|
|
 |
fortyoz2freedom4 |
+ |
Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at 10:16 PM wow. adam just went off hardcore on the religious nutjob crew.....i hope youre recording this one guys(1st segment 11/10/04) can we find a way to just record and distribute Adam's opening rants...maybe lightning rounds too.....? —fortyoz2freedom4 |
|
|
|
|
Kevin U. |
+ |
Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at 10:22 PM Every show is recorded and distributed, some people make clips of the best rants and such... It's been quite some time since I have heard a real lightning round, anyone know when the last one Adam did was? —Kevin U. |
|
|
|
|
fortyoz2freedom4 |
+ |
Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at 10:26 PM yeah, now that you mention it it seems like it has been a while, but he has been doing alot of short bursts at the beginning of a segment from time to time........montpelier...checkin in at 15 degreeeeeesss.....top o the hour...
—fortyoz2freedom4 |
|
|
|
|
hochi666 |
+ |
Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at 10:26 PM Excellent rant. He's pretty much dead on right. —hochi666 |
|
|
|
|
fortyoz2freedom4 |
+ |
Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at 10:28 PM yeah, with an opening 30mins like that.....tonight is a must listen....now all we need is a little G&F, maybe some accordian countdown, and a smoke detector...... —fortyoz2freedom4 |
|
|
|
|
hochi666 |
+ |
Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at 10:35 PM I know some people have to be annoyed with the smoke detector bit, but it absoluely KILLS me every time they run across it. It's always the STUPIDEST callers who have it going on. Seriously -- The Aceman is right when he says that the beeping would drive a lizard insane. How doe these people live? Good fucking christ. —hochi666 |
|
|
|
|
Babooshka |
+ |
Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at 10:39 PM His rants are funny, tho increasingly unintelligent and incorrect. Hilarious nonetheless. —Babooshka |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hochi666 |
+ |
Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at 10:56 PM I found his rant to be very well informed. The religious contingent on this globe is way out of control. —hochi666 |
|
|
|
|
fortyoz2freedom4 |
+ |
Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at 10:59 PM yeah, definitely, im an atheist and i agree %100 percent with adam's stance on religion....keep it to yourself, you crazy idiots —fortyoz2freedom4 |
|
|
|
|
Babooshka |
+ |
Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at 11:21 PM "what exactly was incorrect, or unintelligent? (OK, he generalizes...but other than that)" Because, if religious people believe that there is a God, and they believe that knowing God is a good thing for everyone, they would have a duty to tell Adam and all the rest of the atheists about God. He also implied that religious people shouldn't express themselves because God will punish/reward those who deserve it in the end. Although I agree that people will get what they deserve in the end, it doesn't make sense to be apathetic towards reality because "in the end" it'll all be alright. For instance, in the end those who cheat in school will not know the knowledge school aims to teach when it's all said and done. However, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't care whether people cheat. But, on a side note, I do believe that God punishes people right now for doing bad things. Philisophically, it's called Natural Law theory, essentially people that jack off too much will not be able to work it in the sack with real women. Doing bad things are bad in and of themself. Anyways, I could go into more detail, BUT we are loveline listeners, aka the stupidist radio audience in the world. Maybe I should have written this in rant-form.
—Babooshka |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HazeTrooper |
+ |
Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at 11:35 PM November 9, 2004 - Best Rant Show In Recent Memory 'Nuff said. —HazeTrooper |
|
|
|
|
lovelineisgreat |
+ |
Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at 11:49 PM adam is soo right about everything about the religio and stuff ....good religiopn fucks weverything up any way..adam c is my idol.. —lovelineisgreat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hochi666 |
+ |
Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at 11:56 PM "Philisophically, it's called Natural Law theory, essentially people that jack off too much will not be able to work it in the sack with real women." The Aceman would smite you off the face of the Earth for this sentance alone. —hochi666 |
|
|
|
|
greymatters |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 12:02 AM Please folks, do not feed the religious nut flamebait. Listen to Adam, "...just SHUT UP!" Let's all suck Adam's dick because we do worship him, and leave it at that. —greymatters |
|
|
|
|
Babooshka |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 12:53 AM yeah, boy am I a nut. btw how often do we hear about adam beating off? A lot.
