As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The New GOP Thread: Taking Anti-Intellectualism to a Whole New Level

1323335373860

Posts

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    This is amazing. I'm glad you survived.
    Me too. Thank god for grandma and her blazing spatula of justice.

    This is why I don't go to family Thanksgiving anymore.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • NailbunnyPDNailbunnyPD Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Kanamit wrote: »
    I can't wait for these principled defenders of the Constitution to write about the blatant unconstitutionality of the activist judiciary's decision in Bush v. Gore.

    And to take that further, was there such an irrational backlash to the outcome of that case? We all know what went down, but everyone sort of accepted it being the decision of the Supreme Court. To correct it, you'd have to go back in time and prevent activist judges from being appointed. Unrealistic. The public (and Gore) moved on.

    This subset of our population just screams CHILDREN.

    NailbunnyPD on
    XBL: NailbunnyPD PSN: NailbunnyPD Origin: NailbunnyPD
    NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
    steam_sig-400.png
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Oh dear god, the comments...
    Maybe Judge Carter does not understand that Islam will not stop until it conquers the entire world and converts it to follow its ways, or die trying.

    I don't think these people know how the courts work.

    I think these people are a little racist, too.

    Tomanta on
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Kanamit wrote: »
    I can't wait for these principled defenders of the Constitution to write about the blatant unconstitutionality of the activist judiciary's decision in Bush v. Gore.

    And to take that further, was there such an irrational backlash to the outcome of that case? We all know what went down, but everyone sort of accepted it being the decision of the Supreme Court. To correct it, you'd have to go back in time and prevent activist judges from being appointed. Unrealistic. The public (and Gore) moved on.

    This subset of our population just screams CHILDREN.

    There was quite a scene at Bush's inauguration, I'm told. I wasn't interested enough at the time to pay any attention though.

    KalTorak on
  • NailbunnyPDNailbunnyPD Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    psychotix wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Oh dear god, the comments...
    ust as in the O.J. Simpson case, our legal system has been used to avoid a 'perceived' violent and damaging reaction by the general population to justice being served - and so, one more cowardly judge resorts to tortured logic and avoids doing the right thing.

    This lawsuit was never about military personnel avoiding deployment to a war zone! It has always been about Obama's ineligibility to serve as President of the United States and to issue orders as Commander-in-Chief, potentially placing hundreds and thousands of lives in harms way.

    In dragging his feet about additional troops to Afghanistan, as requested by the very same General he put in charge, Obama has proven that he is more interested in giving the Muslim world a hand than winning a war for the very American citizens that elected him.

    Judge David O. Carter has just missed his place in history as a patriot, and instead joined the ranks of cowardly and immoral traitors to the United States Constitution.

    Judge Carter's lack of knowledge beyond his military and legal experience has proven to be his Achilles’ heel. He most obviously does not understand what the real dangers to our nation are. Namely, that Obama and his handlers are only interested in dismantling the Constitution and destroying the Dollar, in order to surrender American sovereignty and make way for the North American Union and a New World Order.

    Obama and his ilk probably believe that in this New World Order, with the backing of International Law and hate crime legislation, supported by multiple nuclear-armed Islamic groups and countries; that somehow, we are all going to reach 'détente' and live happily ever after.

    Maybe Judge Carter does not understand that Islam will not stop until it conquers the entire world and converts it to follow its ways, or die trying.

    Judge Carter definitely does not understand that there is enough evidence this very day that Obama is not only a fraud, but that all of his actions thus far betray a childish ideology and a most distinct loyalty to the Muslim world. To say that this is evidence of a 'divided loyalty' would be to give him too much credit for attempting to achieve a balance. This just simply is not the case.

    The truth will eventually come out. However, it may be too late to save our Republic.

    God help the next Judge Carter that is tested during this critical time in American history. All we need is one righteous man to stand up for the truth. God save America.

    I don't think these people know how the courts work.
    Didn't OJ go free because the Prosecuting lawyer was completely incompetent while the Defense lawyer was a fast-talking bullshitter of the highest caliber?

    Well, that, a glove and Chewbacca.

    NailbunnyPD on
    XBL: NailbunnyPD PSN: NailbunnyPD Origin: NailbunnyPD
    NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
    steam_sig-400.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Kanamit wrote: »
    I can't wait for these principled defenders of the Constitution to write about the blatant unconstitutionality of the activist judiciary's decision in Bush v. Gore.

