Don’t get discouraged. We’ll get Palin elected in 2012.
picture: pablo spencer. lol caption: fastfood
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Connecting with todays youth… …yer doin it white and nerdy | Alright, who left the sink running? Next »
Don’t get discouraged. We’ll get Palin elected in 2012.
» 467 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Earl Simmons on Vandals Cashing In ba12348 on Both at the Same Time Edna Mode on Keeping the Internet Hone… Frank Miller on Vandals Cashing In InGen Corp. on Keeping the Internet Hone… InGen Corp. on Keeping the Internet Hone… InGen Corp. on Keeping the Internet Hone… InGen Corp. on Keeping the Internet Hone… InGen Corp. on Collect Em’ All InGen Corp. on Collect Em’ All 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? Home - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
VIDEO: Nylah Sleeps Everywhere
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Quality shnuggle time
Just Capshunz - All of the Internet. Captioned
Dave. It Was Dave.
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Tub Regrets
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
GOZLINGZ
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Pocket Protected
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
A FATHER'S EYES
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Women, Pegged
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
THIS IS GONNA BE THE BEST SHOW EVER
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
2012 Grammy Nominated Albums of the Year... Wif KITTEHS!
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
My Unborn Child Totally Looks Like The Punisher
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Guns Can Be Girly Too
I didn’t know Palin was a segregationist… huh. Guess I’m not getting all my memos. I’m also fairly certain it wasn’t a conservative who burned down Palin’s church.
It’s paying out on Palin supporters (aka rednecks) and not Palin herself…
I thought we republicans were supposed to be elitist.
Whenever I hear elitist thrown around on TV it’s almost always against dems. Didn’t Palin routinely call Obama an elitist?
Oh yes, and someone who didn’t “see America like you and I see it…” like everyone in the room thinks it 6000 years old and that rape kits should be charged for…
Wait.. rape kits should be charged for?
If I recall correctly, there was a big stink during the campaign that Palin wanted to charge rape victims for processing of the rape kits…I think it was actually a matter of billing it to their health insurance if they had any, which is a little different, but doesn’t sound nearly as inflammatory.
This is a myth. The practice of billing the insurance company for the kits was already in place when Palin was elected mayor, as it is for many other towns in
Alaska as well as the entire country. She may have not even known about it.
I’m inclined to say that it makes sense, too. If you get shot and they take you to the hospital, they bill your insurance for that…
They don’t charge you for the ballistic tests on the bullet though…
Trying again…..for some reason my reply ended up at the bottom of the page.
Because they haven’t thought of that yet, UF. Jeez, don’t give them any ideas! On that point, I will note that when I’ve had cars stolen and recovered who has to pay for the towing and impound fees? Me.
I know it is ridiculous, but you don’t pay for them to dust your car for prints or paw through it to find other evidence.
@charro: Hee! Like they do any of that stuff. One time they actually caught the guys that stole one of my cars driving the damn thing and although they did get arrested, some time later I got a letter from the DA that they dropped the charges for insufficient evidence. All they do when they pick up a stolen car is tow it to impound (eventually, after it sits on the side of the road for three days with a broken window in the rain). Eventually impound calls you. If you’ve had it happen you learn to call impound daily, instead of waiting.
But, yeah, evidence collection, where it’s done, should be on the state’s ticket not the victim’s.
of course they do, with your tax dollars
Well, I can see being billed for the treatment. But the rape kit is gathering evidence for a public service. To me, there is a difference. Like, when the cops come to my house when it’s robbed and dust for prints, I don’t pay for that. Not directly anyway, I mean I don’t get a bill.
She had been mayor for four years by the time that Alaskan state congress realized that that crap had been going on. That means that she had ample time to rectify that situation. I guess she was too busy hiring lobbyists, raising sales taxes, and racking up a $20,000,000 debt to correct her predecessor’s oversight…
Nope, she knew. In fact, when she took office, the sherriff wasn’t charging women, and had the cost of the kits listed as part of the normal budget. Palin had him fired, and signed the new budget which took out the costs of the kits, passing them on to the victims.
Wait, it’s a lesser charge if it’s only 3-5″? *ducks*
Anyway, charro, I’m almost positive they were not billing uninsured people.
Ok. Well… I gues that’s ok, but it still seems kinda retarded (to me).
And I meant 3-5 years for rape is ridiculous. There is a rumour that rapists say they won’t use a weapon because if you have a weapon you can get up to 20 but no weapon is 3-5 (in most states).
And I agree, 3-5 years for forcible rape is ridiculous. Especially when you consider that in most states that actually means about a year.
I know right? Because the prisons are full of people with drug charges. Which we could eliminate by legalising and taxing them.
The drugs. Legalise the drugs, not the people.
Ah, good correction! You had me worried there – legalizing any form of people is the most straightforward step onto the Slippery Slope(tm) that I can think of!
.
*helpful*
We should still tax the people though.
I think the overall point is that while there are plenty of things to disagree with her about, Sarah Palin is not a segregationist. No mainstream politician is a segregationist. This is exactly like when crazy right wingers call Obama a communist. It’s stupid when they say it, and it’s stupid when liberals respond to criticism with “Yeah, but she supports charging for rape kits.”
Wow, I didn’t know her church burned down.
Yeah. There were some women doing arts and crafts inside too when it caught fire. They escaped unharmed thankfully, but church will have to be held in a nearby school for a while. I hope it turns out to be an accident but they are calling it suspicious, and if it was arson there can be little doubt it was some whacko anti-Palin person.
I just read a little about it, I like how some of the blogs are already trying to shift the blame to her. Example headline: “Sarah Palin’s Wasilla Church Burns Down: She Apologizes”. Reminds me of when her email was hacked and sure she should have been more careful but it was of all her fault. Never did hear much about what happened with that either.
Yeah, just like that big black democrat who attacked Ashley Todd.
So you’re saying they burned their own church down?
Based on the prevalence of insurance scams, I’d not be surprised…
Vast pay out, political points, and evidence to the faithful that they’re persecuted… I think it’s called a win-win…
I don’t think they need to create their own evidence that they are persecuted. Also, it’s a lot of trouble to collect on insurance and rebuild a church, why would anyone go to that trouble? No, I don’t think so.
Click my name
Two examples, wow. That must mean all pastors do it.
It means saying no-one would do it is incorrect.
Probability is low the pastor did it, probability is high someone
who was anti Palin did it.
No one is pointing the finger, that’s all.
Amazing, you can play probabilities in this, yet not in historical events…
Unc, speaking of probabilities (segue alert), what do you suppose the odds would be that two shoes thrown at the President of the U.S. would *both* miss? (Well, at least he had to duck to get missed!)
(link)
Well, this is a much simpler example!
It’s the beauty of having all the facts first.
You have a guy taking money and two dead people who didn’t pay thier dues… what’s more complex than a burned out building and the smell of gasoline?
The real question is…Who throws a shoe? Honestly!?
An Arab does. It’s very offensive in their culture. Kind of like me doing unspeakable things to your mother and then leaving a twenty on the dresser as I leave.
@Steve: I know…I’m waiting for somebody to do that lol. I would but I’m feeling too lazy today; plus I have full confidence that there will be at least 10 or 20 done anyway.
You can be a persecuted majority?
I think so. But in this case I think it’s persecution of Palin mostly.
I don’t think it’s “persecution” to call out a politician for holding backwards positions and being generally ignorant. Burning down her church would be a bit much, though.
I don’t think it’s ‘persecution’ to call out anyone for holding backwards positions and being generally ignorant.
And if you’re going to burn down a church of a politician, make damn sure they’re inside when you nail the doors shut.
lol!
An excellent point! Someone did it wrong : D
When you’re the majority that hold all the cards and you can’t get elected without being a member of it, I’d say it was hard to be persecuted…
Breaking news for Christians everywhere – Diocletian died in 311AD You’ve pretty well run the west since then… Whining that you’re persecuted really doesn’t cut it any more. Now. To Jenny with some random stab at the weather for the next 24 hours…
If someone burns down your church because they don’t like Christians and that is the only reason, you are being persecuted for your faith, doesn’t matter if they “run the west” or not. I don’t see why you can’t use that word.
I’d call it ‘payback’… but then I don’t see much worth saving in modern church architecture…
Oh aren’t you clever and special fester.
Not as special as you… has the short bus driver noticed you’re not on it yet, I wonder…
Well, there was that whole thing about the Enlightenment. Did you not get the memo?
I tend not to beleive it happened…after all, look at American culture
The Christians won…
I have no idea whether they, specifically, burned their own church down; but insurance fraud is far from unheard-of.
Just like 911. Right?
Right?
I’m saying when you guys have already shot yourself in the foot by pointing fingers before knowing the whole story you’d think you might have learned a lesson.
Us guys?! Some lone whacko is us guys?
Fair enough, ema
I think Ceefax might be pointing out your haste in jumping to the conclusion that Palin’s church burned as a result of a left-wing wacko. We don’t even know whether it’s arson, let alone left-wing wacko in nature, true or false?
WASILLA, Alaska — Investigators say arson caused a fire that badly damaged the former church of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin late Friday night and into early Saturday morning.
————
News story attached to my name.
Based on their teachings, I’d say it was a public service…
I don’t know, Unc. You never know when the need will arise for a protection spell against witches. In the event you find yourself in such a need, at least you know you’re only a plane trip away from relief. Ribbit.
I know who I can call if I want someone to pray for someone to die, certainly…
The Imprecatory Prayer… a wonderful thing… you can wish someone ill and hope God takes note. Nice.
If I wanted someone dead, then there are more practical ways to get that done. And they work 99.9% of the time…
In bed…
Only I get to bum you first, Mister Fussybutt…
Afraid not but I was thinking about those you might trick into bed with promises of candy or just a smack over the head.
You want to see my puppy?
Unc, I think the correct term is “Little Mister Fussy Butt.”
Okay, so I’m wrong about the arson bit, but do you agree it’s not yet known who set the fire? The point is your haste.
What’s the problem with the haste? All that was said, and I didn’t even say it, is that it probably wasn’t a conservative. What’s wrong with saying that? It probably wasn’t. Nobody said it definitely was NOT a conservative who started that fire.
*checks behind ema*
*confirms presence of squirrel tail*
What’s the problem with running around before you have all the facts? Srsly?
Never let little things like ‘facts’ get in the way of a good story…
Nothin’ wrong with squirrels! But I have 7 cats so it wouldn’t survive long around here. ; ) Anyway, it’s not about facts it’s about speculation and there is nothing wrong with that.
And speculation is based upon having facts. Otherwise you’re
guessing. And let me tell you, I could come up with some GREAT
guesses about a lot of things. None of which would be true. And
all of which would be considered asinine… why? Because they’re
not based on facts.
Ok, here are the facts:
1. a church was burned
2. it was ruled arson
3. it was a church a well known and hated politician attends
4. her attendance was widely reported by msm and internet blogs
5. people have been known to do mean things to other people they hate
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm………………..
….wait, asinine? really?
Don’t ever become a lawyer.
Based on her abilities to judge murder after the fact, I bet she’s a hoot on juries…
Why does the particular political party matter in this point? Even if it was an arson based on hatred of Palin, it wasn’t the Dem party that did it, or ordered it done, or anything to associate it with the party besides the arsonist saying “I’m a democrat” or “I’m a republican”. Do we look at every convict to ask their political party, no, because they are one person, not the organization. There’s infinite number of crazies in the world that use any buzz word to justify their evil actions.
Like people who carve letters in their cheeks…
Indeed, but NONE of that directly points to a dem or liberal doing
the deed.
It could just as easily be a pyro who thought that because of the
political involvement of one of the members of the church, the blame would
easily be focused upon someone else with a motive. And you know
what? Your actions are proving my theory right. You’re jumping
to a conclusion before you know whats going on. Innocent until
proven guilty Ema, not the other way around. Just because it suits
your views doesnt mean its right. Thats the issue, there is no
evidence other than circumstantial that points towards a Democrat
or a liberal that commited the crime. Its just as easily someone as muentioned above. Or a vindictive republican who believes their actions would
stir up anti-liberal feelings. Which if that is the case, is working
with you. Whoever did this, their motive is clear. They’re stirring
the pot and hoping someone will take a taste. Its just that simple.
