Never Censored Comments

gplate: Is Scientology a church or a business?

nospam@example.com (gplate) — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:22:22 -0500

Very well done.

cournoyer: Boy Scouts: We hate queers. Philly: Then Fuck Off.

nospam@example.com (cournoyer) — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:39:38 -0500

Habfans.com says you American straight boys are just what wegay Canadians are looking for, dont be shy, come visit, we wont bite, well, maybe a little,tee.

fiorela: Success Story: I was a Power Ranger... and Porn Star

nospam@example.com (fiorela) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:47:07 -0600

bueno me sorpernde

Kurt: Christian rock sucks.

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 05:09:24 -0600

You know, for a Jesus freak you suck at reading the Bible.

You just spewed off a bunch of ominous-sounding nonsense in the hope that I hadn't actually already read your book of mythology. Try reading it yourself-- without the help of Cliff's notes or anyone's interpretation of it for once, and you might realize how silly you sound using your church's newsletter's interpretation of the interpretation of your pastor's interpretation of another pastor's interpretation of the bible.

For example, your quote of Romans 14:10 is flat out wrong, as it references no rewards. It's actually a great quote about not judging other people for their actions preemptively, which, ironically is exactly what you're doing right now. In fact, if you're looking to Christianity for rewards and riches, I'm afraid you've chosen the wrong religion, as Christ was neither rewarded nor rich.

You also mention 1 Timothy 2, which is ironic, as well, because a direct quote, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" states quite clearly that Jesus is the only mediator between me and god, so quit trying to take Jesus's place, because you're pissing God off by trying to resolve my disputes with God-- leave it to Jesus instead (if you're a true Christian, that is).

After all, you will always come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), so why are you trying to take his place? Let us humans sort out our problems using free will and leave the god shit to the dude he assigned to do the job-- Jesus.

It sucks when I, an atheist, am a better Christian than certain so-called Christians. It puts them to shame and makes me depressed to see how corrupt and rotten the tax-free business of organized religion has made an otherwise decent faith.

jimmy barnes: Christian rock sucks.

nospam@example.com (jimmy barnes) — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:32:09 -0600

imagine dying. Will you be standing before Jesus Christ to receive your rewards for this life (romans 14:10) or will you be at the great white throne judgement of God to receive the penalty for your sins (revelation 20: 11-15). I would also consider 1Timothy 2: 3-5. This is good and acceptablein the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, Let God be true but every man a liar (romans 3:4). For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (romans 3:23). Romans 6:23 sums it up! For the wages of sin is death; But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our LORD.

Carlos: Success Story: I was a Power Ranger... and Porn Star

nospam@example.com (Carlos) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:33:19 -0600

jo jo jo q mal...era mi idolo d chiquitin,,, pero weno no pasa nada joder, seguira siendo para mi el mejor,,, VIVA LOS POWER RANGERS

ferchote.................: Success Story: I was a Power Ranger... and Porn Star

nospam@example.com (ferchote.................) — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:01:20 -0600

ne ps ke rico ke sea gay la neta ami si me gusta

Adit: Aussie ratifies Kyoto Protocol making that 91% of the world. Guess the rest.

nospam@example.com (Adit) — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:23:55 -0600

Well up until the around the 5th century the earth was flat and until around the 16th century the center of the universe. So, without further devolving into ancient misnomers of science... the majority isn't always right; especially with something as complex as the causes of geothermal regulation on a planetary scale. A majority of people simply cannot invest the time to explore to full realities of such a topic, instead relying on others to make the conclusions for them.

While I’m not arguing that reducing CO2 emissions would be a bad thing, the simple majority rule logic you’re using is treading on dangerous ground. Lest we forget that a majority of the world still opposes things such as homosexuality. Regardless of what the world is doing, we, as a country and individuals, should analyze the facts and base our judgment on what is best for our situation. If we follow blindly then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

Adit: Random thoughts, part deux

nospam@example.com (Adit) — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:47:36 -0500

I have no idea what kind of Q-tips you are using... But you see they're round at the end with a little stick sticking out... Yeah, like a 'Q'.

Also, you know you'd just be you're own sysadmin no mater how evil super-villain-y you get.

But watches watch time, so you don't have to.

And don't you drool, crap yourself, and watch reruns of 30 rock now?

Ninja cats are badass.

Who would want literary immortality when you can achieve historical immortality with the simple genocide of an entire race?

And out.

Alex : Who was more evil: the empire or the rebellion?

nospam@example.com (Alex ) — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:16:48 -0500

Re: Godwin's Law: See http://www.reason.com/news/show/32944.html
I agree that we have become like the Empire in certain ways, but that doesn't quite imply that Al Qaeda et al. have a legitimate grievance akin to the Rebel Alliance justifying their anti-establishment violence. The analogy would only hold true if we forced the entire world to adopt a single fascist government controlled from Washington, in which case the Wahabbists would not be the only group fighting against us.

As for the question of what motivates the rebels, it is true that they never allude directly to restoring democracy during this trilogy because lectures about democracy = sleeping audience. The larger context, however, suggests that the rebellion is essentially fighting to restore democracy as practiced in the Old Republic, which, by the way, was nowhere near as theocratic as even the U.S. today. The Jedi never force their wacky religious practices/taboos on anyone, nor are they synonymous with the state, which promptly murders them for opposing its fascist turn. The monarchy of which Leia is a member appears, based on my research, to be confined to Alderaan, and symbolic akin to the U.K.'s.