And how often do we hear him talking about personally sexing some wench? Perhaps a tell tale sign. But like he said, "beating off is the real thing." Sex is what you do otherwise. ha. —Babooshka |
|
|
|
|
Colin |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 1:05 AM "Sex is great, but it's not the real thing." - Adam Carolla —Colin |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 1:26 AM I dislike the word RELIGION because to me it means a bureaucracy, run by MEN and rife w/ corruption in all forms. I prefer SPIRITUALITY (like DREW), a faith in a Higher Power guiding us, and a moral standard to live by. Sprituality is promoted by religion so we can't totally dis religion... Young people hate religion because it is restrictive for them. It tells them a lot of things that feel good are bad. Hence why young people tend to be liberals. Interesting enough, when they grow older and have kids, teaching their kids spirituality and moral values become a priority because, hey , who doesn't want their kids to grow up decent? I see a lot of non-believers sending their kids to Christian schools. So older people tend to lean conservative. I turned my back on Catholicism long time ago but I send my kids to Catholic school because I believe than even if they would turn their back on Religion (like I did) when they grow up, the positive moral practice and training the religious school gave will serve them well through life. —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 1:27 AM when i say RELIGION, i mean Christianity... the Muslim can go with Allah to hell. —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
Colin |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 2:03 AM
Edited Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 2:05 AM And there we have it folks. A religious spiritual person spouting off about hating other religions. God loves everyone, it's just the people who blindly follow god that hate everyone who doesn't. —Colin |
|
|
|
|
chum |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 2:32 AM incorrect/unintelligent or not. you gotta love how he shut drew up when drew mentioned something along the line of how religion brought people peace (not exactly peace, but something along that word) —chum |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 10:31 AM "Because, if religious people believe that there is a God, and they believe that knowing God is a good thing for everyone, they would have a duty to tell Adam and all the rest of the atheists about God." A duty? I wouldn't agree with that. I believe that it's a good thing for everyone to reject religion and the idea of a God in favor of a rational belief system instead. It does not follow that I have any sort of duty to change anyone's views on anything. Now, many of these religions do believe they have a duty, being a servant of their God and such, but unless that is explicitly laid out, I can't see how one's belief in their religion being good for anything directly implies a DUTY to spread it. "But, on a side note, I do believe that God punishes people right now for doing bad things. Philisophically, it's called Natural Law theory, essentially people that jack off too much will not be able to work it in the sack with real women." This analogy is probably more incorrect than any of Adam's recent rants. I also have a particular distain for the aspect of Natural Law Theory that essentially says we have rights because God grants us them. You don't need that element to have an objective theory of rights. In fact, it's all contingent on there being a God who in fact granted such rights, which is anything but certain. Also, endorsing that concept hinders the ability to spread logical, rational thought as a defense of individual rights. "Sprituality is promoted by religion so we can't totally dis religion..." Yes we can. I could argue the ideology of religions corrupts spirituality. The fact religion promotes it doesn't mean it doesn't corrupt it as well. (Look at either of the two major parties and their alleged defense of individual rights for an example.) "Young people hate religion because it is restrictive for them. It tells them a lot of things that feel good are bad. Hence why young people tend to be liberals. Interesting enough, when they grow older and have kids, teaching their kids spirituality and moral values become a priority because, hey , who doesn't want their kids to grow up decent? I see a lot of non-believers sending their kids to Christian schools. So older people tend to lean conservative." A lot of colloquial examples plus many sweeping generalizations doesn't add up to much. Being an atheist, I'd never send my child to a Christian school, especially not for moral indoctrination. I will never buy into the idea of teaching values in some authortarian way. The reality is while the West feels the need to derive its morality Judeo-Christian ethic, other places in the world do not and arguably are more moral than Christians are. "you gotta love how he shut drew up when drew mentioned something along the line of how religion brought people peace (not exactly peace, but something along that word)" You've gotta hate the fact that religion tends to bring more conflict, more war, and more death than peace. Too bad Adam didn't have the presence of mind to mention that. —clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 11:09 AM I too enjoyed the rant a lot. Because, if religious people believe that there is a God, and they believe that knowing God is a good thing for everyone, they would have a duty to tell Adam and all the rest of the atheists about God. No. People should leave it at home, just like Adam said. There's certain things that do not belong in public. Philisophically, it's called Natural Law theory, essentially people that jack off too much will not be able to work it in the sack with real women. Blasphemer. —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
FlyinACE |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 12:34 PM Now i love Carolla, and most of his bits, and i laugh at his religion bit too. But every time he goes off on religion it annoys me because he is doing exactly what he wants everyone not to do, forcing his belief on everyone. And he gets so angry about it too, he is in affect just as bad as everyone else. Now im about to say something extremely profound: The sooner you learn to just accept and cherish people for their differences, the sooner you will learn how to be happy. I suppose Im even being a hypocrite for saying Carolla's rants about religion annoy me. So i withdraw my previous thoughts, and say "carry on Carolla", but please realize you are being hypocritical.
