Down in St. Landers Parish, just outside Lafayette, Louisiana, someone has carved a “crop circle” with two not so kind words for President Obama. We say “someone” but who knows? It may just as well be “something” because we’re pretty sure Obama’s pissed off the entire universe at this point.
No one’s stepping forward to take blame (nor credit) for the horrible descecration, this thoughtless crime, this farmland folly.
But we do know one thing: If it had said the same thing about Bush instead of Obama, the artist would undoubtedly be eligible for a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.
Here’s how you can see the artwork yourself, right from Google Maps: Just start clicking on the zoom button (the + sign, and only the plus sign) in the upper left corner of the embedded map below, until you close in on the crop circle.
Better look quickly, before the Google Maps department pulls out their Photoshop expert.
If you’re interested in Google Maps discoveries, you will love our story of a structure discovered on Google Mars. You have to see this one.
This post was last modified on June 6, 2011
View Comments (189)
” … you do not have the right to assign your own terms to someone else’s pregnancy, and use them to deny them the right to terminate same. Nor does the government.”
Who is saying anything about denying the right to an abortion?
Why is it that “you people” (one of your favorite terms, so don’t flame me for it) assume that if the government (AKA the taxpayers) refuses to pay for it, that they are denying it?
I’ve never understood that kind of thinking. Maybe you can explain?
What am I thinking – of COURSE you can explain.
********************
I was responding to Deb's comment that a fetus, unlike a gall bladder, is a "being," Barb. You know, the Deb who also said, " While you may feel that a woman has the choice to kill her baby, the fact remains that it is indeed living, and it is killed in an abortion."
Now, you might feel that I'm jumping to conclusions, but, in my experience, referring to abortion as "killing babies" is a practice that's pretty much exclusive to the antichoice movement. People who truly respect the woman's right to make decisions about her own uterus and pregnancy don't usually drag in emotionally charged terms designed to demonize those who (for whatever reason) feel they must terminate a pregnancy. Hence, I arrived at the conclusion that Deb is antichoice. If I'm wrong, I'm sure she'll correct me.
To answer your other question, I don't recall saying that refusing to pay for abortion equals denying abortion. In fact, I stated very clearly, just a couple of days ago in another post, that those are two separate arguments. But, personally, I think it's wrong to support a two-tiered system, where affluent and well-insured Americans have a full range of health care options, but those who can't get or can't afford insurance must endure whatever restrictions capricious taxpayers choose to put on them. This notion of "I'm the taxpayer, so I get to make all the medical decisions for these people, even though I know absolutely nothing about medicine, and even less about their specific conditions and needs" serves no purpose, other than inflating the egos of those who support such measures.
If you want to discuss this with me any further, I'd like to know where you stand on the issue.
Olivia: You like to deal in facts. Well, I am dealing in facts here. A fetus, baby, infant, whatever term you want to use in your semantic argument, is a living being. Therefore, by definition, destroying that being is killing it. I worked for 3 years on a GYN floor that performed 2nd trimester abortions back when it was still funded by the government. I can't tell you the shock on some of those girls (and most were girls, not women) faces when they realized they did not pass a "blob of tissue" but a recognizable small body. I personally would not have an abortion, though I have often said I would rather the baby be aborted than born then starved or beaten to death before kindergarten. I am NOT antichoice, but I do feel that abortion should be a last resort, in special circumstance, not treated at the same level as having a tooth pulled. And if you talk to anyone who has had an abotion, they will tell you, even if they felt it was their only option, that it haunts them. Choice also includes adequate birth control, or simply abstaing from sexual contact if one does not want to get pregnant. While everyone certainly enjoys sex, and it is a normal and healthy part of life, one does not HAVE to have sex (despite all the "blue balls arguments guys will give.) Abortion has vast psychological issues for the Mom, as well as real medical risks in both the immediate period and later. Don't go assuming you know or understand anything about me, since clearly you haven't a clue!
Well spoken, Deb. Thank you.
Thanks Barb. I try, I really try. But do you sometimes feel you are trapped in a plastic bag, trying to get out? The circular arguements, cleverly designed to sidestep the reality of the situation makes me a little crazy! :P
" ... those who can't get or can't afford insurance must endure whatever restrictions capricious taxpayers choose to put on them."
Capricious? What is capricious in saying that no, we will not pay for everything your little heart desires? Maybe you are misunderstanding the meaning and/or proper use of the word "capricious"?
As for where I stand on the issue, I am pro-life but not anti-abortion. It's something I wouldn't chose for myself because I believe that the blob of tissue is a human being, but I won't make that decision for other women.
One thing the anti-life movement doesn't seem to understand is that if the government stopped funding abortions, the procedure would not end. I have no doubt that Planned Parenthood will still find money to continue their eugenics mandate ... er ... their humanitarian efforts.
I thought Obummer like weed(s).
Yes and his favorite song is... "Pass the dutchie on the left hand side..."
Which maybe proves they are so uncoordinated when they're stoned that they have to direct which side to pass the weed on.
Are we seriously going to bring "god" into this? Let's stick with facts please. And to Olivia, you are hilarious and extremely cocky if you think we could destroy this planet. I didn't figure you for the eco-type. Most of those people are crazier then Glen Beck
*******************************
I'm referring to irresponsible environmental management, David, which most certainly CAN be destructive, especially to people's health.
There's nothing "cocky" or "hilarious" about acknowledging that reality. It's happening right now in many third world countries, and has been for decades. You know, those countries with the weak central governments and lack of social programs that you seem to admire so much.
I’m referring to irresponsible environmental management, David, which most certainly CAN be destructive, especially to people’s health.
There’s nothing “cocky” or “hilarious” about acknowledging that reality. It’s happening right now in many third world countries, and has been for decades. You know, those countries with the weak central governments and lack of social programs that you seem to admire so much.
********************************************************
(Pretty sure I haven't said a damn thing about liking a lack of social programs, only that I wish they were implemented with more efficiency and at lower levels)
It may kill us. It's not going to kill the earth. That is my point. We're just another animal living here. Get over it. People die. The earth will move on, I assure you.
