DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Discover Freedom
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 701 - 725 of 1247, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/12/2003 11:47:42 AM · #701
Originally posted by Antithesis:

Wow, after 697 posts, I just realized how off-topic this thread has gotten. I thought we were talking about cereal. I really, really like Frosted Mini Wheats. How 'bout you? :::----)))))


I don't know about you guys, but the Mini Wheats in my neck of the woods have taken a noticeable downturn in quality in the last year or so. The frosting is thinner, the individual cereal bits are smaller and they just don't seem to be as flavourful. Me, I'm quite upset about this. After years of Mini Wheats I'm going to Raisin Bran.
05/12/2003 03:22:46 PM · #702
I'll stick to my sugar frosted crack. Now's the best season.
05/13/2003 12:22:48 AM · #703
Originally posted by Geocide:

Yeah, the ACLU is sooo wrong huh... After all they are defending the rights of individuals. As far as being PC...PC=respecting everyone. Yeah, let's just throw this idea out the winder' and rid the world of evil doers and non-aryians.


LOL Geocide, this comment is so typical of uninformed people. PC does NOT = respecting everyone, in fact PC = saying or having an opinion off what is politically popular at the time.

The ACLU is capitalizing on PC attitudes of uninformed people, to such an extreme extent, that it's PC to allow terrorists into the country without any kind of background check because doing so (a background check) would be "racist" or make them "feel uncomfortable". Well no more my friend. The times of having a "sacred Mosk" in the middle of Your Town, MI., that is immunned to FBI observation is over, and the terrorists are now on notice that they can't hide under the cloak of the ACLU anymore.

Don't you get it by now? Terrorist LAUGH at your ACLU. They USE your ACLU to carry out their plans of terrorism knowing that if anyone challenges what they are doing or makes ANY comment that's critical, they can cry racism and the ACLU will protect them. Wise up man, use your brain.


05/16/2003 06:48:37 PM · #704
Webster.com say PC=:
Main Entry: politically correct
Function: adjective
Date: 1936
: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated
05/16/2003 08:09:58 PM · #705
the problem with that definition is that there are two sides to every coin, two views on every issue, two ways to go about politics...politicaly correctness is just a stupid way of placating the masses and blinding them from actual problems in a society
05/16/2003 08:34:20 PM · #706
This is the problem with most definitions...

It (PC) is a relativistic term, now highjacked by the mass media, used to disparage those who encourage tolerance of views at variance with one's own...(with apologies to Ambrose Bierce and Mark Twain)
05/17/2003 03:19:03 AM · #707
Originally posted by GeneralE:

It (PC) is a relativistic term, now highjacked by the mass media...


I'd disagree that the mass media EVER uses this term. When was the last time you heard ANY media outlet use it? Not even Fox (supposedly conservative compared to the rest). That's because it's "PC" to NOT to use the term itself! :)

Originally posted by GeneralE:

....used to disparage those who encourage tolerance of views at variance with one's own...(with apologies to Ambrose Bierce and Mark Twain)


PC is not to "disparage those who encourage tolerance". This is a completely bogus and loaded statement, meant to appeal to the emotion of idealists who can't see past the end of their nose and don't realize that we don't live in a perfect world where everyone is holding hands and kissing each other.

We can't "tolerate" or "embrace" those who have the intent to do harm to us, no matter what their race. And if that means that we need to be critical of people of a certain race, religon, or origin who have a statistically higher chance/probability of doing us/others harm, the risk of offending the innocent/good people of that race/religon/origin should not be called "intolerant" but instead should be called a reasonable concern. It's just common sense. Although the PC crowd would prefer to call that concern racist or whatever else because it suits their needs.

05/17/2003 04:04:59 AM · #708
Originally posted by ChrisW123:

And if that means that we need to be critical of people of a certain race, religon, or origin who have a statistically higher chance/probability of doing us/others harm, the risk of offending the innocent/good people of that race/religon/origin should not be called "intolerant" but instead should be called a reasonable concern.


The people with the statistically highest probability of causing anyone harm are surely those who have killed the most people and interfered violently in the greatiest number of countries. And that would be the USA.