Oh for crying out loud people!! I am not a judge or jury here!! I didn’t say it was a card carrying liberal democrat and that’s the truth!! All that was said is it is most likely to be a person that hates Palin, and most likely NOT a
conservative. That’s all that was said and that’s it. So sue me.
I got to say most of the comments against Ema are pretty low and childish. If you actually look through her posts you will notice not once did she state that “it was done by a Liberal, or Democrat, or left wing wacko”. It was everyone else who brought up those ideas. You all are pathetic for running away with hysteria and use it to attack another. You all fed on other peoples comments and attempted to use them to attack Ema. You will notice that even the law enforcement and media has considered that the fire could be arson and could be done by someone with a grudge against Palin. Speculation is more based upon past occurances than facts as it usually takes time to review facts.
I know plenty of conservatives that hate Palin…
To jump in here against my better judgement, ema is right that she can point out the possible political affiliation of the arsenist before we know for sure based on the probabilities she mentioned. Who didn’t think that a right wing religious nut bombed the abortion clinics before we knew for sure? Who didn’t suppose before we knew for sure that a member of the KKK burned down churches in the South? Just because something isn’t proven yet doesn’t make it less valid. We all knew OJ was guilty the first time around.
Thanks for the backup you two! ; ) Those are great points froo.
That’s like saying who doesn’t think that a black man committed a crime seen on the local news without knowing anything about the criminal.
Still never said anything about race. Damn, you’re awfully picky about something that’s never mentioned. Racist much?
Nah, just calling out bias and assumption where I see it.
except the black man at a crime scene is the fallacy of generalization where as froofrou’s point was based assuming actions follow extremes of what people believe. party affiliations do encompass much of what people believe, that is why they choose to join said party, so assumption based on previous behavior > assumptions based on race
So, if it turns out it was an insurance fraud that’s been detected, or someone tying to make Palin a persecuted martyr I can expect to see Ema and Frou eating crow?
No, we will just be wrong, which both of us admit being a possibility, just not a strong one.
Ooh, how about: it was a conservative arsonist, trying to make trouble for liberals by framing them for the crime! Yeah, that’s the ticket!
Why would they want to cause any trouble for liberals? The election is over. More likely it’s just someone doing it out of pure hatred (added to make
everyone happy: or possibly insurance fraud)
I agree, picking on ema and froo seems a little uncalled for. Following the path of what is known and speculating on the outcome based on the facts is not a wrong thing to do. The conclusion from the speculation may be wrong, but the speculating itself isn’t wrong. Lawyers and cops speculate all the time. It helps to find the truth. “Once you eliminate the impossible, however improbable, must be the truth”. Speculation helps eliminate the impossible.
Even if you are a racist (or in some other way predjudiced) speculating, and using racist (or otherwise predjudice) remarks in your speculation, the speculating isn’t wrong; your attitude could use some work though.
I think ‘picking on Ema and Froo’ is done simply because it’s whayt I’d call a target rich environment. They set themselves up to be pelted on a regual basis then whine and twitch when someone (often me, but I’m far from the only one…) takes them up on the offer…
Well… Fine if that’s how you feel, but still. Speculation, in and of itself, is not wrong. I stand by that.
Moon faced assassin of joy!
How did you know I’m a moonchild?!?!?!!? Get out of my head!
“So you’re saying they burned their own church down?”
That’s a strong possibility. It’s certainly more likely than “some liberal burned down her church”.
Don’t believe everything the media tell you, kid.
Why is that more likely? I’d say it’s about as likely, but not more so. Any number of scenarios are likely but we don’t yet know which one (and we may never).
“Why is that more likely?”
Based on past events and the assumption that the past is largely like the future. Count the number of liberals who have burned down churches. Now count the number of churches burned down by their members. The latter number is obviously considerably larger than the former number.
However, I agree that there are many scenarios, and we may never know which really happened. The frontrunner is clearly some kind of personal dispute involving two or more people at the church. I didn’t mean to imply that “they burned it down for insurance money” is a leading possibility: in fact I believe that it is not. But I do think that it is most likely that the church was burned down for reasons having to do with a dispute between individuals at the church. The “liberals burned it down because they hate Palin” notion is a silly non-starter.
Hmm – you already know who burned down Palin’s church??? You know for a fact it was arson? All the news sources I look at say it’s being investigated. Jumping to idiot conclusions to prove a weak point FAIL.
“I’m also fairly certain it wasn’t a conservative who burned down Palin’s church.”
I’ll bet it was. What makes you think it wouldn’t have been?
The principle of Occam’s Razor?
since when did William of Ockham play a part in political manipulation of masses
Personally I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to find out that it was some wack-job that either hates Obama with a fiery passion or loves McCain in that weird creepy way usually reserved for that uncle you’re not allowed to be alone with. Really it would be someone like that that has real motive. The kind of person that would blame Palin for ruining the Republican ticket and “putting that (insert most despicable racial slur here) in the white house” is exactly the kind of nut job that burns down a church.
Or it was teenagers high on meth.
You’re anti teenagers-on-meth!
That is what a “I know you are but what am I” third grade argument. Of course it was someone who disagreed with Palin. Could it have been a conservative? Possibly. And a black person could have been a part of the KKK. The likleyhood is that a free spirited, loving, caring liberal did it.
Actually this is extremely interesting but a black man has been a member of the KKK. He was basically acting like a spy to find out all the crap they were up to I forgot if it was for journalism or the police, but yeah, it’s happened.
There are quite a few “non-arians” in neo-nazi circles. They can share a goal – that of avoiding race mixing, and preventing people from moving to other cultures, and so on.
.
Asshats come in all colours.
Sorry, but I’ve never seen a chartreuse asshat.
Even tripping? ; )
No…. SHH you’re blowing my cover.
frothfrothfroth
Why is it that its even referred to “Palin’s church”, just because its in Alaska? If anything, it was probably that crazy witch doctor who did it. To assume it was political motivated is kind of going overboard. Burning churches is usually religious and racially motivated.
yeah i seriously dislike the lady but this lol doesn’t make sense to me. Is there something i’m missing about Palin supporting Segregation, or was this just voted up for being anti-palin?
Probably the second one.
Definitely the second one. This is just insulting and not funny.
But… insulting IS funny…
There’s a reason your name is Fester isn’t it? I dislike Palin very very much but
this lol just doesn’t work.
Indeed… I’m a Charles Addams fan (and I quite like Jackie Coogan in the TV series. We don’t mention the films…)
your point?
I think Dude is getting into the spirit of the LOL…by not having a point.
Don’t question his *ART,* Unc!
There’s a point to the LOL?
Bugger me!
No, my point was/is that Dude is not making a point, in the spirit of the LOL, which also is not making a point.
You’re too gorgeous to be quick on the uptake, aren’t you?
*buggers Unc*
*eyes water*
Not on your best day…
shame… with my piles it’s like screwing a bunch of black grapes…
…a-a-and, kids, that’s what we call the “TMI Zone.”
Someone is clearly showing thier ignorance here. The democrats were the ones shouting for segregation. The republican party was formed as an abolitionist party. Here are some famous democrat quotes.
Blacks “are inferior to the whites in the endowments of both of body and mind.”
–Thomas Jefferson, 1787
Co-founder of the Democratic Party (along with Andrew Jackson)
President, 1801-09
“I hold that the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding states between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good–a positive good.”
–Sen. John C. Calhoun (D., S.C.), 1837
Vice President, 1825-32
His statue stands in the U.S. Capitol.
If blacks were given the right to vote, that would “place every splay-footed, bandy-shanked, hump-backed, thick-lipped, flat-nosed, woolly-headed, ebon-colored Negro in the country upon an equality with the poor white man.”
–Rep. Andrew Johnson, (D., Tenn.), 1844
President, 1865-69
“Resolved, That the Democratic Party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made.”
–Platform of the Democratic Party, 1852
Blacks are “a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race.”
–Chief Justice Roger Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1856
Appointed Attorney General by Andrew Jackson in 1831
Appointed Secretary of the Treasury by Andrew Jackson in 1833
Appointed to the Supreme Court by Andrew Jackson in 1836
“Resolved, That claiming fellowship with, and desiring the co-operation of all who regard the preservation of the Union under the Constitution as the paramount issue–and repudiating all sectional parties and platforms concerning domestic slavery, which seek to embroil the States and incite to treason and armed resistance to law in the Territories; and whose avowed purposes, if consummated, must end in civil war and disunion, the American Democracy recognize and adopt the principles contained in the organic laws establishing the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska as embodying the only sound and safe solution of the ‘slavery question’ upon which the great national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in its determined conservatism of the Union–NON-INTERFERENCE BY CONGRESS WITH SLAVERY IN STATE AND TERRITORY, OR IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA” (emphasis in original).
–Platform of the Democratic Party, 1856
“I hold that a Negro is not and never ought to be a citizen of the United States. I hold that this government was made on the white basis; made by the white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men and none others.”
–Sen. Stephen A. Douglas (D., Ill.), 1858
Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, 1860
“Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.”
–Platform of the Democratic Party, 1860
“The Almighty has fixed the distinction of the races; the Almighty has made the black man inferior, and, sir, by no legislation, by no military power, can you wipe out this distinction.”
–Rep. Fernando Wood (D., N.Y.), 1865
Mayor of New York City, 1855-58, 1860-62
“My fellow citizens, I have said that the contest before us was one for the restoration of our government; it is also one for the restoration of our race. It is to prevent the people of our race from being exiled from their homes–exiled from the government which they formed and created for themselves and for their children, and to prevent them from being driven out of the country or trodden under foot by an inferior and barbarous race.”
–Francis P. Blair Jr., accepting the Democratic nomination for Vice President, 1868
Democratic Senator from Missouri, 1869-72His statue stands in the U.S. Capitol.
“Instead of restoring the Union, it [the Republican Party] has, so far as in its power, dissolved it, and subjected ten states, in time of profound peace, to military despotism and Negro supremacy.”
–Platform of the Democratic Party, 1868
“While the tendency of the white race is upward, the tendency of the colored race is downward.”
–Sen. Thomas Hendricks (D., Ind.), 1869
Democratic nominee for Vice President, 1876
Vice President, 1885
“We, the delegates of the Democratic party of the United States . . . demand such modification of the treaty with the Chinese Empire, or such legislation within constitutional limitations, as shall prevent further importation or immigration of the Mongolian race.”
–Platform of the Democratic Party, 1876
“No more Chinese immigration, except for travel, education, and foreign commerce, and that even carefully guarded.”
–Platform of the Democratic Party, 1880
“American civilization demands that against the immigration or importation of Mongolians to these shores our gates be closed.”
–Platform of the Democratic Party, 1884
“We favor the continuance and strict enforcement of the Chinese exclusion law, and its application to the same classes of all Asiatic races.”
–Platform of the Democratic Party, 1900
“The repeal of the fifteenth amendment, one of the greatest blunders and therefore one of the greatest crimes in political history, is a consummation to be devoutly wished for.”
–Rep. John Sharpe Williams (D., Miss.), 1903
House Minority Leader, 1903-08
“Republicanism means Negro equality, while the Democratic Party means that the white man is supreme. That is why we Southerners are all Democrats.”
–Sen. Ben Tillman (D., S.C.), 1906
Chairman, Committee on Naval Affairs, 1913-19
“We are opposed to the admission of Asiatic immigrants who can not be amalgamated with our population, or whose presence among us would raise a race issue and involve us in diplomatic controversies with Oriental powers.”
–Platform of the Democratic Party, 1908
“I am opposed to the practice of having colored policemen in the District [of Columbia]. It is a source of danger by constantly engendering racial friction, and is offensive to thousands of Southern white people who make their homes here.”