Btw, according to the WHO, the worst third world countries in their environmental management abilities have deaths from toxic hazards in the realm of 400-420 per MILLION. Sorry. No offense, we have bigger things to worry about.
Btw, according to the WHO, the worst third world countries in their environmental management abilities have deaths from toxic hazards in the realm of 400-420 per MILLION. Sorry. No offense, we have bigger things to worry about.
*****************************
Would you mind providing a link to the opinion piece where you read the above claim? Because the one I found for WHO stated specifically that the 420-per-million statistic was related to unintentional poisonings (most typically from pesticides).
In any case, that statistic shows only the tip of the iceberg. Any discussion about the cost to society of failing to hold businesses accountable for polluting would need to include pollution related illnesses and disabilities, such as asthma, COPD, malnutrition (when land is too polluted to serve as much needed farm land), birth defects, certain cancers and so on. Just pointing to a vague statistic about deaths says very little. A person whose death certificate states s/he died of respiratory arrest wouldn't necessarily be considered a casualty of environmental pollution, if environmental pollution wasn't listed on the death certificate as a causative factor of his/her death.
By the way: what is an acceptable percentage of pollution related disabilities, birth defects and deaths, in your opinion? You've already implied that 420 deaths per million is not a problem for you. That's kind of inconsistent with your argument that we shouldn't allow "babies" to be "killed" in utero.
Over half a million living beings killed last year.
By doctors.
41 million americans living in poverty because of the failure of our social programs.
13,200 across every 3rd world nation from toxic hazards.
Seriously? Pick your battle.
Over half a million living beings killed last year.
By doctors.
41 million americans living in poverty because of the failure of our social programs.
13,200 across every 3rd world nation from toxic hazards.
Seriously? Pick your battle.
********************
Translation: "I can't refute a single one of your points, so I'll just reiterate the latest carefully cherry picked and deliberately misleading statistics I heard on AM talk radio."
Sorry, David, but you're grossly oversimplifying and minimizing what is actually a widespread, complex and very destructive process. Here is just one article, which shows why it's so misleading to assume that, if someone hasn't died directly (and only) from exposure to pollution, s/he isn't being affected by it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6063344.stm
Unfortunately, the right wing sources that you apparently go to for all your opinions are heavily supported (and influenced) by industry. And industry would like nothing better than to spend all its time, energy and resources going after short term profits, without bothering to worry about the longterm effect on the environment.
(I enjoyed your naive oversimplification about poverty, too. More on that another time.....)
Lol. I don't go to any right ring sources. I went to google and typed in WHO environmental management deaths and got my data. I don't have a radio in my car unfortunately, so I listen to my ipod with one speaker in, and I'm usually listening to stuff like Flobots, Everclear, or Nine Inch Nails. You're the most brainwashed little servant I think I've ever run into. It must be nice to live in your little world. I unfortunately live in the USA. Feel free to visit sometime. And I have refuted every point you've ever made. You just never like to admit you've been defeated.
Lol. I don’t go to any right ring sources. I went to google and typed in WHO environmental management deaths and got my data. I
***********************
As I already pointed out (which you ignored), you cited only the statistics for deaths directly (and only) related to pesticides.
As I also already pointed out, that doesn't take into account birth defects, illness or disability connected with other types of those or other types of pollutants.
So, even if the statistics are genuine, they don't reflect the total cost in human lives and health of all forms of environmental pollution. Which, of course, is exactly the way certain industries want it.
googling the same thing.. i don't see your number (13200 toxic hazard deaths.. i can't derive that number from the 420/million deaths either)
I see this though http://www.who.int/heli/risks/toxics/chemicals/en/index.html
that's a tsunami-and-a-half of deaths a year. Of course, its another argument entirely, how we'd respond. But i figure we could get within under a magnitude of agreement on the numbers
Over half a million living beings killed last year.
By doctors.
*******************
If you're referring to fetuses, David, then you're being dishonest. Fetuses are not "living beings," although they have the potential to become so. Once again, if you want to make the decisions about the contents of a uterus, grow your own.
*******************
41 million americans living in poverty because of the failure of our social programs.
*******************
That, too, is a dishonest assumption, and an oversimplification of a complex problem. Bear in mind that there are nations with far more extensive social programs than we have here in the U.S., where a significantly smaller percentage of children are born into poverty. You're being played like a violin by political manipulators, and you don't even realize it.
*******************
13,200 across every 3rd world nation from toxic hazards.
*******************
And, once again, you're minimizing and oversimplifying a serious global issue, courtesy of the corporate funded and controlled far right.
*******************
Seriously? Pick your battle.
*******************
I'm doing just that, David. And, right now, the battle I choose is against gullibility and willful ignorance.
While I realize that many would care to forget or overlook it, a fetus is indeed a living being. Past approx 12 weeks they have all the body systems and parts, after 5 months (for the moment) they can live outside the womb with some support. They can and have undergone surgery during gestation, then been returned to the womb to finish their gestation period. You know all this perfectly well. While you may feel that a woman has the choice to kill her baby, the fact remains that it is indeed living, and it is killed in an abortion. To deny that is simply lying to yourself.
While I realize that many would care to forget or overlook it, a fetus is indeed a living being. Past approx 12 weeks they have all the body systems and parts, after 5 months (for the moment) they can live outside the womb with some support. They can and have undergone surgery during gestation, then been returned to the womb to finish their gestation period. You know all this perfectly well. While you may feel that a woman has the choice to kill her baby, the fact remains that it is indeed living, and it is killed in an abortion. To deny that is simply lying to yourself.
***********************
I don't deny that a fetus is killed in an abortion. When a person has gall bladder surgery, the gall bladder is killed. When a person has a toe amputated, that toe is killed. Be that as it may, fetuses don't have civil rights under our Constitution, and aren't likely to get them, since that would create a legal nightmare. So the bottom line is that, if you feel that abortion is a bad thing, I wholeheartedly support your right not to have one.
