| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BrendanT |
Posted - 01/27/2005 : 17:05:55
...an accomplished author? I know, I know you thought I was going to say a f#@kin' *!utbag, wh@re, wannabe intelligent, quote making, boot f!@ckin', truck drivin', ass-lickin' bee itch!
Someone ought to Dirty Sanchez that girl!
Strummer-man
I had me a vision!
It's step, hip, step, pivot! Are you trying to piss-off the volcano?! |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| VoVat |
Posted - 01/31/2005 : 17:33:17
I hoped everyone would understand I wasn't being serious with that suggestion. I will say that I don't want to have kids, but I guess I could always change my mind someday. I'll also say that I have no interest in keeping the human race intact. Mind you, I think people who are alive today should be kept alive as long as possible (unless they don't deserve it), and I would never think of denying anyone the right to have children. It's just that, if I were somehow able to see a vision of 1000 years in the future and there were no more humans, I wouldn't be upset by that. I get the feeling that a lot of people would.
"Reunion? Shit union!" |
| Erebus |
Posted - 01/31/2005 : 17:13:04
VoVat, I assume you're being humorous, per usual, but I did want to say that I don't regard it as a matter of "should", with all the entailed moral imperative baggage. To me it's more a matter of those who reproduce put their offspring at the mercy of the forces of nature. As for myself, I hardly consider myself that fit, either physically or, even more so, psychologically, and have in fact opted out of the DNA replication game. I've had my chance to reproduce and it scared the hell out of me. I'm really not up for it. Too selfish. |
| VoVat |
Posted - 01/31/2005 : 16:27:43
But only the people with those traits should reproduce, right?
"Reunion? Shit union!" |
| Carolynanna |
Posted - 01/31/2005 : 12:08:02
quote:
Originally posted by VoVat
[quote]quote:
As for social Darwinism, it would be awfully self-defeating for me to support that. In a system where the physically strong, cunning, witty, rich, and/or good-looking win out, I would stand no chance. I comfort myself with the thought that many social Darwinists wouldn't last much longer than I would.
"Reunion? Shit union!"
Fly under the radar babeeeeee.
And as for myself I don't know how much of those traits I possess,
but I am extremetly fertile so.....
__________
Godfather of nothing, ancesters of none.
Black glasses and feedback took my sense of fun.
|
| BrendanT |
Posted - 01/31/2005 : 11:01:39
Thank you very much everyone. You have made me feel a little less frustrated.
"Anything that systematic would get you hated."
Strummer-man
I had me a vision!
All of a sudden my water broke!
"There was a man Who made a boat To sail away And it sank.". |
| The King Of Karaoke |
Posted - 01/29/2005 : 13:25:27
She's no Sasquatch.
----------------------
 |
| VoVat |
Posted - 01/29/2005 : 13:22:55
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by KimStanleyRobinson
We don't have discussions in the beautiful women thread...and she looks like a spider.
A closed head-injured spider.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's funny, because whenever I look at the eyes of Hillary Clinton or Katie Couric I see an internally dead human being. And the voices of both match the eyes. They drone like automata, like empty, dessicated husks.
I think I'd rather be an automaton than a spider. Well, unless you're talking about Spider-Man, 'cause he's cool.
As for social Darwinism, it would be awfully self-defeating for me to support that. In a system where the physically strong, cunning, witty, rich, and/or good-looking win out, I would stand no chance. I comfort myself with the thought that many social Darwinists wouldn't last much longer than I would.
"Reunion? Shit union!" |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 01/29/2005 : 09:16:17
Well, don't go lumping me in there, I can be a jerk at times. :)
Given my machiavellian leanings, though, I can't change your name if only because I may someday require it for my purposes. I'll look into thrasymachus though. :)
I think we have a similar understanding of the world in most cases (I don't necessarily take social Darwinism quite so far as you perhaps), but like Mike said, a different way of approaching the problems. It's great that we can disagree civilly and discuss intellectually, as opposed to flinging accusations and whatnot around. Though as you say, it's creepy in a way because it reminds me that there is no one right answer or certainly not one that can be proven one way or the other.
 "Join the Cult of Frank 2.0 / And you'll be enlightened (free for 1.x members)" |
| Erebus |
Posted - 01/29/2005 : 08:28:20
speedy, there I am in full jerk mode and you go being civil and complimentary. You, and COF, must actually be fundamentally decent human beings. Pretty creepy.
I guess you know I don't buy into the "simply one of the two children" analogy, and even if I did that I'd say that's just the way it is, that there isn't any teacher in this case, and that it's usually the bigger, stronger, or smarter kid that wins, not the one who happens to have right or justice on his side.
