Yea that is the Switzerland I'm talking about.

If you have a problem with protecting your country, emigrate. If you don't like the place you live well enough to defend it, then stop reaping the benefits of living there and move elsewhere.

It's like the hippies here in the U.S. If you hate America so much, pack up your drum circles and move somewhere more 'culturally rich' like Mexico. Ha Ha Ha. Or better yet, all you Che fans out there should move to Cuba and live in the workers paradise that, that commie scumbag helped create. 99% of you haven't done an honest days work in your life.

But yea you're on the ball with mandatory fire-arms ownership and crime. In fact there were similar laws in most U.S. states following the revolution. Keep in mind, Switzerland hasn't been invaded in modern times either.

1. So we have to bank-roll our allies and fight their wars for them? What is the benefit of having such alliances? The truth is we wouldn't have so many enemies in the middle east if it weren't for our support of Israel.

Also ask yourself, do we really want an ally that attacks us directly, under the guise of another power, in an attempt to get us to declare war on that power (USS liberty anyone)? Or one which has been caught spying on us time and time again?

Disregarding the fact that our founders intended us to avoid all long-term and peace-time alliances in favor of armed neutrality*, would you really want the U.S. to ally itself with a nation of this character?

2. Israel has exhibited it's fair share of aggression too (Not only against it's neighbors, but against it's so-called allies. Again the USS liberty). They themselves constantly bombard Lebanon and Palestine and neither side has any qualms against killing civilians.

Israel and the American news media of course justify Israeli killings because "it forces those who harbor terrorists to choose between dieing or refusing to house the terrorists". This would be like the UK doing bombing raids over the Catholic sectors of Northern Ireland back at the height of Sinn Fein terrorism and acting like they were morally justified in doing so, because "it forces those those in Northern Ireland to choose between death or ousting the IRA".

Of course Israel has the best in modern and U.S. paid-for weaponry while the Arabs have sticks and stones and the occasional piece of antiquated Soviet weaponry. I'm not justifying either side here (particularly not on merits of who has the best in destructive toys) merely making a comparison.

3. Prove to me with valid historical evidence, not religious doctrine, that the Jews inhabited that region 2,000 years ago. Even if they did, people migrate.

Vikings once populated parts of North America. Does that mean that Iceland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden can now lay claim to lands in the U.S. and Canada? Lets assume the UN was backing this crazy scenario. Don't you think that might piss off a few people. Would you feel like the UN was justified in doing so? Do you think this might breed any anti-Scandinavian resentment among the U.S. and Canadian populous?

Of course it's justified though. Scandinavian families have been settling here since before the American revolution .

History, not propaganda. What is that? The latest buzzword for denying someone else’s voice and inserting your own propaganda?

* for those who think that armed neutrality can not work in the modern world, look only to Switzerland.

Actually the isolationism you are referring to of the 30's and 40's was more of a populist/people orientated doctrine. FDR and the US government couldn't be called isolationist by any stretch of the term. Pearl Harbor itself was the result of US governmental agitation in the Pacific prior to WWII. There are entire volumes written on the subject. Not that I condone any attack which was not precipitated by an open declaration of war (not the underhanded type of 'warning' given to DC just moments before attack) or the death of US servicemen and women. Before anyone misinterprets me, the U.S. WAS morally correct in retaliation against Japan or any other attacking nation. I only want to make it clear that the U.S. was by no means isolationist in foreign policy.

Look at the US governments Lend Lease policy that was taking place before the United States was actually at war, for example. The one which made the U.S. neutral in name only. The only reason Germany didn't declare war in retaliation for this was that she was already tied up in war on the European continent and really didn't need to have another world power fighting her (especially an industrial giant such as the U.S.).

Germany only declared war after Pearl Harbor, because the Japanese promised to invade the Eastern USSR in return. This would have taken enormous pressure of the Germans, possibly caused Soviet capitalization, and allowed the Krauts to have their Festung Europa which would have been f*ck-all difficult for either the Tommies or us Americans to contest (not to mention all the oil in the Caucuses). All in all an offer they couldn't sanely refuse.

Of course Japanese keeping with their ancient and highly reputed reputation of being an honorable people bailed on the deal, leaving Germany with another enemy and nothing really to show for it.

Despite the backing of well reputed American heroes such as Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford, Isolationism was never a governmental policy of the U.S.

