![]() |
Scalia supports Duck Dynasty Star
On 12/21/2013 5:17 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/21/13, 5:08 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/21/13, 3:07 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/21/13, 12:43 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/20/13, 11:01 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/20/13, 9:35 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/20/2013 9:21 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/20/13, 8:42 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/20/2013 7:20 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/20/13, 7:08 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/20/13, 4:12 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/20/13, 3:26 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:39:33 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I find your championing of the so-called Palestinians humorous. This is the last nagging remnant of European conquest. As for the Duckman, I was commenting on his intellect, not his degrees, but I do enjoy some of your leaps. He has been far more successful than you. By your $tandard$, Paris Hilton is more successful than Nikola Tesla, who died in abject poverty. I find nothing to admire about a racist homophobe, even if he is only playing a role acting that way, which I doubt. Hey, Hitler was successful for many years, right? And he managed to slaughter at least 7 million people, and if he had been more successful, there wouldn't have been any Jews left to hassle your friendly neighborhood terrorist Palestinians, eh? So how much do you admire Hitler? You seem to think the noble Redman Indian, was okay being a terrorist against the whites, and even now they are down trodden according to Harry. Substitute Palestinian for feather Indian. Funny stuff, Bilious. Wrong, of course, and ignorant, but funny nonetheless. The Redman Indian...is that a line of chewing tobacco? Nope, that differentiates the Feather Indian from the Dot Indian. Neither wrong nor ignorant. You would just take being overtaken by submitting. "Redman" in connection with Native Americans is a derogatory term. So, I suppose when Al Sharpton bellows, "I don't care if you're White, Red, Black, Blue or Purple", he's being derogatory to Whites, Native Americans, Blacks, Smurfs and Barney, huh? The pseudo-intellectual liberals in this country have become so obsessed with being "politically correct" that they expect everyone to tip-toe around with words in fear of offending someone. It seems like the "taboo" words and phrases change monthly. What's in favor this month, "Black", "Afro-American", "African-American" or "person of color"? I never seem to get it right. None make too much sense except maybe "person of color" because there are plenty of darker skinned people who's direct ancestry does not originate in Africa. But "person of color seems a bit awkward. People need to relax, get real and chill out. Just identify people as being cool, a jerk or an idiot. Works much better. Right, we should just say nothing when the TV star of a popular show says or writes horrible things. Hey, Mr. Duck can say whatever he wants...he just has to realize there may be consequences. Love the morons raising First Amendment issues. They have nothing to do with Mr. Duck's current problems. It's a stupid TV show. That's all. Watch it's ratings go through the roof now. Don't like it? Turn it off or change the channel. Damn, there's a hell of a lot of much worse programing that glorifies violence and killing in all it's gory detail. I think we should be more concerned on the influences on society of that instead of what some goofy reality show actor says. The problem is the "star" has a huge following of morons who when he says hateful things about groups of people, his followers think such behavior is ok. If it were up to me, I'd get rid of all the moronic reality shows, but it isn't up to me. And we have rappers with even a larger following, that espouse violence against women, shooting cops and other people. Where is your outrage? Where is MSNBC and CNN outrage? Very selective in your opinions! Must follow the DNC guidelines! Where is your outrage about Blacks using the N word and other derogatory words? And if you say only Indian, what group do you think of? I don't use the term "Indian" to refer to the peoples who were here before the white man arrived and destroyed them. Do you use Asian immigrants, from when they first arrived? I don't call them "Redman Indians," or "Feather Indians." American Indians is a term acceptable to most, along with just plain "Indians," unless you are referring to the Alaskans, who prefer a different usage. What was your derogatory term for people from India...ah..."Dot Indians." I presume you are referring to the bindi some people from India have on their foreheads. I live in an area with both type Indians. Is used to differentiate the two. Fact is, we were at dot Indian friends house for dinner on Tuesday. And one of my aunt's was 1/2 Cherokee feather Indian. So, some of your best friends are Indians, eh? I have a few friends from India. None of them have bindi marks. So, in your mind, they would be "dotless Indians"? Life must be very confusing for you righties, eh? They only wear Bindi for special occasions. "They," your friends, or people from India generally, because if you think the latter, you are wrong. Many people from India don't bother with it, period. My first friend from India was a reporter who was hired by the KC Star about the same time I was. He never wore a bindi. My wife had a colleague from India. She never wears a bindi, either. There are many "dotfree" people from India. I wear a bindi. Oh wait. It's just a scar left over from shingles and it's not exactly "between" my eyebrows. For a while there I thought I had gained greater personal insight, but then found out I was just hallucinating from the medication. |
