kengs333

You specifically name me EIGHT times in this post. You don't think that this is a tad excessive, even obsessive?

Are we talking about Canada?

Hardly. While wasting my time reading that piece of hack "journalism" is became evident that, according to the article, at least, this study simply correlates the high rates of dysfunctionality in American society with the perception among many Americans that their country is a beacon of Christianity in the world. It doesn't show that the people who actually consider themselves Christian are responsible for this. Something like that could never be written about Judaism or Islam, it would obviously be considered hate literature. Shameful.

I never said it did. I'm simply stating that in her own right the person who was allegedly assaulted was behaving with a low-life, and in my opinion was dileberately being obstructive to the point where some sort of physical contact was inevitable. In other words, it looked set up; and it's really interesting that timmer just happened to be in position to supposedly capture the assault on video. Whether the ambiguity of the actual moment of the alleged assault was deliberate or not is open to debate, but whatever the case, the video is inconclusive. Yeah, nice try.

I personally think that the word "bully" is too colloquial; it doesn't really reflect the nature of a tyranical head-of-state, because much of his power rested in his ability to captivate, enthrall, manipulate, charm etc. his henchmen; his "bullying" on a personal level came about during the war (or at least became more pronounced) when he really began to lose sense of reality. Some historians argue that he simply was a statesman in the traditional sense, like Bismarck, who would resort to war or the threat of war to accomplish a political end. What he was doing was a little more dynamic than simply bullying.

Oh, right, which is why the central American civilizations killed thousands at a time in "human sacrifices" or the Godless communists in Russia murdered 30 million in the Gulags... Yeah, you can deny all you want, but your posts have jenny written all over them. If, as a matter of fact, you are not her, the fact that you have such a similar posting style should in no way be taken as a compliment.

Your whole post was rather silly, so instead of wasting my time on refuting it all, I'll just stick to this first point. What we consider law has evolved over a long time and dates back to the pre-Christian era in Europe; murder, rape, theft, etc. were always considered bad. In fact, the punishment for crimes used to be quite draconian or, at times, quite inappropriate, such as small fines. Over time, law in Europe--or in our case, Britain--evolved considerably, but in the end much of how we think about crime can in fact be traced to the old Germanic peoples that spread across Europe in the early centuries of the first millenia AD.

Well, another timmer video... Interesting is that it only has 105 views, which means that very, very few people know about it; what a coincidence that some who just happens to know about it would just happen to join this forum and provide us with a link to it. From what I can see and here it would seem that there was a verbally abrassive Indian woman who stood in front of McHale and said "don't you f---ing push me" a couple of times, and then the video conveniently gets shakey when some sort of scuffle ensues. It's impossible to see just who started it, but it would seem to me that the woman was trying to instigate something and was attempting to get the slightest touch as a pretext for crying "assault". I've seen this kind of tactic before at protests, and it's a really pathetic move. If anything, the video shows what kind of low-lifes some of the Six Nations people are. How many explatives that that woman use in the course of about TWO minutes? And again with a reference to his weight ("fat f---"). Who was that woman anyway? What makes her think that she's somehow an ideal specimine of the human race?

That's sad that when a person makes it clear that they have no respect for their own body and self, or for others they ensnare in their sinful game of self-gratification, there's absolutely no cause for concern from the likes of moral relativists such as yourself.

Yeah, I guess that's why crime rates among devout Christians are so low. Exactly how many of those gang killings in Toronto the last decade or so were committed by Christians? I'll venture that the answer is none.

A rather simplistic assesment of the situation, wouldn't you say?

The only abusive person here is you; you've written reams of hostile, malicious bile, and for some reason you're still allowed to pollute this forum with your demented rants. Anyone who has to post FIVE or SIX posts in a row in response to someone they don't agree with is acting in a manner that is beyond rational.

First, I don't think you understand the context in which the post was written; you don't know the history behind it, so you have no right commenting in this fashion.

You're not fooling anyone.

First, what's a "Danizers"? We're talking about German-speaking regions that were recently removed from Germany to create new states or territories. I'm quite certain this did not meet with approval for those Germans; whether they wanted to be ruled by Hitler is another matter. I don't quite know where you get the idea that this was occuring at a "rapid clip" seeing that about six million Jews are believed to have died in the camps. I doubt that had Hitler not come along they would also have been "pouring out," although some were part of the general exodus from over-crowded Europe.

I'm not sure what "beefs were colorable" means, or for that matter how it is "belittling the Jews". What I'm suggesting is that if you believe that a group such as the Jews have the inheant right to have land that they believe belongs to them based on some sort of historical basis, then that same reasoning should be extended to other groups as well. Since the Germans has a rightful claim to land that was simply lost due to a war, that land really should have been returned and some other solution sought; hence the rise of Hitler, the war, and all of the other nasty stuff that resulted could have been avoided.

Right, the Jewish people, or, as the Germans say, Volk.

So if a group inherently has a right to self-determination, then I suppose you would agree then that the Nazis had a legitimate beef in the 1930s when it came to Danzig, the Sudetenland, and other territories that were predominantly German-speaking in eastern Europe?

Here's another history lesson for you. If anyone is responsible for the demise, it's probably Hitler. As ill-advised as his attempt to destroy the Soviet Union was, the fact that the Germans wore down the Russians meant that they were never the threat that they could have been, and I doubt they ever fully recovered from the war. The Nazis also supported independence movements in the Baltic, Balkans and Caucus regions in an effort to destroy the blight of Communism, while the west decided to aid the Soviet Union--this despite strong pre-war anti-Communism sentiments. The Allies were also in a position at the end of the war to deal with the Soviets militarily, and this probably would have ended in victory and all the nonsense of the next 50 years would have been avoided. Strangely, though, despite the fact that Stalin was much more murderous that the Nazis, the west never considered Communism as great of an ideological threat as fascism, and we even still have communist parties around today. Oh, and as for Communism being defeated, things like the environmental and feminist movements drew heavily from Marxism/Communism and these things are still very influential.

"Bullies who threatened a new student at their Nova Scotia high school for wearing a pink polo shirt were themselves schooled by two seniors who dressed half the student body in pink two days later, the Chronicle-Herald of Halifax reported." These kinds of things are so lame. I'm wondering if a new student wearing a shirt with an clear Christian message would have received the same support. Probably not. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the people wearing the pink shirts would themselves become the bullies. All this is is an attempt to make themselves feel as though they are tolerant and progressive, which, of course, is totally delusional.

Let's not forget the she stated she would slit my throat if it was possible to do so through a computer.

I would suggest that you read any of her posts, and if you don't find them to be ignorant and/or offensive, then I could tell you a thing or two about your level of intellectual development. I don't even know who you are, so you're mistaken if I have any concern about not reading my posts in the future.

You clearly just do not get it. As the article states, these things are being done "in the [i[name[/i] of Christianity." People using Christianity to suit their own agendas is nothing new. Nor is the fact that regional cultural practices tend to persist after conversion. Anybody with even the remotest understanding of Christianity knows that killing or the use of violence in the name of Christ is not condoned at all. I'm curious where your outrage is over the brutal treatment and murders of Christians in Bagdad by islamic extremists? Or doesn't that suit your God-hating, anti-Christian agenda?

Nice try. But here of course you do get the benefit of the doubt and your behaviour is tolerated to a certain extent with hope that eventually you'll settle down and start being a more productive poster. Something that your "more tolerant" friends at rabble would never consider.

STOP sending me messages promoting your website.