    And to take that further, was there such an irrational backlash to the outcome of that case? We all know what went down, but everyone sort of accepted it being the decision of the Supreme Court. To correct it, you'd have to go back in time and prevent activist judges from being appointed. Unrealistic. The public (and Gore) moved on.

    This subset of our population just screams CHILDREN.

    Eh, his motorcade got egged during the inauguration if I remember correctly. Which is not the most mature response. Of course, filing frivolous lawsuits and actively pursuing perjurous testimony is a different level of fucked up.

    moniker on
  • Kristmas KthulhuKristmas Kthulhu Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    psychotix wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Oh dear god, the comments...
    ust as in the O.J. Simpson case, our legal system has been used to avoid a 'perceived' violent and damaging reaction by the general population to justice being served - and so, one more cowardly judge resorts to tortured logic and avoids doing the right thing.

    This lawsuit was never about military personnel avoiding deployment to a war zone! It has always been about Obama's ineligibility to serve as President of the United States and to issue orders as Commander-in-Chief, potentially placing hundreds and thousands of lives in harms way.

    In dragging his feet about additional troops to Afghanistan, as requested by the very same General he put in charge, Obama has proven that he is more interested in giving the Muslim world a hand than winning a war for the very American citizens that elected him.

    Judge David O. Carter has just missed his place in history as a patriot, and instead joined the ranks of cowardly and immoral traitors to the United States Constitution.

    Judge Carter's lack of knowledge beyond his military and legal experience has proven to be his Achilles’ heel. He most obviously does not understand what the real dangers to our nation are. Namely, that Obama and his handlers are only interested in dismantling the Constitution and destroying the Dollar, in order to surrender American sovereignty and make way for the North American Union and a New World Order.

    Obama and his ilk probably believe that in this New World Order, with the backing of International Law and hate crime legislation, supported by multiple nuclear-armed Islamic groups and countries; that somehow, we are all going to reach 'détente' and live happily ever after.

    Maybe Judge Carter does not understand that Islam will not stop until it conquers the entire world and converts it to follow its ways, or die trying.

    Judge Carter definitely does not understand that there is enough evidence this very day that Obama is not only a fraud, but that all of his actions thus far betray a childish ideology and a most distinct loyalty to the Muslim world. To say that this is evidence of a 'divided loyalty' would be to give him too much credit for attempting to achieve a balance. This just simply is not the case.

    The truth will eventually come out. However, it may be too late to save our Republic.

    God help the next Judge Carter that is tested during this critical time in American history. All we need is one righteous man to stand up for the truth. God save America.

    I don't think these people know how the courts work.
    Didn't OJ go free because the Prosecuting lawyer was completely incompetent while the Defense lawyer was a fast-talking bullshitter of the highest caliber?

    Well, that, a glove and Chewbacca.

    :^:

    Kristmas Kthulhu on
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    KalTorak wrote: »
    There's also a bit in there where the Plaintiffs are trying to prove harm inflicted by Obama by pointing to the 3rd-party candidates that were robbed of votes by this false candidates. The order notes several times that these 3rd-party candidates had received "only four-hundredth one percent of the vote," and that "The Court may have already met this entire group of voters at the hearings on this matter."

    Was that an ice burn in a legal document?

    I think it was.

    It totally was.

    Upon writing that and reading it aloud, I like to imagine high-fives being exchanged with anyone nearby.

    It's awesome.

    Forar on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • KanamitKanamit Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Kanamit wrote: »
    I can't wait for these principled defenders of the Constitution to write about the blatant unconstitutionality of the activist judiciary's decision in Bush v. Gore.

    And to take that further, was there such an irrational backlash to the outcome of that case? We all know what went down, but everyone sort of accepted it being the decision of the Supreme Court. To correct it, you'd have to go back in time and prevent activist judges from being appointed. Unrealistic. The public (and Gore) moved on.

    This subset of our population just screams CHILDREN.
    Well frankly I wish there was more of a backlash; Bush v. Gore was one of the worst decisions of the court ever, and it paving the way for President Bush is way down there on the list of reasons.

    Alas, the only person who seemed to care about the damage the case did to the integrity of the court was Justice Souter.