–Sen. Hoke Smith (D., Ga.), 1912
Appointed Secretary of the Interior by Grover Cleveland in 1893
“The South is serious with regard to its attitude to the Negro in politics. The South understands this subject, and its policy is unalterable and uncompromising. We desire no concessions. We seek no sops. We grasp no shadows on this subject. We take no risks. We abhor a Northern policy of catering to the Negro in politics just as we abhor a Northern policy of social equality.”
–Josephus Daniels, editor, Raleigh News & Observer, 1912
Appointed Secretary of the Navy by Woodrow Wilson in 1913
Appointed Ambassador to Mexico by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933
USS Josephus Daniels named for him by the Johnson Administration in 1965
“The Negro as a race, in all the ages of the world, has never shown sustained power of self-development. He is not endowed with the creative faculty. . . . He has never created for himself any civilization. . . . He has never had any civilization except that which has been inculcated by a superior race. And it is a lamentable fact that his civilization lasts only so long as he is in the hands of the white man who inculcates it. When left to himself he has universally gone back to the barbarism of the jungle.”
–Sen. James Vardaman (D., Miss.), 1914
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, 1913-19
“This is a white man’s country, and will always remain a white man’s country.”
–Rep. James F. Byrnes (D., S.C.), 1919
Appointed to the Supreme Court by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1941
Appointed Secretary of State by Harry S. Truman in 1945
“Slavery among the whites was an improvement over independence in Africa. The very progress that the blacks have made, when–and only when–brought into contact with the whites, ought to be a sufficient argument in support of white supremacy–it ought to be sufficient to convince even the blacks themselves.”
–William Jennings Bryan, 1923
Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, 1896, 1900 and 1908
Appointed Secretary of State by Woodrow Wilson in 1913
His statue stands in the U.S. Capitol.
“Anyone who has traveled to the Far East knows that the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results. . . . The argument works both ways. I know a great many cultivated, highly educated and delightful Japanese. They have all told me that they would feel the same repugnance and objection to have thousands of Americans settle in Japan and intermarry with the Japanese as I would feel in having large numbers of Japanese coming over here and intermarry with the American population. In this question, then, of Japanese exclusion from the United States it is necessary only to advance the true reason–the undesirability of mixing the blood of the two peoples. . . . The Japanese people and the American people are both opposed to intermarriage of the two races–there can be no quarrel there.”
–Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1925
President, 1933-45
“This passport which you have given me is a symbol to me of the passport which you have given me before. I do not feel that it would be out of place to state to you here on this occasion that I know that without the support of the members of this organization I would not have been called, even by my enemies, the ‘Junior Senator from Alabama.’ ”
–Hugo Black, accepting a life membership in the Ku Klux Klan upon his election to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat from Alabama, 1926
Appointed to the Supreme Court by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937
“Mr. President, the crime of lynching . . . is not of sufficient importance to justify this legislation.”
–Sen. Claude Pepper (D., Fla.), 1938
Spoken while engaged in a six-hour speech against the antilynching bill
“I am a former Kleagle [recruiter] of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County. . . . The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the union.”
–Robert C. Byrd, 1946
Democratic Senator from West Virginia, 1959-present
Senate Majority Leader, 1977-80 and 1987-88
Senate President Pro Tempore, 1989-95, 2001-03, 2007-present
His portrait stands in the U.S. Capitol.
President Truman’s civil rights program “is a farce and a sham–an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill. . .. I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill.”
–Rep. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1948
U.S. Senator, 1949-61
Senate Majority Leader, 1955-61
President, 1963-69
“There is no warrant for the curious notion that Christianity favors the involuntary commingling of the races in social institutions. Although He knew both Jews and Samaritans and the relations existing between them, Christ did not advocate that courts or legislative bodies should compel them to mix socially against their will.”
–Sen. Sam Ervin (D., N.C.), 1955
Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, 1971-75
“The decline and fall of the Roman empire came after years of intermarriage with other races. Spain was toppled as a world power as a result of the amalgamation of the races. . . . Certainly history shows that nations composed of a mongrel race lose their strength and become weak, lazy and indifferent.”
–Herman E. Talmadge, 1955
Democratic Senator from Georgia, 1957-81
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, 1971-81
“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”
–Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957
“I have never seen very many white people who felt they were being imposed upon or being subjected to any second-class citizenship if they were directed to a waiting room or to any other public facility to wait or to eat with other white people. Only the Negroes, of all the races which are in this land, publicly proclaim they are being mistreated, imposed upon, and declared second-class citizens because they must go to public facilities with members of their own race.”
–Sen. Richard B. Russell Jr. (D., Ga.), 1961
The Russell Senate Office Building is named for him.
“I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes.”
–Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, 1961
Kennedy later authorized wiretapping the phones and bugging the hotel rooms of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“I’m not going to use the federal government’s authority deliberately to circumvent the natural inclination of people to live in ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods. . . . I have nothing against a community that’s made up of people who are Polish or Czechoslovakian or French-Canadian or blacks who are trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods.”
–Jimmy Carter, 1976
President, 1977-81
Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, 2002
“The Confederate Memorial has had a special place in my life for many years. . . . There were many, many times that I found myself drawn to this deeply inspiring memorial, to contemplate the sacrifices of others, several of whom were my ancestors, whose enormous suffering and collective gallantry are to this day still misunderstood by most Americans.”
–James Webb, 1990
Now a Democratic Senator from Virginia
“Everybody likes to go to Geneva. I used to do it for the Law of the Sea conferences and you’d find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they’d just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.”
–Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D., S.C.) 1993
Chairman, Commerce Committee, 1987-95 and 2001-03
Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 1984
“I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation.”
–Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), 2004
Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 2008
* “You cannot go into a Dunkin’ Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent.”
* “My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state has the eighth largest black population in the country. My state is anything [but] a Northeastern liberal state.”
* “I mean, you got the first mainstream African American [Barack Obama] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice looking guy.”
* “There’s less than 1% of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than 4% or 5% that is, are minorities. What is it in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you’re dealing with.”
Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., (D., Del.), 2006-07
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 1987-95
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations
Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 2008
Bonus quote:
“It has of late become the custom of the men of the South to speak with entire candor of the settled and deliberate policy of suppressing the negro vote. They have been forced to choose between a policy of manifest injustice toward the blacks and the horrors of negro rule. They chose to disfranchise the negroes. That was manifestly the lesser of two evils. . . . The Republican Party committed a great public crime when it gave the right of suffrage to the blacks. . . . So long as the Fifteenth Amendment stands, the menace of the rule of the blacks will impend, and the safeguards against it must be maintained.”
–Editorial, “The Political Future of the South,” New York Times, May 10, 1900)
Notice how you have nearly nothing after 1960. The Democrats of then are different from the Democrats of now.
Historically, you are right, but you are wrong about anything recently other than a few outliers.
Yes and how many quotes can be attributed to republicans that are racist since 1964?
It seems that once the civil rights act of 1964 passed, most racists went underground, hid in dark places and kept to a whisper.
Just because you don’t read anything doesn’t mean it still doesn’t exist. If you think that, you are sadly mistaken. While I will admit that things have gotten better for the minorities, there is still underlying bigotry in the older generations. Hopefully in another generation or two that mentality will have died off.
And yet Democrats still hold Kennedy up as a shining example of Democratitude… Never mind that he was responsible for escalating American involvement in Vietnam. Among other things.
I’ve said this before, but the only thing that saved JFK’s rep as anything was that Lee Harvey Oswald was a better shot than most gave him credit for…
Indeed… shooting someone from the back and hitting them in the front is good damn shooting.
Must have been an Australian, using those boomerang bullets.
Magic Bullet… One bullet 7 wounds. You should check out the theory its rather
funny and sorta denounces any “Oswald did it!” claims out there.
Ah the tiresome old 7 wounds thing…
With due respect
Ex.
Cre.
Ment.
About all that post deserves as rebuttle.
This reminds me of a show I was watching, where they took a look at the possibility of one bullet making 7 wounds from the back. they made a replica of kennedy in the car with balistics around a skeleton and got a crack shot to try and make the shot.
With a bullet that had a full casing (they theorized that oswald used one which is why they wanted to test it) the guy made the shot, the wounds were near identical, only slightly off cause he nicked a rib. it was pretty cool really.
The 6.5 mm calibre Mannlicher-Carcano rifle had full metal jacket ammo as standard. I’d have to check my catalogues and stuff from when the JFK assassination was of ‘interest’ to me, but I’m pretty sure they never did a soft nose for it in 63-64….
However, the only reason Kennedy had the rep he did for so long was that he got killed…
Someone has way, way, WAY too much free time.
Someone outqouted Seth !!!??? O.0
Nah, this is copy and paste. Seth would have commented off the top of his head without the aid of Google.
Nah. It didn’t come from Google. Click my name for the link. I found it on the National Black Republican website, it’s a link they have. I was investigating the fact that Dr. Martin Luther King was a republican. There is video there of his daughter talking about that too.
You were investigating the FACT that MLK was a Republican were you? By looking at the Republican website? Ye Gods the world of journalism will advance by leaps and bounds when you get in there won’t it?
Totally discredited position by the way but don’t let that stop you ‘investigating’ it further.
The quotes are laughable as well of course. Spread the word, many White people are racist and were in the past, some of them are and were Democrats. You’re not seriously attempting to say that the majority of the Republican Party wasn’t and that they were the party of inclusiveness are you? Oh you probably are going by your approach to investigation. Where did that one start? A seance with Strom asking if he was just kidding?
Funny how Strom was a Dem until after 1964 when he switched to Rep.
Plus, I do believe that the President who led us to the civil war and passed the emancipation proclamation was Rep. Joseph Hayne Rainey, Jefferson F. Long, and Hiram Rhodes Revels were all Rep.
Speaking off the cuff here, I haven’t gone back and looked, but isn’t Robert Byrd a Grand Dragon of the KKK? And a Dem? Let me go research that, brb.
Was, not is. He’s apologised for it and is moving on. We should too.
Wasn’t there a guy once called David Duke?
I think moving on is a good call here…
Funny that that’s covered in the comment I made and you managed to make another totally pointless comment.
Are you attempting to say that the Republican Party was bias free prior to 1964? If not do you have a point other than making a noise?
Even were that the case and the Republican Party were a shining example of tolerance prior to 1964 what do you want, a time machine to go back to those heady days so you can be a part of it as the same Strom comment and the 1964 date would indicate something went horribly wrong with this bastion of race relations at that point.
Golly gee, mister, you sure can copy and paste real good.
Wall of text crits for 5k.
Do you think Wall of Text goes dps, or does it go tank?
Tank. you can hide behind all those words so easily.
Agreed, dps would would make quick cutting points. “Wall” of text about says it all.
Or squishy, massive dps. WoT easily kills softer foes and quickly, but if someone is still breathing, they’ll pwn WoT badly. (I think I’ll rename my mage Wallotext now…)
Teehee! I’m of the opinion that all WoT does is bore them to death. If I ever that mage I’ll know who it is. Then we can pwn trolls together! : )
Yah, mon! Oh wait… She’s a troll.
(
teehee again : )
…and here we go. You won’t find many quotes from Democrats post-1964 on, on account of all the Southern paleoconservatives fled from the Democratic party to the Republican party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Most of the existing quotes from post-1964 in the above list of citations are taken waaaay out of context. That’s not to say the Democratic party doesn’t still have its share of racists, however. I’m just pointing out that all the most virulent racists resigned their party affiliation and joined the Republican party.
Oh, you are so full shite it makes me laugh! They joined the Republican Party? I would like to see your citations and proof of that bald ass lie.
You are so full of shite it makes me laugh! They joined the Republican Party? I’d like to see your citations and proof for that bald face lie.
Strom Thurmond.
There is no need to cite any others.
Oh, you’re going to stop at one? I was made to believe there was a whole host of Dem’s that joined the Republicans.
Ah… One? And when in history did that count “citing” as proof of… anything?! One?!?!?!?! Ok, so ONE guy did it.
I’m not saying you’re wrong in your assertion, I’m just saying that people don’t buy into one “citation” as proof. So, you’re wrong in only citing one.
