|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
One great reason why the U.S.A. should nuke Mecca | from scarface - Monday, September 15, 2008
accessed 698 times
Why are our politicians so fond of the royal Saudi family? The most senior judge in Saudi Arabia has said it is permissible to kill the owners of satellite TV channels which broadcast immoral programmes.
Sheikh Salih Ibn al-Luhaydan said some "evil" entertainment programmes aired by the channels promoted debauchery.
Dozens of satellite television channels broadcast across the Middle East, where they are watched by millions of Arabs every day.
The judge made the comments on a state radio programme.
He was speaking in response to a listener who asked his opinion on the airing of programmes featuring scantily-dressed women during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
"There is no doubt that these programmes are a great evil, and the owners of these channels are as guilty as those who watch them," said the sheikh.
"It is legitimate to kill those who call for corruption if their evil can not be stopped by other penalties."
Royal dilemma
Given his position as the country's most senior judge, the sheikh's views can not be easily dismissed, says BBC Arab affairs analyst, Magdi Abdelhadi.
Clerics like Sheikh al-Luhaydan represent a huge dilemma for the Saudi royal family, our correspondent adds.
On the one hand, Saudi rulers need their support to claim that they rule in the name of Islam.
But on the other hand, fighting militant Islam can be difficult when the country's top judge calls for the beheading of those he views as immoral broadcasters
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7613575.stm |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Lance
Saturday, October 11, 2008 - 15:56
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Is it just me or do other people think that this site has recently been inundated with wackos like the clown who wrote this article.
(reply to this comment)
|  From scarface
Saturday, October 11, 2008, 17:07
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Screw you! I find the term clown to be derogatory and exceedingly offensive. I prefer highly trained professional circus performer. Recently? That is offensive and absolutely incorrect . Wacoks pretty much describes most of us here. I’m sure you disagree but I’m just tired of seeing every new comer who has an opinion different then the majority who have been out longer piled mile high with stupid name calling and illogical, ideological bull. If you take offense to what I’m saying what do you think the younger, wet behind the ears survivors think of you. Unfortunately we will never know because most of them are so insulted that they go away. I take vast pleasure in urinating on your head with my Berg worthy rants and horrible grammar. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Lance
Saturday, October 11, 2008, 22:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
You accentuated “recently” with a question mark. I am curious to know what that meant. Can you expatiate please? And you are wrong to believe that “most of us here” think of themselves as whackos(or in your own delirium you describe as wacoks). In all honestly, you just about insulted everybody on this website –including yourself I might add.
So you are really putting yourself in a position of responsibility here scarface. You can either admit that you’re a lone whacko , and that there are actually people who disagree with you here. Or you can talk out your ass with other whackos on another website where everyone can agree with you, and where your opinions can be assuaged by other like-minded idiots. (reply to this comment) |
| | from scarface
Tuesday, October 07, 2008 - 11:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7655405.stm
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | from the truth cannot be organized
Friday, September 26, 2008 - 07:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
The Revolution Will Not Be Organized
Quote
[link to therevolutionwillnotbeorganized.org]
The Revolution Will Not Be Organized
The revolution will not be organized,
the revolution will not be organized.com,
the revolution will not be Yahoo Grouped, Meetuped,
downloaded, uploaded, QWERTY'd, or blogged.
The revolution will not be handled by webmasters,
think-tankers, authors of policy position papers,
authors of anti-policy position papers,
secretaries, executives, executive assistants,
insiders, whistle-blowers, informants, counter-informants,
committees or sub-committees.
Your neighbor with excellent leadership qualities
will not lead you into, through, or out of the revolution.
The revolution will not be inspired, instigated, managed
or controlled by him, her, or them.
The revolution will not be organized.
No matter if you eat at McDonald's and can barely walk,
no matter if you drive an S.U.V. and rarely walk,
no matter if you were public school indoctrinated,
vaccinated, humiliated, ostracized, terrorized, minimized,
no matter if you live in a house owned by BofA,
no matter if you eat cat food, dog food,
Puppy Chow for your inner child,
no matter if you shop at Salvation Army, Saks, TJ Maxx,
when the Cold Hand of Power touches you,
it touches revolution.
They will come to chip you, rape you,
tell you you are theirs, imprison you in FEMA camps
because you spoke out,
because you doubted the official story,
because you looked with your own eyes,
spoke from your own heart.