—FlyinACE |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 1:35 PM As long as the religious retards are trying to foist their religious retardisms on others, I say he's justified. The day they stop is the day Adam becomes a hypocrite. —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
FlyinACE |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 3:51 PM Adam is trying to foist his non-religious beliefs on everyone... Although not directly telling everyone not to believe in a God, he does, through indirect methods, make a case for his lack of beliefs and therfore is doing exactly what religous people are doing except he is leaving out god. —FlyinACE |
|
|
|
|
j4k3 |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 5:23 PM Stop arguing with these religious nut-jobs! Just sock them in the face and shout "Shut the f* up! SHUT THE F* UP!!! SHUT THE F* UPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Thank you. —j4k3 |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 7:20 PM It's one thing to criticize beliefs as stupid, but that in itself doesn't constitute as forcing one's beliefs on someone else. I do believe Adam at times beats home his point and is pushing his beliefs. It doesn't really bother me, but I understand why it would. —clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 9:10 PM The reality is while the West feels the need to derive its morality Judeo-Christian ethic, other places in the world do not and arguably are more moral than Christians are. -clodhopper Name a place more moral than those guided by Judeo-Christian beliefs...I dare you . —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 9:26 PM The sooner you learn to just accept and cherish people for their differences, the sooner you will learn how to be happy.
—FlyinACE I really am trying to cherish and accept Al-Qaeda for it's different take on life and I know I can't judge... —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
HazeTrooper |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 10:08 PM >>Name a place more moral than those guided by Judeo-Christian beliefs...I dare you . —crumple1 Tibet, those guided by Buddhism. —HazeTrooper |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 10:10 PM Colin, do you deny being an asshole? —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 10:14 PM Tibet, those guided by Buddhism. —HazeTrooper
Buddhism puts women lower than men, kinda like Islam but with a smile. Wait a minute... not a bad idea really...
And any religion embraced by Steven Seagal is immediately suspect.
—crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
HazeTrooper |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 10:20 PM
Edited Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 10:27 PM Any religion embraced by our beloved President should be even more suspect... Of course, he was in a drunken, coke-induced stupor at the time. —HazeTrooper |
|
|
|
|
Colin |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 10:28 PM Hey crump! Only some Buddhisms place women below men. I would love it if you would check your facts, mmmmmkay? Great! —Colin |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 11:00 PM Would the US be better if Buddhism was dominant religion?
How would the Constitution be worded? Now that would be interesting.
Are we all going to have to shave our heads or have those awesome braided mullet-gimmicks, like in kung-fu movies?
How will we deal with sex and sexuality?
