Jump to content
TSM Forums


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by CheesalaIsGood

  1. Well considering that I can't say one way or another if there IS some "thing, being, GOD" that created everything. I can vouch for my disfavore of the bible being legit. Translated too many times, through too many languages, through too many MEN. I can see why somebody would take a leap of faith if for no other reason then to provide themselves with an ANSWER to at least SOME of lifes mysteries. I'm just skeptical of having the foundation of my faith being a book thats 1000s of years old.

  2. Bah. Coulter automatically makes it more interesting than a Moore movie.


    Has Ann Coulter ever made ANYTHING more interesting? She's as big a media whore as Moore himself.

    She's smarter and far more interesting than Moore has ever dreamed of being.


    Besides, she ain't physically repellant, either.


    Coke whore!



    Yeah, I'd bang her.

  3. Well, it only took three posts for a "Bush-never-served-lol" response.


    And some of you liberals at this place bitch about the Conservative Brigade turning everything into a political bitchfest...

    Not THIS "liberal". No matter, your cute little brigade can bitch about whatever you like.



    Back to the topic of the deserter guy. This is old news. Sorta like Iran/Contra. It was years AGO! Drop it already! Right? RIGHT?


    Dosen't the military have BETTER things to do with its time? "Operation: The Rest of the Brown Ones" isn't getting done any quicker this way. Come ON!

  4. Well for what is worth here is what CBS is saying at the moment.





    (CBS/AP) The controversy continues over the authenticity of memos obtained by CBS News that show President Bush's National Guard commander believed Mr. Bush at times shirked his duties and used his political influence.


    The network is adamantly defending the authenticity of the memos, which were obtained by CBS News' "60 Minutes," saying experts who examined the memos concluded they were authentic documents produced by Mr. Bush's former commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian.


    In a statement, CBS News said it stands by its story.


    "This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking," the statement read.


    "In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content," the statement continued. "Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned."


    In a report on Friday night's "CBS News Evening News," Dan Rather reported that many of those raising questions about the documents have focused on something called superscript, a key that automatically types a raised "th."


    Critics claim typewriters didn't have that ability in the 1970s. But some models did, Rather reported. In fact, other Bush military records already released by the White House itself show the same superscript – including one from as far back as 1968.


    Some analysts outside CBS say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s.


    But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style told CBS News that it has been available since 1931.


    Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real. And he is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of the people questioning the documents, because deterioration occurs each time a document is reproduced. And the documents being analyzed outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with.


    Matley did an interview with "60 Minutes" prior to Wednesday's broadcast. He looked at the documents and the signatures of Col. Killian, comparing known documents with the colonel's signature on the newly discovered ones.


    "We look basically at what's called significant or insignificant features to determine whether it's the same person or not," Matley said. "I have no problem identifying them. I would say based on our available handwriting evidence, yes, this is the same person."


    Matley finds the signatures to be some of the most compelling evidence.


    Reached Friday by satellite, Matley said, "Since it is represented that some of them are definitely his, then we can conclude they are his signatures."


    Matley said he's not surprised that questions about the documents have come up.


    "I knew going in that this was dynamite one way or the other. And I knew that potentially it could do far more potential damage to me professionally than benefit me," he said. "But we seek the truth. That's what we do. You're supposed to put yourself out, to seek the truth and take what comes from it."


    Robert Strong was an administrative officer for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam years. He knew Jerry Killian, the man credited with writing the documents. And paper work, like these documents, was Strong's specialty. He is standing by his judgment that the documents are real.


    "They are compatible with the way business was done at that time," Strong said. "They are compatible with the man I remember Jerry Killian being. I don't see anything in the documents that's discordant with what were the times, the situation or the people involved."


    Killian died in 1984.


    Strong says the highly charged political atmosphere of the National Guard at the time was perfectly represented in the new documents.


    "It verged on outright corruption in terms of the favors that were done, the power that was traded. And it was unconscionable from a moral and ethical standpoint. It was unconscionable," Strong said.


    The president's service record emerged as an issue during the 2000 race and again this winter. The Killian documents revived the issue of Mr. Bush's time in uniform after weeks in which Democratic challenger John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, has faced questions over his record as a Navy officer and an anti-war protester.