You, as politely as I can say this, are a liar. The media white washes anything the democrats say. That doesn’t mean republicans aren’t/don’t show rascisim, but to say all the rascists joined them is simply a bold face lie.
And all the above quotes come from the people themselves, not taken out of context. The truth kinda hurts don’t it?
Originaly conservative meant strict adherence to the constitution, liberal meant loose adherance. You also need to apply that to those people above, learn thier history. I live just a few miles from Andrew Jackson’s homestead. Look at his life and policies.
I am neither republican or democrat, as none of them are honest anymore, plus what Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist papers about a 2 party system.
I sugest you look up what enumerated powers mean.
“You, as politely as I can say this, are a liar. The media white washes anything the democrats say.”
LOL. Fail.
If you’re going to call someone a liar, try to put at least a little filler material between that and the next time that you parrot the right-wingers’ silly little “liberal media” story.
The truth doesn’t need a filler. And the media IS liberal. Just as much as fox news is republican.
Reality has a libeal bias.
No it does not.
Reality is centre, politics is conservative. This makes reality seem liberal.
Reality doesn’t have any bias, we each have a bias through which we perceive reality.
To which I say a big “DUH” (to those who didn’t know that).
*shades eyes to shield myself from the WIN radiating from ema*
)
-
*bows to ema’s WIN*
-
*writes ema’s statement up to use it later*
-
I like that… I may use it.
Please define reality.
This is a toughie… Ema’s world view contains a lot of the ‘supernatural’.
Oh, I was mostly aiming it at the first bold “Reality has a libeal bias”-statement. But of course, anyone below that statement in this thread (above these posts, that is) seems to be comfortable using “reality” as a well-defined and basic concept, so probably anyone can tell me what they mean by that?
)
.
I am NOT trying to be a pain in the arse this time either, I am honestly wondering.
Ask Colbert to define it. He’s the one that is credited with that statement, no?
Okay… Complete Colbert-knowledge fail on my behalf then.
Cobert – Poe’s law in action
He’s some kind of TV or radio guy, right?
Spin off from the Daily Show
Okay… *hits wikipedia*
Ah right. So the thread piece above with all the reality discussion is based on a quote from this guy. So the people who were discussing reality in this interesting fashion were not actually subscribing to his definition of reality, or any particular one, just essentially playing some reps and dems game or something?
P
.
Oh well. It could have been interesting.
.
(Thanks for the Colbert info.)
Anytime… there are some people who think Colbert is real :¬>
I gathered that, from your “Poe’s law”-comment.
)
(This may be a double post; site is being wacky again.)
@UF: Like my dad, for example. *headdesk*
The other one is sloshing away down at the bottom of the page. PK went totally haywire there for a little while.
“And the media IS liberal. Just as much as fox news is republican.”
Bull. Not even close. That’s just plain laughable. The fact that you people repeat it over and over again doesn’t make it true.
Hardly anyone I know is as conservative as the major media. Sure, they’re to the left of Fox News, but there’s a LOT of room between there and the center.
He never said you misquoted, he said it was taken out of context.
That is to say, what was being talked about otherwise, slightly changes the meaning and intention of the quotes.
People are racist, it’s a human condition and not something that can be done away with by legislation. There always has been racism and probably always will be. All we can do is create laws against expressing racism in a way that would keep certain groups of people from pursing life, liberty, equality, etc… You can’t get insides peoples minds and stop them from thinking certain ways but we can create laws keeping people from hurting other people. Maybe education can help in some way, but it will never be eliminated just like crime in general will never be eliminated. Assigning the label of racist to one group or another is silly politically motivated nonsense.
Unless the group is in some way defined by its racism. (Which is, btw, a tricky concept – it seems to mean something different to just about every person.)
Well, yea I guess the KKK but they aren’t a political party. I should have said Dems/Repubs instead of group. I don’t know any political party that is defined by racism, if there is one they are probably pretty unpopular. It is a tricky subject and the term really shouldn’t be used as much as it is IMHO.
Yeah, I figured you might have meant dem/rep, but for the sake of it added my comment.
.
That’s one of the best things about the US – your politics may be slightly nauseating to me in many ways, but at least you don’t have voters who are so stupidly, bluntly and upfront racist that you actually have political parties that can live off of that alone. They’re all over Europe now, it looks like we might get one into our governing body next election. *mutters very bad swear words*
Ew, that is alarming. What exactly do they stand for? I would think they would have to cover up most of it to get votes…
In Sweden at least, they are rather populistic in general. I think that goes for many of the similar European parties. There’s a lot of “We want less crime and a better life for everyone (everyone Swedish, in Sweden, who behaves Swedishly and adhere to Swedishness)”-blather, and a romantic idea of preservation of All The Nice Things. When pressed about what they mean, they tend not to be able to say what this “Swedishness” carp is, and end up talking about “falu”-red cottages (a particular and common red colour used to paint houses in the countryside). They are reactionary in many respects, anti-women rights, anti-worker rights, and anti anything that doesn’t fit their image of Sweden.
.
Ironically, plenty of their active party members have more or less fresh and nasty criminal records.
.
In our last election, they received 162 463 votes (2.93%).
Hm. I mean our latest election. I certainly hope it’s not the last.
P
Oh. How handy – I forgot to explain any of their xenophobic views! They used to talk more about “people” and “race”, but that is so hard to get to fly that they have gone over to “culture” and “ethnicity”. They essentially think cultures and ethnicities should not mix with each other, and claim it’s because they are good-hearted and want to give all peoples a chance to survive. Anyone who does not fit in with Swedish is a threat to the Wonder of Sweden.
.
Essentially they’re saying, more or less straight out, that all problems in our society is because we let Other People in.
Aaaand… Just because it feels good to make three different replies to one post, I just came across a reminder that even if your political system isn’t as diverse as ours, your* nuttiness is… Click link for a sample of an unusually cruel case of cruelty to children (yes, it’s safe for work, I think – it’s from the “Cake Wrecks” blog). ;oP
)
.
*) As in “you merkins”, not “your personally”, of course.
You. Not your. Oh bugg’rit.
Want to know one of the funniest things I’ve heard in years?
The leading British Neo-Nazi Party (the BNP) get a lot of money from Manchester Jews… mostly because the BNP are so staunchly anti-Islamic…
People sicken me at times… :¬>
really? Really?
Where did you hear this? Why haven’t I heard that? That’s the most outrageous (and sickly amusing) thing I’ve heard all day. Granted it’s early in the day, but still.
Yea, this sounds very strange. I would love to find a source for this…
I’m afraid the sources are entirely my own… back when I was more mature anf thought politics mattered rather than it being something used to distract people from the business of governing them.
You want ground zero for my cynicism about politics… there’s the smoking hole in the ground.
So, you actually witnessed the transaction? Or they are sources you can’t divulge?
I’ve said enough, thanks.
Hmmm, que misterioso…
No, I’d like to die of old age, peacefully, in my sleep, in my own bed…
I’m unlikely to, but it’s something to aim for…
Failing my own bed…
Peacefully, in sleep, of old age, in the bed of someone I despise, hafter a large, pungent, highly coloured curry… If I do that right, they’d have to replacter the ceiling in the room below, and burn the bed…
Interesting, how will you end up in bed with someone you despise?
Roofies I would imagine.
Where did I say I wanted them there? I just want them to have deal with 15 stones of putrid flesh and a partially digested curry percolating through their mattress…
I’m a man of simple tastes.
…or festering? ; )
touché!
Probably people saying that it went down. No public documentation.
I think I actually heard the same thing a while back. I don’t know if I believe it and I certainly don’t know if it’s true but it’s a disgusting thought.
It’s a cultural one, but I’d not say it’s human condition over all…
Agreed. My mother is the most un-racist (if thats a word) people I know. My father on the other hand, has his reservations about races. I myself came out
a mix of both. I recognize stereotypes, but I dont adhere to them. Color of the skin is no different than blood type to me. I dont have to fight my condition to feel
that way. Its certainly cultural, not a human condition.
There are pricks of whatever stripe…
I just seem cursed to meet them all individually…
Me too, though usually in traffic.
People naturally have a fear or distrust of those who are different than they are. They will band together with others who are like them.
Nope… not always. Based on examples like the Fijians, who were pretty welcoming until they found what bastards we are… heading up with syphillis, booze and Christian ‘sin’…
Anderman Islanders were also pretty much friendly coves, until Islam tried to enslave them then the Britsh Empire tried to do the same…
So it’s cultural, not in the design…
Fijians – no real history of war. Welcoming as all get out, until they realised just what twats sailed the seas
Anderman Islanders – Generally fought each other for land, but were fine with outsiders, until Islam tried to enslave them, then the British tried to take their land. They still have nothing to do with outsiders if they can help it, other than to hurl the occasional spear at tourist boats who get too close to land.
Learned behaviour.
I admittedly don’t know much about native Fijians, but it is possible that their reaction to outsiders has to do with a spiritual belief, something like the Aztecs and Quetzalcoatl. I know Eastern spirituality is usually very peaceful, and people aren’t born with a belief system like that. I still hold that humans are by nature born with a self preserving distrust of others that has to be unlearned if possible.
To varying degrees of course, everyone is different.
nothing like adding articles of faith to articles of faith, eh?
I always wondered why I fought my mother so much in the first days of my life. Now I know it was my natural-born distrust of others. Wow.
I’d say dehumanizing is a human condition, culture turns it into racism or whatever else. But so far as I know (and please correct me if I’m wrong) it’s always been an “us and them” feeling with humans and their groupings.
Sure!
Have you read all the comments on the INSURANCE thread? “Us” and “them” all over the place!! LOL!
Wow, it took me ages to get through all that. Yeah. You’re right.
I’d say it depends on what exact meaning of the word “racist” you use. I am not sure how discussions in English, about racism, tend to go, but in Swedish it has become an almost unusable word, because everyone subscribes to a different definition.
Pretty much the same in English…
Racism is such bullplop anyway. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. I believe it is cultural as well.. But it’s a bunch of bullplop. I don’t believe there is such a thing as “race”. That implies a difference that is simply not there. All human beings can interbreed (assuming fertility of course) and the offspring is usually fertile (save the one offs). That right there says to me there is nothing so damn different about us than evolutionary adaptation. We haven’t split off into species subgroups like say, cats have. A lion and a tiger can sometimes mate, but the offspring is usually sterile. Same with horses and donkeys. Those would be species subgroups and have inherent differences in their DNA that MAKE them different, not just the evolutionary adaptation.
If you think about it, lions and cheetahs exist, and are indigenous, to Africa. Blacks are indiginous to Africa (you don’t find white indigenous people). Lions and cheetahs are both cats but cannot interbreed (as far as I know). Tigers are indigenous to Asia and CAN breed with a lion but the offspring are usually sterile. Asian and Black people can interbreed and have viable offspring. Not only do the cats work with an evolutionary adaptation, they are a different sub species of cat (given the cheetah and the lion BOTH live in Africa but have different adaptations and cannot mate). I like to think of people as housecats, we may have different patterns on our fur but we are all the same under the fur. And we can breed.
Neandertals, on the other hand, were a different species subgroup that (as far as I know) could not breed with homo sapiens and thus died out. Because we thrived. I think if they were still around, Neandertals would make the case for “race”, but not Black White Asian so forth.
Anyway, I think it’s just a bunch of bullplop. People do just fear what is different. And people like to make sure they stand out so they like to wear their “race” as some kind of badge to make themselves different. But it’s crap. Crap crap crap.
/end rant
I like cats.
*please note I am aware that not all people can breed whether in a “mixed” relationship or not.
Holy crap I didn’t mean for that to be so long.
I was under the impression that Neanderthals died out because they didn’t diversify their habitat. Where as the homo sapiens were under their thumb for a long while before breaking out and moving away to different places.
~
As for race, yes it’s completely silly. There’s less difference between two people of different “races” then people with different eye colors or whatever.
Right, we thrived where they couldn’t. Natural selection.
There’s currently some controversy as to whether a half breed Cro-magnon/Neanderthal has been found. There’s a lot of folks professional standing and grant status riding on it not being so…
I love academia. It’s like the court of the Medicis with all the humanity removed.
