• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What's wrong with Kansas...

Ex Lion Tamer said:
I'll try to explain this to you:

See, in the nice orderly world of the average conservative (it doesn't matter much if they're of the libertarian flavour), even when it's the right wing lunatic fringe that is going on a rampage destroying everything in its path like a very large lobotomised gorilla on the loose, it all still is, somehow, deep down, the fault of those damn liberals.

I hope that clarifies everything.
Click to expand...

*sigh....* :rolleyes:

No, not everything is the fault of those "damn liberals."

Let's try this again.

We have extemely liberal people who have concocted this means of protecting themselves from censure or from the consequences of their words. This generally does not happen for the far right, (though I damned well wish it did), but the bottom line is you have people who somehow aren't to be held accountable. It would be "censorship."

Frankly, I'd like to see the lobotomized gorillas restrained, but you can't do that if you've basically said that anything goes. I'd love to see half-wits like Falwell, or Swaggart, or Robertson, held to account for their words and actions. I'd like the whack jobs who support them held to account. But we can't do that, because it's "censorship." It's usually the far left which behaves like this, but sadly, the far right has been taking lessons. Neither exteme benefits anyone, but no one seems to notice this.
 
You are kind of forgetting the fine job that so called "moderate conservatives" like Reagan and Bush the first did of pandering to the large lobotomised gorilla! They gave it a taste of power, and the gorilla decided that it liked having power.
 
Ex Lion Tamer said:
You are kind of forgetting the fine job that so called "moderate conservatives" like Reagan and Bush the first did of pandering to the large lobotomised gorilla! They gave it a taste of power, and the gorilla decided that it liked having power.
Click to expand...

Waitaminute...

Reagan was a moderate!?!?!?!?
 
Roadtoad said:
Waitaminute...

Reagan was a moderate!?!?!?!?
Click to expand...

You're right, he wasn't. Notice that I said "so called moderates". But compared to the current religious nut jobs, Reagan was a moderate, a bit like Franco was a moderate compared to, say, Hitler. :D
 
Ex Lion Tamer said:
You're right, he wasn't. Notice that I said "so called moderates". But compared to the current religious nut jobs, Reagan was a moderate, a bit like Franco was a moderate compared to, say, Hitler. :D
Click to expand...

Hey, no mentioning Franko here!!!
 
This Franco?

Franco.jpg
 
No, this one:

Originally posted by the late, not quite lamented Franko:
I consider any idea that deals with the nature and/or origin of existence a religious idea. Whether it is my idea or yours...

If you have never seen a coin tossed than there is no reason to assume that because you possess no evidence that the coin will land HEADs up that it will land TAILs up. Either you can comprehend this or you cannot. If you genuinely believe that a person calling the toss differently than how you call it is being less scientific and more religious than you are I?d say you have some rather subjective definitions of the terms ?science? and ?religion?...

Let?s make an analogy:

TLOP = The rules of Chess
Matter = The Chess board and Chess pieces

Now what you seem to be saying is that if we gave a bunch of chess boards and chess pieces to a bunch of people who had never played chess before that they would all develop/discover the rules of chess just from the board and the pieces alone.

If that is true then it implies that the rules of the game were inherent in (intrinsic to) the chess board and chess pieces.

Now lets imagine two situations:

1) there are two individuals who both know the official rules of chess, but don?t have a chess board or and chess pieces.

2) there are two individuals who possess a chess board and chess pieces, but have no idea about the official rules of chess.

I submit that one of these pairs of individuals will be able to play a game of chess by the official rules, and one will not. It?s the rules of chess that make chess - Chess, not the board or the pieces. If you know the rules you can imagine the board and pieces and play the game in your head. Just ask any grandmaster.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom