The Serenity of Reason: Oprah vs atheists in Denmark

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Oprah vs atheists in Denmark

What a twat! Maybe you believe and you don't know you believe? How fucking idiotic is that?

26 comments:

Lou said...: Let me hijack for something relevant. I do hope after yesterdays results that Obama will know realize he is spending real peoples money. We don't care about this man's personal legacy. We do care about soldiers who he leaves exposed against a hostile enemy.

I know it hurts you csm to see your party lose. But it is the best thing for the people.; November 4, 2009 at 6:53 AM
BAWDYSCOT said...: If the Republicans were that worried about having our soldiers exposed to a hostile emeny WE WOULDN'T BE IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN RIGHT NOW!!!!!

I suppose Lou, you are talking about placing MORE of our soldiers in the den of the hostile enemy even though there is little of this in the national interest. I SAY BRING THEM ALL THE FUCK HOME!!!!

A POX ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES!!!!(red and blue)

We cannot win(or accomplish whatever the fuck we are trying to do)in Afghanistan even if we spend twenty years there. We can probably leave Iraq in some semblence of order(but maybe not) and keep Iran from taking over, but this is going to take a decade.

I say we get out of Afghanistan now, get out of Iraq as planned and let the Turks and Saudis handle the Iranians and then we GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST. The only reason to go back is for the US Navy to keep the Strait of Hormuz open to oil traffic.

Israel can protect itself. Saudi Arabia will have to learn to. And we can go back to having our military protect what it was meant to protect... the 50 states and the territories of the United States of America.; November 4, 2009 at 8:34 AM
csm said...: Yesterday's elections were insignificant at a national level. These off year elections (odd number years) are all about local politics. Kudos to the Reps for winning to governorships. At the same time, Democrat Bill Owens won the upstate New York 23rd congressional district seat - a district that is traditionally Republican and conservative. (There were, of course, weird politics going on up there.)

None of this really says anything about Obama IMHO. Sure, the president would prefer Dem governors (and he did campaign for Corzine in NJ). But reasonable people don't judge these things as referendums on the president. Look back at 2001 if you disagree.

To the issue about "soldiers" being "exposed" Bawdy pretty much sums up my thoughts there. Although I'd rather have the president weigh the options and make a considered decision, I don't see any reason for our continued involvement in Afghanistan at all (at least other than through covert activities).; November 4, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Lou said...: Bawdyscot

Either give them a chance to win or get them out!!

At this point I don't care which they do. But denying the soldiers what they need when they ask for it months ago is about as sorry as the POTUS can possibly be. He should be brought up on murder charges

NJ going to a R is like Kennedy losing Mass. In W Chester county, as blue as it gets, a R won by 16pts. Very close to my heart. Only the 2nd time in history Va was been swept by Rs. You can claim Obama has nothing to do with this and you are right. Even his support was useless. His skin color and novelty has wore off.; November 4, 2009 at 11:53 AM
csm said...: OK, here is why your statements are just ludicrous (ignoring your racist statements for the moment)...

A Democrat winning the 23rd congressional district in New York is unheard of, too. I guess that means the nation is unwaveringly behind President Obama.

Patently absurd... as are your claims.; November 4, 2009 at 10:23 PM
csm said...: Oh, and define "to win" in Afghanistan please.

If we want to take over the country and control it then you better devote several hundred thousand more troops, trillions more dollars, and several decades to the task. It is high time that President Obama fixes the mistake made by the former president and gets us out of Afghanistan... but, sadly, I don't think he will.; November 4, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Lou said...: Didn't we elect Barrack to tell us as CIC what win would be? Didn't he tell us this was the war we should be fighting? Isn't this the war even the Dems claimed we should be fighting?

Seems to me we have a weak man who doesn't have a clue what we should be doing and it is costing lives. I do know that.

A Dem beat an "I" greatly under-funded in the 23rd district and just barely. If that is what you are holding on to ....congratulations. That was due to Rep ineptness than anything else.