Yeah I have heard that too so I added that “as far as I know” caveat.
)
I stand by my housecat theory.
Adults may be racist but small children tend to be colorblind to other races until their loving ‘oh so wise’ parents warp their little minds.
Yep. It’s a cultural thing… There are cultural differences in different parts of the world, different parts of the country, different parts of the states… Parents are raised tainted by their parents predjudices and thus pass some of it on to their children.
Some people may fully renounce all of their parents beliefs, but there still may be unconscious remnants that taint them. My parents were not racist (if they were they did a good job hiding it) and I like to think I am not racist. I am just speciest, I hate everybody equally. ;o)
*please note I do not hate everyone I just say that when I am angry. Hate really takes too much effort that I am not willling to put forth.
Little minds get warped in strange ways, too. IIRC, an experiment was done in which little black girls were offered a black-looking doll or a white-looking doll. The vast majority chose the white-looking doll. When asked, they indicated their preference for the white doll’s appearance. Who taught them that?
I remember that, it’s so strangely interesting. The thing with small children is, their mental capabilities with descriptions is rather low. When they are very young, i believe up to five, the child will only associate one descriptor to things. So if a child sees a tree it’s big. not big, green, rough so on. When they see a person the person is likely just tall, or just old to them, they other descriptors like skin color don’t come up. When they grow older they get all the descriptors at once.
~
In this case I would wonder if the white doll was chosen because it was different. Do they have an equal amount of white, and black personages in their lives? probably not, so perhaps they were choosing the white dolls because they were new and different, but that is all speculation.
~
I do agree much of racism is taught. The concepts of negative stereotypes just doesn’t naturally exist. Think of early disney movies. There are some nasty stereotypes there. At the time these stereotypes were culturally acceptable. I remember watching Dumbo as a kid and thinking the crows were the best thing ever, I didn’t know they were supposed to be like a black stereotype until I was much older because i was never taught those stereotypes. The same with speedy gonzales. I lived in texas and never once thought to associate it with mexican people because I was never taught those stereotypes. There was nothing to connect it to as a kid, so it always remained a funny mouse that was fast. It’s learning stereotypes and beginning to think with those patterns that you did into the realms of racism
“The democrats were the ones shouting for segregation.”
Irrespective of political party affiliations, conservatives were shouting for segregation, pesky liberals and progressives were against it.
boo to the yah, brother
tl;dr
astro fish?
1.) After 1960, your argument falls to pieces, which is why you assiduously avoid mentioning it. Which indicates you know you’re full of it.
2.) Jim Crow against blacks is now considered heinously injust, but conservatives are still gleefully willing to provide plenty of disgustingly inhumane quotes regarding Jim Crow against gays. And right now, those conservatives are more likely to align themselves with the Republican party. The pattern of injustice is still here, it’s just that some of it is now being perpetrated against a different minority group. And it’s still the socially conservative reactionaries that are doing it, it’s merely the majority are with a different party. Partisan claptrap from a century past aside, the pattern persists and right now, it’s mostly localized to one party’s adherents–and to that party’s VP candidate as well.
Actually, it still goes on. Only now it’s called welfare. And there are plenty of rascist democrats, but when they are caught, it always brushed aside by the media.
Indeed, if it werent for the media, Democrats would be burned at the stake like
the witches they are. Grow up. The media’s out to make money, not whitewash
the Democratic Party. If the media had so much power over people George W. Bush would have NEVER had a second term… probably not a first.
Ok, keep this in mind. I realy don’t like George Bush. W or H. All you have to do is investigate things you hear about in the media, and go back over thier news from time to time, and you will see how often they change thier story to fit thier needs. Almost as easy as Karl Rove changes stories.
And they always put republican in a bad light, and democrats in a good light, unless and untill there is no hope for that democrat. I am for neither party, but I am sick of the one sidedness of the media. And one of the most convincing sources of that happened quite accidently. One of my friends is an antique dealer, and often buys an entire house to get certain things from an estate sale. And one time there were Reader’s Digests all the way back from 1940. And I watched the news opinions change from administration back and forth, always protecting the left. And you should read about how polution and carbon monoxide are going to cause us all to freeze to death.
It’s reality that puts the republicans in a bad light and the democrats in a good light, the media simply reports that. There is no media bias. On the contrary, the media bends over backwards to give both sides of a story, even when there’s only one side.
And if you think the Reader’s Digest (!?!) was protecting the left, that puts you way WAY far to the right.
I’m assuming by “the media” you’re talking about TV news networks.
Radio is a totally different monster. I really don’t want to bring up that particular discussion again, though, I’m just trying to make a point.
Um.. It’s called “welfare”? What?
Wow!! T to the L semicolon; D to the R period.
And by the way!!! In the late 50s, all the Democrats bailed on the Democratic party **BECAUSE** they disagreed with racial integration. That is the point at which the Republican party became the party of elitism, separatism and often outright bigotry. Or are you unfamiliar with some of the stupid f*cking Crackers that showed up for Palin’s rallies?
Nice tan Graham Cracka!
The funniest part about that list of racist democrats from more than a century ago is that their justifications for their racist behavior are very similar to conservative justifications for homophobic behavior IN THIS CENTURY.
Plus ca change, plus c’est le meme choise
as typical attack a republican and they pitch a hissyfit :p lol
Well, to be fair, I respond the same way to unfair attacks on lefties. This lol, it’s funny, but no, it’s not really fair.
It’s plenty fair. Jim Crow’s around today–just it’s only legally permissible against gays and other not-strictly-racially based minority groups. And the socially conservative reactionaries are still behind the injustice–and they’re pinning their hopes on Palin pretty loud and clear, at the moment. They may champion another candidate in 2012, but she’s the belle of their ball, right now.
I just get tired of being painted with a broad (insert pun if needed) brush. I am usually Republican, but voted for Alan Keyes for President. Anytime, lefties OR righties, use those wonderful terms “they” or “you” and “always” in making a statement there is trouble.
It’s a common political tactic, try to divide and conquer through strawman. I think everyone is guilty of it at least on occasion. Say your opponents are a certain way, even if it’s half-truth or only 10% true. Sometimes, it’s repeated often as a talking point and it becomes true.
The main problem I had with Palin was that I get the feeling she tried imply that the people that she doesn’t agree with as not “Real Americans” and other similar things. And that seemed to inspire Michelle Bachmann to make statements that some of her colleagues in the legislatures should be “looked into” for being anti-American. Way to evoke memories of Sen. McCarthy.
I get you. I think she was a poor choice for VP because of her lack of world politics/knowledge. But not ‘she’ the person, however. I identify with some of her “hobbies”. I eat game, have hunted and I am very plain spoken. Her handlers, if she still has them, have let her become the “village idiot” during some of her spots. And if those were her choices, well, we see the poor choice shining like a beacon. Just as women used to ‘have’ to go to finishing school, Palin needed a political school to attend before being set lose on us.
er, loose.
50+ and losing what little proper English I did possess. I blame ICHC and I stick to that story…
Screw it, blame it on the keyboard monster! We’ll forgive you either way : )
I think she was a poor choice because of her lack of command over the English language (I thought Bush was a poor choice for the same reason, but his lack is much less obvious) and her clinging to the belief that abstinence-only education was the best way to prevent teen pregnancies even after her daughter got pregnant as a teenager.
In addition to her lack of knowledge on everything outside of Wasilla, which you already brought up.
Okay, you voted for Alan Keyes: you may not be racist, but you sure are as batsh*t crazy if you voted for that man.
Wow. Just wow. And I happen to adore bats.
In that Ozzy Osbourne way…
…I have yet to pee on the Alamo, tho. Hrumph.
Give it time…
…and don’t forget to check for the wires.
Ouch! It reminds me of the Ren and Stimpy game “Don’t wiz on the electric fence”
I don’t think you’re happy enough. That’s right! I’ll teach you to be happy. I’ll teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
(Yeah, I know, totally different episode.)
‘S ok, still a gem. : D
LOG!
I’ve peed *in* the Alamo… Wash that is. Ran right by my house when I was growing up… Used to play in it all the time despite the warnings of “don’t play in the wash you’ll die when the flash flood comes”.
That sounds like so much fun, reminds me of things I used to do… So you didn’t grow up in AZ?
Reminds me of the time in PHX those two guys took a canoe down a flooded wash in Phoenix and died. The family tried to sue the city because they didn’t put up “Do not canoe here” signs along a wash that’s bone dry 99.9% of the time. wtf?
Well, if you’re a fiscal conservative, YOU are to blame for standing by and still calling yourself Republican, when such odious bigots have taken over YOUR party. You get painted with a broad brush because you’re affiliating yourself with the thugs who wrote your party’s platform.
If I were a Democrat, and they added slavery to their party’s platform, I’d renounce my affiliation. And if I didn’t, and folks started considering me an inhumane monster, I’d only have myself to blame, for standing with a group of evil people.
A long way of saying ‘Lie with dogs, get up with fleas…’
Racist fleas apparently.
Naa, for all their short comings, fleas are among the most equal oppotunity, inclusive creatures I know, out side of things that want to live inside you or lay eggs in you.
Outside of your body, the next best place for fleas is an old
book. Inside your body. it’s too dark to read.
They have little lamps attached to their foreheads for that.
I know – you find them at the flea market *ducks*
Another Marx Brothers fan?
You mean you want to belong to a club that has
members like you?
“Well, if you’re a fiscal conservative, YOU are to blame for standing by and still calling yourself Republican, when such odious bigots have taken over YOUR party. ”
I’m a fiscal conservative: I call myself a Democrat.
The Republican party is neither fiscally conservative nor capable of separating itself from the anti-American religious right.
Wow. I had no idea, really. I don’t understand why the caption is amusing to some. My reaction to the picture is that I’m somewhat horrified. My reaction to Justacarolinian’s post is that I’m totally gobsmacked. Lots to think about, I knew that racism had not gone away, I just didn’t realize how hideously ‘common’ it still is. And I’m even more relieved to have voted for Mr. Obama. I think he will go a long way to ending this sort of madness.
Ah yes, proof of anti-racism was to have voted for Obama even if you truly believed he was less qualified to be president than McCain.
Totally libdem bullspit!
Who said that they thought Obama was less qualified than John ‘Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran’ McCain? At least OB doesn’t have a form of Tourette’s syndrome, or if he does, it’s better controlled than McCain…
The guy’s name is gnome Unc. He’s obviously angry having to stare at crotches all day. After all “Crowded elevator smell differently to midget.”
If we’re going down the Tod Browning route…I think we’re dealing with someone with a lower cranial capacity than Schlitze
Ah, neo-con partisan pundit parroting. “libdem” namecalling, strawmanning, and a host of other rhetorical fallacies. Nice work trolling their, sport.
I voted for Obama because I think he IS the most qualified and has the best leadership qualities, and stands for more of what I stand for. However, I wept election night to see a black man finally get the office. The two responses had nothing to do with one another.
Oh, my, this one’s gonna cause problems.
Please to click on my name for disturbing news from the auto world. Or from the world of megachurches, your choice.
Well, don’t forget that a large segment of the demographic exemplified there believes that ‘imprecatory prayer’ is acceptable… if another cult does it it’s called ‘cursing’… Some of us remember the ones praying for a McCain/Palin win followed by God speedily taking the old adulterer “home” quickly after the win for President Palin to lead the great Federal Theocracy.
Seems God wither didn’t like the idea, or had better things to do than take notice of desperate, nasty, evil, people…
People who are -that- religious scare me. What the hell does “annointed with oil” even signify? What does it mean to be “annointed” as such, and why is it desirable?
It’s biblical, usually it signifies chosen by God in some way. I would imagine it’s because oil adheres to skin like God’s purpose would adhere to a prophet. Just guessing the symbolism, I’m sure others will come along with other ideas. I have no idea what it would mean in this case though… I think they are just real worried about losing their jobs, retirement with the auto industry.
