Christ, abstinence is about the stupidest thing you could try and push. People are going to fuck, okay? Give them education and they might fuck more intelligently, but give them that abstinence only shit we get here in the States and they’re going to get diseases and pregnant.
No, war does not just suck. We invaded a sovereign nation because of lies and killed a lot of innocent people, and people like me had to look into the eyes of their family members, you arrogant little shitstain, and then try and help them find the bodies or find some kind of succor in a storm that we created. It wasn’t noble. It was vile. And so are you.
What the FUCK are you dribbling about? First, the top paragraph should have been responding to the fact that this thread has focused on Muslim-on-Muslim violence, not the Muslim–on-nonMuslim violence that you claimed. Conservatives have neither to do with either.
And then we have “reichwingers”. There aren’t enough :rolleyes:s.
For future reference, you might want your responses to 1) address the post you’re responding to and 2) make sense to humans.
I’m referring to righties’ longstanding habit of claiming concern for womens’ rights only when the offender is somebody they need to dispose of—or who they just despise. You wouldn’t give a shit if a good Xtian raped a girl or whatever, and that’s more of the same for conservatives. Get it now, Mr. “war sucks”?
Can you not read?. I’m not in favor of abstinence only approach. Here, Africa, or anywhere.
You’re a nincompoop. Try reading what I read. I see you have a hard time doing that. If you don’t think that war can be noble, you really are stupid. If you are getting hung up on the particular war in Iraq, the motivation was noble, even if it was a mistake. As much as I dislike GWB, he’s not rubbing his hands together like Mr. Burns thinking “how can we kill more brown people and make their lives miserable. I know—a WAR!” I can’t wait to hear you reflexively sputter your stupidity in response to that. Come on, SputterBoy, spew more of your stupid myopic shit.
I fought in that war, you dumbshit, so fuck off. And stop wriggling around, you little cowardly little shitstain, trying to wriggle away from your own words. You didn’t specify which wars, you didn’t say some wars, you dismissively tossed off, “War sucks.”
You assume I’m male. How interesting. I’m not. Which means war sucks extra for me, in ways you can’t begin to imagine.
So. You dismiss war with a wave of the hand, you lob about insults to conceal the fact that you’re shallow and dismissive, and you defend George Bush, a man who said that the worst moment of his Presidency was when an entertainer dissed him. Not when some thousand threshhold of war dead was crossed; not when over a thousand US citizens died because of his fuckups, not * when nearly 3,000 US civilians were killed on his watch.* Need I refer you to the infamous video where he made some brave comments about war—which you won’t even try—and then giggled and said, “Watch me make this drive.” No wonder you defend him. YOu’re just as idiotic as he is.
And I was referring to the fact that your response had nothing to do with the exchange you responded to. And you call other stupid? Yeesh!
But THIS is Der Trihs-caliber COMEDY-CRAZY GOLD. You really think that conservatives don’t care when Christian girls get raped? HA! The stupidity of that position is profound and on multiple levels. You’re a Comedy-Crazy 10th Degree Black belt.
And, sorry to upset you, but yes, war does suck.
Finally, as much as I can appreciate that you sense that my intellect is many orders of magnitude greater than yours, I am not “Christ”. A god to you, perhaps. Even understandably. But not Christ.
You’re being insulting because you can’t counter my argument. Tell me, shitstain, if Republicans care so much about rape victims, how do you explain recent bills which would refer to rape victims—and only rape victims—as ‘accusers’ and not victims? Or then there’s the charming bill that would deprive all rape victims of abortion if they were not sufficiently beaten and battered by their attackers? Oh, yes, the concern just jumps from the page!
Cowardly little shitstain. Typical Republican, too. If you won’t approach the subject seriously make room for those who will, you jabbering hyena. Now fuck off.
Oh, conversations with the stupid can be so much work. Sigh. Reread the exchange, genius. The discussion was about your claim that this thread was about Muslim-on-nonMuslim crime. as far as the “war sucks” comment, get back to me after you take a course in logic. Unless you think war doesn’t suck. Well, let me blow your mind. Here it is: War super-sucks! I can just imagine hearing the sizzling of your synapses trying to fire, and failing.
