Searching "comments":
| # | Comment | Survey |
|---|---|---|
| 2441 | I never heard of "Teh secks" which sounds pretty stupid. Yeah, that would annoy me if anything. What the hell is "the sex" supposed to mean anyway? I never heard of Orly (sounds like someone trying to say Bill Oreily) or ffs either. | Which of the following 'Internet terms' annoy you most? |
| 2442 | sounds like an antidepresant and a weight loss piss rolled into one | Lipozene |
| 2443 | With the exception of the Ann Frank one, none. Perhaps cause I am not Jewish.
I didn't even get half of those. And NOT ONE money joke. Jeez, I coulda come up with a better one if I had the will and patience. If you gonna sterotype, at least do it right. | Which of these anti-Semitic cartoons do you think is most offensive? |
| 2444 | I find the general notion of offspring being punished/rewarded for the acts of their ancestors very un-American. If you've read the 10 commandments carefully, the full version that is, theres a clause somewheres on the first one that he who curses God will have their next 4 (or 5, I forget) generations cursed; and something like 1,000 generations rewarded for doing some major sacrificing. I really don't see how any of this applies to USA 2006.
As for the Middle East conflict, people in those regions just happen to have longer attention spans and memories. So perhaps having a very short attention span and a complete arrogance/ingorance of history beyond the last 200 years has its benefits. The best solution to their conflict is 24-hour Nike and deoderant commericals.  | Which of these anti-Semitic cartoons do you think is most offensive? |
| 2445 | There is a scripture, which I believe addresses the individual…which says….”a father’s sins shall visit ten generations”.
Well, I am not an avid bible reader, but my interpetation of such a statement (given the day and age they lived back them into account) would be if your dad does X, then you will also be punished for it though some kind of bad karma. That means if your dad sold drugs and went to prison but you somehow turned out ok and your kid turned out ok, somehow his actions would still have an effect within 8 generations. I fail to see the logic in that. I can see your interpetation of when the parents are screw ups when their kids are still young that that can have an effect on them, but I don't think thats what the writers of the bible meant. Besides, 10 generations is a bit excessive, dont you think? Sooner or later, someone within the family will make it though. "As Kruschev said many years ago…”we shall bury you from within”. How do you suppose they were going to do it? By trying to destroy anything in our society that mentions Christianity? Through the educational system?…Through placing in the State Dept. communists? By the entertainment media? The breakdown of the family? By creating a “me me” society?" No, actually they were gonna do it with nukes (which they didn't have). It was more of a bluff, not the mention the Russian culture values "strong leadership". Him saying "we will bury you" was a way to not look like a pansy in front of his own people; not to mention an empty threat as part of Russia's military strategy. Not to mention he was also a boor (possibly a drunk at that). And the last time I've checked, communism LOST. Ever since the Berlin wall collapsed. I fail the see Russia's motive to "break up" families when the lost the war anyway. So why even bother bringing up the commies into a conversation that has nothing to do with communism. Besides, the communists had the expectation that the US would collapse on its own weight (ironiclly it was the other way around) without any intervention. It would have been pointless for them to bring down the US, since they had in their minds it would bring down itself. Interesting to note; we got our asses kicked in the Vietnam war by the commies; yet Vietnam today is a free market country. So really, it was us trying to destroy them instead of the other way around (which was pointless since they collapesed on their own without our intervention). Also, I am not sure where you get your information that the ACLU are communists. True, I have my issues with them as well. Lets just say I have a love/hate attitude towards them. They fought viviously to protect the first Amendment for everybody, including yourself. No, they're not anti-Christian, they're pro-free speech, which means that its ok to say bad things about Christianity without the fear of being thrown in jail. Also don't forget, they took up for Rush Limbough (sp?) when he was busted doctor shopping. Then again, these are the same people trying to protect NABLA. "Opening our borders beyond repair?" The borders WERE open for most of the US history up until the late 1800's and the reason why they began to close in the first place is because of labor unions-- apparantly afraid of competition. So argubly, it was the commies who had the borders closed IN THE FIRST PLACE. I would also like