    The questions about Mr. Bush's service center on how Mr. Bush got into the Guard and whether he fulfilled his duties during a period from mid-1972 to mid-1973.


    What the Killian memos purport to show is that Mr. Bush defied a direct order to appear for a physical exam, that his performance as an officer was lacking in other ways and that Mr. Bush used family connections to try to quash any inquiry into his lapses.


    In a separate development, the Boston Globe this week reported that Mr. Bush promised to sign up with a Boston-area unit when he left his Texas unit in 1973 to attend Harvard Business School. Mr. Bush never signed up with a Boston unit.







    Mike, you may resume your normally scheduled liberal bashing. Cuz, we are ALL liars and Bush is the second coming making us "safer" everyday.

  5. Speaking of the current state of religious thought....


    According to the same site bootlegs of The Passion are selling quite well in the Middle East. Go figure.





    A healthy dose of Jesus?

    "I'm Juxtaposing" by Eightheadz, creator of 8BM.com


    After watching Passion of the Christ I have a few questions.


    Why did the “Jewish religious establishment” feel that they needed to pay Judas to find Jesus anyway?

    Was Jesus preaching in secret? Was he a fugitive of the law? I never got the impression that he was teaching in back rooms and in poorly lit basements under a whisper. He was supposed to be out in the open, standing on a hill and gathering hundreds if not thousands of people around him.

    But if he was so open about his teachings, then they wouldn’t have had to pay anyone to tell them where he was going to be now would they?

    They could have just arrested him after one of his sermons.

    Not only did they have to pay Judas to find him but they didn’t even know what Jesus looked like. Judas had to kiss him on the cheek so the thugs that the "Jewish religious establishment" sent to arrest him would even know which hippie to rough up.

    They actually asked Judas, “how will we know who he is.”

    That is when Judas came up with the homoerotic idea to plant big wet one on Jesus.

    So it is safe to assume that Jesus wasn’t some superstar pop icon like some people would want you to believe.

    The fact is that people didn’t even know what the fuck he looked like.

    Not even his enemies.

    Think about that for a second.

    If you let Christians tell the story he was the most popular thing since Manna.

    If he had it like that I doubt it would have been a problem to just arrest him whenever he was out and about preaching to thousands of disenfranchised Jews hanging on his every word.

    If he was that sweet they wouldn’t have needed Judas’ help in finding him and could’ve saved 30 silver pieces?


    This brings me to my next problem, the beat down.

    Seriously Mel, are we supposed to walk away from that thinking that the Romans put a little something special on that ass whupping that they served Jesus that day?

    I am sure Jesus wasn’t the first or the last criminal to catch an ass kicking like that.

    In terms of beat downs, people have gotten much worse around the world before Jesus and since Jesus for much less.

    Genghis Khan once poured hot silver in someone’s eyes and ears for stealing his tribute.

    That was worse.

    Stealing Genghis Khan’s shit I think is also much worse than just saying that you have a better way of looking at things and turning over a few tables at a synagogue.

    Hell, African American slaves were beaten to death not just beaten bad enough to still have the strength to carry a 500 pound cross a few miles on his back through the streets then up the side of a friggin mountain.

    How can others go through much worse than Jesus ever did and yet Jesus’ ass kicking is enough to cleanse us of our sins?

    I guess when you are the self-proclaimed son of man you’ve earned the right get off light.

    Hell, at the rate that we charge up debt for being inhumane towards one another humanity would have been right back where we all started before they pushed that thorn crown into his forehead.


    Another problem I had with the movie was Jesus’ arrogance.

    Actually this was a huge problem I had.

    That is right, I said arrogance.

    After the first wave of beat downs with those sticks, did you notice that they quit beating him once he fell to his knees?

    They only brought out the heavy artillery (cat o-nine-tails) once Jesus stood up defiantly like, “what? That’s all you’ve got?”

    In the immortal words of Marsellus Wallace talking to Butch in Pulp Fiction … “Fuck pride.”

    Jesus should have just acted like he passed out.

    That’s what I would have done.

    In my opinion standing up after all of that was the equivalent of playing "Fuck the Police” at volume ten when you get pulled over by the police for drunk driving.

    I’m sorry. It’s hard for me to be sympathetic towards someone when I see that. That is what I call “asking for it.”