Scalia supports Duck Dynasty Star
On 12/21/13, 8:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/21/2013 5:17 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/21/13, 5:08 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/21/13, 3:07 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/21/13, 12:43 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/20/13, 11:01 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/20/13, 9:35 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/20/2013 9:21 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/20/13, 8:42 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/20/2013 7:20 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/20/13, 7:08 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/20/13, 4:12 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/20/13, 3:26 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:39:33 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I find your championing of the so-called Palestinians humorous. This is the last nagging remnant of European conquest. As for the Duckman, I was commenting on his intellect, not his degrees, but I do enjoy some of your leaps. He has been far more successful than you. By your $tandard$, Paris Hilton is more successful than Nikola Tesla, who died in abject poverty. I find nothing to admire about a racist homophobe, even if he is only playing a role acting that way, which I doubt. Hey, Hitler was successful for many years, right? And he managed to slaughter at least 7 million people, and if he had been more successful, there wouldn't have been any Jews left to hassle your friendly neighborhood terrorist Palestinians, eh? So how much do you admire Hitler? You seem to think the noble Redman Indian, was okay being a terrorist against the whites, and even now they are down trodden according to Harry. Substitute Palestinian for feather Indian. Funny stuff, Bilious. Wrong, of course, and ignorant, but funny nonetheless. The Redman Indian...is that a line of chewing tobacco? Nope, that differentiates the Feather Indian from the Dot Indian. Neither wrong nor ignorant. You would just take being overtaken by submitting. "Redman" in connection with Native Americans is a derogatory term. So, I suppose when Al Sharpton bellows, "I don't care if you're White, Red, Black, Blue or Purple", he's being derogatory to Whites, Native Americans, Blacks, Smurfs and Barney, huh? The pseudo-intellectual liberals in this country have become so obsessed with being "politically correct" that they expect everyone to tip-toe around with words in fear of offending someone. It seems like the "taboo" words and phrases change monthly. What's in favor this month, "Black", "Afro-American", "African-American" or "person of color"? I never seem to get it right. None make too much sense except maybe "person of color" because there are plenty of darker skinned people who's direct ancestry does not originate in Africa. But "person of color seems a bit awkward. People need to relax, get real and chill out. Just identify people as being cool, a jerk or an idiot. Works much better. Right, we should just say nothing when the TV star of a popular show says or writes horrible things. Hey, Mr. Duck can say whatever he wants...he just has to realize there may be consequences. Love the morons raising First Amendment issues. They have nothing to do with Mr. Duck's current problems. It's a stupid TV show. That's all. Watch it's ratings go through the roof now. Don't like it? Turn it off or change the channel. Damn, there's a hell of a lot of much worse programing that glorifies violence and killing in all it's gory detail. I think we should be more concerned on the influences on society of that instead of what some goofy reality show actor says. The problem is the "star" has a huge following of morons who when he says hateful things about groups of people, his followers think such behavior is ok. If it were up to me, I'd get rid of all the moronic reality shows, but it isn't up to me. And we have rappers with even a larger following, that espouse violence against women, shooting cops and other people. Where is your outrage? Where is MSNBC and CNN outrage? Very selective in your opinions! Must follow the DNC guidelines! Where is your outrage about Blacks using the N word and other derogatory words? And if you say only Indian, what group do you think of? I don't use the term "Indian" to refer to the peoples who were here before the white man arrived and destroyed them. Do you use