to point out that its people who tend to argue in favor of the free market are also more likly to be in favor of more open borders. So if anything, techniclly speaking, wouldn't that make you the communist? "The problem with the MiddleEast conflict is the Arabs have an ingrained hatred of Israel because Ismael was not given the birthright, Israel was given the birthright….short and simple." birthright???? The Arab ingrained hatred to Israel probabbly had more to do with the world in general hatred towards Israel which they haven't grown out of it. The Arabs think the land belongs to them and Israel thinks it belongs to them, and Israel was lucky enough to the win the war and get it. Not to mention many of the Arabs are dirt poor, being close to a 3rd world country, so they need an enemy or someone to blame their misery on, and Israel is the closest. So yeah, that would explain the conflict. Proximity is the #1 cause of conflict. On a side and final note; not all athiests and communists and not all communists are athiests. In fact, the correlation between the two are very weak. Lumping two entire seperate enteties that have nothing to do with one another only weakens your argument and this is how wacky conspiracy theories get started. Here is a link to a debunked conspiracy theory from snopes. http://www.snopes.com/language/document/commrule.h... And these guys have no political agenda, they go after both liberals and conservatives alike. | Which of these anti-Semitic cartoons do you think is most offensive? |
| 2446 | In essence, it’s a parent issue…why the word “father”.
Because men are statisticlly more likely to try to sell drugs (allthough thats slowly changing), thus more likely to be absent due to being in jail. "I would suspect the 10 generation words mean that without intervention of some sort, it would take 10 generations to grow out of the pain inflicted by the parents, however, small or large." I really doubt it would take on average of more than 2 or 3. I could take one, it could take 5. Just as it only takes one generation to move up, it takes one generation to move down. "Definition of Birthright: A right, possession, or privilege that is one's due by birth. A special privilege accorded a firstborn." Ok, I've looked into it. I don't think I buy the argument. First of, as I stated sometime eariler, the idea of a birthright seems a bit unAmerican. It also sounds a bit like the arguments people used to justify the monarchy. Also, birthright by religion doesn't make sense. Islam, Judism, and Christianity is a RELIGION, on Idealogoly-- not a race. There's no reason why a Christian can't convert to Islam or vice versa. So techniclly speaking, your ancestors could still be a birthright. Does a Jew lose his birthright if he switches religions. Does a Muslim gain the birthright if he/she converts to Judism. What if a moderate secular Jew and a moderate secular Ismalist marry and their kid chooses to become a Catholic. What if a Jew decides to become an athiest and marry other athiests who used to be Jews. Do their children still have the birthright. I think you're confusing race and ethnicity with ideology. I can see a racial supermisist using the argument of birthright (my people have the birthright and you're don't), but not a religious one. Since religion is not something passed on geneticlly, its something passed on culturarly. "As I stated because God gave Israel the birthright instead of Ismael, the Arabs will forever hate Israel." Ok, I don't know why Arabs hate Israel, I am not an Arab expert. But I doubt it would be over not having the birthright. First off, if you were to confront an Arab about this, they would probabbly tell you (I am just guessing) that THEY are the ones who have the birthright, not the Jews. The Jews say they have the birthright and not the Arabs. Are you trying to argue that the Arabs are jelous of the Jews that they don't have the birthright; which I would imagine in their own minds they do, making the point moot. Secondly, "Arab" is a race/ethnicity, not a religion. "Jew" could be either a race or an ethnicity. Note: not all Arabs are Muslims (some are Jews or Christians), and not all Muslims are Arabs. (there are white, black, arab, and yes, even Asian Muslims). Also keep in mind that Israel is a nation, with secular political power as well as the Jewish state. There are also some fortunate Arabs with Isaeali citizenship. So I have my doubts that the conflict is mostly about a birthright going back thousands of years, although anything is possible, I was wrong before. More than likely, the conflict is over more proseic issues, neiboring nations fighting over land, trade routes, immigration policy, international labor disputes, civil lawsuits among individuals from different country; some guy owing child support in one country but lives in another, obnoxious tourists getting into bar fights, etc. Just like the US and Mexico, France and England, England and Ireland, China and Mongolia. Pick