Fast forward to today. 9/11 WAS our fault, or more appropriately the fault of our governmental policy of supporting Israel. That doesn't mean we don't have any right to retaliate. Like I stated with Pearl Harbor, we have every right and every duty to do so. But you can't go around acting like they did this for no apparent reason or because they hate our freedoms and continue doing the same old s**t without expecting the same old s**t in return.

Also you can't use their attack to justify an attack on a completely different opponent (Iraq).

Ron Paul, I've been told, is interested in cutting funding to Israel which makes perfect sense.

1. America was meant to be a sovereign nation and owes it to no other country to take care of them. How many of you so-called patriots have read George Washington's farewell address? Sorry, but I do believe in putting America's interests above any other nation's.

2. They are a first world nation, with one of the most professional militaries in the world and can take care of themselves. Yea they are the most hated country in the middle east, but gee ever think that it may be their fault?

3. Our support of them breeds world-wide resentment of us as a nation. This would all be fine if we were actually justified in supporting them, but go back and read the above points.

As for the current cluster-f*ck in Iraq... why are we policing someone else's civil war? They don't want us there and it's none of our business.

Sure people have a right to protest and I am by no means a Bush supporter, but scumbags who spit on vets get what's coming to them.

Right on, that's the best way to make sure they don't do it again.




Anyone who wants to help out our fighting men should check out:

http://anysoldier.com/HowToSend.cfm

Agreed.

Race is a genetic, not a social construct. Race is just a way of subdividing humans by physical characteristics, as breeds are a way of subdividing dogs by physical characteristics. Members of the black race are more susceptible to sickle cell disease than members of the white or oriental races. Forensic scientists can tell the race of a murder victim simply by looking at the skeletal structure; even if the body is destroyed. That’s science, not bigotry. It’s sick how our society would rather turn a blind eye to the facts of how things really are, than be labeled a certain way.

Ethnicity, on the other hand, has more to do with culture. Take for example the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. They are members of the same race and live in the same country, but two separate ethnicities.

I would stop and insert a disclaimer about how I’m not a racist, but that sort of kowtows to the idea that it’s somehow wrong or immoral to even mention that certain biological differences among human beings exist, so I’ll skip on that.

I understand it's satire. I said so in my initial post. And on the surface no, you aren't supposed to take it seriously. The thing is people do get arrive at their social and political conclusions based on what’s presented on the show. The show is a parody of right-wing media, that presents a left-wing viewpoint to the audience; that people apparently buy into.

Ok, so I’m away from my computer for a day and this thread skyrockets to seven pages. I don’t really have any interest in reading them all so I’m just going to comment on KerryO and Redy’s responses following my last post all the way back on page two.

All Quotes are from KerryO:

"No, the Fans of Irony here are looking at your coming in here throwing the term 'fag' around like you just won it in the Powerball lottery. And the more literate of the assembly are probably thinking about the line from Shakespeare "Methinks the lady doth protest too much."

For someone who professes to be so smart, you seem to misunderstand the definition of irony. Explain to me what is ironic about an anti-homosexual making anti-homosexual remarks?

I believe I used the term ‘fag’ only once. I may have used it more, but go back and take a count. I don’t think you’ll find more than three occurrences of that particular title. I used it for two reasons:

1. Because typing ‘homosexual’ and ‘gay’ got old.
2. To be provocative and piss people like you off.

I obviously had some success with the latter, as it has made you so blind with rage you forget that I had only dropped the word once, twice, or at most, three times.

Again someone pulls the old chestnut “if someone is anti-homosexual they must really be insecure and possibly gay themselves“. That is really the most crack-headed assumption I have ever heard, but I guess it’s repeated often enough where the masses buy into it.

You know what I’m not a big fan of cats. Does that mean that I’m insecure about me not being a cat or that I am secretly feline? The whole thing is just an attempt to silence people who might otherwise protest what they feel is wrong.

As far as me ’protesting too much’ I thought this was supposed to be an open forum for debate and discussion. Someone presented a view which I didn’t agree with and I protested it. Others made attacks on my person and I defended myself. Makes sense to me. But I guess that I don’t have a right to do that since my thoughts aren’t consistent with yours.

“One more time: _hatred_ is the operative term in the definition and, not incidentally, the context in which this little skull session is based. All the rest are just textiles to clothe the Emperor in Moral Superiority, even as his arse is still in plain sight.”

Once again, according to Merriam-Webster‘s, the definition of a phobia: “an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation”. Hatred can not be the operative word in a definition of which it isn’t a part. But I’ll play along. Let’s say hatred is a necessary condition of a phobia. So is irrational fear, which many supposed ‘homophobes’ lack.