Whether or not you want your tax dollars going for publicly funded abortions is another story; I can see why you'd object to that if you're morally opposed to abortion. Would you object to, say, a 13 year old girl who was raped by her uncle or an adult neighbor, getting an abortion? Or having it publicly funded? How about if it was a grossly malformed and nonviable fetus? Or are you opposed to any abortions under any circumstances?
A toe or a gall bladder does not meet the definition of a "being." You are arguing for the sake of arguing. In the past, it was considered a legal, constitutional, societal nightmare for minorities and women to be able to vote, to own land in their own names, to have control of their own money and many more. Changes can be made as we become more civilized and informed as to the facts, and there is a will to do so.
A toe or a gall bladder does not meet the definition of a “being.”
********************
"Being" is not a legal term, Deb.
If YOU want to call a fetus a "being," and use that as your rationale for not having an abortion yourself, I'm solidly behind you. But you do not have the right to assign your own terms to someone else's pregnancy, and use them to deny them the right to terminate same. Nor does the government.
" ... you do not have the right to assign your own terms to someone else’s pregnancy, and use them to deny them the right to terminate same. Nor does the government."
Who is saying anything about denying the right to an abortion?
Why is it that "you people" (one of your favorite terms, so don't flame me for it) assume that if the government (AKA the taxpayers) refuses to pay for it, that they are denying it?
I've never understood that kind of thinking. Maybe you can explain?
What am I thinking - of COURSE you can explain.
While I realize that many would care to forget or overlook it, a fetus is indeed a living being. Past approx 12 weeks they have all the body systems and parts, after 5 months (for the moment) they can live outside the womb with some support. They can and have undergone surgery during gestation, then been returned to the womb to finish their gestation period. You know all this perfectly well. While you may feel that a woman has the choice to kill her baby, the fact remains that it is indeed living, and it is killed in an abortion. To deny that is simply lying to yourself.
***********************
I don't deny that a fetus is killed in an abortion. When a person has gall bladder surgery, the gall bladder is killed. When a person has a toe amputated, that toe is killed. Be that as it may, fetuses don't have civil rights under our Constitution, and aren't likely to get them, since that would create a legal nightmare. So the bottom line is that, if you feel that abortion is a bad thing, I wholeheartedly support your right not to have one.
Whether or not you want your tax dollars going for publicly funded abortions is another story; I can see why you'd object to that if you're morally opposed to abortion. Would you object to, say, a 13 year old girl who was raped by her uncle or an adult neighbor, getting an abortion? Or having it publicly funded? How about a grossly malformed and nonviable fetus? Or are you opposed to any abortions under any circumstances?
Abortions under conditions of rape, incest, or endangerment to the mother are already federall funded.
Abortions under conditions of rape, incest, or endangerment to the mother are already federall funded.
********************
That's not what I asked. I asked if you are opposed to abortion under these circumstances, or to having such abortions publicly funded.
(Pretty sure I haven’t said a damn thing about liking a lack of social programs, only that I wish they were implemented with more efficiency and at lower levels)
**********************
No, on another post you recommended that we "privatize everything." Which can only be taken to mean that you're opposed to government sponsored social programs. And the only nations I can think of that have minimal or no government sponsored social programs are those third-world nations, whose people are forced to rely on organized charities, and where the strong regularly devour the weak. (Metaphorically speaking.)
That's pretty funny, no one can possibly know what F-ck Obama means, but in one fell swoop you have "figger'd out" what was meant by "privatize everything." Maybe you should just ask the originator to get the truth?
That's the problem with liberals. Facts are a problem for them. Nice response Olivia.
That’s the problem with liberals. Facts are a problem for them. Nice response Olivia.
*******************
I have no idea which response of mine you're referring to, but I see you're still flinging around stereotypes to beat the band. Just as you did when you assumed that "F*** Obama" meant that the person who created that crop circle message shares YOUR views on abortions and toilets.
That's some fancy assumptions there, based on one hostile, vague and rather trite message written by someone you don't even know.
Probably the one that I am directly replying to. No offense, you're great at being snarky, and you're great at throwing out these infinite lines perpetuated by MSNBC about how "It would be so great if we could do this, and it would be so great if we could do that." You're brainwashed very well and you're very good at utilizing the search function on huffpost but I have yet to see you make a single backed response to any post you've responded to.
Unfortunately, we live in a real world. Money isn't infinite. And to respond to your claims. You may have missed history 101, but we are completely set up differently then any other country with our states having such different laws from one another. And to use your own kind of relentless idiocy against you, the only other entity that even resembles us, the EUROZONE is in even worse shape then we are, because they are us in 10 years.
I wish I could live in your world. I really do. But it's not real.
she's probably referring to the fact that you responded to your own post
"Probably the one that I am directly replying to" seems snarky, too. Your worsening tone probably garners more upvotes, though
I'm just becoming increasingly aware to the temperament of Olivia and beginning to realize she is not as smart as I once thought she was.
I see 2 camps with divergent models of reality
Civilization and economies are hideously complex, and evolve in timeframes that dwarf human lifespans
I don't believe either of you lack intellect
I was less referring to her ideas. I have previously defended her on posts. I was more referring to her style of play. She wants a statistic. You give her said statistic, right off the WHO "environmental hazards and deaths" section. She doesn't like it. Because suddenly an unbiased organization has given up a number she does not like. So she brings in other things into play which have no statistical reference that is able to be looked up to defend her point.
She responds, unfortunately, hardly ever by attacking the actual issue, but by utilizing semantics to her advantage and driving around an issue. As in, an earlier post, where she said that the true quantifiable nature of someone's hedging out "F--k Obama" could not be discovered. I responded satirically with a long list of casual normal republican complaints and insisted that perhaps it was easier to cut it to 9 letters. She then responds in paragraphs slighting me for not understanding the true nature of this man's argument with Obama. Meanwhile, the entire fact that someone wrote "F--k Obama" is lost in the sauce.