Ans stop with your childish racist comments. Its shows a lack of maturity, well then again maybe it fits.; November 5, 2009 at 7:27 AM
BAWDYSCOT said...: The reason why our Founding Fathers only gave Congress the ability to declare war was the difficulty it would make in declaring war, the most destructive human activity. Swaying 635 people is harder than getting one monarchial person on board. They realized it was much better for this country to be generally friendly and to promote trade as an alternative.

Many Presidents since Woodrow Wilson have disregarded the idea that war should be very hard to get into. Bush had no such governor and Obama has me worried he doesn't either. I still see Iran as our next victim as I have posted before(the only way I see we avoid this is if Iran backs down on the nuclear issue) and I believe Obama has backed himself up into a corner, a corner we don't totally control(Israel).

We became Israel's guarantor only because we needed as many anti-Soviet allies in the Middle East(hell, the whole world) in the '70's and '80's as we could get. Many times of late our national interests have diverged and military action against Iran is one of the major divergences. There is no national interest for us in attacking Iran, but our security agreements with Israel could drag us into this. One thing this country needs to do is look very hard at all of our security agreements and figure out if these are congruent with our national interest or not.

When will we get it into our heads we are only just one country in this world and that many of the the things we do to meddle with other countries national interests just ends up biting us in the ass in the long run.; November 5, 2009 at 8:26 AM
csm said...: Stop with the racist comments and I'll stop with the remarks. You brought up the president's race - YOU - and skin color just does not matter at all. Stop it with your backwards-ass dumbfuck racism, Lou!

In New York, a Dem beat a Conservative (the party of the loser in this race was Conservative)!

And yes, the president did support the war in Afghanistan during the election. I did not like it then, I don't like it now.

And I disagree vehemently that taking time to analyze a situation and then make an informed decision is weakness. Many lives were lost due to the decisions of the past administration in its rush to do something... anything.; November 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM
csm said...: And Bawdy, that last paragraph of yours truly sums it up. Good job!; November 6, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Lou said...: csm you are an idiot. This president was elected because he is black. A white man with the same credentials doesn't get a sniff. That is racism. Race baiters like you are the reason this nation cannot discuss race rationally. Race matters you talking chimp.

Yes, the conservative party, a third party which rarely cracks double digits. Reps screwed up royally on that one.

Taking time to act is one thing which he did in March. He is taking time to save political face and we all know it. Blood is on his hands.; November 6, 2009 at 1:57 PM
csm said...: You forgot to take off your hood when you made those comments, Lou. Just keep on making spouting racism. I don't even have to comment any further.; November 6, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Lou said...: I have an easy way for you to understand. It is quite obvious on this blog that you have an unusual fascination with religion. I would count it odd since you claim to be an atheist but maybe it is related to some deep sexual inhibitions you were unable to release as a younger man. I don’t know but it seems to be an unhealthy obsession.
Anyhow, remembering that Obama is a Christian. Apply all your stereotypes, anger, social problems and stated delusions upon Obama and then you will be able to construct the caricature of the man we have all grown to distrust as POTUS. Then you will free yourself from the Obama machines favorite idioms for shutting down discourse.
1. Racism,
2. Republicans
3. Fox News.; November 9, 2009 at 8:23 AM
csm said...: I don't follow your absurd comments at all there Louie.

If you were to say that I was an anti-religionist (or whatever that word might be), then I wouldn't argue. I am. But you seem to be trying to paint a convoluted picture to discredit the president and me at the same time. Just what the fuck does any of it have to do with your racism?; November 9, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Xenon said...: When you have black individuals stating point blank they are voting for Obama simply based on the fact he is black, the issue is pretty obvious.