However, I would call it intolerant if a victim of those actions blamed every member of your country, or every Christian, for their loss.
05/17/2003 04:57:40 AM · #709
Originally posted by lisae:


The people with the statistically highest probability of causing anyone harm are surely those who have killed the most people and interfered violently in the greatiest number of countries. And that would be the USA.


Typical... when the US tries to help, everyone cries "World Police." When they don't help, everyone says they don't care.

05/17/2003 05:15:57 AM · #710
Originally posted by lisae:


The people with the statistically highest probability of causing anyone harm are surely those who have killed the most people and interfered violently in the greatiest number of countries. And that would be the USA.


Furthermore, you say "The people" as if you mean the citizens of the USA are doing this so-called killing. This is absurd!!!!

And anyway I'm sure you remember Hitler, Stalin, etc.....
05/17/2003 04:22:16 PM · #711
Originally posted by lisae:

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

And if that means that we need to be critical of people of a certain race, religon, or origin who have a statistically higher chance/probability of doing us/others harm, the risk of offending the innocent/good people of that race/religon/origin should not be called "intolerant" but instead should be called a reasonable concern.


The people with the statistically highest probability of causing anyone harm are surely those who have killed the most people and interfered violently in the greatiest number of countries. And that would be the USA.

However, I would call it intolerant if a victim of those actions blamed every member of your country, or every Christian, for their loss.


thats a pretty outrageous and ridiculous statement to make lisae... how about providing some facts and statistics... especially considering the fact that the germans killed over 6 million civilians, and iraq over 500,000...

also, your statement makes it sound as if the forces we have stopped were doing nothing wrong to begin with... once again you speak without logic...

Message edited by author 2003-05-17 16:24:52.
05/17/2003 04:26:27 PM · #712
Originally posted by Antithesis:

I like Fruit Loops and peanut butter bananas.



See what you started! :oP
05/18/2003 08:02:12 PM · #713
I accidentally saw a FOX news broadcast today, and I noticed they were referring to "homocide bombers." I wondered whether this was a recent change in rhetoric, and if anyone else was following suit.

I remember many years ago when the organizations behind the bombers started "accepting responsibility" for the acts, as if they should get an award or something, and wondered why we didn't just say they'd "admitted guilt."

Message edited by author 2003-05-18 20:17:02.
05/18/2003 08:08:12 PM · #714
actually, i accidently watch foxnews quite a bit, and it's not really new for them at least to refer to those attacks as homicide bombings. it might even date back to right after 9/11 to tell you the truth.
05/18/2003 08:16:30 PM · #715
Thanks. I'll have to check out some other newscasts and see what they're up to...
05/18/2003 11:41:56 PM · #716
Originally posted by GeneralE:

I accidentally saw a FOX news broadcast today, and I noticed they were referring to "homocide bombers." I wondered whether this was a recent change in rhetoric, and if anyone else was following suit.


General, only conservative (relatively speaking) news outlets will use the term "Homicide Bombers". Thats really what they are... not "sucide" bombers. "Suicide" refers to killing yourself and not harming others, while these terrorists are committing HOMICIDE when they bomb, and thus the appropriate term, Homicide Bomber, is being used by some. It's another PC thing. Just like when you hear "Undocumented Aliens" (the PC term), when they should be called ILLEGAL Aliens. God forbid we call them "illegal" because that might be "insensitive". :P

Originally posted by lisae:

The people with the statistically highest probability of causing anyone harm are surely those who have killed the most people and interfered violently in the greatiest number of countries. And that would be the USA.


Americans aren't terrorists, unlike Arabs. You are "generalizing" as you like to call it in your statement, so so will I. You know the difference and the subject we are talking about, so why do you throw in BS like this? Because liberals are great at changing the subject to fit their own agenda. Why not speak to the issue, instead of saying "well you know, Americans have killed more..." It has NO meaning at all and you know it.

Originally posted by lisae:

However, I would call it intolerant if a victim of those actions blamed every member of your country, or every Christian, for their loss..


Again, your idea is BS. Christains are not violent, "infidel" hating, Jew hating, Western Nation hating, homicide bombing, women repressing, intollerant, pychopaths unlike 90% of the Muslim Fundimentalists. Lisae, did you know that Mulsim fundimentalists are the most racist people on the face of the Earth? Did you know that in most of those nations if YOU were to try to practice a religon other then Muslim, you would be put in jail or worse? No? Well why don't you do some research and then get back to us before you TRY to tell us how evil Christains and Jews are.