They will come for you in black uniforms, black helmets,
swinging black batons, symbols of the New Authority,
and you will say,
"No, my children and I will not come with you."
You will say no -- not because Charlie Sheen
inspired you one night on FOX News
to look more closely at falling towers.
You will say no -- not because Alex Jones
led you through the darkness with a bullhorn.
You will say no -- not because Howard Zinn
handed you the Book of Truth on a silver platter.
You will say no because you are your own
star of truth shining the way.
At your unique hour, in the dark,
beneath a burning paper currency moon,
the Cold Hand of Power will touch you and revolt you.
At your unique hour,
when they come for you because you asked questions,
because you did not lower your eyes,
because you did not bow down,
at your unique hour,
in your unique circumstance,
you will find yourself in the grip of a courage
you have not known but which you are.
You will stand in front of black helmets with invisible faces,
and you will say,
"No, my children and I will not come with you."
Daughters and sons of revolutionaries,
blood burning for freedom,
eyes set toward tomorrow,
each of you alone in the darkness,
beneath tender constellations burning gold and silver,
each of you will remember the path to take
when the Cold Hand of Power comes for you,
each of you will make your way without direction or encouragement,
as those before you made their way without direction or encouragement,
forging history, embracing destiny.
You will not march in file.
You will not march.
Maybe you have seen this, maybe not:
The revolution will not be organized.
In your darkest hour,
beneath the burning moon,
you will pledge allegiance to the truth,
as those before you pledged allegiance to the truth.
The truth cannot be organized.
(reply to this comment)
| from Why?
Friday, September 19, 2008 - 07:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Do you think you’re a real bad-ass or something? Please show where I started “pushing my luck”. And what will happen if I push it a little further? Will you unlease even more of the stupidity that’s been building up inside of you?
If you think you’re being the “superior” person here, you have some serious delusional issues. If you go back and read over what I’ve said, I fail to see where I have lost my temper. If anything you seem to have lost yours. Read carefully over both language and content. I think any rational mind would have to agree if any comments were to classify as “spastic rants”, they would have to be yours.
1) “You don’t like what I have to say? Fuck me! Where did I ask for your wimpy, anonymous opinion? No where. You want me to shut up? Make me.”
To say that this means I can say whatever I want and that you are implying it’s all a misunderstanding is stretching it at best. But I’ll give it to you. Technically you never said the words, “Shut up”. So who knows? Maybe you really meant, “Say whatever you want to say”. It’s a stretch, but I’ll give it to you.
2) Or this is some kind of twisted foreplay? If so, get a room.
You may not have noticed, but this is a conditional statement. If the answer to the question is not yes, then the following statement does not apply to you. This is not an authoritarian command, but rather an expression of what I think most people were feeling when reading the pointless argument between yourself and Samuel.
3) “You want me to shut up? Make me. You want me to get a room? Make me.”
Here, it is implied both in your language and your aggression. I don’t know where you learned your English, but “make me” does actually imply “making” someone do something. It implies that you won’t do it unless forcibly “made” to do it. Mixed in with your profanities and name-calling, and the aggression with which you seem to post all your comments now, you don’t have to be high on anything to entertain the thought that violence is suggested in your statements.
4) Fuck me is an expression.
I do know that it is an expression. Though I’m still wrapping my head around the idea that you are bashing my statements “literally”, yet somehow all of yours fall under “expressionism”. Please at least do me the courtesy of showing some objectivity.
5) Why do I have to see? Why do I have to write?
I’m suspect that you are the one who is having a hard time with your reading comprehension. Not me. The question was “Why do I have to see this?” And actually it was an interrogative question – meaning I was looking for an answer.
The second question was in fact, “Why do I stoop to this level?” This was also an interrogative question, which you have answered for me by reminding me that it’s important to stand up against stupidity.
I was also trying to show some sympathy towards you by implying that you were younger, less experienced and thus should be given the benefit of the doubt. The fact that you won’t receive the courtesy, does not mean that I won’t extend it.
Again, if you re-read my comment, I was baiting you back to our conversation. I also fail to see why I should feel bad about standing up for Randi.
You are in fact the one who dodging the issues and fallacies in your own argument. You still haven’t replied to my previous comment, and instead ran away to trash someone else. You don’t have to be a genius to conclude that this was in fact to make yourself feel better.