any two bordering nations at random and you'd probabbly find at least some level of tension. Its no coincidence that most international conflict is between neiboring countries. "This, or words to this effect were in the communist manifesto." Allthough I never have actually read the communist manifesto, I strongly doubt that. First off, the communist manifesto was written in 1849, long before the US (much less Russia) was a superpower. In fact, Marx had the expectation that communism would have its beginnings in either England or Germany. If anything, at most, his plot would have been to subvert either England or Germany, not the US. Secondly, his main focus was on economics, not family values. Thridly, I severelly doubt he would have anything to gain from breaking up the nuclear family (which actually really didn't exist until the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, thus at its infancy around that time). In fact, he was himself paranoid and worried over the effects of urbanization and industrialization of society. So if anything, he was just as much worried about the breakdown of "traditional" families as you are, if not moreso. The Communist Manifesto would have not even bothered touching the issues of subversion, much less the American government. Also keep in mind that Marx followed the LeMarkian theory of evolotion, not Darwins, and also had in mind that the protelerians would "see the light" on their own with a little bit of nudging, not with subversive progoganda campains. Even if the Soviets had secret plans to subvert the US by breaking up society, it wouldn't have been in the Communist Manifesto written by Marx. That would have been on their own volition. If that had been the case, wouldn't that have been destructive to the Soviets as well. Had the Soviets really distruputed the American family, the disruption would have likly propogated all over the world and back to them. Don't you think the Soviets had in their own best interest to have their own strong family units. It would have been pointless to destroy the US in this manner since that would destroy themselves too. I think their goal/strategy was to outwait the US for its own collapse thinking it would collapse on its own rather than to agressivly attack. Keep in mind they had in mind that capitalism would collapse on its own from within, not with communist propoganda. Yes, they were wrong, but thats besides the point. "...,but feel they're throwing out the baby with the bathwater in this instance." Well, as much as I disagree with communism or socialism for that matter, I seriously doubt any of the John Birch Society teachings holds any water. I seriously doubt the communists had secret plans to subvert the US, nor do I see a conection with the suposed break down in society with communism. It still all smells like a misguided but well intentioned conspirary theory. Given that communism lost, if their plot all along had been to corrupt American society, and since you state they succceded by pointing out examples how screwed up todays society is, wouldn't that be a contradition of some sort. Either communism didn't really lose (the Berlin Wall collaping notwithstanding), or they really weren't trying to subvert society. Which one is it? I've looked up the John Birtch Society and then Paleconservatives just out of curosity on wikipedia, though always keep in mind the authors are human: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society | Which of these anti-Semitic cartoons do you think is most offensive? |
| 2447 | The kind I made them make me at the jewrelly store. | Gas, charcoal, or electric? |
| 2448 | probabbly not most, but I am sure a lot of them are. I think like conservative Christians are people just like everyone else. They're disproportiantly more likly to be sexist but theres no shortage of sexism from the seculars or the Christian left. Don't even get me started on the Amish. | Do you think most conservative Christians are sexist? |
| 2449 | No, as long as they haven't crossed the line of child abuse. Getting their kids to shut their traps while I am in the store makes my life eaiser. | Should it be illegal for parents to punish their children by spanking or hitting them? |
| 2450 | Depends. If the parking lot is near empty anyway, or I dont think the probability is very high that an actual handicap person will need it in that span of time he's in there; then I am ok with it. If not, I get a bit *slightly* internally angry but don't bother doing nothing about it. Sometimes I wish Chuck Norris was there seeing this, so this individual would end up actually needing the space afterwards  On the other hand, I keep hearing that handicap people want to be treated just like everyone else so I don't see it my business fighthing their battles. Just what the handicap ppl need, a bunch of safty NAZIs running around making sure firecodes are enforced. | What do you do when you see a perfectly healthy person park in a handicap space? |