Now, COF, can I get dispensation to change my user name to "machiavelli" or "thrasymachus"? |
| Jose Jones |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 23:43:15
political discussions and beautiful women. i love this forum.
-----------------------
they were the heroes of old, men of renown. |
| Dallas |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 20:24:20
Funny stuff KSR. |
| speedy_m |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 17:38:23
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
I’m afraid I can’t see the human race as a masterpiece or even a portrait. It’s a DNA tournament, where the killers do better than the killed. I’ve nothing against cooperation, but the Islamists just don’t seem to be in the mood.
Erebus, you're a smart fellow, and I respect you (I hope that you've seen that I feel this way in our time together at fb.net), but it is this very reasoning that people, since the begining of time and today, have needed things like the Bible. As much as I may have a great distaste for organized religion and some of the groups involved, at least it teaches people to cherish life and to see it for the masterpiece it is. Perhaps, in the grand scheme of things, we are nothings in this universe, but brother, all we have is this life. I understand that from your angle you want to defend that very life, it just seems that again, we want the same things and see very different ways of acheiving it.
Remember in elementary school, someone 'did' something to you, and you 'got them back', and they got you back for that, and so on until it got out of control? The situation only got resolved when you both decided enough was enough and called truce, or when a teacher stepped in and put a stop to it. Isn't that a pleasant thought? Well, I'm sorry to say, but the United States of America is not the teacher stepping in to put a stop to things, and no one appointed them that position. They are simply one of the two children, 'getting the other back', and we're all waiting to see how 'out of control' things will get. |
| BLT |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 16:47:40
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
To paraphrase somebody, "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to stand by and do nothing".
I'll bet that's the catchphrase for a lot of kids in Iraq these days. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 16:46:03
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
"I would place the guilt for the deaths in the middle east at the feet of the pacifists, and the liberals, and the cowards"
Tortured logic. Deaths from a war aren't due to the group that started the war, rather they're due to the people that didn't join in the war. Wow.
To paraphrase somebody, "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to stand by and do nothing". |
| darwin |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 16:36:52
"I would place the guilt for the deaths in the middle east at the feet of the pacifists, and the liberals, and the cowards"
Tortured logic. Deaths from a war aren't due to the group that started the war, rather they're due to the people that didn't join in the war. Wow.
|
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 16:22:05
*cracks open a frosty O'Doul's and plops down in lawnchair*
Gather 'round boys!
We got us one a them rot/left fots!
Weee hew!
Iss jes lack rasslin owna tee vee!
Pretzel rod? |
| Erebus |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 16:07:27
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
The Dems are deluded and dangerous.
Whoa, the Democrats are deluded and dangerous?
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war"
Advocating mass genocide albeit indirectly. I'll excuse the convert them to Christianity thing because I don't see that someone with a right-wing philosophy need necessarily be Christian or even religious. Her, "we're right, and we should eliminate all those who disagree" attitude is hardly what I'd call a "safe" or "reasonable" or even "agreeable" stance.
"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."
Anyone else, this would be a joke. Not necessarily about the death penalty/John Walker, but the idea of having to flex muscles and threaten lives to convert people who disagree with you into submission instead of dialogue.
"(Sheryl) Crow explained that the 'best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.' War solves that problem too: We won't have any enemies because we're going to kill them. Crow warned of 'huge karmic retributions that will follow.' She seemed not to understand that America going to war is huge karmic retribution. They killed three thousand Americans and now they're going to die."
And of course there's nothing dangerous about linking Iraq with 9/11 yet again. Propoganda is good for a nation. Keeps them united.
"There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell anger. Japanese Kamikazes pilots hated us once, too. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons got their attention. Now they are gentle little lambs."
And of course, I'm all for the use of nuclear arms.
I mean, come on, you can disagree with the Dems, but here's a deluded and dangerous republican that you agree with. It's not like they're the only ones. I admit that's a brave thing to admit to and I admire your honesty if nothing else, but let's not go pointing fingers when it strikes me that either side has its dangerous elements.
PS I still can't fathom this black-and-white left/right philosophy nor why anyone would want to adhere to only one colour strictly. You need to take from both sides in varying degrees to paint a portrait. Otherwise, you end up with a big black void or an empty canvas instead of a shaded masterpiece.
To the amazement of perhaps us both, I’m actually going to defend Ms. Coulter and myself. It's quick and dirty, befitting a Friday afternoon at work. I comment in the order of your remarks.