Finally, you are trashing everyone for no apparent reason other than you are angry. I am only complaining about your shit clogging up this site. It really doesn’t matter if I am “good at” whining or not”. I am addressing an issue which I believe is at the back of everyone’s mind. I think that the large majority of posters on this site will agree with me when I again “whine” and say that I am sick of your insolent attitude and absolute garbage constantly clogging up this site. Please do us all a favor and get some anger management help, instead of taking it out on everyone here. It’s getting old, pathetic and annoying.
(reply to this comment)
| From scarface
Friday, September 19, 2008, 09:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
I politely asked you to STOP whining not turn the whining up a notch.
“I think that the large majority of posters on this site will agree with me when I again “whine” and say that I am sick of your insolent attitude and absolute garbage constantly clogging up this site.”
That is whining and a fallacy. What majority are you talking about and why should I give a flying fuck what the “majority” thinks. I don’t intentionally annoy people but if my presence annoys “the majority” then that’s a price I am willing to pay.
“I don’t know where you learned your English, but “make me” does actually imply “making” someone do something. It implies that you won’t do it unless forcibly “made” to do it.”
Again we disagree. Let me remind you that it is not a bad thing to disagree. You know where I learned my English that is a stupid question. Explain to me how the only way to get something done is through force. Perhaps if you made anything close to a respectable argument that would “make me” shut up.
Lastly I don’t think I’m a bad-ass I’m just tired of being pushed around. When I first came to this site I tried to be as nice and respectable as I could. Regrettably some if not most people here mistake kindness for weakness. I cannot even count how many times I’ve been called an idiot cause I misspelled a word or said something a bit goofy.
I asked you to address the fallacies in my argument and you refuse. My controversial argument was “why the usa should nuke mecca”. It shouldn’t be so hard to come up with the fallacies in that one and frankly I’m disappointed the most of the comments made on my article with the exception of steam. I am enjoying this and you are not. Therefore as a testament to my vast superiority I will let you have the last word. (reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Friday, September 19, 2008, 12:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
Good Sir or Madame (Scarface),
You posted an article and then ended up in very tiresome arguments about many things unrelated to your original post. You did mention that my comment related to your specific post. So if you have time after your "discussions" with others about whatever they are about.
I would appreciate you responding to my post which said:
"I appreciate the confession. I used "mindset" in the same way as "worldview". In the sense that one would likely picture the worldview of the guy in your article who would punish the owners of t.v. stations with death. Or the worldview of an individual (cough cough Scarface) that would punish with death the people who live in the same city as the guy who wants to punish t.v station owners. Explain how the guy who wishes to kill t.v. station owners with death is evil, and the guy who wants to kill the distant neighbors of this evil man is not. Thanks."(reply to this comment) |
| | From If you say so
Friday, September 19, 2008, 10:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Your request for me to stop whining was anything but polite.
I admited to whining and gave my reasons for it. You are not forced to accept it, but my hope is that maybe you will think more carefully about what you post here instead of allowing everything to be driven by sudden angry impulses.
Ask around. Force is definitely implied in the expression, "make me". Also I have made numerous respectable arguments, you simply choose to ignore them.
If you don't think you're a bad-ass, then may I suggest that you stop trying to act like one.
I never mentioned any disagreement with your argument on nuking mecca. My disagreement was with your hostile interactions with everyone here.
If letting me have the last word is your way of admitting you have run out of things to say, I accept. (reply to this comment) |
| | from .......
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 15:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/127860-The-Most-Dangerous-Cult-in-The-World-;
(reply to this comment)
| from .......
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 15:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/2008/09/well-here-it-comes-da-dum-da-dum-dum.html
(reply to this comment)
| from steam
Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - 11:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Scarface, please define the word or concept "terrorism", and then explain how your article does not fit the description of mindset you describe. Thank You!!
(reply to this comment)
| From scarface
Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 12:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
I will with pleasure define terrorism for you if you can define “description of mindset you describe”. You can start by defining mindset. Is that like setting a broken bone, except for its used merely to keep the hot air between your eyes from rattling around? I only ask because I have no hot air up there and I’m utterly dense when it comes to stuff like that. Or is it like a lobotomy? I remorsefully confess im so fucking clueless. Can you help me?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From steam
Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 14:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
I appreciate the confession. I used "mindset" in the same way as "worldview". In the sense that one would likely picture the worldview of the guy in your article who would punish the owners of t.v. stations with death. Or the worldview of an individual (cough cough Scarface) that would punish with death the people who live in the same city as the guy who wants to punish t.v station owners. Explain how the guy who wishes to kill t.v. station owners with death is evil, and the guy who wants to kill the distant neighbors of this evil man is not. Thanks.(reply to this comment) |
| | from Shaka
Monday, September 15, 2008 - 18:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
My thoughts on the majority of the population of that festering herpes sore on the taint of the world known as the Middle East can be summed up by Stewie Griffin. "It's not so much that I want to kill Lois, it's that I don't want her to be alive anymore."
(reply to this comment)
| from shikaka
Monday, September 15, 2008 - 15:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
All politics and morality arguments aside, I've always wondered what the physical results of a high-yield nuclear blast would be upon a packed crowd of people, lets say in the high hundred thousands or low millions.
Would they all be vaporised? Would the short ones survive? Perhaps this is a humane solution to future overcrowding of the planet? Provide everyone with a utopia to live in, then vaporize them on their 30th birthday, Logan's run style, to make room for the next batch.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Samuel
Monday, September 15, 2008 - 10:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
How about just bringing in the CIA? Oh, I forgot, Clinton weakened the CIA! Well then, how about strengthening it again so we don't have to go to war every time one of these dirtbags stands up? Why nuke a perfectly good city just because a senior judge doesn't know how to use his remote control?
If Clinton had used the CIA in 1996 instead of weakening it, we wouldn't be fighting a war in Iraq right now.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | From Odd
Friday, September 26, 2008, 15:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ack, global politics is really the last thing on my mind.
It takes half a bottle of hard liquor and a fistful of pills to get maybe a good hour or two of solid sleep. The temptation to make that fistfull a sack, or better yet a barrel, is omnipresent. Hedonism has taken a new grip on me these days.
So I'm going to rant about politics. Light observations. Haven't done my homework, so butcher me if you will. This rant is just a little something to spice up my day, keep my mind off a full course buffet of tricyclics, a side of Pentobarbital, and a cocktail of percolated nicotine with a dessert of Amoxapine. Unfortunate really that I don't have stock enough for a feast. Difficult when the only thing you're prescribed is Etizolam and the occasional Chlorpromazine.
Anyways, this was supposed to be a political rant. Yes, even in my Etizolam and Absinthe induced state of half-thought, I find your theory to make absolutely no fucking sense.
>>How about just bringing in the CIA?
>>I just think using the CIA would be more effective and would lead to less casualties of American soldiers as well as innocent civilians.
Utter fucking nonsense, as far as I'm concerned. The C.I.A. was never very successful in reducing foreign threats, in fact they've got quite the resume when it comes to creating threats to the U.S.A.
Main reason the C.I.A won't be of any fucking use now, Georgia.
Look, why the hell did Saakashvili decide it would be a fucking bright idea to invade Southern Ossetia, and fire on Russian troops, while Putin was in Beijing? Okay, he probably didn't tell his boys to fire on the Russian troops, but he did order a crackdown on Southern Ossetia. Now why the fuck would a bright little boy with a phd from G. Washington Uni think punching Putin in the face would be a good idea. Pretty fucking obvious he "knew" he would have the support of the U.S.A. Look, he's a bright kid. He ain't gonna pick a fight with Russia, risk his nation's NATO entry, and just assume the US would agree. He definitely had some kind of reassurance from the US.
Whether it was a GOP stunt to give McCain the edge over Obama, or any other conspiracy theory possible, I don't know. But someone had to tell Mikheil, "Go ahead, we got your back."
Now, the USA didn't back him. Whether this was because of the Russian response, or whether it was because the USA in fact, set up Georgia in order to say, get Poland and Ukraine on their side for missile defense, the plan has side effects. (One aspect is probably the fact that Russia is expanding it's hold on energy resources in central Asia. You know how the USA propaganda machine tells you about the strategic importance of Georgia and the BTC pipeline? Yeah, a pipe means jackshit when it's russian resources flowing through it.)
Now, let's look at the effects of the USA's betrayal.