    Kanamit on
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Tomanta wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Oh dear god, the comments...
    Maybe Judge Carter does not understand that Islam will not stop until it conquers the entire world and converts it to follow its ways, or die trying.

    I don't think these people know how the courts work.

    I think these people are a little racist, too.

    Islam isn't technically a race.

    mrdobalina on
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited October 2009
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    I can't wait for these principled defenders of the Constitution to write about the blatant unconstitutionality of the activist judiciary's decision in Bush v. Gore.

    And to take that further, was there such an irrational backlash to the outcome of that case? We all know what went down, but everyone sort of accepted it being the decision of the Supreme Court. To correct it, you'd have to go back in time and prevent activist judges from being appointed. Unrealistic. The public (and Gore) moved on.

    This subset of our population just screams CHILDREN.

    There was quite a scene at Bush's inauguration, I'm told. I wasn't interested enough at the time to pay any attention though.

    I recall eggs being thrown at the motorcade.

    Bionic Monkey on
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    psychotix wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Oh dear god, the comments...
    ust as in the O.J. Simpson case, our legal system has been used to avoid a 'perceived' violent and damaging reaction by the general population to justice being served - and so, one more cowardly judge resorts to tortured logic and avoids doing the right thing.

    This lawsuit was never about military personnel avoiding deployment to a war zone! It has always been about Obama's ineligibility to serve as President of the United States and to issue orders as Commander-in-Chief, potentially placing hundreds and thousands of lives in harms way.

    In dragging his feet about additional troops to Afghanistan, as requested by the very same General he put in charge, Obama has proven that he is more interested in giving the Muslim world a hand than winning a war for the very American citizens that elected him.

    Judge David O. Carter has just missed his place in history as a patriot, and instead joined the ranks of cowardly and immoral traitors to the United States Constitution.

    Judge Carter's lack of knowledge beyond his military and legal experience has proven to be his Achilles’ heel. He most obviously does not understand what the real dangers to our nation are. Namely, that Obama and his handlers are only interested in dismantling the Constitution and destroying the Dollar, in order to surrender American sovereignty and make way for the North American Union and a New World Order.

    Obama and his ilk probably believe that in this New World Order, with the backing of International Law and hate crime legislation, supported by multiple nuclear-armed Islamic groups and countries; that somehow, we are all going to reach 'détente' and live happily ever after.

    Maybe Judge Carter does not understand that Islam will not stop until it conquers the entire world and converts it to follow its ways, or die trying.

    Judge Carter definitely does not understand that there is enough evidence this very day that Obama is not only a fraud, but that all of his actions thus far betray a childish ideology and a most distinct loyalty to the Muslim world. To say that this is evidence of a 'divided loyalty' would be to give him too much credit for attempting to achieve a balance. This just simply is not the case.

    The truth will eventually come out. However, it may be too late to save our Republic.

    God help the next Judge Carter that is tested during this critical time in American history. All we need is one righteous man to stand up for the truth. God save America.

    I don't think these people know how the courts work.

    Didn't OJ go free because the Prosecuting lawyer was completely incompetent while the Defense lawyer was a fast-talking bullshitter of the highest caliber?

    Well, that and a glove.

    I thought the glove thing was because the Prosecutor didn't think that the glove was found in water and it was a leather glove meaning it was likely warped and telling him to put the glove on would just look retarded.

    The Muffin Man on
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited October 2009
    Honestly, I'm just glad we don't still have people claiming Obama was never sworn in.

    Bionic Monkey on
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    So I just read the judgment. How the f has Taitz not been disbarred yet?

    Kalkino on
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Tomanta wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Oh dear god, the comments...
    Maybe Judge Carter does not understand that Islam will not stop until it conquers the entire world and converts it to follow its ways, or die trying.

    I don't think these people know how the courts work.

    I think these people are a little racist, too.

    Islam isn't technically a race.

    Point.

    Tomanta on
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Kalkino wrote: »
    So I just read the judgment. How the f has Taitz not been disbarred yet?

    Takes a while. Especially when the lawyer in question is trying to win a PR war instead of a legal battle.

    kildy on
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Tomanta wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Oh dear god, the comments...
    Maybe Judge Carter does not understand that Islam will not stop until it conquers the entire world and converts it to follow its ways, or die trying.

    I don't think these people know how the courts work.

    I think these people are a little racist, too.

    Islam isn't technically a race.