What’s funny about the whole thing is your metaphor involving the story of the Emperor’s clothes. What you have done is to take a false statement and present it as fact (the bare Empower) and then you dress it up with a sentence and a half of worthless fluff (the clothing). It’s perfect illustration of irony, so Mr.98%. you might want to take notes so you can better understand the concept.

“Only that private club is trying to feed at the public trough while not respecting its rules-- rules designed to reverse decades of institutionalized sexism and prejudice. Hasn't it been shown that everyone benefits from a more harmonious society where the majority is estopped from running roughshod over the rights of minorities to live and breathe in a social sense?”

You can call it the “public trough” if that serves your agenda, but the fact is prominent figures of society are able to aid private clubs that they support as long as they aren’t appropriating public funds without the proper legislation. If the Mayor of Town “A” gives the scouts free publicity by shaking hands with them on television, or grants them a permit to hold a march through town (and they meet the requirements for the permit), that is up to him or her.

The only ‘rule’ that exists in this country is the rule of law. You can’t decide you don’t like something and then claim that they are breaking our ‘rules’ when no laws are being broken. The scouts are a private club and have the right to exclude whoever they want. You may not like that, but tough break. I’m not in favor of any Gay-Pride organizations, but if the mayor of my town wants to grant them permission to have a rally downtown, there isn’t much I can do about it.

Yes all minorities should have rights and it would be a much more pleasant and harmonious society if every minority-group could carry on as they wished. Wrong. Child-molesters, rapists, and drug dealers are a minority in this society, but it really isn’t beneficial to society to have them running about doing as they wished.

" Given that, in a terrible truth of nature, innocent babies are born with AIDS as the result of exclusively heterosexual contact, your premise fails. Utterly. Besides, people like yourself hating gay men can be shown to pre-date the AIDS epidemic.

But you might want to talk about glorifying non-reproductive sex with Rambill-- he's our resident oral sexpert.“

I never claimed that this wasn’t true. The only thing I brought up was the fact that homosexuals have greatly contributed to the rapid spread of AIDS in this country, more than any demographic group. What does my or anyone else hatred of gay men, or women, have to do with the fact that the sexual promiscuous and deviance of gay men (Gay women are of course sexually deviant too, but AIDS is difficult to spread through female-on-female sex. Of course there are heterosexual perverts and deviants, but the fact is homosexuals are deviants by definition) has lead to the explosion of AIDS in this country and the spill-over into the heterosexual community?

By the way, you happened to neatly dodge my question (gee, could that have been on purpose?). So I’ll pose it again. What is progressive about homosexuality? What benefits does it have to bestow upon mankind?

“Perhaps, but not nearly as priceless as appropriating the last name of two states for one's nom de plume. AND THEN MISSPELLING IT!! (BTW, that's 'you're', NOT 'YOUR'. Sheesh!)

Oh, and could you spit those seeds from those sour grapes somewhere else?

-Kerry O. “

We’ve been over this countless times, it was a simple typo; which wouldn’t seem to be worth too much of anyone’s time obsessing over, but knock yourself out.

I don’t know why you find it so ‘priceless’ that I chose to use Carolina as my handle. it is actually common practice to refer to the two states as the Carolinas or to refer to the general region as Carolina.

Redy: You misunderstood me, I didn’t mean for homosexuals to start their own exclusively homosexual club, though I stated that I could give a rats-ass less if they did. I merely made the suggestion that homosexuals or homosexual advocates make a club that doesn’t exclude them.

The ain't for everybody but:

Red Dawn
Taxi Driver
The Boondock Saints
Zulu
The Time Machine (the old version, not the remake)
Green Street Hooligans
Football Factory

and if your really looking for something different:

A Clockwork Orange

KerryO: You disagree with me for disliking people because of their lifestyle choice. You deride me for the region in which I live (a Bubba is it?). I'm not complaining, I'm just wondering if no one else sees the irony in this.

It's all about the context? Explain to me what it was that I took out of context. I stated that most people that I know of who don't like homosexuals, do not fear them and their dislike is not irrational. A phobia again is "an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations". Maybe it's me, but "irrational" and "fear" seem vital to the context.

You identify as a libertarian. Shouldn't you respect the scouts right as a private club to exclude membership to whomever they wish? I mean, isn't libertarianism about letting everybody do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm others?

You also describe yourself as progressive. How so? Explain to me how glorification of non-reproductive same-sex intercourse counts as societal progression. Oh wait, it did help spread AIDS. That was a big step ahead for humanity.

