BubberMiley Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 This must be another one of your "provocative" posts, not to be taken seriously, eh? Who would take a post on this board seriously? But do you think a murderous christian sect, like say the Jonestown cult, are real christians? Just because they call themselves chirstians doesn't mean they are. They have to act like it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 Who would take a post on this board seriously? But do you think a murderous christian sect, like say the Jonestown cult, are real christians? Just because they call themselves chirstians doesn't mean they are. They have to act like it too. The People's Temple had pretty much nothing to do with Christianity. It was more a religious version of Marxism mixed in with the International Peace Mission Movement of that crazy Father Divine (who claimed he was God). "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" being one of Jone's favorite maxims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 And just another point: As long as the local government does not declare the spot to be a heritage site off limits to all construction, why should the local Muslim community, which has suffered twice as much as the general community (once by losing family and friends to 9-11 like anyone else, and twice by having an association between them and the terrorists imposed on them by the general community), forgo the opportunity to build there only to have others take it over instead? If they are simply abiding y local laws, then the local government is to blame for not declaring it a heritage site. So don't blame the Muslims for that. A bit of a double standard eh? It seems like Islam is highly double-standard challenged (link to thread on subject). They frequently want tolerance and sensitivity but it's definitely not a two-way street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 (edited) It seems like Islam jbg is highly double-standard challenged . They jbg frequently wants tolerance and sensitivity but it's definitely not a two-way street. Edited August 15, 2010 by BubberMiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 it's MUSLIMS who have declared a jihad, the desire to kill as many as possible, against us. Youre not fooling anyone... its pretty obvious that the real reason you dont want a Mosque built is because the minarets on top are shaped like boobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 Everything on this forum is always muslims and boobies, muslims and boobies... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 (edited) Everything on this forum is always muslims and boobies, muslims and boobies... At first I couldnt understand all the opposition to this mosque... but then I looked at some pictures to get an idea of what it might look like... http://images.watoday.com.au/2008/11/13/271873/Mosque1_gallery__600x393-600x400.jpg And it hit me... these unsavory buildings are literally COVERED in boobs... some of them quite large... some of them even have nipples. Many of them voluptuous... heaving... and lucious. These boobs present a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. The united states cannot sit idly by while muslims build gigantic tits at ground zero. Edited August 15, 2010 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 So Hiroshima or Nagasaki, which one was ground zero? Is it the amount of people that where killed? Or the size of the bomb that decides this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 So Hiroshima or Nagasaki, which one was ground zero? Is it the amount of people that where killed? Or the size of the bomb that decides this? It's the country, the people, who decide this. Just as we decided our memorial in Hawaii would be Pearl Harbor, even though it wasn't the only hit the Japanese made that day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 That's because you're still a "rookie". No thats because I know what the phrase means and where it came from. Ground Zero is the hypocenter of an explosion or earthquake. All explosions and earthquakes have a "ground zero". Your statement that "by definition there cant be multiple ground zeros", is utterly bogus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 (edited) No thats because I know what the phrase means and where it came from. It came from America! Ground Zero is the hypocenter of an explosion or earthquake. All explosions and earthquakes have a "ground zero". That is not where the term originated....see "Manhattan Project". Thank you for using Google and the Internet. Your statement that "by definition there cant be multiple ground zeros", is utterly bogus. OK...let's hope for a another "ground zero" in your back yard. Edited August 15, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 It's the country, the people, who decide this. Just as we decided our memorial in Hawaii would be Pearl Harbor, even though it wasn't the only hit the Japanese made that day. No thats horseshit. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had geographical points that are described as Ground Zero. The term "Ground Zero" simply means the hypocenter of an explosion or the epicentre of an earthquake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 It came from America! That is not where the term originated....see "Manhattan Project". OK...let's hope for a another "ground zero" in your back yard. That is not where the term originated....see "Manhattan Project". I never said thats where the term origionated Trevor... I said thats what it meant. Reading comprehension as usual isnt your strong suit. Of course... having a strong suit isnt your strong suit either Im well aware of the origion of the term. It started out as military slang derived from the term "point zero" which was the name given to the location of the weapon tower in Socorro, New Mexico where the first nuclear bomb was tested. OK...let's hope for a another "ground zero" in your back yard. Okey dokey. Keep hoping for that, Trevor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 Im well aware of the origion of the term. It started out as military slang derived from the term "point zero" which was the name given to the location of the weapon tower in Socorro, New Mexico where the first nuclear bomb was tested. This just means that you are well aware of America's Google! Okey dokey. Keep hoping for that, Trevor. OK...boom! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 This just means that you are well aware of America's Google! OK...boom! Well maybe next time you should use "America's Google" to avoid making hilarious statements like "by definition there cant be multiple ground zeros". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 Well maybe next time you should use "America's Google" to avoid making hilarious statements like "by definition there cant be multiple ground zeros". There can't and won't be in the present 9/11 political context...try to pay closer attention when oggling America. I am here to help you get it "right". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 At first I couldnt understand all the opposition to this mosque... but then I looked at some pictures to get an idea of what it might look like... http://images.watoday.com.au/2008/11/13/271873/Mosque1_gallery__600x393-600x400.jpg And it hit me... these unsavory buildings are literally COVERED in boobs... some of them quite large... some of them even have nipples. Many of them voluptuous... heaving... and lucious. These boobs present a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. The united states cannot sit idly by while muslims build gigantic tits at ground zero. Boobs on top and penisesss in the windows ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 16, 2010 Report Share Posted August 16, 2010 Boobs on top and penisesss in the windows ! There's a reason Muslims build all those boobs and penises. The women are all covered from head to toe and pornography is considered immoral. Gotta have something to look at. Probably lot's of dudes jacking off to those big stone boobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 16, 2010 Report Share Posted August 16, 2010 There's a reason Muslims build all those boobs and penises. The women are all covered from head to toe and pornography is considered immoral. Gotta have something to look at. Probably lot's of dudes jacking off to those big stone boobs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwaFEW2EMGY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted August 16, 2010 Report Share Posted August 16, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwaFEW2EMGY I'm pretty sure that time censoring Muhammed was a deliberate joke, while in the most recent one Viacom wussed out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 16, 2010 Report Share Posted August 16, 2010 I'm pretty sure that time censoring Muhammed was a deliberate joke, while in the most recent one Viacom wussed out. Mr. Garrison: OK "Jacking it" is strictly forbidden in the Muslim religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Garrison From the clip: Kyle: "If you don't show Muhammad, you've made a distinction between what's OK to poke fun at an what isn't. Either it's all OK or none of it is." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 16, 2010 Report Share Posted August 16, 2010 Good clip. I can't help but wonder why we're supposed to be so careful about not offending them, and so concerned about offending them. If they're offended, it's no different from our being offended. Not sure why it's ok to offend us but not ok to offend them. As I've said before, sensitivity is a two way street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 16, 2010 Report Share Posted August 16, 2010 Good clip. I can't help but wonder why we're supposed to be so careful about not offending them, and so concerned about offending them. If they're offended, it's no different from our being offended. Not sure why it's ok to offend us but not ok to offend them. As I've said before, sensitivity is a two way street. Right but their sensitivity about drawings of their fake god didnt stop us from drawing them did it? People started facebook groups encouraging people to draw Mohamed as much as possible, and they were subjected to thousands of insulting cartoons depicting their prophet in as many unflattering ways as possible. And who says youre supposed to be "so carefull" about not offending them? You can do whatever you want. Maybe some people said its not a great idea, but thats about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 16, 2010 Report Share Posted August 16, 2010 And who says youre supposed to be "so carefull" about not offending them? Umm, you're "supposed" to be careful about not offending them because if you do, you're liable to get killed or forced to live out the rest of your life evading assassination attempts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 16, 2010 Report Share Posted August 16, 2010 Right but their sensitivity about drawings of their fake god didnt stop us from drawing them did it? People started facebook groups encouraging people to draw Mohamed as much as possible, and they were subjected to thousands of insulting cartoons depicting their prophet in as many unflattering ways as possible. And who says youre supposed to be "so carefull" about not offending them? You can do whatever you want. Maybe some people said its not a great idea, but thats about it. It sure stopped Comedy Central. They didn't want their staff injured/killed. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/20/comedy-central-censors-south-park-episode-muslim-threats/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.