    Then again I am not the savior of mankind. Maybe being the savior of mankind dictates that you flip your nose up at the establishment every chance you get.

    This would go along way to explaining why I am not the savior of mankind.

    I kept yelling at the screen, “stay down…stay down…”.

    Then again I was saying that and I know how the story ends so what does that say about me?

    To me it seemed like Jesus had umpteenth opportunities to get out of that whole situation if he wanted but it looked like his ego kept getting in the way.

    How many times did people ask him simple, direct questions where if he would have just opened his mouth and explained himself, instead of acting like he was too good to answer them, they could have cleared all of this up in no time?

    I know he wanted to be all defiant in front of the guys that were railroading him but give me a break.

    Pride is a motherfucker ain’t it? Apparently even for Jesus.

    See that is why I was a little confused when he said, “God why have thou art forsaken me” it was like it was just sinking in that he was pretty much fucked.

    It took getting nailed up on a cross for that?

    If I were Jesus I would've said that "why have thou art forsaken me” line right about the time that I saw the crowd cheering for Bar'Abbas over me.

    It was almost like he thought God would have saved him way before he was nailed on that cross. Like that whole time he was expecting the cavalry to arrive and now he realizes once he is up there that they ain’t coming.

    Maybe that is why he was acting so defiant, he must’ve been expecting God to strike everybody down with lighting bolts the whole time he was being biggety with everyone.

    Well maybe God did give him an out.

    God gave him Pontius Pilot and Herod. What bigger out did you need? God could have given him for Los Angeles Police chief Darryl Gates.

    See where I am going with this?

    Both Pontius and Herod found no reason to harm. If Jesus would have just sucked up his pride a little bit and explained himself he could have be released unscathed, but he didn’t say anything. He just sat there defiantly and let things follow their course. Which is fine, if that is how you wanted things to go down, but then why are you crying about it on the cross once the end is near like someone (God) was “forsaking you”?

    Read the Bible, Herod was actually a fan of Jesus. All he wanted was to see Jesus perform a few magic tricks. Read him a fortune or something. Herod definitely would have let Jesus walk.


    My last problem with the film is that the story of Jesus seems to be, at least from my view, a condemnation of capital punishment.

    And I know that wasn’t Mel Gibson’s intent considering he’d kill anything but an unborn fetus.

    I am sure the conservatives of the world would disagree with me, but what I felt appalled people in that film, at least the people that were appalled, was not that this was being done to Jesus per se, but that this level of inhumanity was being done to anyone.

    When homey got pissed off at the Roman thugs mercilessly kicking Jesus he stopped the Roman soldiers by declaring that he wouldn’t carry the cross a step further if they didn’t stop kicking Jesus ass.

    He didn’t know who the fuck Jesus was. He just knew that what they were doing was pretty fucked up.

    See that film was pretty accurate in my assessment as to how we feel today about our convicted felons today.

    When it comes to convicted felons, whether it was in Israel 2000 years ago or in any state penitentiary anywhere in the world we feel like we have the right to do anything we want to someone once they have been convicted in the eyes of the law.

    How many conservatives complain that convicted criminals have televisions when they shouldn’t, books when they shouldn’t, three meals a day when they shouldn’t?

    How much sympathy does a convicted felon get when he complains about getting raped in jail?

    That all comes with the territory, right?

    The court said that they were guilty.

    Even if you are innocent of these particular charges you must’ve done something otherwise you wouldn’t be in this position right?

    Isn’t that the line of logic they use?

    The story of Jesus , or at least the story of Jesus told by Mel Gibson is about how inhumane we can be to the people that we judge. It is a condemnation of capital punishment as much as it is anything else.

    I would say that this is especially true for the Passion of the Christ which really isn’t so much a story about anything after 30 minutes into it.

    What really confused me was at the end of the movie when a tear drop from God comes falling down to the earth and starts an earthquake.

    What’s God sad about?

    If God didn’t want Jesus to be killed then he could have done something about it. Better yet, if he didn’t want Jesus to be killed he could have chosen some other way for Jesus to pay for our salvation.

    He was a carpenter. He could have repaired front porches for people for no charge or something until the humanities debt was paid off.

    God is God after all isn’t he?

    God by definition means that you get to make the rules as you see fit.