Wow. You said you fought in a war and I assumed you were a male. How “interesting”. Hmmm… How ridiculous! How Horrible!! :rolleyes: My profound apologies, toots.
You know, ordinarily I’m quite deferential to those who have served in uniform. But your stupidity and myopia are so profound I find myself reacting to those ignoble attributes rather than the one noble one you may have had, at one time. Like you said, sucks to be you, I guess.
Look, mouse-brain. I don’t defend GWB. I was disappointed and pissed the day he received even the nomination. Never voted for the guy. So, I am not defending him. I’m defending reality, which you don’t seem to have much of a relationship with. Just because he made some mistakes, some of them really bad and dumb ones, doesn’t mean he is concealing a devil’s tail beneath his suit. But if that screws up the comic book you’re living in, feel free to ignore it and imagine he has three tails. THREE TAILS! Egad!
Easy, toots. Eaaassssyyy. No reason to get your skivvies in a wad. Oh, where to begin! Hmm. Well, I am not a Republican. However, I am a Conservative. And I am Pro-Choice. Oh, and I’m being insulting because you deserve to be insulted. And because of that, it’s fun.
Now that that’s out of the way, what argument? If you want to discuss Republicans or abortion or a particular bill, start a thread and I’ll be sure to stop in and help educate you. But here is the exchange that began this.
You said:
[QUOTE=margin]
C_o_T and his brethren seem to imply that the victims of Islamic terrorism are Xtians, for example. Yet mostly they’re often other Muslims. And the West often doesn’t care, or dismisses it: “Let them all kill one another.”
[/QUOTE]
Then I responded:
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Oddly, you seem to have missed that the OP was crafted talking about a story in which the victim was a fourteen-year-old Muslim girl. And there have been plenty of posts and cites by us “brethren” talking about the Muslim victims of Islam.
[/QUOTE]
And here is where you went off the rails. Which I guess can be translated as “tried to change the subject”:
See how…wait, of course you don’t. Let me start over. Okay. You made a claim that "C_o_T and his brethren seem to imply that the victims of Islamic terrorism are Xtians, for example. Yet mostly they’re often other Muslims. And the West often doesn’t care, or dismisses it: “Let them all kill one another.” I pointed out that this was not the case.I even steered you back to reread the OP which—surprise of surprises—talks about [drumroll] Muslim-on-Muslim violence. (Or what can in that case can be referred to as Animal-on-Muslim violence). Your subsequent response not only did not address the point I made, it brought into this discussion 1) Rush Limbaugh, 2) Bill Clinton and 3) a whole bunch more of off-point crazy.
Hon, you really gotta pull yourself together here.
Oooooooh I think I’m going to make some bread before raid tonight.
I’m confused. Both halves of this sentence appear to be talking about Republicans.
1.) It was a joke.
2.) The point wasn’t that they were literal corpses–the point was that Champion was simultaneously advocating converting them and killing them. So, the question was, who baptizes someone who’s already dead? And Mormons do that.
Dude, give it up. You’re never going to reach, and you’ll just strain your back trying.
Sooooooo, racist *and *sexist? Now there’s a shock.
This is not the thread for that, but it would be good to be able to distinguish between a guy who rapes a woman at knifepoint in a park and a 19-year-old who has sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend and the parents, wanting to break up the relationship, call the authorities and he gets charged with rape. The charge will stay with him, without everyone having the benefit of the full story.
We are already able to do so, and do frequently. Those two people would not be charged with the same crime. In many states, in fact, neither would be charged with rape, because it has often been made a part of sexual assault statutes.
The trouble is the “law and order” people deciding to take discretion away from judges so they can posture to their constitutents that they are tough on crime have created a situation where a judge cannot look at a person who on his 18th birthday slept with his 1 day younger girlfriend (in a state with an age of consent of 18 and no Romeo and Juliet laws) and decide that registration is not an appropriate remedy for this offense.
Absolutely true. And the rarety of such cases is the precise reason why we need discretion in the justice system. It already exists with prosecutors and the choice on whether to press a case - but it needs also to exist with judges and a choice of what penalty is called for.
