![Banging Head :disgusted:](./images/smilies/headbang.gif)
To suggest that a subject must be classified as "politics" simply because it is sourced from a site that has "politics" in its name is so anal as to be ignore worthy.
Welcome to my list.
Moderator: Moderators
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
Shrapnel wrote:TFwiki wrote:Soon is the name of the region in the time-domain (familiar to all marketing departments, and to the moderators and staff of Fun Publications) which sees release of all BotCon news, club exclusives, and other fan desirables. Soon is when then will become now.
Peculiar properties of spacetime ensure that the perception of the magnitude of Soon is fluid and dependent, not on an individual's time-reference, but on spatial and cultural location. A marketer generally perceives Soon as a finite, known, yet unspeakable time-interval; to a fan, the interval appears greater, and may in fact approach the infinite, becoming Never. Once the interval has passed, however, a certain time-lensing effect seems to occur, and the time-interval becomes vanishingly small. We therefore see the strange result that the same fragment of spacetime may be observed, in quick succession, as Soon, Never, and All Too Quickly.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
Wow that pretty much tells us that you've got some pretty messed up sexual cravings that you've put a french actress you can only possibly know as her role as a sexualized overgrown genetically mutated toddler as your lead.Prak_Anima wrote:So, I'm working on this idea. I have a basic PC party and the BBEG and ideal casting figured out:
Tiefling True Fiend3/Paladin5/Celestial Beacon4: Delphine Cheneac (Dren, from Splice)-The Hero/Leader
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
That would be even more awesome if chickens could talk.Prak_Anima wrote:Birds are teaching each other to swear
I think we can all agree that Koumei and PL should teach the birds to say "suck a barrel of cocks."
Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in predominantly Muslim countries, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Quran here, and I would challenge you, Sir, to show me where it says in the Quran that Muhammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus. …
In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it could be punished by death, and frequently is, in their society.
Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did.
I don’t think you’re aware, Sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – I understand you’re an atheist – but see Islam is not just a religion. It’s their culture, their culture, their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day toward Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, unless you’re otherwise told you cannot because you’re too ill, too elderly, whatever, but you must make the attempt. Their greeting is ‘Salam alaikum, wa-laikum as-Salam,’ uh, ‘May God be with you.’
Whenever it is very common, their language, when they’re speaking to each other, it’s very common for them to say, uh, Allah willing, this will happen. It’s, they’re so immersed in it. And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim. I find it offensive. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. (Editor’s note: Reverse of sign said, ‘Only Muhammad can rape America!’) But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights. …
I’ve spent about seven years living in other countries. When we go to other countries, it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ‘ugly Americans.’ This is why we hear it referred to as ‘ugly Americans,’ because we’re so concerned about our own rights, we don’t care about other people’s rights. As long as we get our say, but we don’t care about the other people’s say.
The judge later added, “Because there was not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore, I am going to dismiss the charge.”
Two guys blow up an abortion clinic. Why? Because they are Catholic?tzor wrote:two guys dress up as Zombie Muhammad and Zombie Pope. Why? Because they are athiests? (Let's skip the why for now, because lot of people do things for the lamest of reasons
Indeed, how dare they hide the content of the article in the article where no one could be expected to find it.tzor wrote:(Hidden in the article is the fact that the reverse of their sign said ‘Only Muhammad can rape America!’ If that isn't in your face offensive, I can't think of what the definition should be for in your face offensive.)
Well no, it's actually not that, because there are reports from other people besides the victim and assailant. But even if it was, most assault convictions have little to no evidence of the crime outside the testimony of the victim. So again, what is the relevance of the fact that the assailant denies assaulting the victim?tzor wrote:Eventually there follows an encounter with a muslim in the crowd. Reports differ from "he choked me" (no really if you can say in a calm voice "he is choking me" then you aren't really being choked that hard are you) to "I pulled his beard and sign" (the admission he gave to the cops) and "I didn't touch him" the argumet at court. So right off the bat this is a he said he said argument.
?? I think you are confused. This isn't a first amendment case, despite the weird attempt by the judge to argue that the government could have prohibited the speech. The government didn't prohibit the speech. It does prohibit assault however. No part of the crime of assault supports the justification or excuse that you were offended, or that the victim looked like a doofus. If I took everything in the article at face value, the judges argument basically boils down to "If you offend someone's essence, then you deserve to be punched in the face." Now, the judge probably has a separate actually relevant part of his statements that addresses the quality of the evidence of the crime, and recognizes that Muslims don't have the right to lightly choke or grab the beard of people who offend them.tzor wrote:I just love these "first admendment" arguments. ("You can't touch me, I have my first amendment rights to mock you.") They forget that the amendment applies to the state, not to the people. The same people who wrote the Bil of Rights also would duel to the death for any statement that went against their honor.
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
Learn to read. I did address the message. The message was, "Some guy either did or did not violently assault someone who offended him. But we think that if he was offended, that justifies criminal assault."tzor wrote:Please note, I have Kaelik on ignore for a reason; he is an arrogant shithead. If he would decide to argue the message and not the messinger I might even give the dignity of a proper response.
Lots of things offend lots of people. Why do you think that is in any way relevant to criminal assault?tzor wrote:And what the fuck has Roe v Wade got to do with this? Really, you are a fucking retard if you want to counter argue with such stupid points.
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
Does this remind you of anyone?n an interesting twist, about one-third of Prius drivers broke crosswalk laws, putting the hybrid among the highest "unethical driving" car brands. "This is a good demonstration of the 'moral licensing' phenomenon, in which hybrid-car drivers who believe they're saving the Earth may feel entitled to behave unethically in other ways," Piff says. (The Prius results were observed but not analyzed for statistical significance in the study.)
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
Koumei wrote:I'm just glad that Jill Stein stayed true to her homeopathic principles by trying to win with .2% of the vote. She just hasn't diluted it enough!
Koumei wrote:I am disappointed in Santorum: he should carry his dead election campaign to term!
Just a heads up... Your post is pregnant... When you miss that many periods it's just a given.
]I want him to tongue-punch my box.
The divine in me says the divine in you should go fuck itself.
The commission has the authority to issue an import ban on products that infringe patents, which would prevent Microsoft from bringing new Xbox 360s into the country.
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.