Asian immigrants, from when they first arrived? I don't call them "Redman Indians," or "Feather Indians." American Indians is a term acceptable to most, along with just plain "Indians," unless you are referring to the Alaskans, who prefer a different usage. What was your derogatory term for people from India...ah..."Dot Indians." I presume you are referring to the bindi some people from India have on their foreheads. I live in an area with both type Indians. Is used to differentiate the two. Fact is, we were at dot Indian friends house for dinner on Tuesday. And one of my aunt's was 1/2 Cherokee feather Indian. So, some of your best friends are Indians, eh? I have a few friends from India. None of them have bindi marks. So, in your mind, they would be "dotless Indians"? Life must be very confusing for you righties, eh? They only wear Bindi for special occasions. "They," your friends, or people from India generally, because if you think the latter, you are wrong. Many people from India don't bother with it, period. My first friend from India was a reporter who was hired by the KC Star about the same time I was. He never wore a bindi. My wife had a colleague from India. She never wears a bindi, either. There are many "dotfree" people from India. I wear a bindi. Oh wait. It's just a scar left over from shingles and it's not exactly "between" my eyebrows. For a while there I thought I had gained greater personal insight, but then found out I was just hallucinating from the medication. Shingles is the worse ailment I've encountered so far in life. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Scalia supports Duck Dynasty Star
In article , says...
On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 15:27:56 -0500, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 09:17:39 -0500, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 19:20:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: "Redman" in connection with Native Americans is a derogatory term. You obviously don't know anything about the ancient peoples, medieval history, or 19th and 20th Century history of that part of the Middle East. There were at least two times when Partition, or the creation of two separate nations, was offered to the self-described Palestinians...about 100 years ago and right after World War II. They turned it down both times and in 1948, the Arab nations initiated a war against Israel. The Israelis fought back and the Arabs lost. The question is how many of those "Israelis" lived in Palestine five years before that war? Virtually none of them. They were in Europe. It certainly sounds like an invasion and subjugation of the native population by europeans to me. Just another crusade. The reality is that nobody gave a **** about brown people in those days and they just ignored it. After the fall of the Ottomans in WWI and the withdrawal of the British after WWII, they thought nobody actually owned the land, at least nobody who could fight back. Conquest and subgation is a constant occurence during the history of man. Why is it any worse now than it was 200, 400, 1000, 2000 or 4000 years ago? Within the last 100 years the borders of many countries have been changed, many numerous times. Just take a look at the European continent 100 years ago vs. today. With one glaring exception WWII was the end of conquests. The European powers gave up their colonies and in the intervening years the last vestiges of European (and American) control of their conquests went away. For the US that would include Okinawa, the Philippines, Panama and some say Miami. You are deluded if your believe that WWII was the end of conquests. It was the end of European conquests. Europe is just a small part of the world. |
Scalia supports Duck Dynasty Star
|
Scalia supports Duck Dynasty Star
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 12/21/2013 4:59 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/21/13, 4:02 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/21/2013 10:36 AM, wrote: On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 05:27:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/21/2013 1:43 AM, wrote: On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 16:05:41 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: By your $tandard$, Paris Hilton is more successful than Nikola Tesla, who died in abject poverty By just about any standard Paris Hilton is more successful. Tesla may have been pretty smart but virtually everything he tried to do, failed. Financially, yes ... technically the guy was beyond genius ... which is likely why he failed financially. He literally knew just enough to be dangerous. One of the schemes that drove him into bankruptcy was trying to "beam" usable electrical power into homes with a megawatt transmitter and an antenna on your roof. Modern day experiments have proved his concept to be viable and technically achievable. He was a space shot, no question, but without him we'd have waited much longer for induction motors and the distribution of AC power. If Edison had his way, we'd be working off a horrible DC distribution system. Gregg admires Paris Hilton more because she made a lot more money than Tesla. Paris Hilton also makes a lot more money than Jonas Salk ever did, and assuredly more than Albert Einstein ever made. I sometimes admire Paris Hilton but not for her money. Albert is one of the highest grossing dead people! |