I am just frankly sick of dealing with such tactics. I welcomed Olivia at first, because to be honest, one learns much more talking to a person of opposite beliefs, then one does by talking to his fellow kindred. But, honestly, she rarely wants to debate facts, just semantics.
She reminds me a bit of William Jennings Bryan -- all the good arguments were taken; all the bad arguments were taken as well. In order to differentiate, he layered rhetoric on top of the worst arguments. While the rhetoric may be good rhetoric, it is by no means a cogent argument, and when you pare it down to its substance, you only find nuttiness.
That brings out the worst in me, and so for the most part, I refuse to play ball -- reminds me a lot of someone in my life who only has one rule to her mind games -- I lose. If I ever looked like I was winning (or just holding my own), she'd change the rules. Then she'd play 'gotcha', like she won something.
I realized that after she started posting :P
Would have been better to get a tax credit to plant some trees in the woods nearby. Ones that turn color a little earlier than the rest every year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_swastika
The problem with your idea is how much space would it take to plant enough trees to spell "Obummer"?
HOLY LIBTARD CRAP IOTW MAN!!! I was gone for an hour or two and this happens. When did we go from fun mockery of the ass-wipe-in-chief to a serious debate of toilet bowl philosophy?
LOLOLOL!!!!:-)
@hisham, I like you. You find all my (lame) jokes to be funny.
I'm not sure who that says more about, me or you. ;-)
@Warren, thanks for your brevity.
@Olivia, ??????????????????????????????
AC, it says volumes about you and me, may we have 50 more years!
However - Yes I've said things like Michelle Obama looks like a klingon and she is crass. I also reacted positively to that crop circle - not because I don't think it isn't vulgar (It is) but because it really does show how Smericans *really* feel, with no slick news editing behind it.
*************************
Wrong. It shows how SOME Americans feel about him. Once again, you're trying to make a bogus generalization, and I'm not buying it.
I'm glad you used the term "feel" rather than "think," because that's exactly what this is about. Feelings don't rely on facts or logic, and they can be easily manipulated, as the advertising industry and Karl Rove are well aware.
****************************
So These things are in response to Obama and his wife and not because we are somehow programmed from birth to be this way.
****************************
I didn't say you're "programmed from birth." But you are programmed. That much is obvious, considering that you've jumped to the conclusion that that message was bout "Obama and his wife," even though it didn't mention his wife, and even though she holds no official position in politics or government.
****************************
I'd go as far to say the people in the IHTM comment sections are some of the least programmed people I've met.
****************************
Considering that many (not all) of them parrot the same lines and buzzwords, like so many widgets, and show the same logic-free reactions to a situation, and depend on very slanted commentaries (rather than news stories) for their topic of the day, I'd say that you're wrong.
****************************
You also have no idea what I've went through in my life, the ups and downs I've taken that have come to my own, personal beliefs. The decisions I've made towards God, my values and everything in between.
****************************
That doesn't change the fact that you saw a cryptic "F*** Obama" message in a crop circle, and immediately jumped to the conclusion that the person who created it feels exactly as you do about both Obama and his wife.
That indicates either that you're just following the crowd in your feelings toward the Obamas, or that you think he is doing so, or both. And I have no idea why you're bringing your personal life into this. This is about what you CHOSE to say here, and has no bearing on any "ups and downs" in your personal life.
************************************
Yes what I say does show who I am, for the most part. I have shown myself to be a person with a sense of humor that thinks what people say really shows how they look. One of deep faith and deep moral conviction. One that isn't afraid to use comedy as a way to prove a point But it does reflect on you and the POTUS and his wife as well – and those are not good reflections.
***************************
Any time anyone trots out his self-described "deep faith and deep moral conviction," as an excuse for bad-mouthing others, I know I'm looking at religious hypocrisy. Anyone can CLAIM to have "deep moral conviction." It's a lot harder to show it in one's behavior. And, I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any "deep moral conviction" in your eagerness to ridicule and insult a woman who's never done anything to hurt you.
The animosity you see here toward Obama and his wife is a result of hate toward the tyranny they exude.
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."
Thomas Jefferson
The right may have their crass rednecks but the left have far worse, the Godless liberals that think they know it all. They are the ones, the anti-Christs, Satan is using to destroy America, and all mankind as well, through deception. It has been subtle in the past but time is short and the devil knows it. The end is near and then the judgment.
If you're on the right side of the fence you are closer to God than the left side. The left wing liberals wisdom is worldly wisdom. The liberals worship the world and think they have to protect it from man. This world will last longer than the sin, separation from God, which will condemn it. Liberals also preach freedom through the very things God condemns as sin, such as abortion and homosexuality. No one is perfect but I would rather be on the side of God than the side turning people against God. I could go on preaching but I think you probably get the gist of it.
The right may have their crass rednecks but the left have far worse, the Godless liberals that think they know it all. They are the ones, the anti-Christs, Satan is using to destroy America, and all mankind as well, through deception. It has been subtle in the past but time is short and the devil knows it. The end is near and then the judgment.
******************
My boy, you really need to quit swallowing all those bogus stereotypes the right wing media is feeding you. Not all right wingers are "rednecks," nor are all or most liberals "godless." That was a phony generalization put out years ago, to frighten gullible Christians into voting Republican.
*******************
The liberals worship the world and think they have to protect it from man.
******************
No, just from greedy corporations seeking to garner short term profits at the rest of the nation's expense. Did you really think God wants us to pollute the waters, strip mine away the soil and pump unhealthy exhaust into the air, without giving a thought to those who will suffer from it?
******************
This world will last longer than the sin, separation from God, which will condemn it. Liberals also preach freedom through the very things God condemns as sin, such as abortion and homosexuality.
*******************
No, no one is "preaching" abortion or homosexuality, and it doesn't make you look "godly" to repeat such lies. We're merely saying that someone else's sex life and reproductive decisions aren't your business or the government's. If you truly believed that God is omniscient and omnipotent, you'd agree that He doesn't need Washington's help or permission to achieve His will on Earth. ;>)
My boy, you really need to quit swallowing all those bogus stereotypes the right wing media is feeding you. Not all right wingers are “rednecks,” nor are all or most liberals “godless.” That was a phony generalization put out years ago, to frighten gullible Christians into voting Republican.