Message edited by author 2003-05-18 23:52:35.
05/19/2003 01:06:23 AM · #717
Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I accidentally saw a FOX news broadcast today, and I noticed they were referring to "homocide bombers." I wondered whether this was a recent change in rhetoric, and if anyone else was following suit.


General, only conservative (relatively speaking) news outlets will use the term "Homicide Bombers". Thats really what they are... not "sucide" bombers. "Suicide" refers to killing yourself and not harming others, while these terrorists are committing HOMICIDE when they bomb, and thus the appropriate term, Homicide Bomber, is being used by some. It's another PC thing.

I don't know whether it has anything to do with "PC-ness," but I was actually commending their use of the term for exactly the reasons you stated. I'm sorry if that part wasn't clear.
05/19/2003 10:31:17 AM · #718
Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Americans aren't terrorists, unlike Arabs. You are "generalizing" as you like to call it in your statement, so so will I...

Christains are not violent, "infidel" hating, Jew hating, Western Nation hating, homicide bombing, women repressing, intollerant, pychopaths unlike 90% of the Muslim Fundimentalists. Lisae, did you know that Mulsim fundimentalists are the most racist people on the face of the Earth?


I don't think society will be able to move foward with making statments like this / feeling this way. This racism will only pull us back in time.

Fundimentalists anything, (christians, mulsims, etc...) are notorious for not being tolerant and spreading hate. After all the last major terrorist event was caused by a christian fundamentalast.

Its sad that so many people hate so much hate in their hearts.
05/19/2003 12:32:12 PM · #719
Originally posted by ChrisW123:


Originally posted by lisae:

However, I would call it intolerant if a victim of those actions blamed every member of your country, or every Christian, for their loss..


Again, your idea is BS. Christains are not violent, "infidel" hating, Jew hating, Western Nation hating, homicide bombing, women repressing, intollerant, pychopaths unlike 90% of the Muslim Fundimentalists. Lisae, did you know that Mulsim fundimentalists are the most racist people on the face of the Earth? Did you know that in most of those nations if YOU were to try to practice a religon other then Muslim, you would be put in jail or worse? No? Well why don't you do some research and then get back to us before you TRY to tell us how evil Christains and Jews are.


Chris, it's weird that you got so angry when you're actually agreeing with what you quoted me saying. However, then you go and blame every Muslim for the actions of a few extremists, and commit exactly the crime you wish people wouldn't commit when generalising about Christians or Americans.

Actually, Islam does not forbid the practice of religions that are "people of the book", ie Jews and Christians. Under the Islamic empire, members of both these religions were equal citizens.

You show a weird kind of hypocrisy that blinds you to the meaning of my words.
05/19/2003 12:37:26 PM · #720
"mmm...hyperbole" - homer simpson
05/20/2003 08:55:31 AM · #721
Dave Ross is a commentator for CBS radio, and has a radio show on KIRO in Seattle. In addition to his political and social commentaries, he has a syndicated feature on technology called ChipTalk. His sites are at //www.DaveRoss.com and //www.ChipTalk.com

Dave Ross Commentaries -- May 19, 2003

ACCURACY

Accuracy overload...

You think you know what happened, and then along comes a news report saying that what you think you know... is wrong.

The latest story to follow this route is the Jessica Lynch rescue. You remember Jessica Lynch: the 19 year old POW from Palestine, West Virginia, shot and stabbed in an Iraqi ambush, but finally ripped from the clutches of her captors in a daring nighttime commando raid.

Well, last night, a BBC documentary basically cried "fiction." Reporter John Kampfner says there's no evidence she was stabbed or shot, and there was no one guarding her when she was rescued, and indeed a friendly Iraqi doctor tried to deliver her by ambulance to the Americans two days before the rescue -- but our side fired on him.

If that's true, Jessica was used, and we were duped. Yes, we deserve accuracy, but do we have time for it?

People are overloaded. Look at what the polls say on the weapons of mass destruction. Most people no longer care whether they're found or not. Even the Democratic candidates avoid the issue.

