Firestarter

Who is?

Spoiler (Highlight to Read): Obviously, my reply was facetious. I'll respond more seriously later; in the meantime, check out British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's editorial on the subject in today's Wall Street Journal.

Zero. Zip. Nada. Your mom. Negative. Why would it have any impact? It's only proper that the President drop by our missile bases from time to time. Honestly, who cares?

Too funny. Are you Palestinian, by any chance? Very true. The rest of what I said can be restated as "You are just a fucking moron." I was a bit nicer, though. Oh, you mean you think I'm a moron? Rather than that I was calling you a moron? Jeez, pick up some syntax someday; it won't kill you. Promise. ... 'k, this isn't really making too much sense to me right now, but I'll do what I can with it. No, I don't think the game is racist. It's obviously a mockery of racist stereotypes. How anyone can miss that is beyond me. Oh my, you've outdone yourself this time. Are you saying that SpiderPoet and I have religious beliefs in common? That's bloody hilarious. I think he'd be the second one to tell you that his brand of Christianity is entirely, even irreconcilably, different from mine - I'd be the first. So much for your last pathetic attempt at a comeback. Care to try again?

"You've just opened your eyes to find yourself crumbled into a collapsed mess, hopefully in a bed, hopefully in somewhat familiar surroundings, but, worst of all, awake. Your mind gradually manages to reconstruct some sort of memory of some portion of the previous night's activities. You feel like the worst part of hell (this is the cue for the proverbial 'I'll-never-drink-again' declaration, one of the most pitiful demonstrations of bull$#!+ in all of human behavior). You need help. Quick." - Dr. I. M. Bibe's Anti-Hangover Tips There ya go, Agent. Hope you feel better.

I like Ripper. He speaks so well!

So let me get this straight: you're taking offense at a caricature of one ethnic group while simultaneously defending a caricature of another as perfectly justifiable because you believe it reflects reality, and then you're calling everyone else a racist? Gotcha. And obviously, if you poke fun at several stereotypes at once, everything's kosher (sorry) only as long as you don't make fun of blacks. If you do make fun of blacks, you must be a racist, even if you're making fun of Jews, Hispanics, Orientals, and white people at the same time. I'm sorry, but just whom would that leave? An Eskimo tribe or two? Oh, sorry - they're "Inuits" now, aren't they? So the creator of this game must be a member of a secret Inuit society determined to return to the glory days of the mighty Inuit Empire when all the lesser races were crushed under the righteous Inuit heel... the dreaded Inuit society of Cha Walla Look Ba Kappa-Ma. (Everyone's required to wear a fur-lined parka and a beaver mask at the secret Inuit meetings. The meetings only last for about 5 minutes at a time, though, because the sacred Inuit symbol of Cha Walla Look Ba Kappa-Ma is a flaming igloo, and it's too much trouble to build more than two or three to reignite as the first one melts.) What a thrilling discovery! We must all band together to defend ourselves against the emerging Inuit threat, lest we be persecuted by malicious racist Inuits the world over. (I like saying "Inuit.") Anyway, thanks. That was beautiful. I haven't seen hypocrisy on this scale since, well, SpiderPoet's last post. Keep up the good work!

A horrific example of a mutated, toothless double negative, inbred for three generations, infected with a comical, clumsy wordiness, and repeatedly bashed over the head with a metal shovel. I did. It's mildly amusing that you still can't get his name right.

You're a joke, SP. A bad, repetitious, incoherent joke. I'm "incapable of performing" what "same actions," precisely? "Completely discount[ing]" your "views, ideals, and ways of operation?" I thought that's exactly what I was doing, only more cogently. Or am I "incapable of performing" your "views, ideals, and ways of operation?" Well that would make sense in a sort of viciously ungrammatical way, wouldn't it? I don't share your hidebound views, I don't share your immoral ideals, and your blanket condemnations, your willful ignorance, and your stubborn refusal to acknowledge evidence, analysis, or reason disgusts me. How the hell do you "perform" a view or an ideal, anyway? What do you hope to accomplish by inviting people to prove your bigotry, and then denying what little meaning your own words possess when they're quoted back to you, verbatim? What's your point? What are your arguments? Just what in God's name are you trying to say? Could you please take a course in basic English before your next post?