“Advocating mass genocide albeit indirectly.” I would say Coulter is advocating victory and security, not genocide. And I remind you that it was the Islamists who committed mass murder. And she’s not asserting that “we should eliminate all those who disagree” but that we eliminate those who KILL US. We didn’t fight Hitler because we “disagreed” with him.
“Anyone else, this would be a joke. Not necessarily about the death penalty/John Walker, but the idea of having to flex muscles and threaten lives to convert people who disagree with you into submission instead of dialogue.” Of course here I have more sympathy for your objection. She’s mistaken to equate Walker with liberals, even though recently the libs have often seemed to have formed common cause with our enemies, and, yes, they are our enemies. I doubt she thinks the libs can be “converted”. They’re hopeless. And history shows that when it really matters, most dialogue just allows the eventual conflict to be that much deadlier. The libs may not be “traitors”, but given the way their words and behavior give comfort and encouragement to the enemy, and thereby abet the killing of American soldiers, they mights as well be. For example, Ted Kennedy’s speech yesterday, and Barbara Boxer’s grandstanding at the Rice confirmation hearings, and Kerry, and all those other lying slimeballs.
“linking Iraq with 9/11 yet again” – While I agree that Iraq was probably not directly involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, I think it is disingenuous to suggest that Iraq did not assist Al Qaeda through the years, to include cooperation on training, intelligence, and weapons acquisition. For example, even without direct links, China will for years be justly regarded as complicit in international crimes committed by North Korea. And to offer a “Coulteresque” example, I and many Americans regard much of Europe to be complicit in the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq because they stood apart from us at the outset of the war, ostensibly out of higher moral principle, but instead simply out of greedy desire to protect their illegal oil-for-food and other profitable arrangements with a terminally corrupt UN, all the while accusing the US of “blood for oil’. If the rest of the free world had stood with us on this, the results would have been much less bloody. I would place the guilt for the deaths in the middle east at the feet of the pacifists, and the liberals, and the cowards, just as tens of millions died in WWII because advocates of “dialogue” lacked the stomachs and minds to do the right thing before world war, with its tens of millions of dead Russians and Germans, with its deathcamps. Without the peaceniks, how many Jews would have survived? Millions. ....Perhaps you can understand why I am not so outraged by Ms. Coulter.
“And of course, I'm all for the use of nuclear arms.” I have absolutely no doubt that Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Allied lives, whereas conventional strategic bombing of the same sites, even if resulting in the same or more Japanese deaths, civilian or otherwise, would have done next to nothing to weaken the resolve of the Japanese to fight to the end, necessitating an Allied invasion.
I agree that both sides have their dangerous elements, but there comes a time when such as Coulter say what needs to be said. This is no time for politeness. I’m afraid I can’t see the human race as a masterpiece or even a portrait. It’s a DNA tournament, where the killers do better than the killed. I’ve nothing against cooperation, but the Islamists just don’t seem to be in the mood.
|
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 15:57:37
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by KimStanleyRobinson
We don't have discussions in the beautiful women thread...and she looks like a spider.
A closed head-injured spider.
That's funny, because whenever I look at the eyes of Hillary Clinton or Katie Couric I see an internally dead human being. And the voices of both match the eyes. They drone like automata, like empty, dessicated husks. If I believed in "the soul" I'd say they have dead souls.
and they don't belong in the beautiful women thread either. |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 14:53:05
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
The Dems are deluded and dangerous.
Whoa, the Democrats are deluded and dangerous?
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war"
Advocating mass genocide albeit indirectly. I'll excuse the convert them to Christianity thing because I don't see that someone with a right-wing philosophy need necessarily be Christian or even religious. Her, "we're right, and we should eliminate all those who disagree" attitude is hardly what I'd call a "safe" or "reasonable" or even "agreeable" stance.
"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."
Anyone else, this would be a joke. Not necessarily about the death penalty/John Walker, but the idea of having to flex muscles and threaten lives to convert people who disagree with you into submission instead of dialogue.
"(Sheryl) Crow explained that the 'best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.' War solves that problem too: We won't have any enemies because we're going to kill them. Crow warned of 'huge karmic retributions that will follow.' She seemed not to understand that America going to war is huge karmic retribution. They killed three thousand Americans and now they're going to die."
And of course there's nothing dangerous about linking Iraq with 9/11 yet again. Propoganda is good for a nation. Keeps them united.
"There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell anger. Japanese Kamikazes pilots hated us once, too. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons got their attention. Now they are gentle little lambs."
And of course, I'm all for the use of nuclear arms.