-----------------------------------
I've been around 58 years and got most of the knowledge I consider important from Church, the Bible, and other books. I can relate what is going on around me to what God said would happen in the last days. Just look at Israel and don't tell me it's all self fulfilling prophecy. Yes David, It is a fact, God is real.
No one frightens me. I vote according to my convictions. The left are the ones really good at frightening voters. Just look how the left leaning MSM demonized Bush, and still present the failure Obama as a Messiah.
***************************
No, just from greedy corporations seeking to garner short term profits at the rest of the nation’s expense. Did you really think God wants us to pollute the waters, strip mine away the soil and pump unhealthy exhaust into the air, without giving a thought to those who will suffer from it?
---------------------------------------
God must have known there would be internal combustion engines and the need for oil. There certainty is enough to fill the need. I'm not saying we should be irresponsible, but I see cap and trade and other extremes the left propose as over reaching.
******************************
No, no one is “preaching” abortion or homosexuality, and it doesn’t make you look “godly” to repeat such lies. We’re merely saying that someone else’s sex life and reproductive decisions aren’t your business or the government’s. If you truly believed that God is omniscient and omnipotent, you’d agree that He doesn’t need Washington’s help or permission to achieve His will on Earth. ;>)
-----------------------------------------
How did I lie? Does the left not support the freedom to kill babies in the womb and demand the right to teach our children that it's OK to be homosexual? It is my business when tax dollars are used. It is my business as a Christian to see my children are not brainwashed with liberal beliefs in school. God gave man a choice to come to Him through Christ. The world rejects Him and the result is not His will. Satan is the one that comes to steal, kill, and destroy. God's Kingdom will come and His will will be done on earth as it is in heaven. When that happens sin will be destroyed and for those that seek righteousness through faith in Christ He promises eternal life.
No, no one is “preaching” abortion or homosexuality, and it doesn’t make you look “godly” to repeat such lies. We’re merely saying that someone else’s sex life and reproductive decisions aren’t your business or the government’s. If you truly believed that God is omniscient and omnipotent, you’d agree that He doesn’t need Washington’s help or permission to achieve His will on Earth. ;>)
—————————————–
How did I lie? Does the left not support the freedom to kill babies in the womb and demand the right to teach our children that it’s OK to be homosexual?
*******************
No. Many (not all) liberals support women's right to manage their uteruses as they see fit. (By the way, "babies" are not the same thing as fetuses, any more than a handful of acorns is the same thing as an oak forest.)
No liberal, as far as I know, is advocating that teachers express opinions (either pro or con) on homosexuality to their students----just that they be able to answer objective questions about it, without some zealot accusing them of trying to "recruit" students to some imaginary "homosexual lifestyle."
**********************
It is my business when tax dollars are used.
**********************
Wrong. I think you must be confusing the United States of America with Burger King, and the concept of "taxpayer" with that of "customer."
Tax dollars are used to provide medical assistance to many Americans, but you still don't have the right to pry into their medical records, or dictate what their medical decisions should be. If you were to try that in my ER, you'd be escorted out immediately, for attempting to violate federal (HIPAA) laws. And the security guards (or police, if you kicked up a fuss about being asked to leave) wouldn't be the least impressed with the fact that you pay taxes, or that some of your tax dollars are used for other people's health care.
***********************
It is my business as a Christian to see my children are not brainwashed with liberal beliefs in school. God gave man a choice to come to Him through Christ. The world rejects Him and the result is not His will. Satan is the one that comes to steal, kill, and destroy. God’s Kingdom will come and His will will be done on earth as it is in heaven. When that happens sin will be destroyed and for those that seek righteousness through faith in Christ He promises eternal life.
**************************
Yes, well, I think when that happens, Jesus will have some choice words for those self-professed Christians who do nothing but bad-mouth everyone who doesn't conform to THEIR expectations. In fact, I think He already did:
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
(Matthew 7:1-5)
Fortunately, Jesus isn't nearly as fastidious and critical as you seem to be.
No. Many (not all) liberals support women’s right to manage their uteruses as they see fit. (By the way, “babies” are not the same thing as fetuses, any more than a handful of acorns is the same thing as an oak forest.)
No liberal, as far as I know, is advocating that teachers express opinions (either pro or con) on homosexuality to their students—-just that they be able to answer objective questions about it, without some zealot accusing them of trying to “recruit” students to some imaginary “homosexual lifestyle.”
-----------------------------
To me fetuses = babies. Acorns argument = apples to oranges.
Do a search on Google for "liberals push to teach homosexuality in grade school", without quotes, and follow a few of the links. You will then know what I'm talking about. But then, I think you already do.
*****************************
Wrong. I think you must be confusing the United States of America with Burger King, and the concept of “taxpayer” with that of “customer.”
Tax dollars are used to provide medical assistance to many Americans, but you still don’t have the right to pry into their medical records, or dictate what their medical decisions should be. If you were to try that in my ER, you’d be escorted out immediately, for attempting to violate federal (HIPAA) laws. And the security guards (or police, if you kicked up a fuss about being asked to leave) wouldn’t be the least impressed with the fact that you pay taxes, or that some of your tax dollars are used for other people’s health care.
-------------------------------
Liberals are pushing for taxpayer funded abortions. A quick google search will confirm this also.
Killing babies in the womb is not something I want the government funding (Period)
*******************************
It is my business as a Christian to see my children are not brainwashed with liberal beliefs in school. God gave man a choice to come to Him through Christ. The world rejects Him and the result is not His will. Satan is the one that comes to steal, kill, and destroy. God’s Kingdom will come and His will will be done on earth as it is in heaven. When that happens sin will be destroyed and for those that seek righteousness through faith in Christ He promises eternal life.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, well, I think when that happens, Jesus will have some choice words for those self-professed Christians who do nothing but bad-mouth everyone who doesn’t conform to THEIR expectations. In fact, I think He already did:
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
(Matthew 7:1-5)
Fortunately, Jesus isn’t nearly as fastidious and critical as you seem to be.