Honestly, slavery and racism did not lead to the conditions black Americans face today. Left-wing entitlement programs did. In the early 1960s, the black illegitimacy rate was only about 10%. In the next ten years, as liberals decided to pay unwed mothers for having more and more children with almost half a thousand new government programs, the illegitimacy rate exploded - to well over 75%. It's still about 60% today. Can anyone here even begin to imagine what kind of effect that has on a societal group? Well, you don't have to. You can see it in the decaying slums, the misogynistic rap "music," the gang wars, the drug addiction, the alcoholism, the obesity, the dead eyes of the children embittered by their crippling environs. Black Americans today face overwhelming disadvantages because of their skin colour. But it's not the fault of racist whites. It's purely and simply the fault of a simple-minded system that directly rewarded and encouraged some of the most self-destructive behaviour imaginable - and it still does today. But hey, what do I know? I'm white, so I must be a racist too. I'm just blaming the victims, and I must deeply hate black people to say anything like this. The fact that Dr Martin Luther King is one of my heroes only reinforces that fact; we all know he was a boot-licking Uncle Tom. After all, he had a dream that one day race would be irrelevant, that one day, his children would be judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. In other words, he would have been against affirmative action, and so naturally he must have been a self-loathing black, a racist, a traitor to his own people. Dr King had a dream that one day the children of former slaves and the children of former slave-owners would hold hands and sit down at a table of brotherhood. But we all know that white people can't sit down with blacks without first apologising for being white, don't we? We don't understand what blacks went through, and our presence at such a table would be hurtful because we were all slavers. Dr King had a dream that one day America would live up to her promise, that she would one day treat all men as if they had indeed been created equal: that she would deny the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to none. Thank goodness we've realised that happiness itself is a right, and if someone, somewhere, isn't happy, the government must not be giving him enough money. Thank goodness we've realised that we can't all be equal on college applications, because some of our ancestors have suffered in the past, and some of us are still suffering today. Thank goodness for that. This is the land of guaranteed success, after all, not the land of opportunity. Dr King had a dream that one day we'd all sing together the words of an old Negro spiritual: "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we're free at last!" But it would be cultural imperialism if white people sang a Negro - oh, sorry, I mean an African-American, or a Haitian-American, or a Moslem-American song. Not to mention that the song itself is a racist caricature harking back to the days when blacks were literally slaves. And white people don't have anything to complain about anyway. Dr King had a dream, but we've dispensed with that dream now. How wonderful. How far-sighted. How liberating. How sad.

Well, wasn't that special? You love the sinners and just hate the sins! How adorable! I haven't heard that from anyone since, well, what was his name now - oh yes, Tomas de Torquemada. Of course, that's precisely the problem.

"Ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full." - John 16:24 Emphases added. These are the "arguments" of a religious bigot, and your "evidence" consists of Just So stories from a moldy old book. No reason. No thought. No logic. No proof. No analysis. Just so.

Nope. Whatever. You don't have to. All you have to do is continue spouting ignorance and stupidity and bigotry. Somehow I doubt that.

Heh. Or if he weren't black.

There is no conspiracy. There is no Sandro. Go back to your work, citizens. England prevails.

You are misinterpreting the nature of a democratic republic. We are not a paternalistic nation and despite the fact that we do not conduct referendums on every subject, we do not kowtow to our leaders and allow them to determine our best interests as they see fit. Congress, the judiciary, and the President are the servants of the people, and the best exemplars of the various offices keep that uppermost in their minds.

No they're not. The terrorists responsible for the attacks on Israel are in no way economically deprived. The human tools they use to carry out the attacks are, and they're only deprived because their "leaders" keep them that way.

Implicate what at all in where? As I said before: if you don't like my replies to you, don't post on this board and send your PRIVATE replies to other people through the PRIVATE messaging system. I don't care if you're replying to me or not. I'll respond to you when I feel I have something to say about your arguments on any procedural or substantial point. Get used to it. I'll let him know next time he's reading the boards. If you take issue with something in his article, why not say so, cite chapter and verse, if you'll pardon the expression, and present your counterpoints, instead of just whining?

Nah, I just bump them when I see new developments in the story.

You're assuming that I wouldn't have a problem with taxpayers funding those. And I would. If a group wants to segregate itself and pay for its voluntary segregation privately, that's one thing. I think it's narrowminded, defensive, and silly, but freedom of association is protected by the First Amendment. Differentiating among people on the basis of sexuality, however, is as repugnant as any other form of segregation in our past. I don't understand why you can't see that.

Well, hold on. What's the "dual purpose of sex?" If you're only counting reproduction and the expression of love, you're missing pleasure. There are at least three quasibiological imperatives. There are also countless psychological motivations, such as rebellion, identity establishment, self-affirmation, peer pressure, acculturation, and so on.

Okay, I'm still up for it. What's the issue at hand?

Yeah, I love that skit. "And now we're down to two." Here's another article on the Commandments farce, this time from Quin Hillyer at the National Review - you might expect it to defend Moore, but it doesn't. It very rightly criticises him and his actions, and proves beyond all doubt that this is not a man of faith first and foremost, but an ambitious grandstander, a would-be martyr, and a dishonest, cynical, manipulative demagogue. It also shows how a good jurist acts - to wit, Alabama Attorney-General and Presidential nominee to the 11th Circuit Bill Pryor, whose conduct has been unexceptionable, and whom the Democrats should clearly see would never attempt legislate from the bench, as they claim to fear he will. But, of course, that argument is predicated on a belief in Democratic honesty, and that's rarely a good idea.

Moore's Law by Christopher Hitchens - a solid and entertaining article on the sometimes immoral, sometimes obvious, sometimes irrelevant, sometimes myopic, and always just plain silly Ten Commandments. "One is presuming (is one not?) that this is the same god who actually created the audience he was addressing. This leaves us with the insoluble mystery of why he would have molded ("in his own image," yet) a covetous, murderous, disrespectful, lying, and adulterous species. Create them sick, and then command them to be well? What a mad despot this is, and how fortunate we are that he exists only in the minds of his worshippers."

Thanks Ace309; I was trying to figure out why FBP's attempt at an argument made no sense but it was so off-base I couldn't even get that far. Unintelligible, yes. Wrong, too. If someone defended something I believed in in an illegal manner I'd be just as critical of his procedural ethics. Again, the vast majority of criticism directed at Moore is not based on his apparent desire to establish Christianity as the law of the land. It is not based on his faith. That is not why he was dismissed. He was dismissed - unanimously - because he refused to uphold the law, because he betrayed his oath of office, and because he defied a lawful order from a federal judge.