Will other faiths be tolerated? —savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 12:28 PM "Name a place more moral than those guided by Judeo-Christian beliefs...I dare you." This is a trick question. You're looking for a place more moral by YOUR standards. Of course, you can't be swayed that any other place is. But if we were to consider moral a place which is safe, I'd say Japan is far safer. There is much less violent crime in that country and far more peace than in the United States. If morality's function is to keep society in order, then the Japanese can be said to be far more moral. Now were I to use the theory of objective morality *I* endorse, I'd quite note the depraved immorality of religions such as Christianity for their selfless worship of altruism, rejection of reason, and destruction of individual liberty. "Buddhism puts women lower than men, kinda like Islam but with a smile. Wait a minute... not a bad idea really..." Christianity is disgusting anti-woman. For example, a man is to be executed if he has sex with another man's wife--not because he comitted a crime against her but because he committed a crime against the man! (Leviticus 20:10) But if a man rapes a virgin, he need only seek permission from her father to marry her (Deuteronomy 22:28). So, the Bible is a-okay with a man possessing a woman sexually. Women were restricted over who they could marry and were last in line to receive any inherence (Numbers 36:2‑12). Even if women are married, they do not even inherit their husband's property as a widow--she must ask for it from her son (Deuteronomy 25:5‑10). This is just the tip of the iceberg. Women were clearly second-class citizens in the Bible and to say Christianity is not anti-woman would be to ignore its own holy text. —clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
anona |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 12:55 PM "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
george washington lets look at the constitution... "In suits at common law. . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law."
US constitution 7th ammendment so what is common law? "For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it." ". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." -Thomas Jefferson
But since the constitution mentions god and the founding fathers were christians then it must be in reference to christian god right?
http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm "The Christian right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States as part of its campaign to force its religion on others. They try to depict the founding fathers as pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity. This is patently untrue. The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New testaments. " -Steven Morris (1995) Conclusion: The constitution is not based on christianity and the underlying morality of US common law is not derived from christianity. We are born with a sense of morality that does not need to be learned from a book —anona |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 1:45 PM I believe a number of the founding fathers were Deists, weren't they? —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
annoymous smoke detector |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 2:57 PM Speaking of religion fortyoz2freedom4 posted
"...keep it to yourself, you crazy idiots" You're tell me as a Christian not to do what I am told to do by my authority. I'm not forcing my religion on anyone. I am witnessing my religion and faith to those who want to hear. If a religous speaker is on the radio and you don't like what he has to say, what do you do? you change the station. If you don't want to hear what we Christians have to say then don't listen. We're not trying to make you listen, were not tying you down and forcing you to listen. We're simply giving you the choice to hear what he have to say and what we believe. If I'm preaching from a table in the middle of a park in Dallas and you don't want to hear it, walk away. I don't want you to feel obligated to hear anything I have to say. If you don't like this posts... there is a 'back' button at the top of your browswer. Use it. It's up to you weather or not you want to listen, but for me to speak is a command. —annoymous smoke detector |
|
|
|
|
anona |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 4:16 PM
Edited Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 4:16 PM you're right, some were freemasons too —anona |
|
|
|
|
Dusty TheHick |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 4:50 PM
Edited Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 5:18 PM Ever notice that the threads that pile up to be the longest (and have the longest posts, for that matter) are ALWAYS the ones that involve either religion or politics or BOTH? There's a reason for that: People have been discussing/arguing these things since the dawn of time. And yet, we are no closer to settling these issues. Chances are, we never will be. There is absolutely NOTHING that can be said by one person to another that would truly change that person's beliefs. It's the epitome of "exercise in futility." —Dusty TheHick |
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 5:59 PM RE: that^ -- Yep, it's true -- Religious beliefs and political beliefs tend to be ego-driven as opposed to being fact-driven (as much as people would like to believe they are.) I've also seen a study that shows even the most flawless argument can only sway a person's beliefs by about 5%. —steve |
|
|
|
|