--------------------------------
I see you like to quote the Bible. Lets look a little closer at the context.
Judge not, that ye be not judged. Matthew 7:1
- Jesus himself tells us that we are to judge men by their fruits. (See Mt 7:15-20.) What he designs to prohibit is rash, uncharitable judgments, a fault-finding spirit, a disposition to condemn without examination of charges.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. MATTHEW 7:1-5
- Clearly, it is hypocritical judgment that this Scripture condemns. (Look at verse 6, and 13-15 to see that Christ actually instructs them to make judgments!) A hypocritical judgment is judging something for something of which you are also guilty - LIKE TELLING ME NOT TO JUDGE WHEN YOU ARE JUDGING ME! This passage means the opposite of what hypocrites often interpret it to mean! Jesus' point is for hypocrites to pluck the beam of sin out of their own eye so that they can see clearly to cast the mote out of their neighbor's eye.
Let's look at some other Scriptures...
JOHN 7:14: "Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment."
LUKE 12:57: "Yea, and why not even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?"
PSALM 37:30: "The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment."
PROVERBS 31:9: "Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy."
LUKE 17:3: "Take heed... If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him."
LEVITICUS 19:15-17: "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor. Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbor: I am the Lord. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him."
EZEKIEL 22:2 & 23:36: "Now, thou son of man, wilt thou judge, wilt thou judge the bloody city? Yea, thou shalt show her all her abominations... The Lord said moreover unto me, Son of man, wilt thou judge Aholah and Aholibah? Yea, declare unto them their abominations."
ISAIAH 58:1: "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew My people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins."
MATTHEW 3:2,7: John the Baptist preaching, "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"
MATTHEW 23: Jesus publicly rebuked the hypocrites, "Woe unto you... hypocrites!...ye blind guides...fools...full of extortion and excess...whited sepulchres...full of hypocrisy and iniquity...Woe unto you...Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"
ACTS 7:51: Deacon Stephen said to the mob that ended up stoning him, "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in hearts and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." (Read the whole chapter - No fear-of-man patty cake here!)
ACTS 13:10: The Apostle Paul says to a man who hindered the Gospel, "O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?"
ACTS 8:20-23: Here the Apostle Peter severely rebukes a baby Christian who commits one sin: "Thy money perish with thee... Thy heart is not right in the sight of God.Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitter-ness, and in the bond of iniquity."
I CORINTHIANS 2:15; 6:2-3: "He that is spiritual judgeth all things... Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? How much more things that pertain to this life?"
JOHN 3:18-19: "He that believeth on Him (JESUS) is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already,because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
JOHN 12:48: JESUS CHRIST said, "He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."
***It is God that sets the standard and passes the judgment. We simply pass on the information.
Olivia wrote: "Tax dollars are used to provide medical assistance to many Americans, but you still don’t have the right to pry into their medical records, or dictate what their medical decisions should be. "
No prying needed, Olivia. Medicaid (and Medicare, for that matter) routinely denies payment for procedures that are not covered. And they have even been known to be HIPAA compliant from time to time (that's a joke, so please don't respond with a lengthy tome).
ICD-9 and CPT codes are itemized on the HICFA and certain codes are nonreimbursable. Therapeutic abortions could be added to the list of procedures not covered. However, that would require political will.
Since we all know that political will is an oxymoron, the same effect can be achieved much more easily. Just cut reimbursement to a level that makes performing the procedure financially unfeasible. There will certainly continue to be some providers who will agree to perform these procedures at a loss, but at least the taxpayer's contribution will be greatly decreased.
And before you rush off to call me a racist, bigot and Christian, I am NOT saying that I agree or disagree with taxpayer funded abortions. I'm just stating the facts, Ma'am.
This method of "savings" has already been implemented in other specialities. The most egregious example that I can think of off hand is what is happening with Medicare and cardiology. Reimbursement has been cut so drastically that more and more providers are unable to accept Medicare patients.
The most distressing result of this is that elderly patients relying on Medicare are left without proper care. Kinda sounds like a round-about way of achieving death squads, doesn't it? Brilliant, in a twisted Dr. Kavorkian sort of way.
Olivia wrote: “Tax dollars are used to provide medical assistance to many Americans, but you still don’t have the right to pry into their medical records, or dictate what their medical decisions should be. ”
No prying needed, Olivia. Medicaid (and Medicare, for that matter) routinely denies payment for procedures that are not covered.
************************
That's true of insurance companies, too. But it doesn't endow their other individual customers (whose premium payments indirectly pay for my medical needs) with the right to pry into my records, or dictate my medical decisions. Which is what the original poster was suggesting. He didn't say "It is the American people's business", but "MY business."
****************************
And before you rush off to call me a racist, bigot and Christian, I am NOT saying that I agree or disagree with taxpayer funded abortions. I’m just stating the facts, Ma’am.
*****************************
I had no intention of calling you names, and I have no idea what religion (if any) you follow. But I am a little puzzled by the way you seem to dive into these discussions like a hornet.....without ever committing yourself to a specific view or belief related to them. Do you not have political views? Or are you just uncomfortable expressing them here?
" Do you not have political views? Or are you just uncomfortable expressing them here?"
I express my views regularly, as the readers of this site are well aware.
But I won't discuss my opinions with you because you don't have any intention of entering into a conversation. Conversation involves give and take. You just want to be right.
Which is tedious at best, boring at worst.
Sorry kiddo. That's just how it goes.
" No, no one is “preaching” abortion or homosexuality ... We’re merely saying that someone else’s sex life and reproductive decisions aren’t your business or the government’s"
So I'm thinking that you missed the photo of the rainbow flag flapping gayly under the Stars and Stripes in front of the Fed building, eh?
I agree with you that everyone else's sex lives are none of my business, so why do they keep throwing it in my face "LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME! Me and my genitalia are the center of the universe!"