    And if he (God) chose not to do anything to prevent what Jesus went through from going down because what happened to Jesus had to be done then what the hell are you crying for?

    Surely God had the gift of foresight. He knew exactly how it was going to go down. What, it just hurt to see it all play out? That is what foresight is. You see it ahead of time.

    The Rabbis and the Romans were just doing his bidding. They were fulfilling prophesy. They were just playing their role. Without them, Jesus doesn’t die for our sins and everyone is still fucked. I’d say that they deserve a star on the Hollywood walk of fame. Without them, I wouldn’t be able to tell a priest on my death bed that I am sorry for writing this article and be forgiven and still get into heaven.

    Besides, you’re crying for only son and all you could muster up was one single tear? It must be a man thing because mother Mary was totally fucked up about it.

    She had snot coming out of her nose and everything. She was crying so hard that her eyes were red. I guess mothers take the execution of their sons a lot harder than fathers.

    Either that or what they say is true, “Mother’s baby, father’s maybe.”





  6. You guys are expecting me to put out effort?

    Not much effort was put forth.


    Usually one of those CE-is-filled-with-right-wingers threads has some condecending shit saying how he can't post in there anymore because everybody is ignorant. Then we all laugh at said poster and Dr. Tom punks him out.


    But I guess beggers can't be choosers...

    Better than the usual "Only reason Mike isn't banned is because Tom likes him" crap.


    EVERYBODY loves me.


    No, just SOMEBODY.

  7. Did the Bush daughters ask the crowd to vote for their dad? I don't seem to remember the news reports mentioning that. Also, they were videotaped saying what they said -- I just found Kerry's kids to say "vote for our daddy cuz he's the shiznit yo" to be lame as all hell, and to have it backfire in their faces like a Ron Jeremey money shot was priceless...

    Cry me a river. Mr. Thin Skin.

  8. French government in crisis mode over journalist hostage drama


    Sun Aug 29,12:16 PM ET


    PARIS (AFP) - The French government switched into crisis mode as efforts intensified to secure the release of two journalists kidnapped in Iraq (news - web sites) by Islamic militants demanding that Paris rescind a ban on headscarves in state schools.


    "The situation is serious. We are devoting all our energy to obtain the release of our countrymen who have been appallingly taken hostage in Iraq," Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin said after a second round of emergency talks with top ministers.


    "We have already reinforced our initiatives in the region and we will continue to do so in the coming hours," he told reporters before heading into a meeting with President Jacques Chirac.


    It was unclear what channels of influence Paris was using to help win the release of Radio France correspondent Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot of Le Figaro newspaper.


    Muslim leaders in France and abroad joined the government in urging the Islamic Army in Iraq, the same shadowy Sunni Muslim group that kidnapped and later killed Italian journalist Enzo Baldoni, to free the two men.


    The group's demand that Paris revoke its ban on headscarves in state schools and universities upped the stakes in the debate over the controversial law, set to go into effect Thursday when classes resume across France.


    "Together we ask for their release," Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin said after meeting with Muslim leaders, addressing "all those who have some kind of authority or responsibility for the fate" of the two newsmen.


    "Secularism in our country does not divide -- it brings together all French men and women," he told reporters.


    Raffarin met with de Villepin, Foreign Minister Michel Barnier, Culture and Communications Minister Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, Education Minister Francois Fillon and Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie on the crisis.


    "France taken hostage," proclaimed the Sunday paper Le Journal du Dimanche on its front page above photos of Chesnot and Malbrunot.


    The two newsmen went missing on August 20, the day they were to have left Baghdad for the central holy city of Najaf, then the scene of fierce fighting between US forces and Shiite militia loyal to radical cleric Moqtada Sadr.


    Late Saturday, Arabic-language Al-Jazeera television broadcast images of Chesnot and Malbrunot -- both Middle East experts with years of experience in the region -- along with the ultimatum from the Islamic Army in Iraq.


    The militants gave Paris 48 hours to meet their demands, describing the headscarf ban as "an injustice and an attack on the Islamic religion," the Qatar-based network reported, citing its "own sources in Iraq."


    Muslim leaders condemned the kidnapping, with the president of the French Council for the Muslim Religion (CFCM), Dalil Boubakeur, saying he was "shattered" by the Islamic militants' "unworthy and odious blackmail".