I’m in agreement. Anointing is for healing, as well. From the short text and pics, I see them praying for the employees, not praying ‘to’ the SUV’s. I’m not sure setting the stage with SUV’s in a church would be for me, but praying the best for people is always, IMO, a good, righteous choice.
The church, rather like Lady Justice, has always had a taste for the smell of money and the look of a man in uniform…
What about Franciscans? What about the church the apostles started?
The church the apostles started got off to a great start with them slotting Sapphia and Annaias for not paying enough (although they gave the credit to God), then crawling up Constantine’s arse a couple of hundred years later…
And the Franciscan sect really dosen’t have a history that bears close scrutiny into modern times… When Gestapo men complain about the needless cruelty and sickening brutality of a Franciscan run camp for Slavs and gypsies you’re not looking at ‘nice’ people… and don’t get me started on the orphanages they ran…
So, what about them?
It wasn’t about not paying enough, it was about lying. Are you saying they were killed for that? You are reading between the lines.
I doubt god struck them dead for lying… otherwise there’d be a lot more dead people than there are. So, applying logic, it was most likely by the Apostles and for money… Basically, Simon Peter got annoyed and had them topped and slung in a shallow grave as an example (No-one ever got the nick name ‘Rocky’ for his even temper and easy going nature).
and reading between the lines is all one can do when one is presented with a heavily biased, largely lying, text… unless you hand your critical faculties in as a condition of confirmation.
‘Rocky’?! That’s the first time I’ve hear that one! ; ) When you read between the lines, you apply your own bias. I know, I know, you believe the whole scripture is biased… Never mind!
Peter was Petros – a nick name meaning ‘Rock, thus ‘Rocky’ to modernise.. His given name was Simon. That sort of nick name was handed out to local hard men…
And anyone who writes their own history is going to make themselves the heroes. Did they stop teaching that finally?
Well, Rock also implies stability and integrity, it’s not always something sinester. You have very little faith in humankind. Is there anything you are moved by, inspired by? Don’t you believe it’s possible some people, and
these were mostly common people with no real political motives, were entirely moved by someone and wrote down what they saw? They weren’t interested in ruling the world… They went to their certain deaths with their
stories.
And no, I’m pretty sure they didn’t stop teaching that, it seems to be one of the most important points in any public school curriculum these days.
He’s the one with the violent temper too… remember the reptage of the healed ear?
And the more you look at the tales of the martyrs, the less and less flesh you can find. Based on my devling you simply had to die a Chrisitan during the reign of Diocletian to get a saint hood and then a story about some gory death or other.
So, why did Annanais and Sapphia die? You can spin why Jesus hung out with a guy called ‘The Rock’ and an another who specialised in assassination and kidnapping (the Isacarii were more or less the Jewish IRA) The Messianic movements of the period 50BC to AD70 were all political… there’s no evidence that Jesus’s was special in that sense, quite the reverse.
.
.
We have a known associate of terrorists, with a temper so violent that it survived in texts that tried to make the good guy and two dead people.
I’d say he looked good.
Here’s my theory about A&S dying, I’m sure you will think I’m nuts, but you already do so… what the hay. They were in the presence of the power of the Holy Spirit, which had endowed the power to heal and raise the dead to the early followers. I don’t believe we have that type of power in this day and age. I’m sure you don’t believe in those types miracles, I’m just defending my theory. Anyway, they had to be very careful and their dying was an illustration of that power. I also believe that’s why we can’t yet be in the presence of God because that presence is so pure and powerful we would not be able to stand it and would probably fall dead the same way they did. We are being purified for that purpose. Also, I believe in re-incarnation myself although a lot of Christians would say it’s not biblical I can’t find anywhere it’s disputed and some places it’s aluded to. I do believe in a final judgement though, but we ourselves, whatever we are, are eternal.
You’re right, I think you’re mostly a nut… any other cultist found with two dead people who’d tried to cheat him would be ‘bang to rights’ but since it’s biblical it had to be ‘goddidit’… ho hum…
An addendum: it’s a great illustration of the length the delusional will go to to prop up a world view. It’s like dealing with paranoid schizophrenics…
Lol, I guess there is some “circumstantial” evidence…
“it’s a great illustration of the length the delusional will go”
And I could definitely say the same about your interpretation, because you have a world view that is pretty dismal. I’m more optimistic about humankind than you are so naturally my interpretation would tend to be more optimistic.
No, you’re not optimistic about humanity, you believe in fairies to avoid the horror of it all…
So, what do you believe in to avoid the horror of it all?
Who needs to? It is as it is :¬D
Bad things happen to good people, good things happen to bad… there’s no pattern or plan, nor does there need to be.
Basically, I think we can improve, and the sooner we stop looking outside ourselves to be ‘saved’, shake the need for an abusive parent, the more likely we are to get on and save ourselves. Neoteny works well for certain newts, not things that are at the top of the food chain and can wipe themselves out several times over. Otherwise, we’re just another dead end, waiting to either wipe ourselves out, or the big rock with our name on it to arrive and do the job it’s brother have done since the planet first coalesced from hot, rocky, hydrogen rich dust… that’s wipe the surface and let it start over… On the galactic scale, neither is a tragedy…
You see horror in chaos, I see infinite opportunity, but in the end neither view is true… it is what it is…
Aye, there is no god to save us, humanity can either rise or fall all on its own.
HOW can we save ourselves? We aren’t in control, we can’t stop ourselves from dying, hell most people have trouble quitting smoking and then when you do you might get hit by a bus. We are all going to die! “We” are definitely NOT in charge. You atheists are interesting to me, I can understand being an agnostic, but an atheist I could never understand that. I chose to believe we are more than bodies walking around.
Of course we aren’t in control and we aren’t in charge. Of course we’re all going to die. You choose to fill that void with god, try to make sense of it all. I choose to accept it as it is.
I was responding to Fester above, saying we are to save ourselves… I don’t see how that is possible.
I know people that feel the same way about the religious *shrug* I can’t for the life of me believe in some magical deity, at the best of times I can contemplate some for of life spark, but it is in no way sentient, or controlling anything, not more than a spark that starts a gas explosion is the deity of that explosion.
~
As for saving ourselves, perhaps on the long term we can not save ourself. death is inevitable but we can make things better for ourselves. We’ve drastically extending our life expectancy with medicine, and bathing on a regular basis. With time and understanding we can learn the rules and we can use them for the betterment of ourselves. One person is nothing, but billions is something to seriously consider. When we see a storm brewing, instead of hoping for some voice from above to part the clouds and save us, we as a people can band together and use that group power to deliver urselves from the torrential floods and rain
It’s ‘hard’ since we’ve been raised to have a crutch… a cigarette, another drink, a god.
I’ve known enough addicts to know you can get off and stay off… don’t make it ‘easy’ but then, being born isn’t ‘easy’, I’ve seen enough people die to see it’s not ‘easy’ either…
The idea that ‘salvation’ is any more ‘out there’ than ‘damnation’ is weak thinking.
Nice to know that you chose to feel something that you think is effectively broken and damned is some how ‘special’…
“I chose to believe we are more than bodies walking around.”
I’ve never met an atheist who has said that we aren’t more than bodies walking around. After all, intelligence, compassion, civilization, love, hate, war, caring, everything, are results of the evolution. The fact that there is no “superior” (too tired to think of the right word, maybe “higher” is better?) power does not make all our human traits worthless. We are humans because that is the only thing we can be, we got us here, and yes, we are in control. We just choose to prioritize a bit(!) stupidly for now.
Oh. My ” we are in control” refers to humanity. I see now where that might cause some raised eyebrows if I’d say we as individuals are in total control of our life/death etc.
P
Actually the lack of a higher power makes our abilities to work together, at times in contradiction of the impulse for personal survival, all the more remarkable
I think we’ve been a herd animal successfully enough, and long enough, for those instincts to be fairly strong too. Honestly, I can’t see how anyone could settle for a “yah, god did it”, when Life, the Universe and Everything is so friggin’ cool as is.
Sucks the wonder out of it tonight.
Tonight? That should be ‘to me’
What I meant by more than bodies is that we continue after our bodies are gone.
Oh! But why should we? Oh well, sure, that’s a different question. I think I have had that discussion with enough a number of religious people to realize that I will never really understand the wish to believe in an afterlife.
I mean, that’s a different question from what I mistook it to be.)
Yea, but I don’t think of it as an “after” life, just a continuation
of the essence of what we are, minus the body. There are so many people who have come close to dying or have said they died and were brought back and many of them talk about the same experiences. What would be the
purpose of something like that?
I can already tell you that the opposers to an afterlife will argue that ‘near-death experiences’ where you see the white light at the end of the tunnel and Jesus ready to welcome you home is just a misfiring synapse and possibly a lack of oxygen, and that you can replicate it through auto-erotic asphixiation. You and I and the other believers will just have to hold steady in our belief, since these other guys have their beliefs.
)
-
Personally, I think that the disbelief in the afterlife is a way to justify doing whatever you want to do in THIS life, as there will be no reward or punishment. Just like belief in the afterlife gives me something to hope for after this short enternment is over
-
I find it really saddening and hopeless to not have something to look forward to. What a dismal world this would be without the promise of Something Greater!
I quite look forward to my breakfast tomorrow… God’s death but Christians have a depressing view of things… Jam after I’m dead. W00T!
And then Frou pulls the ‘moral relativism’ card… Ho hum… the woman who is so anti-life she wants innocent people killed to get the guilty presumes to lecture on moral relativism.
Ah. Whether it’s after-life, after-death, continuation, rebirth, any of it just does not work for me to believe in. I think I die when I die.
.
“What would be the purpose of something like that?”
Ah. There are many interesting questions like this. My first response, just to get that out of the way: How, why, that happens I have no idea. Anything I’d say would be pure speculation based on sources I don’t even remember just now, so (like how it is possible to recreate without death-situations, and therefore shouldn’t be too hard to explain the how of and then probably, if there is any relevance to that, answer the “why” as well).
.
But to me the most important thing about that question is what you mean with purpose, or maybe rather why that purpose must be there?
I know you probably already had this convo many times on here and I missed all the arguments, but it seems that being able to reproduce it with asphixiation, in which you come close to death, would seem only to strengthen the
argument… what am I missing?
Also a-priori assumption of ‘purpose’… malfunction as anoxia shuts down one’s cerebellum has no purpose, just a pattern. It’s like saying the Rorschach inkblot number 5 is a work of art, since it shows Don Quiote, when actually it’s the mind fleeing from the fact it’s just ink sloshed on paper and folded on itself…
oops, that was aimed at froo… I am slow…
But if you are a evolution person, all things have a purpose
towards survival of the fittest, no?
@Danbala – Sci-Am sometime in the 1998-1999 time frame cover it in the article entitled ‘Daisy, Daisy’ about the reaction of neural nets modelled on human neurones behave when experience damage/shut down to the 95%+ range…
If you can find it, it’s quite interesting, not only on the nature of intelligence, but of the mechanical output of neurones as they die.
We haven’t had the argument since I got here, but I can tell you how the conversation would go
) And as far as getting yourself closer to death, the argument is that it’s a misfiring synapse, or the same type of visual illusion that causes little squirmies in front of your eyes sometimes.
) That’s optimism.
-
I think the best posing of the argument is from the movie ‘Signs’ where Mel’s character is explaining that the nonsense his wife was spouting as she died was due to blood loss and being near death. The fact that the story goes in a completely different direction at the end (i.e. Spiritual vs. simply physical) is why the movie was panned. But that’s the argument, and it’s pointless to make it because we won’t be changing anyone’s mind. UF feels that you and I have a depressing view on things, while you and I feel that his way is depressing. It’s a point of view on life, that’s all. I prefer to think that this isn’t as good as it gets
.
Wow. That is a bit insulting. No, I am not trying to pull the lovely I AM SO OFFENDED-card here. ;oP
.
Discussions about beliefs and religions are much better held, in my experience, if we don’t try to make up our own explanations as to why person A believes in one thing and person B in another. But still, just to clear that out – I do take responsibility for everything I do, I just only do it to the people in the now whom it concern, and to myself. Still stern judges, especially the last one. Trtust me.