And before you accuse me of being a homophobe, bigot, racist and puppy-kicker, I have a gay cousin who is the sweetest kindest person in the world, and I have had business dealings with gay couples who are in every sense of the word just your ordinary old married couples. So please spare me your tap dancing.
” No, no one is “preaching” abortion or homosexuality … We’re merely saying that someone else’s sex life and reproductive decisions aren’t your business or the government’s”
So I’m thinking that you missed the photo of the rainbow flag flapping gayly under the Stars and Stripes in front of the Fed building, eh?
I agree with you that everyone else’s sex lives are none of my business, so why do they keep throwing it in my face “LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME! Me and my genitalia are the center of the universe!”
********************
Why would you assume that flying a rainbow flag has anything to do with wanting you to look at someone's genitalia?
"Why would you assume that flying a rainbow flag has anything to do with wanting you to look at someone’s genitalia"
I would have expected no less from you, Olivia.
I'll go slow. Don't worry, I'm getting used to it.
Did you happen to notice that there were two paragraphs in my comment?
The flag comment was in response to your first statement ("No, no one is “preaching” abortion or homosexuality …").
The second paragraph is in response to your second sentence - I know, I'm moving kinda fast now, but try to keep up.
Your comment was "We're merely saying that someone else’s sex life and reproductive decisions aren't your business or the government’s”.
I agreed with you.
When you come to, reread that last sentence. I agreed with you.
I know you hate it when that happens. It seems to confound and confuse you because we surely have no common ground, you being the enlightened compassionate one and me being a dumb ol' right-winger and all.
But there you have it.
I hope that helps.
Why would you assume that flying a rainbow flag has anything to do with wanting you to look at someone’s genitalia”
I would have expected no less from you, Olivia.
I’ll go slow. Don’t worry, I’m getting used to it.
Did you happen to notice that there were two paragraphs in my comment?
The flag comment was in response to your first statement (“No, no one is “preaching” abortion or homosexuality …”).
The second paragraph is in response to your second sentence – I know, I’m moving kinda fast now, but try to keep up.
Your comment was “We’re merely saying that someone else’s sex life and reproductive decisions aren’t your business or the government’s”.
I agreed with you.
When you come to, reread that last sentence. I agreed with you.
I know you hate it when that happens. It seems to confound and confuse you because we surely have no common ground, you being the enlightened compassionate one and me being a dumb ol’ right-winger and all.
But there you have it.
I hope that helps.
********************
None of your above comment is relevant to the question I asked.
Let's try again, without all the argumentation and sneering taunts: Why would you assume that flying a rainbow flag has anything to do with wanting you to look at someone’s genitalia?
"None of your above comment is relevant to the question I asked."
I can't talk any slower, Olivia. Figure it out yourself.
Reproductive decisions?
No one is telling you to have a baby. Get birth control.
All we are saying is we don't want you killing something that is a living organism that will blossom into a human.
No one is telling you to have a baby. Get birth control.
***********************
And no one is telling you to stick your nose into the uteruses of women who don't want it there. Grow your own, if you want to micromanage a uterus.
***********************
All we are saying is we don’t want you killing something that is a living organism that will blossom into a human.
************************
And all I am saying is that the woman whose uterus houses that living organism (and who knows more you do about the circumstances of her pregnancy) is better qualified than you to make decisions about it.
When you try to dictate what's best for her, you're suggesting that you're better equipped than she is to make wise or rational decisions about her body. And not only is that illogical----it's also incredibly arrogant.
Ok, then how about we just start imposing criminal charges for abortions. Say 2-3 years? Manslaughter would seem to fit.
"All we are saying is we don’t want you killing something that is a living organism that will blossom into a human."
Even if it grows up to be a liberal.
Wait a minute, now. There might be SOME disqualifications.
I absolutely agree Barb. I am not interested in what you do in your bedroom, no matter what or who is your choice of partner, or even if it is just you. As long as no one is hurt, and it is truly consensual, I DON'T CARE. So don't tell me, please. Some things should remain private and in my opinion, one's sexual practices fall into that category.
Are we seriously going to bring "god" into this? Let's stick with facts please. And to Olivia, you are hilarious and extremely cocky if you think we could destroy this planet. I didn't figure you for the eco-type. Most of those people are crazier then Glen Beck.
We could not destroy this planet if we wanted to. Anyone who thinks otherwise is pushing an agenda. This world would take us out in a heartbeat if we ever truly began destroying her; and equilibrium would once again be established.
Olivia wrote: "That doesn’t change the fact that you saw a cryptic “F*** Obama” message in a crop circle, and immediately jumped to the conclusion that the person who created it feels exactly as you do about both Obama and his wife."
Cryptic? LOL! Dear lord, Olivia, what do YOU think the creator of this "cryptic" message meant by it?
Olivia wrote: “That doesn’t change the fact that you saw a cryptic “F*** Obama” message in a crop circle, and immediately jumped to the conclusion that the person who created it feels exactly as you do about both Obama and his wife.”
Cryptic? LOL! Dear lord, Olivia, what do YOU think the creator of this “cryptic” message meant by it?
***********************
Other than that it's an anti-Obama message, it's impossible to tell, without asking him directly.
But suppose YOU tell us, without trying to project your own feelings into it, why you think he was referring to Michelle Obama, as well as to her husband. Because, if you're taking issue with my previous statement, that's what you're arguing.
"But suppose YOU tell us, without trying to project your own feelings into it, why you think he was referring to Michelle Obama, as well as to her husband. Because, if you’re taking issue with my previous statement, that’s what you’re arguing."
Michelle Obama? When did I say anything about the First Lady? You are imagining things again, Olivia.
But let's see if I can answer your question. What did the artist mean when he carved the cryptic message "F-ck obama"?
Oh wow, I see what you mean. Was it meant as a verb, adverb, adjective? Metaphorically? Transitively? Lustfully? Did he want to be on top? Go bareback? Puzzling, indeed.
So tell me, Olivia, if I said "F-ck Olivia", how would you interpret that? Would you project your own feelings into it? Would you scratch your head and say, "Gee, I wonder what she meant by that ...?"