    "The Muslim community must set itself apart from these schemes that are reprehensible in the eyes of Islam and give no indication that these people are acting in their interest," Boubakeur said.


    The CFCM is the first officially recognized body for France's Muslim community, which at an estimated five million is the largest in Europe.


    Controversial Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan -- a leading opponent of the headscarf ban -- urged Paris not to "give in to this appalling blackmail," calling the kidnapping "unacceptable and contrary to the principles of Islam."




    Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood condemned the hostage-taking, while in Iraq a strict Wahhabist group and the country's most senior Sunni Muslim scholars, the Committee of Ulemas, called for the immediate release of the two men.


    But both Iraqi groups also called on France to reconsider its decision to ban "conspicuous" religious insignia like Islamic veils, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses in the classroom.


    The government introduced the law to stop what it saw as an increasingly radical stance by some students to assert their religious identity in schools in violation of a principle that such institutions should be strictly secular.


    But the legislation was widely criticized in many countries in the Arab world, which charged that it was an example of blatant discrimination against Muslims.


    Demonstrators have marched against the headscarf law in Bahrain, Egypt, the Gaza Strip (news - web sites), Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon and in France itself, where a section of the Muslim community campaigned against the new regulation.


    Kidnappings of journalists and other foreigners have become common in Iraq as insurgents attempt to force countries to withdraw their troops from the war-ravaged country or extort money.


    However, the journalists' employers and Sunni Muslim scholars had earlier expressed faith that if they had been kidnapped they would be safe because France had staunchly opposed the US-led war against Iraq.


    Baldoni was killed after being held for a week, Al-Jazeera had reported. His captors had threatened to execute him unless Italy withdrew its 3,000 troops from Iraq within 48 hours.

    So, being nice and understanding STILL causes them to have hostages taken when they do ANYTHING to upset the extremists?


    So, can any of the critics of the War tell us how, exactly, Bush's actions made us less safe?


    ...As I said at the time, "If we're nice, maybe they'll kill us last" is a poor policy...

    Yeah, and killing innocent civilians won't make others join the cause of the maniacs. Good ploy to win their hearts and minds. A better policy would have been to keep our actions small so any mistakes made along the way would have been harder for any media to blow out of proportion. Yanno, so it at least doesn't LOOK like an occupation! Instead, we get a pot boiling over. Now even more of them are becoming extremists. Just like in Iran, when the iranians felt like they had no one to turn to other than the Ayatollah. Now that country is run by hardliners. Whoops! WHOOPS!




    Yeah, I feel so much safer.

  9. Yeah, Regnery Publishing is likely to withdraw that book.



    Isn't it sad, though, that a candidate is trying to get a book suppressed?


    Man, Disney got more heat over F 9/11 than Kerry is about this.


    Oh please... if that isn't fucking stretching to make a point, then I don't know what is


    The campaign is calling on the publiser to withdraw the book, they're not fucking doing anything major to take the books off the shelves... when a lawsuit comes up or if someone tied to the Kerry campaign actually finds a way to get the publisher to remove the books, then you'll have a point

    Jig, I think the point is that he is doing something to try and remove this. Bush and Co didn't do anything to remove F 9/11; that was Disney, and that was probably just as slanderous as this book could possibly be.


    And the fact that they are vigourously trying to remove what would normally be considered a whacko book (God knows Bush has enough out there written about him) is just lending it more and more credibility. It's what Michael Moore wanted for F 9/11 but couldn't get.

    I doubt that Bush and CO. COULD have done anything to suppress F-911. The wave of media surrounding the oncoming controversy was already swelling. Nothing was going to stop that movie from getting released.


    Now Kerry and CO. wanna hide a book? Politics as usual.

  10. I think also that the time for the reality that people on either side are not going anywhere regardless of the results of the election. Both sides need to see that having an opinion and declaring it isn't going to make people of an opposing view just disappear.


    Is it so hard to handle the idea that both sides should be asking what the other would be willing to compromise on as far as issues and laws? I mean, yes, I'm a left leaning guy but not every issue is as important to me as some others. I mean what laws, issues, or controversies would you be willing to concede to make gains elsewhere?




    Good post Mike.