    It's still bigotry, no matter how finely you split that hair.

    The Muffin Man on
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    kildy wrote: »
    Kalkino wrote: »
    So I just read the judgment. How the f has Taitz not been disbarred yet?

    Takes a while. Especially when the lawyer in question is trying to win a PR war instead of a legal battle.

    True.

    Kalkino on
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Tomanta wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Oh dear god, the comments...
    Maybe Judge Carter does not understand that Islam will not stop until it conquers the entire world and converts it to follow its ways, or die trying.

    I don't think these people know how the courts work.

    I think these people are a little racist, too.

    Islam isn't technically a race.

    It's still bigotry, no matter how finely you split that hair.

    Careful with that....

    I'd say 80% of the people on this board are bigots if you roll up fear of a religious takeover.

    mrdobalina on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Tomanta wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Oh dear god, the comments...
    Maybe Judge Carter does not understand that Islam will not stop until it conquers the entire world and converts it to follow its ways, or die trying.

    I don't think these people know how the courts work.

    I think these people are a little racist, too.

    Islam isn't technically a race.

    It's still bigotry, no matter how finely you split that hair.

    Careful with that....

    I'd say 80% of the people on this board are bigots if you roll up fear of a religious takeover.

    :rotate:

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Tomanta wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Oh dear god, the comments...
    Maybe Judge Carter does not understand that Islam will not stop until it conquers the entire world and converts it to follow its ways, or die trying.

    I don't think these people know how the courts work.

    I think these people are a little racist, too.

    Islam isn't technically a race.

    It's still bigotry, no matter how finely you split that hair.

    Careful with that....

    I'd say 80% of the people on this board are bigots if you roll up fear of a religious takeover.

    lolwut? You mistake the skeptical and often negative perception of religion regularly seen on these boards as... a fear of religious takeover?

    Also, even if your loony assertion were true and we all fear those nutty fundies, that's not what bigotry even means.

    Darkchampion3d on
    Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
  • kdrudykdrudy Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Kalkino wrote: »
    kildy wrote: »
    Kalkino wrote: »
    So I just read the judgment. How the f has Taitz not been disbarred yet?

    Takes a while. Especially when the lawyer in question is trying to win a PR war instead of a legal battle.

    True.

    Look at how long it took to get our old pal Jack Thompson disbarred with all the stuff he pulls.

    kdrudy on
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Tomanta wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Oh dear god, the comments...
    Maybe Judge Carter does not understand that Islam will not stop until it conquers the entire world and converts it to follow its ways, or die trying.

    I don't think these people know how the courts work.

    I think these people are a little racist, too.

    Islam isn't technically a race.

    It's still bigotry, no matter how finely you split that hair.

    Careful with that....

    I'd say 80% of the people on this board are bigots if you roll up fear of a religious takeover.

    lolwut? You mistake the skeptical and often negative perception of religion regularly seen on these boards as... a fear of religious takeover?

    Also, even if your loony assertion were true and we all fear those nutty fundies, that's not what bigotry even means.

    I wouldn't call it bigotry. That was my point.

    mrdobalina on
  • zerg rushzerg rush Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    It's still bigotry, no matter how finely you split that hair.

    Careful with that....

    I'd say 80% of the people on this board are bigots if you roll up fear of a religious takeover.

    There's a big difference between antipathy of Christians and Muslims. Those who dislike Christians generally see them as a diverse group, ranging all sorts of countries with various different sects, and such dislike is caused by intellectual dishonesty. Those who dislike Muslims generally use the word because it's more acceptable to say than "towelheads from sandville," and such dislike is based on "they're brown."

    On the surface it appears analogous, but it really isn't. There's considerable difference in the bigotry between bashing Muslims and Christians.

    zerg rush on
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited October 2009
    zerg rush wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    It's still bigotry, no matter how finely you split that hair.

    Careful with that....

    I'd say 80% of the people on this board are bigots if you roll up fear of a religious takeover.

    There's a big difference between antipathy of Christians and Muslims. Those who dislike Christians generally see them as a diverse group, ranging all sorts of countries with various different sects, and such dislike is caused by intellectual dishonesty. Those who dislike Muslims generally use the word because it's more acceptable to say than "towelheads from sandville," and such dislike is based on "they're brown."

    On the surface it appears analogous, but it really isn't. There's considerable difference in the bigotry between bashing Muslims and Christians.