I mean, come on, you can disagree with the Dems, but here's a deluded and dangerous republican that you agree with. It's not like they're the only ones. I admit that's a brave thing to admit to and I admire your honesty if nothing else, but let's not go pointing fingers when it strikes me that either side has its dangerous elements.
PS I still can't fathom this black-and-white left/right philosophy nor why anyone would want to adhere to only one colour strictly. You need to take from both sides in varying degrees to paint a portrait. Otherwise, you end up with a big black void or an empty canvas instead of a shaded masterpiece.
"Join the Cult of Frank 2.0 / And you'll be enlightened (free for 1.x members)" |
| Erebus |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 14:49:59
quote:
Originally posted by KimStanleyRobinson
We don't have discussions in the beautiful women thread...and she looks like a spider.
A closed head-injured spider.
That's funny, because whenever I look at the eyes of Hillary Clinton or Katie Couric I see an internally dead human being. And the voices of both match the eyes. They drone like automata, like empty, dessicated husks. If I believed in "the soul" I'd say they have dead souls. |
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 14:20:49
We don't have discussions in the beautiful women thread...and she looks like a spider.
A closed head-injured spider. |
| Dallas |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 14:11:17
Shouldnt this discussion be taking place in the 'beautiful women' thread???
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 13:43:50
quote:
Originally posted by Newo
In her book on Clinton did she mention he managed to lose twelve bodyguards (Major William S. Barkley Jr., Captain Scott J. Reynolds, Sgt. Brian Hanley, Sgt. Tim Sabel, Major General William Robertson, Col. William Densberger, Col. Robert Kelly, Spec. Gary Rhodes, Steve Willis, Robert Williams, Conway LeBleu, Todd McKeehan), one of whom was found decapitated and the verdict ruled natural causes? and if not hmm...
Ethically and morally, Clinton might as well be a Mafia Don. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 13:35:31
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
Is that suppose to be impressive?
I was just trying to provide a public service. Thought some folks might like to see a mini-bio.
While I do often cringe at what she says and how she says it, I must admit that I agree with most of it. Not the Christianity, but the attacks on the left. I think her instincts are correct. The Dems are deluded and dangerous. |
| Newo |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 13:31:17
In her book on Clinton did she mention he managed to lose twelve bodyguards (Major William S. Barkley Jr., Captain Scott J. Reynolds, Sgt. Brian Hanley, Sgt. Tim Sabel, Major General William Robertson, Col. William Densberger, Col. Robert Kelly, Spec. Gary Rhodes, Steve Willis, Robert Williams, Conway LeBleu, Todd McKeehan), one of whom was found decapitated and the verdict ruled natural causes? and if not hmm...
--
You know the man you hate? you look more like him every day. |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 13:05:18
I thought you were talking about the evil woman from the dark materials trilogy for a while there, is this the woman with the freaky limbs?
you
me
we used to be on fire |
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 13:02:51
and was also known as "cum dumpster" in her college days. |
| darwin |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 13:01:40
Is that suppose to be impressive? |
| Carolynanna |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 13:00:32
What is the name of that chick from Vancouver,
she's pretty much our Canadian Ann Coulter, anyone?
__________
Godfather of nothing, ancesters of none.
Black glasses and feedback took my sense of fun.
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 12:53:30
from her website:
ANN COULTER
Ann Coulter is the author of four New York Times bestsellers —How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)(October, 2004), Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (June 2003); Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (June 2002); and High Crimes and Misdemeanors:The Case Against Bill Clinton (August 1998).
Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is a frequent guest on many TV shows, including Hannity and Colmes, Wolf Blitzer Reports, At Large With Geraldo Rivera, Scarborough Country, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, The O'Reilly Factor, Good Morning America and has been profiled in numerous publications, including TV Guide, the Guardian (UK), the New York Observer, National Journal, Harper's Bazaar, and Elle magazine, among others. She was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner in 2001.
Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.
After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.
A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review. |
| kathryn |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 11:02:24
Or perform pull a Menendez brothers.
I still believe in the excellent joy of the Frank |
| BLT |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 10:55:57
Maybe their offspring could slap some sense into them.
 "Anything Dave Matthews can do, John Mayer can do worse" |
| kathryn |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 10:52:02
Now that's an idea!
I still believe in the excellent joy of the Frank |
| BLT |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 10:41:18
I'd like to see Ann Coulter and Michael Moore engaged in hot monkey sex. |
| kathryn |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 10:22:21
Millions of Americans adore Ann Coulter and buy her hate- and
lie-filled books. Ditto Rush Limbaugh.
I still believe in the excellent joy of the Frank |
|
|