White guilt is not a bad motivation. Seriously simplify the argument. What else did he bring to the office that separated him from Hillary, McCain, Romney, Kerry or even Edwards?; November 9, 2009 at 7:22 PM
csm said...: Ah, another racist. Put on your hood and burn a cross with Lou.; November 10, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Lou said...: "What else did he bring to the office that separated him from Hillary, McCain, Romney, Kerry or even Edwards?"

C'mon Xenan a community organizer! Don't mind csm. He can't provide a reasoned response to support BTO (I wish!) therefore, like the BTO machine he must pull out the race card. We were warned that would warned!
IMO, I believe csm is suffering from white guilt. His hatred of Bush was due to the fact he appointed two blacks to his cabinet!; November 10, 2009 at 11:14 AM
csm said...: Even more racism. It astounds me.

You really expect me to take your asinine fucking question seriously? Really? (That question being this "What did Barack Obama bring to the table other than his skin color?") It is like asking: what did Hillary Clinton bring to the table other than her vagina? How sexist would that be?

Forget race, sex, creed, etc. and judge people on their actions and abilities. You'll learn more about people and it will free up your prejudiced minds.; November 11, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Lou said...: In a perfect world people would judge a candidate on his abilities and experience. Unfortunately, we live in an American Idol society and too many saw history and race as great reasons to vote for Obama. This is not opinion, this is out of the mouth of voters.

This is the big boy world csm and it is too bad you cannot have honest discourse on race without resorting to the race card. I realize you cannot defend your man any other way but an attempt at being a grown up would at least gain you some kudos.

BTO received 95% of the black vote and it wasn't because he did so well as a community organizer :) If you believe none of that was simply because of his color then you are a cretin.; November 11, 2009 at 1:13 PM
BAWDYSCOT said...: Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin brought feminine mammary glands to the table and as much as I wouldn't vote for either, bringing feminine mammary glands to the table is never a bad thing.

Shit! Before I hit the "publish your comment", I got a mental picture of Madeline Albright.:); November 11, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Lou said...: I must admit, I don't mind looking at Palin :) Typically the female politicians are not easy on the eyes!; November 11, 2009 at 3:55 PM
BAWDYSCOT said...: Yeah, Palin has a nice look, but not in the White House.; November 11, 2009 at 5:41 PM
csm said...: Lou, regardless of what you may think, and of all the names you may choose to call me, your comments were (and are) racist. If I thought you were serious about your statements on the face of them, I'd try to explain to you the qualities of Barack Obama that helped to get him elected (and WTF is this BTO thing, the president never played in a 1970s pop rock band from Canada).

On second thought, if I thought you didn't know these things already I'd just disregard you as a fucking idiot.; November 11, 2009 at 8:56 PM
csm said...: Furthermore, a candidate can receive 100% of the black vote in a national election in the USA and get nowhere close to the number of votes needed to win... but you should know that, too. Perhaps it helps your troglodyte Republican mindset to just blame it all on them thar minorities...; November 11, 2009 at 8:58 PM
Lou said...: CSM, follow this here. A candidate gets 95% of the black vote and multitudes of his constituents admit they voted for him because he is black. The blacks who did not vote for him are called racist and Uncle Toms by fellow black Americans. I personally witnessed such scenarios. That is racism! You don’t understand the term. Analyzing the events is not racist.
Don’t come back with Beerfest , Stimulus, TARP as some sort of great accomplishments. The guy came into the White House with a Resume’ full of nothing of any significance to warrant his election. You can call me all the political names you would like. You still are willfully ignorant or legitimately ignorant on how to have a discussion.

Most importantly: You lie! (Just had to) You have not offered an iota of experience from the Obama storehouse of experience that should have led to his election. He is nothing more than an American Idol president and now we pay the price.; November 12, 2009 at 7:58 AM
csm said...: I choose not to embolden your stupidity by engaging you in a debate on the president's qualifications for office.

Your examples, indeed, are examples of racism. Those examples do not prove your assertion that President Obama was only elected because of his skin color.

There are racists all over this country, and you are one of 'em.; November 12, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)