.
.
I am quite happy in having every next second, minute, hour, and so on, to look forward to. I don’t see this life as a short entertainment, I see this life as my only chance, in this particular sentient form, to do anything. There is nothing I can hold off until later, there is nothing I need to hope for from later.
.
If you’ve experienced having nothing to look forward to and found that saddening and hopeless, I am glad that you have found that something to look forward to. But trust me, to me the world is, as it is, in all its glory, even if you have no religion. It can seem dismal to me some days, but that’s most often caused by my own error of listening too much to other people.
Depends on the definition of fittest you’re applying. And no, a lot of things in evolution are just noise. They may help survival, they may not… they may just be zero sum and hang in forever as something that is neither detriment nor benefit to future survival. It’s the creationist who claims everything has a purpose.
usually because they don’t get evolution, and want to tell their God how they think he did it, based on the output of Bronze age savages :¬)
But if you are a evolution person, all things have a purpose
towards survival of the fittest, no?
No, no. No purpose. Evolution is just an ongoing process, and what see around us today is just a snapshot of where that process has taken us so far. Survival of the fittest is just the main rule of the process.
You’re right that the world as it is can be a glorious place. I’ve had plenty to look forward to in my life, but the crap that goes on down here makes me hope for something better.
) Let me clarify: If there is no afterlife and we are just worm food, what’s to stop us from doing as we damn well please in life and saying ‘screw the consequences’? We see enough of that from crimminals who aren’t caught, and goodness knows our legal system isn’t good enough to separate the good guys from the bad guys all the time (as UF is thrilled to keep pointing out). So the hope of every believer in the afterlife is that what gets past us in THIS life will come back to you.
)
-
I didn’t mean to be insulting with that statement about justifying what you do in this life. That was a broad brush, and I take part of it back
-
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fatalist. I love life and everything in it! But I also love the fact that as good as this life can be, there is still something better. I guess it’s the carrot whereas some people need the stick
I know I’m going to misquote it, but I’m reminded of the story of two guys looking at a beautiful sunset. One says “Isn’t it amazing if god made this?” and the other says “Isn’t it more amazing if it was made by random chance?”
Morals and ethics, of course.
I’m sorry, I need to ask more here, because I don’t think I understand what you mean. I read it as you saying that a point, or even the foremost point, of believing in something else after death, is to make sure justice is … “portioned out” (can’t think of the right expression right now, sorry). Is that what you mean, or am I managing to misunderstand again?
I love that there is always something better, but here and now. That no matter how bad some things are, how bad I sometimes may feel, I can always continue to work on making the world around me better, as best I can.
) Carrot/stick? I certainly don’t live under any stick because I am an atheist. I’d say, if anything, that your carrot and my carrot are quite different sorts of animals. 
)
@Uncle Fester:
P
I found an abstract (link in name) to an article from ’93, seems to be the right one? Haven’t found the actual article online yet.
Ah, but your ‘morals and ethics’ argument halfway makes my point that there is something greater out there. Sort of
) If there is no evil, then there can be no good. If there is no good, then there can be no evil. If we don’t know what evil or good are, how can we differentiate the two? If a child is raised not knowing the difference, then how can you blame him when he kills someone when he is older? That’s where my religion comes in, for it sets out a clearly defined set of right and wrong. Most laws come from religious roots (put out the torches, UF and Mark 
) ) because they set out the definition of right and wrong.
)
)
-
It’s not just justice ‘portioned out’ in the Afterlife. It’s also reward. Plus, I don’t like thinking of myself as simply worm food
-
You can continue to make the world around you a better place, in fact, that is the way it was set up (according to my beliefs) by God. We are stewards of the land, and are charged with keeping it and making it better, not destroying it. So you and I are after the same goals. Our motivations are just different
I do not, in any way, believe that religion invented morals and ethics. I think they are survival necessities – laws and rules on how humans interact for the best of the species have to be there, and religion have just written their respective set of clarifications on how they see it. There is absolutely no need in belief of a higher power to learn what is right and wrong for an individual in a society. Morals and ethics are older than religion. (The way I look at how humans function and have functioned, that is.) Many laws we have today are very similar to the laws of religions, yes, but that is not strictly because they are from religion.
Ah yes, I meant justice both for “good and bad”, so I think then that I understood what you meant! (Hoorah!
) ) Then I can understand the hope for it.
Yeah, I think so too. We’re all human, after all. ;o) One reason that I tend to get spammy when this topic (to generalize it overly: “what’s the point of life if you’re an atheist?”) comes up, is that I have so often met the idea that my life must be bad, immoral and pointless since I am not a believer. For some reason, thinking that other people think this makes me feel an urge to put on the Explanation Hat. Sorry if it gets into ramblings now and then.
P
Thing is to me, what do the Heaven whores here actually want?
They live in a country where they have electric light, they throw more food than some folks see in a month, they have clean water, an SUV, the internet, clothes made by slaves, and probably haven’t seen a dead body without make up since they were born. Then they want a ‘reward’ from some sky daddy, and be safe inthe knowledge that anyone who didn’t kiss Bob’s butt, gets tortured for all eternity… They have great lives compared to the bulk of humanity, and claim the only reason they have to get up in the morning is the knowledge of Heaven after they die. And then expect to be respected as functional adults…
Ho-hum…
@Danbala – Yes, that’s the thing. My memory is far from perfect these days.
The work started there resulted in a computer that designs
things. you give it parameters, and it starts working. It’s already created about 6 compounds harder than diamond, and does stuff for the likes of Gillette and Oral-B
It’s actually the second generation one, that no-one is exactly sure how it works, since it was designed by the first generation one (something inherently spooky about Patent #1 of the company fully creating Patent #2…)
In the comment above about ‘good life’ it should read:
they throw away more food in a week than some folks see in a month
@ the ladies in reference to the near death experience discussion: If you want to hear an interesting story about a near death experience, google “fire the grid” and watch the video of Shelly Yates. Whether you believe it or not, it’s a pretty crazy story.
Wow, that’s just over the top… there are a lot of good reasons to be anti-Palin, but I’ve never seen any evidence of segregationism from her.
I think, upon further reflection, that the funny on this one is that both these segregationists and the “Palin in 2012″ partisans are absolutely crazy. Not Palin=Racism, there’s no evidence of that; but Palin=Good Presidential Choice, that’s as crazy as wanting to move civil rights back fifty years.
That’s a bit of a stretch for funny, PM.
Agreed. Trying to infer subtle humor in something posted here is a losing proposition. The “lols” if you can call them that, are best taken at face value.
Oh and hi ema
Hi nathan! So nice to see you here this morning!
Hi Lolnathan! Always nice to see you here. (durn smileys… double post alert)
It works for me.
Perhaps not racial segregation, but certainly segregation aimed at sexual identities and orientations other than what’s religiously acceptable according to Christians.
that seems a stretch, if she were wanting to desperately segregate the roles why would she hunt, or want a leadership position, it’s an illogical arguement making thoughtful dislike less valid
Same crazy religious site my mom subscribes to despised Palin because she didn’t conform to gender roles. Like for example she didn’t stay home with the children, she was trying to be a leader, her husband helped take care of the kiddies and she praised feminism.
1 Tim 2 gotta love the old time religion…
Alex didn’t say anything about gender roles, he was talking about sexual orientation and sexual identities. Gender bending is also different from not subscribing to a prescribed gender role.
Do you not know what segregation is? She certainly does not promote the creation of gays-only schools, or gays-only drinking fountains, or any thing of the sort.
Not believing something to be right or correct isn’t the same as promoting segregation of it.
Wanting to legislate against any group to ensure a curtailment of rights is pretty much segregationalist…
No. No it really isn’t. There’s an awesome website called http://www.dictionary.com that could help you out tremendously.
In the meantime I believe the word you’re looking for is prejudiced. Perhaps, unconstitutional (assuming you factor in a broad reading of the 14th amendment). Segregationist refers specifically to the physical separation of individuals from different classified groups.
Not letting gays marry is wrong (IMO), but it is not segregation.
the word I was looking for was actually the phrase ‘bigoted retards who shouldn’t be allowed sharps’ but thanks for the valiant attempt…
As to the first sentence… stick it up your arse, condescending loon…
Oh, they’re right.
hmmm.
Must be a condescending loon then.
Relegating and legislating right to a certain group of people is a form of segregation.
It’s discrimination for sure, but not segregation. Segregation would be, for example, gays could get married but not in the same church as straight folks. It may seem like semantics but its important to keep the concepts clear.
Segragation – Separate but Equal
Problem with the people today – they think 1984 was a manual, not a warning.
*applauds*
Well if you want to get technical gays CANT get married in the same churcges
as the straight folks….
Or in the same churhes for that matter. Stupid PK and its retarded nesting
and text boxes…
Oh for the love of….. churches… I quit…
Well…in Massachusetts, gays can get married in SOME of the same churches. The Unitarian Universalist, and the Congregational churches will marry gay and straight couples.
The capacity of this fail has overridden my neural pathways.
Happens to me a lot lately too. I hope it doesn’t cause permanent damage.
It was the D E M O C R A T S who were FOR segregation, why don’t you stupid liberal pukes get your facts straight before proving how clueless you are?
PS “gays” have exactly the same “rights” as anyone else, there is nothing about marriage in the constitution and they can get married to someone of the opposite sex JUST like anyone else, that’s what the word MEANS!
It was conservatives across all political parties calling for segregation and liberals across all political parties who wanted it abolished.
As for the gay comment, remember when anyone could marry someone the same race as them in the Southern states? That was some great equality right there.
“..remember when anyone could marry someone the same race as them in the Southern states?” and age wasn’t necessarily a factor.
Are men and women the same?
In what way? Are men the same as other men?
Ema, I think you really ought to go to your parents for that answer.
so…being “gay” is the same as being BORN a certain race…oooook
lots of people would love to marry their cousins/sisters/mother etc…what about their “rights”? I think it’s safe to say way more than the “10%” that the gay mafia claims are gay are into all sorts of perverted stuff, why not let them all marry whatever/whoever they all want? I bet more than 10% would like to rob a bank too, let’s make that legal. Way more than 10% of drivers break the speed limit, let’s abolish that. etc etc etc
And once again, it was DEMOCRATS that were for segregation, it’s real easy to look it up. While you’re at it, look up how many Republicans in congress are “former KKK members, the one that we know about certainly isn’t.
Wow, the gay mafia. What, did they send your mother to the bottom of the bay to sleep with the fishes wearing a pair of cement Jimmy chu’s?
I won’t touch more than that… Troll Patrol take it away please.
Here, take two of these
*Hand’s Yeee a few large ornately carved stick with a nail embedded in it*
ah, the loud mouth speaks again… a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing…
If there had been anything worth addressing in the post, I would have done… but there really isn’t anything, so I’m left with a Nelson Muntz ‘Ha-haaaa’ while we all look at the silly man…
Once again, it was conservatives for segregation. i notice you don’t sispute that, just try and spin it by pointing out some of them were conservatives in the Democrat party at the time.
If you want to live in a country where a section of the community is barred from marrying the consenting adult that they love, you’re going to have to move to one without a constitution guaranteeing equality.
The bank robbing analogy is beyond feeble – perhaps if, say, catholics were allowed to rob banks in the US but protestants weren’t you might have the formings of some kind of argument.
The Papists seem to get a pretty free ride on kiddie fiddling…
let’s take a look at your argument shall we? more than 10% of gays are into perverted things. define what you mean by perverted, because there’s plenty of straight people that do perverted shit and film it so I’m not sure where you are going with that.
10% want to rob banks, more than 10% will speed. Now do you know the difference between this and being gay? here’s a clue, when a person robs a bank it’s stealing. Stealing is against the law as it hurts people in some way. In bank robberies generally they are rather violent in themselves.
Speed limits are about because that’s the spped the government believes is the safest to go. Going beyond that is likely to lead to a crash and that may lead to death or injuries at the very least.
Are you still lost? Well our laws are around in order to protect people and society. If stealing were legal the system would break down. In the case of speed limits, it’s less a threat, and speed limits arn’t as enforced as murder laws. I live in montana and there’s still plenty of places without speed limits.