Where are the weapons? Was Jessica's rescue staged? Pretty soon that'll be like asking who REALLY shot JFK?

Look at the Jayson Blair story. Huge scandal for the New York Times -- a reporter who made up quotes and datelines. The Times published an exhaustive expose.

But who has time to read it? Besides those who are preparing exposes of the expose?

I think this is why the word "whatever" has become universal among young people.

Doesn't matter what the story is -- from Iraq to Cholesterol, wait long enough and someone will contradict it.

Whatever.
05/20/2003 08:58:40 AM · #722
they've actually been reporting that version on the news for quite some time. except for that's the first time i've heard about trying to deliver her by ambulance, this is old news. to tell you the truth, this sort of change in direction by the media now really isn't surprising at all. reporters will do anything to report a story. i'm not debating the facts of the issue, it's just that i know this isn't anything new, this is just new spin on old information. this only works because the majority of people in america don't pay attention to detail and can be easily swayed by stories like this. regardless of whether or not there were guards or whatever, she was still recued, which is good enough for me. there is no point in taking spin like this seriuosly, just like there was no point in taking the whole huge rescue scenario that seriously, if the facts were listened to.

Message edited by author 2003-05-20 09:03:33.
05/21/2003 02:03:10 PM · #723
Originally posted by ChrisW123:


[...] and the weapons we uncover will be "just a big lie" in the minds of a lot of people but that's their problem not ours.


...still waiting for "the big lie" to be uncovered. Oh wait, it's been sitting right in front of us the whole time.
05/21/2003 10:22:55 PM · #724
Originally posted by Geocide:

[quote=ChrisW123]Americans aren't terrorists, unlike Arabs. You are "generalizing" as you like to call it in your statement, so so will I...

Christains are not violent, "infidel" hating, Jew hating, Western Nation hating, homicide bombing, women repressing, intollerant, pychopaths unlike 90% of the Muslim Fundimentalists. Lisae, did you know that Mulsim fundimentalists are the most racist people on the face of the Earth?


Originally posted by Geocide:

I don't think society will be able to move foward with making statments like this / feeling this way. This racism will only pull us back in time.


Geocide, how on EARTH do you come up with "racist" to describe my comment (quoted above)?? It's a FACT - there's nothing racist about it!! Is it just racist if the FACT happens to be directed towards someone who's not white? You see, this is the PC crap/attitude I'm talking about!

Originally posted by Geocide:

Fundimentalists anything, (christians, mulsims, etc...) are notorious for not being tolerant and spreading hate. After all the last major terrorist event was caused by a christian fundamentalast.


I agree that to "radical" in your beliefs about religon and you start to have problems. But when was the last time you heard a Christain fundmentalist "call for the death of all Westerners" or "Call for a Holy War against the West", and that type of thing, like we hear coming from Muslim fundementalists all the time?

And what was "the last major terrorist event caused by a Christain" that you are talking about?

Originally posted by Geocide:

Its sad that so many people hate so much hate in their hearts.


I'd agree Geocide, it's sad that so many Muslims seem to hate us. Before 9-11 I never had a problem with any of them. ;)
05/21/2003 10:35:30 PM · #725
Originally posted by lisae:

Chris, it's weird that you got so angry when you're actually agreeing with what you quoted me saying. However, then you go and blame every Muslim for the actions of a few extremists, and commit exactly the crime you wish people wouldn't commit when generalising about Christians or Americans.


I'm not blaming "every Muslim for the actions of a few...". Please stop twisting my words. You need to read what I'm saying. I said Muslim Fundementalists. What pisses me off about your comments is, you are a pacifist for the terrorists and their actions (I'm not saying you support them or agree with them so please don't try to twist this as well), when you RATIONALIZE what they do with this kind of statement:

Originally posted by lisae:

The people with the statistically highest probability of causing anyone harm are surely those who have killed the most people and interfered violently in the greatiest number of countries. And that would be the USA.


It's not the same thing at all and you know it. By saying statements like this, that have no meaning or logical comparison, you are pacifying terrorists and terrorism. I think it's irresponsible to do that.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 07/30/2025 10:20:23 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/30/2025 10:20:23 AM EDT.