Every little nation across the globe is thinking what I'm thinking. Nobody picks a fight with Russia, unless one of the big bullies back them. China, the EU, or the USA. Whether it's fact or not, they will assume CIA henchmen or some other covert US influence encouraged Mikheil.
Every little nation across the world is now thinking. The USA ain't gonna back a small nation that contributes precious little to the USA. The USA's gonna cut you clean. So what do you do if you can't fight Russia? You work with them.
Remember Mikheil had three major allies? The USA, the EU, and Israel. I assume you've done your homework, and know where the Khazar used to be. I assume you also know that Yakobasvili (Yakob ring a bell?) is Jewish, and Israelis have been training Georgian troops and selling Georgia weapons. Israel and Georgia were tight. So why did Israel turn her back? Believe it or not, Israeli politicians are tight with Russian investors. They ain't gonna fight Russia. You know that Russian dude Boris Spiegel? Yeah, he's Jewish too. Not to forget, Russia has more influence on Iran than the USA does. Israel pissing off Russia, not a good idea. Shows even Israel is realising she can't rely on the US alone. Guess the mossad does a better job of gleaning foreign intel than the CIA.
So where does Georgia turn? The EU? Yeah look. Sarkozy steps in with his platform boots, and forces Georgia to sign a raw deal. Why? Cause look, the NATO nations gotta look out for each other. You know that scrawny kid that keeps on picking fights with the gang across town? You don't want him in your gang. Georgia ain't gonna be part of the EU or NATO until Ossetia and Abkhazia are internationally recognized as separate from Georgia. The EU won't take a burning powder keg and bring it home. It's bad enough that the USA is in it.
All the Georgian conflict has done is it's proved a point. There's a point the USA doesn't cross. The military might of the USA is in fact, stretched too thin.
You wanna blame Clinton? Shit, Bush abused 9/11 and invaded Iraq, oh yeah, an independent sovereign nation, however belligerent. That's where independent nations started thinking for themselves. A positive thing I might add.
Maybe Fox doesn't tell you, but yeah, Georgia attacked first. You wanna complain about the Russian response being overkill, or about Russia being so fucking ready for the fight? Look, the USA was ready for Pearl Harbor. Nagasaki was overkill in it's purest form. Waiting for the enemy to pounce, then claiming self defense and putting on a massive offensive is an absolutely clean tactic. Israel vs Lebanon ring a bell? Shoot first you lose as far as world opinion is concerned. That's why the world supported US vs Taliban. That's why the world didn't support the US vs Iraq. That's why the world didn't support Georgia.
But getting back to the CIA. The C.I.A's strength relies on a strong country. You got a strong country, you can do the sneaky and get away with it. You think the CIA could do what it does without falling under scrutiny? No, other countries cover up for the secret torture bases, because of yeah, diplomacy. If you don't got any diplomatic cards to play, who wants to let you torture people in their backyard?
Blame Clinton my ass. Bush parading into Iraq, abusing 9/11, and abusing the CIA is what sent everything to hell and gone. Now nations have got to fend for themselves.
Funny how the US media, and a bit from the UK keeps making Russia look like the bad guys. That's about all it can do. Pull Russia out of the G8? The USA ain't got that kind of clout, and if it did, Russia wouldn't care. With the US economy in shambles, --again Bush-- China, Africa, EU, plenty of other places to party with.
So yeah, that was a messy rant just for the heck of it.
Go ahead, rip my heart out.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Thucydides
Tuesday, October 07, 2008, 19:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
…A man ought, therefore, to consider these points, and not to think of running risks with a country placed so critically, or of grasping at another empire before we have secured the one we have already; for in fact the Thracians have been all these years in revolt from us without being yet subdued, and others yield us but a doubtful obedience. Meanwhile the Egestaeans, our allies, have been wronged, and we run to help them, while the rebels who have so long wronged us still wait for punishment…
…that the Siceliots be left in the limits now existing between us, limits of which no one can complain , to enjoy their own possessions and to settle their own quarrels; that the Egestaeans, for their part, be told to end by themselves the war which they began without consulting the Athenians; and that for the future we do not enter into alliance, as we have been used to do, with people whom we must help in their need, and who can never help us in ours.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from AndyH
Monday, September 15, 2008 - 10:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
You would kill millions of Saudis because their government is evil. You are truly a monster.