Your in the 98th percentile eh? Isn't shouting about it a bit narcissist, if sans phallus? I've never had my IQ tested, but I doubt I'm in the top 2% of human intelligence. I'll take your word for it. Just blows my faith in the IQ system of intelligence rating.



Redy wrote:

" You are correct, they are a private club and should be treated as such. But the status they’ve gained in the sight of the public, set them up for a whole lot of freebies, including a lot of free advertising as some very high government officials, over the years, have held them up to the lime light. For that reason they have been many breaks by city, local, and state governments. "

At least you argue the issue rather than my character, or possible lack-of. If government officials, or whoever, hold give them free publicity that's their choice. Individual government officials have the right to do so. Just as individual government officials have the right to support any other club or organization (million-mom march, etc.). They may get breaks, but only because of the high-regard they have earned among the community. Let homosexuals start their own version of scouts and they will have all the opportunity in the world to make a name for themselves. Today's society as a whole is very accepting of homosexuals.

Bibby: Here goes with the definition of a bigot (drum roll) “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion”. You seem to fit that bill as well as I do. My perceived arrogance or obnoxiousness is pretty subjective.

Kerry O:

I have a sense of humor and can poke fun at myself for simple mistakes, so what? At least I'm not a prick.

Here we go with the Dictonary definition:

phobia
A noun
1 phobia, phobic disorder, phobic neurosis

an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations; "phobic disorder is a general term for all phobias"

Who was it that's wrong about phobias?

Oh I don't think I ever tried to hide my opinion of homosexuals (you act as if your letting a big cat out of the bag). I know this would be standard in your Orwellian dream-world, but I’ve still got the 1st amendment to fall back on. Freedom of speech is a *****, ain't it?

The name? It's a typo dude, chill. You forgot to insert the word 'go' in your first sentence. Oh and I misspelled my screen name, I didn't misplace it. Big deal, I personally think it‘s kind-of chicken-**** for someone to get their panties worked up over something like that. You’re really grabbing for stuff to criticize when you have to resort to spelling errors, typos, and base-less insinuations.

Bottom line: why don't you try and find fault in my arguments rather than, rather lamely, trying to deflect attention away from such by making personal attacks upon me. Can you?

school teacher

Colbert is funny, but in all seriousness his show is almost a parody of itself. He mocks arrogant right-wing media personalies who jump to radical conclusions, glossing over obvious facts (which is part of the reason I find his show so humorous), but it's done with an arrogant under-tone and a left-wing overtone that implies radical conclusions that gloss over obvious facts. And the studio audience always seems to be made up of trendy college type know-it-alls who laugh at everyjoke made, funny or not (twice as hard if the joke is on a 'right-winger').

All in all the show is good for a laugh, but I don't take it too seriously.

typo:

that should read "allow or reject" not "allow or not reject"

Is there a way to edit previous posts?

FitnessFanatic your resorting to non-sequator. The fact that some elements of Christianity are screwy has nothing to do with the fact that the scouts are a private organization and can allow or not reject whoever they want for membership.

The guy gave a link to 79 different studies, I'm sure a just few of them were possibly conducted by non-religious organizations. I'm not a Christian and yet I find homosexuality unpleasant.

Also to address devilsmom, what does the current year have to do with anything? I didn't know that through the ebb and flow of time acts, without changing, become more or less justified. Yes the way people perceive these acts changes, but just because it's currently hip and trendy to be gay and just because it's unfashionable to oppose homosexuality, none of this changes the act itself.

Speaking to adj4u, if the scouts voluntarily gave the go ahead on allowing gay members and a kid got violated, I belive it would be the scouts fault (viewing this both legally and personally). The opposite would be true if the scouts were forced into accepting gays.

Secretary

I pay, but that's only because I'm a chauvinist pig.

You forgot the internment of Italian and German-Americans during WW2 which happened on the same scale and seems to be white-washed (I guess because whites don't make for very good oppressed minorities).

And the McCarthy thing has been blown way out of proportion. We now know there actually were more reds in high places than even Joe McCarthy was calling out. I think it was the head of our war department in WW2 that was a self-admitted red (had written articles for an openly communist periodical). If you want I'll look it up for you in a book of mine and post the specifics.

I'm glad you covered our so-called greatest president Lincoln though. It's almost funny if it weren't so sick, exponentionally more dissenters were imprisoned by Lincoln than by Mussolini. Partly due to the fact that Mussolini actually had to try people.

Oh and I'm with you on the patriot act and foreign intervention (which Washington tried to warn us against).