One thing I know for sure is that if I did say, "F-ck Olivia" (which I never would, of course) you would haunt me for the rest of my life asking what I meant by that.
Sometimes "f-ck you" just means "f-ck you".
“But suppose YOU tell us, without trying to project your own feelings into it, why you think he was referring to Michelle Obama, as well as to her husband. Because, if you’re taking issue with my previous statement, that’s what you’re arguing.”
Michelle Obama? When did I say anything about the First Lady? You are imagining things again, Olivia.
But let’s see if I can answer your question. What did the artist mean when he carved the cryptic message “F-ck obama”?
Oh wow, I see what you mean. Was it meant as a verb, adverb, adjective? Metaphorically? Transitively? Lustfully? Did he want to be on top? Go bareback? Puzzling, indeed.
So tell me, Olivia, if I said “F-ck Olivia”, how would you interpret that? Would you project your own feelings into it? Would you scratch your head and say, “Gee, I wonder what she meant by that …?”
One thing I know for sure is that if I did say, “F-ck Olivia” (which I never would, of course) you would haunt me for the rest of my life asking what I meant by that.
Sometimes “f-ck you” just means “f-ck you”.
*************************
Translation: "Oops. I forgot to read what you were actually saying before I jumped in to refute it."
You seem to do that a lot, don't you?
"Translation: “Oops. I forgot to read what you were actually saying before I jumped in to refute it. You seem to do that a lot, don’t you?"
Translation: "Oops. She got me again. She does that a lot, doesn't she?"
Translation: "f-ck you"
Atta girl Barb! Sometimes the truth is just that, the truth.
LOL.... this is hilarious.
Yeah I didn't think it was that cryptic either. I mean unless you can't read I suppose...
Yeah I didn’t think it was that cryptic either. I mean unless you can’t read I suppose…
*************************
THat's because you're in the habit of jumping to conclusions, without getting the facts.
Yes, I know the writer of this message feels hostility toward Obama, but it's not possible to say why (or whether the hostilty extends to the First Lady) without asking him.
But, hey, that would mean having to deal with facts and logic, and who needs those when you've got emotional outbursts and wild guesses, right?
So, what you're saying is the man should have made a crop circle that says "I dislike the liberal march towards European style socialism and the crippling debt that comes with it. I also dislike such liberal and progressive policies such as Cap n Trade, Unions, a ridiculous tax code, CFL light bulbs, 1.9 liter flush toilets, and abortion."
Is that what he should have done, because honestly, I think that would have taken awhile and he didn't want to put that much thought into it.
So, what you’re saying is the man should have made a crop circle that says “I dislike the liberal march towards European style socialism and the crippling debt that comes with it. I also dislike such liberal and progressive policies such as Cap n Trade, Unions, a ridiculous tax code, CFL light bulbs, 1.9 liter flush toilets, and abortion.”
Is that what he should have done, because honestly, I think that would have taken awhile and he didn’t want to put that much thought into it.
**********************
And, again, why are you assuming that the person (we don't know if it was a man) who created that message subscribes to all the views you listed here?
It sounds to me as if you're doing some more stereotyping---but, this time, you're stereotyping your own political faction. Do you have some reason for assuming that all far right wing people have cookie-cutter values and priorities.....right down to wanting to see government regulate the contents of women's uteruses, and having identical taste in toilets???? Curious.
You are assuming he does not know the individual who made the crop circle and you have no evidence in your list of websites to back up that assumption. You are also assuming that the person involved does NOT share David's beliefs. Again, no evidence for that assumption. When I commented that I did not vote straight party lines, I was accused of being completely out of line, because YOU felt I should vote one party if I had any kind of organized thought process to my beliefs. But here, you accuse Davis of assuming "all far right wingers" have cookie cutter values and priorities. Make up your mind, Olivia, and quit changeing the arguement to maintain an opposing view.
being succinct is a good thing. He pretty much encapsulates all that thought through a two word phrase. What isn't to like about that, ya know?
heh looks like I've touched a couple of nerves.
Ah well - have a good one Olivia. You are clueless in a lot of ways but I hope you don't stay that way the rest of your life. I could go point by point through this and show how you are wrong but... I have a life. I kind of think doing so is pointless - those reading this see my responses and see your rebuttals. I will let them decide who to believe.
I will say this - except for a very small minority I don't believe it will be you.
You hit the nail right on the head there Olivia...all us backwards ass gun totin' conservative christian assholes should get our heads out of our asses and use logic to make our decisions just like you. Well count me out on that...your logic makes no sense.
You used the word "ass" twice. That means you are not a moral person so your arguement is null and void, heh.
I cannot tell a lie.....Kimmy did it!
this is a "CRAP,CIRCLE"!
this could be a politican;s frightmare from,,WE,THE PEOPLE!
HOPE AND CHANGE,,MY ASS!
all,politican's need to go back and graduate from kindergarten and show us their paper's!
this is a “CRAP,CIRCLE”!
this could be a politican;s frightmare from,,WE,THE PEOPLE!
HOPE AND CHANGE,,MY ASS!
all,politican’s need to go back and graduate from kindergarten and show us their paper’s!
********************
And you might well go back to school to review proper use of apostrophes and commas.......
Can this person be banned? Or at least be taught to express himself in a way that doesn't give me eye twitches? Maybe set up an age or non-drunk requirement?
Nope, a non-drunk policy will not work for me. If not for beer I would have been banned long ago for being rude to assholes that deserve rudeness.
Nope, a non-drunk policy will not work for me. If not for beer I would have been banned long ago for being rude to assholes that deserve rudeness.
**********************
You depend on beer to keep your impulses under control?
That explains a lot.
meh.
I usually take a gander, and depending upon the level of froth & rage, rank it from 1 to 10.
[shrugs shoulders] what else can you do? No laws against anger, and it wasn't racial -- just angry & unclear.
I do like the non-drunk requirement idea, although it'd severely cut into my leisure time posting...
alot of libtards on here today!
Clearly aliens are speaking truth to power!