NCclimber

Why is it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of faith? Is making fun of a concept discriminatory? Weren't you just ragging on me about not giving a straight answer? That "(I know, you've never been able to do it before but there's a first time for everything)" was a nice touch, too.

Bullshit. It is what it is. You are so cute! This whole thread conclusively demonstrates that you really, really do care. I mean, if you didn't care at all about the FSM all your little tirades here would be more than a little irrational, don't you think? If you say so. You seem pretty caught up in what you inferred from my posts, despite what I've tried to clarify for you. Definitely doesn't seem like honest discourse is an option. Ciao

Why is it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of faith?

A weak conclusion? Are you fucking kidding me? Your first response to a post about the FSM was to compare it to racist abuse, and your second post to the thread, a direct reply to a post that mentions nothing except the FSM, is a rant about anti-christian bigotry. There was nothing, nothing else in the thread up till that point that could possibly have set you off. So unless you're just in the habit of randomly railing against anti-religious bigotry for no particular reason the safe conclusion is that the FSM really, really gets under your skin. But anyway, you could f course clear everything up by giving a straight answer to my question (I know, you've never been able to do it before but there's a first time for everything) - Do you think the FSM is bigotry? If not, what made you throw your toys out of the pram? And BTW, I'm still waiting to see why the Nirvana thing wasn't a dodge. So much anger, complete with at least one flatout LIE. tsk, tsk I really don't care about the FSM nonsense. My posts/rants were about a broader issue, that I addressed. The Nirvana crack was about "teen angst".

Yes, it does. When our presence is the source of the problem, continuing it doesn't help. That doublespeak you do is impressive. First you say we never should have done it in the first place furthers the discussion and back it up with "continuing it doesn't help". So which issue are you addressing?

What are you talking about? You didn't ask "Got anything more recent that October 2004? " ? Must have been someone that stole your password. Right. JackC accused Juansky of taking "every conceivable opportunity he possibly can to piss off the British."... and then backed it up with a quote nearly three years old. I'm sorry the irony of using such an old post to prove a present situation seems lost on you. Again, how does this show I'm not as perceptive as I seem to think I am?

Mar 2007 Jul 2007 Jan 2007 Feb 2007 Jan 2007 Jul 2007 Dec 2006 Well played.

What are you talking about?

How the fuck would HE know? US occupation of the Philippines is a better model. Continuous unrest until the US left. The lesson of Vietnam is that the dominoes didn't fall, and the whole region would have been better off without the US presence. So what happened in Laos and Cambodia was just someone's imagination. That's reassuring. mh . What happened in Laos and Cambodia was a direct consequence of the US interference in SE Asia. I thought we were comparing other past situations in the context of how to withdraw from Iraq. "We never should have done it in the first place" doesn't really further the discussion, now does it?

Say's the man who takes every conceivable opportunity he possibly can to piss off the British. Juanesky quote Got anything more recent that October 2004?

Painting it a little rosy aren't ya. What next? He gonna tell us the "Mao era" was a period of peace and prosperity, embraced by all the Chinese people?

Or was it just a completely random coincidence that you decided to start spouting off about bigotry and racism in your first replies to this thread, that is about the FSM? In other words you jumped to a pretty weak conclusion, that you're now trying to rationalize. Good show, ole boy. Why so much hostility... or is it angst? Again - please quote where I say the FSM is bigotry. The post you quoted was a general statement. This is funny since you quoted it. What premise is that? I ask because the ignorance consistently displayed in your posts, which are only matched by your hostility, give me the distinct impression that you haven't a clue.

Hey Bubba...why do you OWN them all so well???? That's what I thought. Bummer for you.

Those are more up to date...and they fit SOOOOOOO well... Hey Amazon, When someone (frequently) resorts to inflammatory stereotypes, who does it reflect more negatively on - the subject/target? or the speaker?

From Billvon? I'm sure it was unintentional.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA Isnt there a NEW derogatory term you guys are applying.. that is just SOOOO Cold warish and 1980's Or are you stuck on 20 year old rhetoic as well. Let's hope he doesn't use it with the same frequency as some use those tired old "neo-con, chickenhawk, Lush rimjob labels.

Billvon, not having a clue, reaches an incorrect conclusion.

Or was it just a completely random coincidence that you decided to start spouting off about bigotry and racism in your first replies to this thread, that is about the FSM? Questions - 1) Is the FSM bigotry? If Yes, see my last post, if No, what the hell is your problem? Do you like "Nirvana"?

Not wishing to rain on your parade, but the NFL's official footballs are made of premium cowhide leather. According to the NCAA, college teams also use leather footballs, but they're a little bit smaller than NFL balls. Does this mean the joke is no longer funny?

Ok, lets take your second and third posts. You say the FSM is bigotry. Please provide the quotes what I say that. I didn't really think you'd get it.

The Russians killed more Germans in WWII than did all other nations combined. I don't think anyone should forget that. What's your point? Commentary on his point. You have a problem with that? Nah, I just think it's funny (not the ha ha kind) that you have a penchant for redirecting discussions when the current discussion isn't IMO to your liking. Here we have a discussion about America's contribution to WWII in Europe. You, in turn, attempt to make it about Russia's contribution. . Re- read the title of the thread and explain why you didn't complain about the drift into "America's contribution to WWII in Europe". You seem to be very selective in your criticisms of re-direction, only whining when it is in a direction that is not to your liking. Double standards are hard to conceal. Tissue? Sorry, you'll have to get one from someone else. Yeah. You really should hang onto yours.

How we treat animals in this country is subjective. Plenty of meateaters consider their pets to be family. What matters is how we view Michael Vicks actions. By and large, we consider them barbaric and inhumane. In a different era, it might not matter. But in the US, in 2007, his actions are very offensive to most of us.

Fear thing would still apply. In this case it's the fear of not appearing macho enough to get laid. So the mouse threw the end of a rope down to the elephant, tied the other end to his Mercedes and pulled the elephany out of the pit. We all know the moral of that one.

You haven't yet explained what the double standard is. Go back and read my posts in this thread. Instead of focusing on how to discount them, try to actually understand what I'm saying. If you do that, I think my point will be obvious. The key thing is you honestly trying to get my point. * Just so you know, my first post was intentionally over the top.

The Russians killed more Germans in WWII than did all other nations combined. I don't think anyone should forget that. What's your point? Commentary on his point. You have a problem with that? Nah, I just think it's funny (not the ha ha kind) that you have a penchant for redirecting discussions when the current discussion isn't IMO to your liking. Here we have a discussion about America's contribution to WWII in Europe. You, in turn, attempt to make it about Russia's contribution. . Re- read the title of the thread and explain why you didn't complain about the drift into "America's contribution to WWII in Europe". You seem to be very selective in your criticisms of re-direction, only whining when it is in a direction that is not to your liking. Double standards are hard to conceal. Tissue?