Scalia supports Duck Dynasty Star
On 12/22/13, 1:22 AM, wrote:
On 22 Dec 2013 04:23:23 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote: wrote: On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 12:55:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/21/13, 12:38 PM, wrote: On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:11:48 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: They were mostly European refugees, you can't change that fact. Interesting word, that... "Refugee." Why were they refugees? Because the allies were not willing to do the right thing, force the Germans, French and Russians to give them their land back. For us, that would be the Truman administration. It was easier to let them go invade a country full of brown people who we did not care about. FDR even refused admittance into the US during the war. (The St Louis incident) Nobody amongst the dems is willing to call their heroes anti-simitic tho. I wonder that if we knew we might want to buy oil from those arabs a couple decades later that we would have made a different choice. Really? Apparently you aren't aware that in many European countries, Jews were not allowed to own land or much of anything else in the way of real property. That's why many became shopkeepers. Further, much of Europe had been destroyed by years of heavy duty warfare, and there wasn't much to go back to, eh? Third, many of those who left for Israel had already spent years in concentration camps or in hiding, and it seemed reasonable for them to seek out a better, if tough life, in an area that was mostly unoccupied and undeveloped. Who do you think built and occupied the kibbutzim? Finally, most of the civilized world after the war was feeling guilty for allowing the slaughter of the Jews and felt those people were "owed" back their historical homeland. It has nothing to do with "brown" people, since, genetically, the so-called Palestinians are pretty much the same stock as the Mediterranean Caucasians who lived in Italy, Greece, Turkey, and in the diaspora of the Jews. Oh, I see we're back to the money thing again with you...the buying of oil from the Arabs. Arabs, by the way, typically are classified as "white people," not "brown people," and Muslims come in every skin color. A few decent liberal arts courses might have "learned you" that. And of course, Jews in fairly substantial numbers emigrated to Israel in the late 19th Century and right after WWII in the 20th Century. So now you agree it was just a bunch of European invaders. We are getting somewhere. No I just don't have your simpleminded view of things. You write a 40 line dialog explaining why you think the European refugees had the RIGHT to invade Palestine and then you deny it happened. That is simple minded. Really? There have been Jews in that part of the Middle East for thousands of years, long before there were Muslims there. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Scalia supports Duck Dynasty Star
On 12/22/13, 10:43 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 07:50:50 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/22/13, 1:22 AM, wrote: No I just don't have your simpleminded view of things. You write a 40 line dialog explaining why you think the European refugees had the RIGHT to invade Palestine and then you deny it happened. That is simple minded. Really? There have been Jews in that part of the Middle East for thousands of years, long before there were Muslims there. Having absolutely NOTHING to do with the europeans who moved there after the war. Your point seems pointless. The land in question has been occupied simultaneously by different peoples since before "biblical" times, some "native born," and some who emigrated. Oh, and most of those "Europeans" are long dead, as are the self-described Palestinians who decided to pick up and leave shortly after the UN recognized the modern state of Israel. It's not as if the "Europeans" and their descendants did there what white 'Merikans did to the "native" population here, eh? i don't think there's anything behind your objections than the price of oil. It's all about $$$ to you...that's obvious from your history of posts. If there weren't oil in the Middle East (except for Israel), you wouldn't give a flying fuch about the so-called Palestinians. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Scalia supports Duck Dynasty Star
In article , says...
On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 07:50:50 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/22/13, 1:22 AM, wrote: No I just don't have your simpleminded view of things. You write a 40 line dialog explaining why you think the European refugees had the RIGHT to invade Palestine and then you deny it happened. That is simple minded. Really? There have been Jews in that part of the Middle East for thousands of years, long before there were Muslims there. Having absolutely NOTHING to do with the europeans who moved there after the war. Why do you hate European's? |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com