operaghost |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 6:57 PM This is really sad that if i posted what i wanted to say here, i'd get cursed and beat up about it, because it is my opinion. —operaghost |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 6:58 PM If anyone presented a reasonable argument, I would accept it. I just don't often encounter an argument that alters my views. Now, as for the fact these issues have been debated for a long time doesn't mean there is no right answer. It's just evidence then when it comes to issues like politics and religion there has been no progress. Science advances because of its emphasis on objectivity and the other humanities would as well if people actually embraced objectivity (and yes, it's very possible to be objective in these matters). —clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 9:21 PM The founding fathers were Born-Again Christians, you retards. Go to the library and look it up.... —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 10:04 PM Was it O'Reilly who said that or some other conservative historical revisionist whom I haven't heard of? —clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
hochi666 |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 10:47 PM I don't give a flying fuck what religion the "founding fathers" were. —hochi666 |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 12:16 AM I don't give a flying fuck what religion the "founding fathers" were. —hochi666 I know dude, sshh-sshh... put down the keyboard and get back to your bong... it's okay... —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
HazeTrooper |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 12:24 AM Crump - In all honesty and sincerity, You are the type of person who needs to find your 'center' in the bong... The bong will not hurt you. The bong is your friend... —HazeTrooper |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 12:31 AM Hazetrooper, the bong may not hurt for you when you inserted it anally, but what works for you is not for me. Dickhead —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
HazeTrooper |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 12:50 AM Wow - Good comeback... Of course - I started with a 150 IQ, but after years or chemical abuse, I fell down the stairs to a 138 IQ... What exactly is your excuse? Wait - Are you going to play the 'dyslexia' (oh sorry, the aixelsyd) card again...? —HazeTrooper |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 1:19 AM Of course - I started with a 150 IQ, but after years or chemical abuse, I fell down the stairs to a 138 IQ
- HazeTrooper
Let me do the net version of Radio Math here...
(he said 150, by his posts, obviously borderline retarded...chemical abuse, probably too much of a loser to afford "real" drugs, so maybe getting high by sniffing bicycle seats or dirty hampers...carry the 2...minus 15 for the videogame turd lame-ass name... A-HA!!!) I got Hazetrooper at IQ = 12, am I right? —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
hochi666 |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 1:32 AM Let me elaborate on that little stab there a moment ago, because I don't think you understood what I was going for. The relevance of the "founding fathers" thoughts and ideas have little bearing on my life, or yours, or hers or anyone elses for that matter -- even if you'd like to think that they do. I hate to bring up Adam again, but since we're talking relevance, I'm sure he'd agree with late comedian Bill Hicks who would often speak of "evolving new ideas". Adam himself often speaks on "bettering" things and spouting off about how, "Is this the best we can do?" Really, do you think that we're at the apex of what modern society can expect of itself, or can we do better? Was utopia discovered in 1776 and it's all been down hill since then? —hochi666 |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 2:38 AM I'm all for "evolving", but in my opinion, as a species, we are still maturing and breaking in what we have now, so , yeah, what we have (i.e. the Constitution) is good enough for now.
Observerve the pervasive "I'm a victim" syndrome and lack of personal responsibility. Are we really ready as a society to evolve?
(BTW, to the backward 3rd world countries, we ARE evolved. So they hate and envy us at the same time) In the future when all people hold themselves personally responsible for their own actions and obey the rule of law, you can put a porn shop the same block as a school and there would be no problems. But we are yet so far from that utopia... —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
hochi666 |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 3:45 AM Well, it seems like religious morality (christian, islamic or otherwise) has had its chance to whip the human race into shape. It seems to be fundamentally flawed. I say we try something else. I'm tired of the American tradition of of christian based morality. I'm tired of it being foisted upon me at every turn just because I happen to live here. —hochi666 |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 5:45 PM I'm tired of the American tradition of of christian based morality. I'm tired of it being foisted upon me at every turn just because I happen to live here. —hochi666
Well, get used to it, stop your whining or move to Iran, maybe they have what you need. Nothing is worse than a person living in the greatest country in the world and whining about how bad he has it. If I was living in a slum country and I hear that, I'd wanna blow something up too...
—crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 8:51 PM
Edited Friday, November 12, 2004 at 8:53 PM "Nothing is worse than a person living in the greatest country in the world and whining about how bad he has it." Ha! Help us improve it by leaving. This nation is falling short of its potiential and I have no doubt your deportation would suffice to solve that problem. But seriously, you have no idea what makes this country remotely good. Under the Judeo-Christian ethic, I give the nation a few decades before it regresses into a war-loving, totaltarian police state. But freedom is slavery, is it not? —clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:05 PM
Edited Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:13 PM As for the "evolution" of human society, that won't occur until humanity fully and unequivocally accept human rights as the basis of civilization. This won't come from often Republican-endorsed Judeo-Christian ethics which deny the right of humans to live for their own sake, asserts the falsehood that the fundemantal unit of society is the family, and promotes the subjugation of the will of individuals to that of God (or the secular Republicans, the state). It also won't come from the community-minded Democrats, Socialists, Communists, or any other party that advocates justice in the form of egalitarianism, asserts class or race is the basic unit of society, and which strips incentive for individuals to produce. The Democrats and Republicans have simply assimilated the ideas of their more extreme relatives and are ultimately state or community-minded. The individual to them, despite their claims to the contrary, is ultimately forced to serve the state, community, or the ambigously and potientially horrific "greater good", The United States and the Constitution that frames its government has been to date the best attempt to epitomize this concept. However, a cavalcade of groups endorsing collectivist principles have over the past 200 years allowed those principles to be eroded to the point where true liberty is more rhetoric than reality. The future looks mighty bleak considering the major groups vying for power. —clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:11 PM
Edited Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:12 PM As for the "evolution" of human society, that won't occur until humanity fully and unequivocally accept human rights as the basis of civilization. The United States and the Constitution that frames its government has been to date the best attempt to epitomize this concept. However, a cavalcade of groups endorsing collectivist principles have over the past 200 years allowed those principles to be eroded to the point where true liberty is more rhetoric than reality. The future looks mighty bleak considering the major groups vying for power. —clodhopper
verbal masturbation clod. c'mon, can't get laid for real? what's the term for "get laid" for homos like you?
—crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:13 PM The future looks mighty bleak considering the major groups vying for power. —clodhopper your voluntary suicide would be most welcome, and would brighten the future considerably —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:14 PM "verbal masturbation clod. c'mon, can't get laid for real? what's the term for "get laid" for homos like you?" I think it's time for you to run to bed youngin'. This discussion is for grown-ups, not little children who say nasty words like "homo" and "masturbation". Run along! —clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:19 PM a-ha!. on the other thread, you wanted to blow me, while i made it clear i'm not gay. didn't take much to knock you off your high horse, eh? hahaha! —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:22 PM No, I said, and I quote, "Crumple wants to blow me." Now it's bed time for you. The grown-ups talk about serious things, not faggotry. —clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:23 PM so you admit to being a fag. it's cool, clod. you don't have to overcompensate by being condescending. —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:27 PM crumple1 touched my pee pee. —ZT |
|
|
|
|
HazeTrooper |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:35 PM >>Your obsession with faggotry is funny You know - It really is. What is your major malfunction Crump? Honestly - Are you a guy who is so afraid of admitting that you are gay that you have you condemn every possible thought about it? Or are you a chic who was so-so-so in love with a dude when you found out that he was gay. Or maybe your dad left your mom for another guy? Whatever it is - You need some serious prefessional help. —HazeTrooper |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:38 PM i just don't like ASSHOLES, literally and figuratively. so, haze, being one yourself, go shit and "pucker up" —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:41 PM alright i'm getting bored. see you later. haze,zt,clod, i KNOW you will miss me when i go.
until next time.... —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:48 PM "i just don't like ASSHOLES, literally and figuratively" Like I said, MASSIVE obsession with faggotry. I'll bet he's off to a circle jerk followed by an intimate Roman man-boy lovemaking session. —clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Friday, November 12, 2004 at 9:49 PM "Oh oh. I think I touched a nerve..." I think he touched his peepee. —clodhopper |
|
|
|
|