As for the question of the Rebellion's lack of support, this might have more to do with the Empire's habit of brutal repression towards anyone who opposes it than anything else. Speaking of which, as I recall, the motivation for destroying Alderaan was Grand Moff Tarkin's desire to "effectively demonstrate" the power of the Death Star. He had no reason I'm aware of to think there was a base there. So basically the Empire slaughtered millions as a show of power. As for the Endor question, should one actually scroll down to read the entirety of the page you linked to, it refers to the Empire planning to wipe out the Ewoks anyway, without any of the positive benefits accruing from the destruction of DS II.

In the end, I suppose it's a matter of perspective, but I think the Empire's motivation (maintaining their hold on power) and the rebels' motivation (restoring freedom to the galaxy) are divergent enough that their actions shouldn't be viewed through the same
lens. Evil for its own sake (or in the name of fascist "order") is a different proposition from unavoidable evil in the name of the greater good.

Kurt: Who was more evil: the empire or the rebellion?

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:48:49 -0500

... so I guess therefore, the Empire is no more "evil" than we are.

By the way, I noticed the Nazi point. You should google "Godwin's Law." :P

Kurt: Who was more evil: the empire or the rebellion?

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:45:13 -0500

As a quick note, the rebellion's true goals are never clear. In fact, we only hear Leia referred to as "Princess," which would suggest that their goal might be a monarchy. Assuming traditional monarchy structure (after all, this is "a long time ago,"), the rebellion merely advocates trading one regime for another and never notes that it fights for "democracy," or "constitutional democracy."

It should also be noted that the overwhelming majority of the galaxy appears to oppose the rebellion-- they're a "small band" of rebels, and while the intro of IV alludes to "civil war," it would appear that conditions are indistinguishable from present day life in America had the increased technology been the norm. Therefore, the small band of rebels begs the old adage: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

By our standards the rebels would be terrorists. They hide in distant, obscure lands (Hoth); they kill innocent people (ermm, I mean, Ewoks) during their attacks on The Man; and, they endorse a religious cult (Han says himself, "hokey religions...are no match for a good blaster at your side"). Additionally, the empire would therefore be considered the United States. They're imperialists, they rule their people by fear, they condone torture to gain intel on rebels, and their industrial/military complex is the largest of everyone's.

Alex : Who was more evil: the empire or the rebellion?

nospam@example.com (Alex ) — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:02:54 -0500

To paraphrase Vader, "Your lack of perspective disturbs me." You say:
"I don't applaud the Emperor's subversive tactics by any means,"
and yet your post would seem to imply that it's unacceptable to bring down this repressive fascist regime enslaving the galaxy unless it can be done with totally clean hands. The Galactic Civil War is not the Civil Rights Movement, and revolution often necessitates difficult choices, but that doesn't mean that the Empire has some inherent moral superiority because it prevails based on a purely mathematical consideration. Motivation and context are just as important as outcomes. By your logic, if a hypothetical "Man in the High Castle" Nazi regime had taken over America, a hypothetical American resistance would have been morally unjustified in fighting back unless it could ensure that only high Nazi officials would be killed. I find it rather simplistic to simply dismiss the Rebels as terrorists without considering the fact that the Empire has given them no alternatives. Granted, this is probably impossible given its constitution, but that's irrelevant. What exactly makes the Empire so righteous? Even if they haven't killed anyone unnecessarily, (*Cough* Jedi Purge *Cough*) the fact that they wield power solely in their own name makes them evil, and a revolution fighting for representative democracy is inherently good, or at least has a higher burden of proof for me to be convinced of their perfidy. Also, I am not actually as nerdy about Star Wars as this may make me seem, but I think the larger issues raised by this post are important enough to justify a response. As this is not Policy Debate, I hope you'll forgive me for not supplying a point-by-point refutation.

Alonymous: Christian rock sucks.

nospam@example.com (Alonymous) — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:08:32 -0500

I thought Flyleaf was "acceptable" until I listened to an interview with the lead professing that all her songs were about her discovering God. I hadn't fall into a deep love with her, so I quickly killed any emotional attachment. This didn't stop me from thinking. Maybe she really loves this God person and her version of thanking him is to make music in hopes that others will feel just as good as she does, which is what many Christians say..

You forgot to mention all this cash these CD's and concerts generate AND the wonderful advertising opportunities these ventures create. Nice companies like Ford or Nestle just love cows... err, Christians. South Park commented in it's own hilarious way on the topic.

Adit: Random thoughts

nospam@example.com (Adit) — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 05:44:41 -0500

1. *Grr*... You don't allow htlm or image tags... so, http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v98/A_2004/slavecard.jpg

2. Only the old and the enfeebled still use intranet. Personally I like "information super highway"

3. There was not a single founder, but rather a group, Captain John C. Lester, Major James R. Crowe, John D. Kennedy, Calvin Jones, Richard R. Reed, and Frank O. McCord are credited as the founding fathers of the KKK.

4. Do swimmers count?