    Maybe. I guess I'm saying that there is a difference from that angle, but I wasn't taking that perspective in this. Islamic takeover, and the implications that has (such as Sharia law) aren't bigoted in my opinion. They represent the same threat to the Western Civ understanding of society that Communism would -- a radical upending of your life.

    That's why I wouldn't call it bigoted, in the same way someone who rails against book-burning, bible-thumping, proselytizing Christians who want to outlaw abortion and treat people for Homosexuality wouldn't so much be bigoted as protecting their preferred civilization.

    mrdobalina on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    zerg rush wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    It's still bigotry, no matter how finely you split that hair.

    Careful with that....

    I'd say 80% of the people on this board are bigots if you roll up fear of a religious takeover.

    There's a big difference between antipathy of Christians and Muslims. Those who dislike Christians generally see them as a diverse group, ranging all sorts of countries with various different sects, and such dislike is caused by intellectual dishonesty. Those who dislike Muslims generally use the word because it's more acceptable to say than "towelheads from sandville," and such dislike is based on "they're brown."

    On the surface it appears analogous, but it really isn't. There's considerable difference in the bigotry between bashing Muslims and Christians.

    Maybe. I guess I'm saying that there is a difference from that angle, but I wasn't taking that perspective in this. Islamic takeover, and the implications that has (such as Sharia law) aren't bigoted in my opinion. They represent the same threat to the Western Civ understanding of society that Communism would -- a radical upending of your life.

    That's why I wouldn't call it bigoted, in the same way someone who rails against book-burning, bible-thumping, proselytizing Christians who want to outlaw abortion and treat people for Homosexuality wouldn't so much be bigoted as protecting their preferred civilization.

    The bigotry is assuming there's a giant monolithic "Islam" out there waiting to do just this. Instead of recognizing that there's an enormous array of Islamic people from many different cultures.

    nexuscrawler on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    The Sharia thing is mostly just a Fundamentalist thing.

    The Bible is chock full of equally horrible laws, but they have been diluted by history.

    Incenjucar on
  • KastanjKastanj __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    zerg rush wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    It's still bigotry, no matter how finely you split that hair.

    Careful with that....

    I'd say 80% of the people on this board are bigots if you roll up fear of a religious takeover.

    There's a big difference between antipathy of Christians and Muslims. Those who dislike Christians generally see them as a diverse group, ranging all sorts of countries with various different sects, and such dislike is caused by intellectual dishonesty. Those who dislike Muslims generally use the word because it's more acceptable to say than "towelheads from sandville," and such dislike is based on "they're brown."

    On the surface it appears analogous, but it really isn't. There's considerable difference in the bigotry between bashing Muslims and Christians.

    Maybe. I guess I'm saying that there is a difference from that angle, but I wasn't taking that perspective in this. Islamic takeover, and the implications that has (such as Sharia law) aren't bigoted in my opinion. They represent the same threat to the Western Civ understanding of society that Communism would -- a radical upending of your life.

    That's why I wouldn't call it bigoted, in the same way someone who rails against book-burning, bible-thumping, proselytizing Christians who want to outlaw abortion and treat people for Homosexuality wouldn't so much be bigoted as protecting their preferred civilization.

    The bigotry is assuming there's a giant monolithic "Islam" out there waiting to do just this. Instead of recognizing that there's an enormous array of Islamic people from many different cultures.

    It's bigoted to treat anyone according to anything but their actions, basically. If you asked me if the Muslims or Christians in Europe represented a more serious threat to a decent society, I would have to give it a toss-up as of now (especially since most of the people spreading fear and suspicion towards Muslims are a bunch of hypocrites who would prefer society to look like a Tintin album). Personally, I think that if a person wants to call himself a Christian or a Muslim, s/he would only look brave in my eyes if s/he was willing to point to the gay-hating, progress-hating elements and explicitly state that they don't consider elements to be worthy of taking up the name of his/her faith.

    If someone sought to do away with democracy to help solve injustices and then called himself a "social democrat", I would at least declare myself apart from him (unable to force him to call himself something else). I expect the same from people who embrace a faith.

    Kastanj on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • fodderboyfodderboy Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    The Sharia thing is mostly just a Fundamentalist thing.

    The Bible is chock full of equally horrible laws, but they have been diluted by history.

