ScottSA

Don't forget a plantain...they're green too, even if they don't have that many troops in them.

Nonsense. Just because most are in the lowlands doesn't mean there weren't any in the hilands. The variant you're talking about is the original circa 1400 or so. There are no geographical demarkations between the names. Pfffft...

As you probably know, you're flirting with giving away personal info here to any Scotophiles in the audience.

I always wondered why some people in the west look at Jews as outsiders. I've always defended Israel as being an outpost of western civilization in a sea of barbarism. Apparently that's not on, eh Rue?

Oy vey. We've been through this a million times. You even know my clan and tartan. Just admit it. I'm the bossman.

Must you write entire books? How many people do you think actually reads through these tomes full of snide comments and personal opinions presented as facts?

Cite please?

A leftist argument. Concise, to the point, and as powerful as a lame hamster.

I don't know what Jefferiah is saying, but what I'll say is that the Crusades were fought in an effort to take back from Islam what it had taken in the first place. Folks seem to forget that the Middle east was once largely Judeo-Christian, and in any event belonged to the eastern empire ('Bysantine Empire' in the reference cited by you). It's not clear to me why someone writing in Wiki claims Bysantium was a threat to the papacy or europe...it certainly hadn't made any advances upon it for centuries; unlike Islam.

You must have missed the obvious. When someone claims the American dream is impossible, and yet his very presence is living first person proof that he's lying, it tends to take away from his credibility, don't you think?

I must say, we've had everything from ad hominem to to streetcorner psychology to anti-semetic sneering to the usual cries of "bigotry," but not one comment about the actual conference. Does it not strike any of you lefties that this isn't a gaggle of rednecks but a distinguished group of academics and writers as well as 70 organizations from all over the world? How long are you going to keep your head firmly buried in the sand? Until someone comes along and lops it of while screaming "Allahu Akbar?"

Caution...the following is "tolerance"-incompatible. Either a criminal "homophobe" is deported, or we open our arms and embrace a Muslim. The trouble is, of course, that he might be tortured, perhaps in a dreaded Abu Griab style bumpile, if he's sent to Tunisia. The other trouble is that he's a Muslim, so shouldn't we be embracing his multicultural rights? A controversial, outspoken Muslim imam in Montreal was arrested yesterday and faces deportation after his refugee status was revoked for failing to disclose a past criminal conviction. Saïd Jaziri, a 40-year-old maverick cleric from Tunisia, triggered an uproar in recent days after his appearance on a television talk show where he spoke of homosexuality as a sin. [snip] The imam of the Al Qods mosque in northeast Montreal, Mr. Jaziri has made headlines for campaigning in favour of faith-based sharia courts of law for Canadian Muslims. He has also led demonstrations against the publication of caricatures of the prophet Mohammed, even as other leaders urged the community to stay clear of such events for fear of inflaming the situation. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

I daresay your aside, couched in the language you use, is not an aside at all. If fight or flight is "instinct," and if 50,000 years is truly enough time to evolve to any substantive degree, and if we are the descendants of those who ran away, then by rights we ought to be a race of cringing fearful beings, and yet we're quite the opposite. At least most of us. I would suggest instead that, if are the premises above are true, that we're the descendants of those who snuck up on the waving grass, slew the hyena, and took it home for the stewpot. Yuck. I'm the descendant of hyena-eaters?

Your premise is wrong. It's not the truth. The irony is that Carlin himself lived the American dream.

Those are the wages of imbuing a generation of schoolkids with the notion that discrimination is a bad word. I'm doing some study on the historical process by which this metamorphosis took place in western thought, and I haven't quite got there yet, but the mechanism appears to be this, in a nutshell: A bunch of deconstructionists got together, took a look at history, and decided in the postwar period (the roots are much older, of course) that "discrimination" as it applied to race/religion/culture was the cause of many, if not all, wars. From this grew the ideation of multiculture, and from the practical considerations of multiculture praxis grew the need for "acceptance" of other cultures. So the original notion was released to the general population where it lost all nuance and has been paraded around since as a pan-TRVTH. Concepts tend to flip and reverse like that when they are picked up by lesser, dare I say less-discriminating, minds. They need only point to a single example of discrimination with poor results (eg: drinking fountains for blacks & whites) in order to make the case, to their own satisfaction at least, that therefore ALL discrimination is wrong. This extrapolation from the specific to the general is laughable to anyone who has been within 1000 yards of a logic 101 class, but it makes perfect sense to some. The reason this ridiculous mode of thought gained so much currency in liberal circles is the inherent racism of the left and its ability to excuse all manner of nastiness done by little brown people, because they are little brown people; that is, because they can't be held to the same standard as "us." But that's another story.

Who cares whether he "considers it war?" It's war. If he was point man in a firefight he'd damn some start considering it war.

Reported for trolling

What he calls it is an abstract; something happening far away that has little to do with him, but serves as a topic that he can shed crocodile tears over on internet forums.

You get your political knowledge from a stoned old has-been whose claim to fame is rapidfire pottymouth?

That would be a "no".

You mean the values the Supreme Court has taken to making up on the fly of late?

I see. So you just posited christ as a fag to show how scriptures can be twisted. Speaking of twisting...

Yup, I'm aware of that. Our troops are in the field. We are at war.

You're unwilling to even look at his question, so I daresay you're throwing stones in a glass house.

The fact that you're trying to turn Christ into a faggot speaks volumes about your credibility.