(reply to this comment)
| From scarface
Monday, September 15, 2008, 16:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
This must be a dim witted attempt at humor. I hate redundant spelling fascism, and as a token of my endless charity I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are in fact not an idiot and you tripped over your key board to add the thoroughly flawed “s” to your million. FYI the population of Mecca stands at 1.7 million. MILLION! Not millions. What an intellectually-low-budget, uneducated attempt to mischaracterize my dazzling article title.
Phew! Now that I got that off my chest, I will proceed to explain the very logical, rational reason I would gleefully watch Mecca burst out in flames. Mecca is decadent capital of the evil, world domination seeking Wahhabi cult. Here are some fun unbiased facts about Wahhabi Islam
http://atheism.about.com/od/islamicsects/a/wahhabi.htm
A defensive tactical nuclear strike (ensuring the majority of their religious shrines and goat fucking Imams do not survive) would be a dagger in the heart of this exceptionally dangerous ideology. I’m sure you are thinking WAIT what about the million plus civilian casualties. You call that monstrous, I call it collateral damage. Go pore yourself a large delicious glass of kool aid with ice.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Monday, September 15, 2008, 18:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
First off, I would not be bragging about my choice of article title if I were you. Especially considering its current rating.
Secondly, if you think that dropping a nuclear bomb on Mecca is going to get rid of all the Wahhabi Muslims, you are incorrect. Wahhabi Islam is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia. Here, read up on it and be enlightened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
So all you're going to do by dropping this bomb is upset the whole country.
Thirdly, this would destablize the market further and probably increase oil prices. Just what we need, scarface, higher gas prices.
Fourthly, while I do not have a problem with you linking to an atheist site here, how can you possibly consider that site to be "unbiased"? I mean, what were you thinking? In what world is a site named "atheism.about.com" considered unbiased? Somnetimes you worry me, scarface.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Monday, September 15, 2008, 19:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
What nonsense! What utter nonsense! Noone is infallible.
Awwwww....did poor scarface get his ego shattered? It's the hit dog that howls! Just because you did not consider the political consequences of the actions that you wrote this article to support does not mean that we are wrong and you are right.Truth is truth, regardless of who says it. I would defend you as well if you were to say something that was worth defending.
Now go and POUR yourself a glass of KoolAid with ice and leave the commenting for those of us who actually know what the Hell they're talking about. And God I'm happy you'll never be in the White House as Steven Colbert on his worst day could do a better job as President than you on your best day!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From scarface
Monday, September 15, 2008, 23:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is my article and I can say what ever I want as long as heroic American troops keep fighting the evil Wahhabi buffoons over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here. You don’t like what I have to say? Fuck me! Where did I ask for your wimpy anonymous opinion? No where. You want me to shut up? Make me. You want me to get a room? Make me. Or at least western union me 500 bucks right within the next 20 minutes so I can spend the rest of my week getting massaged and sipping tequila. You are a buffoon and a moron. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Why do I have to see this?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 21:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am a buffoon and moron, but at least I'm willing to admit it instead of wasting space, converting this site into a trash bin and flaunting my ignorance when I'm obviously in over my head.
This is a public forum, and by the same logic that you can say whatever the fuck you want, I too can say whatever I want. You may not have asked for my wimpy, anonymous opinion, but for the record, no one asked for yours either. This may be your article, but it doesn't give you the right to be rude and obnoxious anymore than it does everyone else.
I find the fact that you think anyone would entertain the idea of going over there and "making" you do anything even more presumptuous and petty. We all have minor or major disagreements at some point or another but it's rarely personal and rarely taken seriously enough to warrant such drastic action. Mine was a minor attack on your ego. I guess I misjudged you. I didn't think that it was that delicate.
I post anonymously because I actually liked you scarface. You're young, obviously inexperienced and I feel younger ex-members often deserve a friendlier face and disposition than those I grew up with. You experienced a different side of the cult and are still in the earlier stages of discovering your truer self on the outside.
As for your invitation to fuck you - While you may have the intellectual capabilities of a 16 blonde girl, it doesn't mean I'm attracted to you. Sometimes naivity in a girl is a turn-on, it's not in your case.
Please don't take this rejection personally. I'm sure there are plenty of guys out there who are lucky enough not to share my sexual preferences.(reply to this comment) |
| |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]