About Us

F.O.A.D.

On 12/21/13, 10:40 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 07:28:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/21/13, 12:30 AM, wrote:
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.

Your knowledge of history is...lacking.

They were mostly European refugees, you can't change that fact.

Interesting word, that... "Refugee." Why were they refugees?

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

F.O.A.D.

On 12/21/13, 10:41 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 07:28:26 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/21/13, 12:45 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 21:44:36 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

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.

You have no problem saying hateful things about anyone with religious
beliefs and you can't stand anyone expressing those beliefs in public
places.
That also seems to be a common thread through the "liberal" community.

If it were up to me, I'd get rid of all the moronic reality shows, but
it isn't up to me.

Nor is it up to you to decide what these people say when answering a
direct question, designed to get this guy to say what he did.
I was amused watching the lefties try to explain why Alex Baldwin
calling a guy he was mad at a "****ing faggot" was OK and this was
bad. The excuse basically came down to "he is one of us" (a flaming
liberal).

Baldwin lost his show.

Huh? What show? 30 Rock was leaving before that comment.

Baldwin had a show on MSNBC and lost it after about two weeks or
so...after making his idiotic comments.

I'm sorry Bashir lost his show...his comments about Snowbilly Sarah were
on the mark.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

F.O.A.D.

On 12/21/13, 10:46 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 09:03:20 -0500, HankÂ©
wrote:

On 12/21/2013 7:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/21/13, 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.

By your $tandard$ Paris Hilton is more successful, because your
$tandard$ only involve $$$.

What is the Harry standard of excellence?

Vincent Van Gogh

As I said, *you* judge $ucce$$ only by money. Mozart, arguably the
greatest composer of all time, never made very much money, and, of
course, neither did van Gogh. Both Mozart and van Gogh died in their
prime. Paris Hilton is an overexposed talentless slut but, of course,
she has lotsa buck$, so, to you, she's a success.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

F.O.A.D.

On 12/21/13, 10:55 AM, wrote:
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.

Miami literally was dying before the infusion of Latin blood. We love
Miami now. You really are a hater.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

John H.[_5_]

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:55:14 -0500, wrote:

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.

....and Los Angeles, and San Francisco - but to a different group.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

KC

On 12/21/2013 10:41 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 07:28:26 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/21/13, 12:45 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 21:44:36 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

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.

You have no problem saying hateful things about anyone with religious
beliefs and you can't stand anyone expressing those beliefs in public
places.
That also seems to be a common thread through the "liberal" community.

If it were up to me, I'd get rid of all the moronic reality shows, but
it isn't up to me.

Nor is it up to you to decide what these people say when answering a
direct question, designed to get this guy to say what he did.
I was amused watching the lefties try to explain why Alex Baldwin
calling a guy he was mad at a "****ing faggot" was OK and this was
bad. The excuse basically came down to "he is one of us" (a flaming
liberal).

Baldwin lost his show.

Huh? What show? 30 Rock was leaving before that comment.

He had a show on MSNBC if I am correct.... Just started, maybe went two
episodes...

F.O.A.D.

On 12/21/13, 12:03 PM, KC wrote:
On 12/21/2013 10:41 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 07:28:26 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/21/13, 12:45 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 21:44:36 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

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.

You have no problem saying hateful things about anyone with religious
beliefs and you can't stand anyone expressing those beliefs in public
places.
That also seems to be a common thread through the "liberal" community.

If it were up to me, I'd get rid of all the moronic reality shows, but
it isn't up to me.

Nor is it up to you to decide what these people say when answering a
direct question, designed to get this guy to say what he did.
I was amused watching the lefties try to explain why Alex Baldwin
calling a guy he was mad at a "****ing faggot" was OK and this was
bad. The excuse basically came down to "he is one of us" (a flaming
liberal).

Baldwin lost his show.

Huh? What show? 30 Rock was leaving before that comment.

He had a show on MSNBC if I am correct.... Just started, maybe went two
episodes...

That is correct...two or three episodes, then he said something stupid
about gays and he was gone. On your favorite network, Fox, the more
hateful things you say about people, the better the time slot you get.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

Califbill

"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?

F.O.A.D.

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.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

F.O.A.D.

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.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Scalia drops bombshell...	F.O.A.D.	General	7	March 30th 13 01:42 PM
OT Duck, duck....goosed!	JimH	General	1	January 30th 06 03:21 PM
Ot Curling dynasty over?	Don White	General	6	February 27th 05 04:36 AM
If it walks like a liberal duck and spends like a liberal duck	Vito	ASA	10	December 7th 04 05:58 PM
AUTHOR KITTY KELLEY PREPARES 'COUP DE GRACE' FOR GEORGE BUSH DYNASTY	Jim	General	1	September 6th 04 09:54 PM

Menu

About Us