    And more importantly no one is pushing to have those old laws in acted, where as Sharia law is.

    fodderboy on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    fodderboy wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    The Sharia thing is mostly just a Fundamentalist thing.

    The Bible is chock full of equally horrible laws, but they have been diluted by history.

    And more importantly no one is pushing to have those old laws in acted, where as Sharia law is.

    Have you seen the latest gay marriage thread?

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • fodderboyfodderboy Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    fodderboy wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    The Sharia thing is mostly just a Fundamentalist thing.

    The Bible is chock full of equally horrible laws, but they have been diluted by history.

    And more importantly no one is pushing to have those old laws in acted, where as Sharia law is.

    Have you seen the latest gay marriage thread?

    Wait, are people pushing to kill homosexuals?

    fodderboy on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    fodderboy wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    fodderboy wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    The Sharia thing is mostly just a Fundamentalist thing.

    The Bible is chock full of equally horrible laws, but they have been diluted by history.

    And more importantly no one is pushing to have those old laws in acted, where as Sharia law is.

    Have you seen the latest gay marriage thread?

    Wait, are people pushing to kill homosexuals?

    Wow, I think that goalpost just broke the speed limit.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • rational vashrational vash Registered User
    edited October 2009
    fodderboy wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    fodderboy wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    The Sharia thing is mostly just a Fundamentalist thing.

    The Bible is chock full of equally horrible laws, but they have been diluted by history.

    And more importantly no one is pushing to have those old laws in acted, where as Sharia law is.

    Have you seen the latest gay marriage thread?

    Wait, are people pushing to kill homosexuals?

    The anti gay marriage movement is fueled by the old testament.

    It may not be as extreme, but it still amounts to someone trying to push their religious beliefs on to others.

    rational vash on
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    fodderboy wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    The Sharia thing is mostly just a Fundamentalist thing.

    The Bible is chock full of equally horrible laws, but they have been diluted by history.

    And more importantly no one is pushing to have those old laws in acted, where as Sharia law is.

    Have you seen the latest gay marriage thread?

    I haven't ventured into it, but is someone pushing that homosexuality should be illegal due to Leviticus 18:22?

    mrdobalina on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    I haven't ventured into it, but is someone pushing that homosexuality should be illegal due to Leviticus 18:22?

    You are not familiar with sodomy laws?

    --

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

    Incenjucar on
  • zerg rushzerg rush Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    fodderboy wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    fodderboy wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    The Sharia thing is mostly just a Fundamentalist thing.

    The Bible is chock full of equally horrible laws, but they have been diluted by history.

    And more importantly no one is pushing to have those old laws in acted, where as Sharia law is.

    Have you seen the latest gay marriage thread?

    Wait, are people pushing to kill homosexuals?

    Just deny them basic human rights is all.

    Although, I'd totally be down for removing Christian suffrage if "as long as you don't kill them everything's cool" became the new standard.

    zerg rush on
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    I haven't ventured into it, but is someone pushing that homosexuality should be illegal due to Leviticus 18:22?

    You are not familiar with sodomy laws?

    --

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

    That link was entirely unhelpful.

    mrdobalina on
  • fodderboyfodderboy Registered User
    edited October 2009
    fodderboy wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    fodderboy wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    The Sharia thing is mostly just a Fundamentalist thing.

    The Bible is chock full of equally horrible laws, but they have been diluted by history.

    And more importantly no one is pushing to have those old laws in acted, where as Sharia law is.

    Have you seen the latest gay marriage thread?

    Wait, are people pushing to kill homosexuals?

    The anti gay marriage movement is fueled by the old testament.

    It may not be as extreme, but it still amounts to someone trying to push their religious beliefs on to others.

    But it is not the actual law being established, such as the case in Sharia.

    fodderboy on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    I haven't ventured into it, but is someone pushing that homosexuality should be illegal due to Leviticus 18:22?

    You are not familiar with sodomy laws?

    --

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

    That link was entirely unhelpful.

    o_O

    I come from a background rich in information on these sorts of topics, so you're going to need to be more explicit in explaining what you need to fill in your knowledge gap, as I am having difficulty perceiving how that does not help.

    Incenjucar on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    fodderboy wrote: »
    But it is not the actual law being established, such as the case in Sharia.

    The success or failure of an act does not negate the attempt.

    Incenjucar on
This discussion has been closed.