Being gay doesn’t hurt anyone, gay marraige doesn’t ruin society or hurt or kill anyone, whatever perverted shit that 10% or whatever might get up to is fine so long as it’s in the privacy of their home and no one is getting hurt (without consent >.>) just like straight couples.
And political parties change over time. these arn’t the dems and republicans we are dealing with from days of old. it’s already been mentioned before so i wont go into that
You misread that first bit. It is not that more than 10% of gays have perverted fetishes (may or may not be true). Dan says that more than 10% of the overall population (more than the % of gay people) have perverted fetishes (once again, may or may not be true).
.
But there still is there problem of made up statistics.
Ah, loud stupidity about the Prop 8 type problem… what a refreshing change
How’s this for Republican Racist thought?
Some minor, non-entity, Rep called Abe Lincoln came out with that bit of prose…
(I censored it since the PK censor would swallow it for an age otherwise)
He was a great supporter of separatist thought…
The D I X I E C R A T S were a splinter group of the Democratic party of the 60s that were for segregation because most of the Democrats were against it.
Is that the GA capital… It looks like it to me, but it does not have all that land around it anymore!
I’m thinking it’s Little Rock.
However, in the 50s and 60s, that picture could be anywhere in the South.
It’s the Arkansas State Capitol in Little Rock, yes. I recognize it since I drive by it on the way to work every day.
Unless you’re saying that everyone who liked/likes Palin is a racist, this doesn’t make any sense. And if that’s what you ARE saying, then… QUICK! HIDE! Your stupidity is showing!
I think you mean that “unless you’re saying that everyone who is a racist liked/likes Palin.” Otherwise, you might wanna zip up your fly. Or wherever it is from where “your stupidity shows.”
=D
ha ha ha…Republican Woman from Alaska is the segregationist… I mean it would make too much sense otherwise to target candidates running from Arkansas, or Tennessee and it would be too much work to target Joe Biden, who said that he’s proud that his state was a slave state…or the fact that Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was in the KKK, or that the only people who even wanted segregation were DEMOCRATS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!! My god, people are fing retarded.
You’ve just noticed that people are retarded?
Well, what can one expect from a cartoon rabbit…
Do people read these posts where their talking points are already presented, shot down, refuted, and they are verbally stoned for being so ignorant?
Do people really bother reading all the comments and conceptualize how they could all be put in an organized fashion?
If they want to be taken seriously? Yes.
‘Taken seriously’ – interesting concept. I may try it sometime
Ok. let me rephrase: Usually. : )
No, they don’t. Three more beyond this one – down yonder.
I think folks just see the pic and the caption, get cranky, and jump in to comment.
See below….
Well I blame you. You’re the one who farted and made them all that way. You bald headed freak.
This photo is a great example of people trying to rewrite history, either through eye-popping iggerance, or deliberate malice.
As I recall, it was primarily the southern Democrats who were against integration.
Anyone remember George Wallace and Lester Maddox?
And those KKK guys who blew up churches that had kids inside?
Apparently that last bit hasn’t changed. Just ask the people who were burned out of Palin’s church in Wasilla.
Pictures like the above, no matter how whimsical, are a bit like saying it was Jews who implemented the Holocaust.
I am so freaking sick of Obama supporters playing the race card.
Person A “I don’t agree with his views on–”
Person B “Racist!”
Man that’s a bad one. Especially since the Dems are the party of Segregation.
Jamescush is still partying like it’s 1859 there…
I’m surprised this one made it, fastfood. Your other two submissions were better, imo. I especially like the other captions about calculus! HA!
Oh that’s just low.
Its funny how I go to political sites to find funny things, its all bickering between democrats and republicans, conservatives and liberals. Can’t we be… I dunno… American? Americans with American values? The very founding of America was from different reasons, everyone had their own. Some came because they were being persecuted, some saw a chance for a better life. They tried a couple government styles and finally, after we fought for our independence, we found one that worked. Everyone can do their own thing, with only the law of their state to keep within the guidelines. Whats wrong with you people? Sure slavery is wrong, in all senses, but the blacks weren’t the first… We solved that problem, with a terrible bloody battle between people who thought differently, and we said no more slavery in the end. Why do you people perpetuate? All men were created equal, that is what our forefathers said in the constitution, the bill of rights, and the declaration of independence. They may all have had different reasons to believe different things, but they all agreed that these things were the things that were allowed every man.
NO RACE IS GREATER THAN THE OTHER!
Its settled, we lost thousands of good men and women for it, so just agree on it, or at least agree to disagree. People may have different opinions on the matter, but were allowed to. And dead peoples personal opinions are their own, quit trying to prove that people believed this and that, its between them and their creator.
ARSON IS WRONG
Last I checked its a crime, and though you may be biased to believe it was the christians, the black, the kkk, the liberals, the conservatives, the dems, the reps, the islamic, or your cousins granny. Someone did it, its wrong to burn someone elses property, their going to get punished for it.
And now following the actual lol-caption:
Why do you believe that Palin wants to put women down, when shes a woman? A womans going to be elected president, so other women are going to get it! That makes sense. You keep right on mister lol-man, these are getting funnier.
Can’t we be… I dunno… American?
This is the Internet, I would gladly extend that wish to “Can’t we be People?” as well. I do realise this site has been very centered around US politics, especially with the election and all, but hey – I really am never going to be American on this site or elsewhere. ;oP
Why do you believe that Palin wants to put women down, when shes a woman?
I, for one, would love to know why any woman wants that, and yet none of all the ones who do it, have been able to answer in a way that has made sense to me. It’s easier to kick downwards than upwards, maybe. (Note: This was a comment about women putting women down, not about Palin’s thoughts on the topic of feminism, gender issues and the like – I don’t know enough about them to analyse them nor mock them.)
A very good response. And yes I don’t mind mocking politics, as politics are nearly always corrupt and idiotic, and funny when you think about them. I would like to mock other countries politics as well. I think the funniest ones are the soviet russian ones with Puten, or Putin, or Putan, or Pootin, or whatever his name is in em. I liked this website when it mocked both sides equally, and didn’t degenerate into:
“Obama-Bot!”
“KKK Hick!”
But my main thought in that comment was that the democrates and the republicans keep bickering in this spread, why don’t they just agree to disagree? But then tempers stop for no man… Sometimes a woman can cool em down though. (Waiting for a segregationist remark on that one >:))
you’ve read the thread right?
A lot of the women here are howling harpies who drum up trouble where there is none… so, I’m not sure what you’re taking there buddy, but I think it’s rotting parts of the Broca and Wernicke complex for language comprehension…
“Howling harpies”?
Ah, because you’re outnumbered and they often disagree with you?
Lol! Right, instead of knowing their places and speaking when they’re spoken to…
Because your segregationists… >.>
Howling harpies are segregationists? I didn’t know that…
Yes, anyone who disagrees with mister fester is in the wrong. Did you not know that?
No! apparently not. ; )
Where’s my damn breakfast? *snicker* Sorry, had to.
I didn’t even know I was in possession of any segregationists. *checks basement*
LOL!
Sorry, but we’re not all psychiatric professors. I don’t know the “complexes” of the mind.
No I have not read the entire thread, I’ve read the really… interesting parts, where the democrats thrash the republicans for segregationism, and vice versa. I’m saying the democrats and republicans have gone on against each other for so long, neither of them stand for anything but to be against the other.
And my other points are:
Racism has been discussed in america with bullets already, anti-slavery won.
Its time to put the guns and agree that people can believe that slavery is right, but may not practice it in america.
And Women putting Women down doesn’t make any sense, why would Palin do that? Which makes this picture even more funny. And the 60s were messed up years of young people getting riled up over things they made opinions of which they really didn’t understand. Why do we call back to that era even today?
A simple google would have sorted the problem… but it seems to be beneath people to look anything up. Heaven forfend they learn something…
Well, that flushed out the people I expected and got a new one too
You really are easily lead…
Well, that’s the condescending arsehole’s answer we expected…
@Unc: Surely you don’t mean to imply dain bramage…
“I think the funniest ones are the soviet russian ones with Puten, or Putin, or Putan, or Pootin, or whatever his name is in em.”
) ).
Oh, I find them extremely onesided and not funny. They get quite boring and dull and are really practically never about anything but versions of him being a cold-hearted vampire, or about Sarah palin. They’re rarely about actual Russian politics. But diversity is best. I think the rep-dem lols are dwindling in numbers now, and eventually the rep-dem discussions in the comments section might get more issue-focused. (Well, that’s what I hope. Issues are much more fun than “My party leader can beat your party leader, nyer!”
“Why do you believe that Palin wants to put women down, when shes a woman?”
Personally, one of my main problems with Palin has to do with the fact that she seems to have no regard for women’s health. Add to that the fact that while she was mayor, her town began charging victims for rape kits until a bill was passed to stop it. That seems pretty anti-woman to me.
What is it to be a woman? I have known those that believe women are nothing but whores that are for making babies and being faithful to their man. Yes these are women that think this, and they think it because that is how they were brought up. There are those that think women should just be equal, and those that think women should be strictly independent and “omg how dare he pull the chair out for me?”
Palin can be anti-women, if that is how she was brought up she wouldn’t see a problem with it, but the general populace that hold other thoughts would
Absolutely. I like to think that people can grow past the teachings of their parents though, I certainly did. Now I love my mom, but we don’t hold the same views about a lot of things. I’m not saying she’s as backwards as I believe Palin is, but there are some things you just can’t change her mind about. Then again, she became a pagan as well not too long ago. Perhaps she just taught me to be open minded.
Don’t get discouraged Obama supporters, you can still play the race card in 2012
and maybe the gender one too…
Or if you didn’t vote for Obama then you’re rascist because the whole election choice was a black or white issue (pardon the pun). I see what you did there. :\
Wow… Can’t we all just look and realize it is a joke? Ya know, just sit back and go “haha, this is funny!” instead of making it some huge problem and blowing it out of proportion, making everyone look past the point of this caption, which is to make us laugh? It’s just a joke people, lighten up.
*shrug* That’s what happens here.
Every time I think that maybe people can just get along, I come to this site and realize that all people really want to do is find new and different ways to disagree. Which is of course completely typical of human nature, no matter what those tabula rasa types like to say.
But….but……but……but *I* like you, Pirate!
Don’t worry froo. Uncle LeRoy gets this way sometimes. He hasn’t slapped a saucy wench with a fish in weeks…
You’ve got a point there. Some people only like to stir up trouble, whether they actually believe what they’re saying or simply trying to get a rise out of someone else (or even both at the same time). The older I get, the more I simply want to listen to what others have to say. It’s much more enjoyable when the arguing is at least civil, otherwise it’s just a waste of time.
Because they haven’t thought of that yet, UF. Jeez, don’t give them any ideas! On that point, I will note that when I’ve had cars stolen and recovered who has to pay for the towing and impound fees? Me.
Stupid PK server and it’s stupid problems….(obviously, this is not where it was intended to be. Grrr.)
@UF: Like my dad. *headdesk*
I don’t like her, so she’s obviously evil, and no matter what I say about her, it’s ok… because I dislike her.
Yeah… because that works. I couldn’t find anything on Alaskan segregation between whites and blacks, although in the early 1900s there was some segregation against Alaskan natives. I couldn’t find ANY laws made regarding racial segregation postdating Alaska becoming a state in 1959. What evidence is there that Palin would have had an opportunity to support segregation, let alone whether she did?
“According to Lucille, the waitress serving her table at the time and who asked that her last name not be used” – No one really knows if Palin said that or not.
More to the point, who cared?
You certainly don’t give a good damn about their opinion, I don’t think anyone else does either, so it’s sort of a win-win… they get it all off the chest, no one else cares… :¬>
Who says I can’t be an optimist?
Good point, they probably all needed to let out some gas.
Very true but the one person who was being so venomous is somebody I know. If they aren’t taking their medication and getting dissociative like that, I am a tad worried for her. But I will get over it soon enough.