)

3 Let me see. A Muslim makes a film about suicide bombing starring his own son in the lead role of the failed suicide bomber. I'm pretty sure he is going to show the bomber being brainwashed by a radical cleric in a London mosque. The cleric will be depicted as an evil adherant of the radical Salafist cult of Islam, where the Koran is taken to literally mean that the kufirs who refuse to convert to Islam are to be killed, their riches are to be plundered, and their women are to be raped and put into harems. After the failed bombing, the young man will regain his senses, and realize that bombing innocent people is wrong, and he will reject the radical Salafist cleric and turn him over to the authorities, and will testify against the cleric in a court of law in an attempt to get the cleric jailed for inciting murder. The cleric will be convicted, the young man will moderate his view, and become a dedicated moderate Muslim who takes it upon himself to rid the World of radical Islam. Now I would pay good money to see that movie. I guess we will just have to wait and see, but I won't hold my breath. I have a feeling the movie will be entirely different.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 04, 2006 03:36 PM (rUyw4)

4 The Reuters story says: "the story of a would-be suicide bomber struggling to reconcile the message of radical Islam with an appetite for life." It seems to me that if he really did want to delve into whatever mental struggle he seems to believe occurs in suicide bombers, then perhaps it would be far more beneficial to have the central character being a reformed would-be bomber who has abandonned all prior held beliefs of radical Islam and now strives to put an end to it. But I guess that's not artsy and chic enough.

Posted by: Graeme at January 04, 2006 03:36 PM (CeuET)

5 Dave, Nope, not to me. But then again, if I was born an Arab and had a suicidal chip on my shoulder for the U.S., I would have flown a jet into a docked nuclear aircraft carrier, not into an aging office building full of marketing weenies. The former would have enraged only the U.S. and left the rest of the world sending token condolences (while hiding their smirks with the other hand) but the actual terrorists chose the latter. I still don't know why. I'd have to see it from their POV to understand. For now my working hypothesis is that they were stupid.

Posted by: ShannonKW at January 04, 2006 03:38 PM (dT1MB)

6 Dang it JJ, when did you become psychic?

Posted by: Graeme at January 04, 2006 03:39 PM (CeuET)

7 I think you would like my movie, Graeme. Hmm...maybe I should become a movie producer? Nah, could you see a redneck producer in Hollywood? Me, neither.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 04, 2006 03:43 PM (rUyw4)

8 How do you account for Dukes of Hazard?

Posted by: ShannonKW at January 04, 2006 03:47 PM (dT1MB)

9 The cleric will be convicted, the young man will moderate his view, and become a dedicated moderate Muslim who takes it upon himself to rid the World of radical Islam. So it'll be a work of fantasy....

Posted by: Brian B at January 04, 2006 03:49 PM (rGfpg)

10 Graeme, Let's just say we think a lot alike, beside the fact that a storyline like we suggested would actually be good for all concerned. But alas, the storyline will be nothing like that. And that's a shame!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 04, 2006 03:51 PM (rUyw4)

11 ShannonKW: The very notion that a suicide bombers 'motive' is being interpreted in a movie, ennobles it. Instead of seeing it as a senseless, irrational, multiple homicide; we get to see some bollywood's director "idea" of what justifies a homicide bombing, as if there is a justification for a terrorist attack against civilian entities.

Posted by: dave at January 04, 2006 03:57 PM (CcXvt)

12 JJ, a storyline like that would be one worth turning into a movie. I'm curious to see if this will fly in India, considering the problems that they face with terrorism and hindu-muslim fighting. I guess that's why the director chose London for the subject matter - so it won't hit too close to home. Hey I think a Texan as a bigshot Hollywood would be a good thing. Afterall, there's a Texan in the Oval Office and he's doing an okay job.

Posted by: Graeme at January 04, 2006 04:01 PM (CeuET)

13 Haha, thanks, Graeme, for the vote of confidence. I think I'll select you as my front man to pave the way, a Karl Rove type, to smooth my transition from rancher/farmer redneck to, well, rancher/farmer redneck Texan movie producer. Hell man, that might make a good movie itself!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 04, 2006 04:08 PM (rUyw4)

14 Perhaps this monkey should take a trip to iraq and try to explain the point of view of a wretched suicide bomber to the families of the 30 killed in the latest mass murder in iraq. The victims were attending a funeral when the maggot struck. As displayed before, these 'freedom fighters' are far from noble, time and time again they display how low they can go, why even pigs would have more of a conscience.

Posted by: MathewK at January 04, 2006 06:21 PM (pVHqF)

15 >>>"The film will be an attempt to clarify Islam is not demonic and to delve into the mind of a young suicide bomber to try to find out what drives him to reject life for a violent death." Yet another opportunity to display their anti-Americanism. Nothing new to see here.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 04, 2006 06:45 PM (8e/V4)

16 The west better stop pussy-footing around with this crap. There's generally too much hand-wringing about taking on the threat. Mark Steyn has a great article about how great societies are never "murdered". Rather, they commit suicide.. little by little. It's what's happening to the west right now. I don't want to understand islam. I just want it gone. Somehow, the West needs to find the intestinal fortitude to do what Spain finally had to do in 1492.

Posted by: Richard at January 04, 2006 09:58 PM (W8EsU)

17 "Muslims are demonized by the western nations especially after the so-called war on terror. The gulf between Muslims and the rest of the world is widening." Ah, so the Muslims who excoriate and malign all Jews are feeling the pinch when they find themselves at the same end of the ugly stick? Naw - can't be.

Posted by: Oyster at January 05, 2006 06:05 AM (YudAC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

233kb generated in CPU 0.0956, elapsed 0.3105 seconds.
137 queries taking 0.2419 seconds, 593 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 30531
Files: 109
Bytes: 567.2M
CPU Time: 49:45
Queries: 3418594

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76631

Feeds

January 08, 2006

January 07, 2006

January 06, 2006

January 05, 2006

January 04, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds