In all my communities I allow for advertising so long as it fits the theme of the place. However, what a lot of people tend to miss is that I have an actual advertising community that they can advertise absolutely anything in.Community·Crack
So I'm only posting this to my own comms...because it would be silly to advertise this in itself and to make sure you all know.We use tags!
In no way is there any real chance I'd vote for McCain as President of these United States. Any and all arguments I'd have for him are all countered by the fact that he chose Sarah Palin, who for all intents and purposes is the anti·christ. However, they've never taken away from me that one thing I cherish most...
...my evening television programs.
This past Wednesday Barack Obama took over primetime television channeles for a sort of infomercial speel to support his campaign. I missed Bones, Knight Rider, Life, & Law & Order...
...yes, some of them come on at the same time (and Knight Rider ain't the best of shows) but GODDAMIT all to Hell!
There is no excuse for this. There is no way I can regain what I've lost. I am in pain.
Now I'm not sure who I should vote for.
Such a betrayal...
8:19 PM 10/12/08 · Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. That's the popular view right? Along with that, the American Civil War was fought to free the slaves. There are those that say this is not the actual case. That the Civil War was actually fought to prevent the Southern states from breaking free of the United States.
Lots of people hold to this, the not freeing the slaves bit in favor of actually just stopping the Southern states from breaking free. Because that's what the war was fought for. However I've always seen a basic flaw in this.
See, the Southern states only tried to break free because they didn't want to lose their rights to own slaves.
Basically, the Civil War was fought just to free the slaves.
That whole breaking away thing was just a side effect.
xposted to Naughty·lil·Devils
, & The·Argument·Clinic10:30 AM 10/8/08 ·
One of the arguments for Proposition 8 is that if it doesn't pass then churches run the risk of being taxed and due to their discrimination against homosexuality they, and their officilas, run the risk of being sued. In the first, I've never understood why they were never taxed in the first place...and certainly now with the economy being such a mess I can certainly see benefits for their vast funds being directed to help others rather than largely horded.
Yeah, sure, churches use their income to help others. I don't doubt that entirely but when was the last time you were in a church that didn't look all shiny and beautiful and lovely inside? They seem to be spending much more on themselves than the people they're supposed to serve.
As to the 2nd worry, good. Being a Black American I'm well aware of the discrimination my own have had to suffer through both for being what we are as well as when we engaged in mixed marriages, both early on and to this day in some places. I don't believe, certainly can't recall, any cases where those couples even tried to bring legal action into the mix for any number of reasons...so if gay couples wanted to sue for churches refusing to do as they'd do for anyone else than I think they deserve their day in court.
You will note that unlike a lot of businesses, churches do not have a sign inside them that states "reserve the right to refuse service to any we choose to". That would be counterproductive to the purpose churches are supposed to serve.
11:09 AM 10/1/08 · As much as I enjoy poking fun at McCain & Palin, could almost make a living off it if someone would pay me, there are other matters to be considered. That'd be the Propositions. Now I've really only heard about 2 of these so far, on the news, without doing any real research on them but one of them seems to be really key right now.
An oversimplification would be that if it passes then homosexuals will lose the right to marry. If it doesn't then they may continue and, with any luck, the ability for them to do so will be able to spread wider. More locations, more happy couples. Or, to put it another way, I think gays should have just as much right to be potentially miserable as everybody else.
I've really only seen two commercials on this particular proposition so far. One, which fortunately hasn't been getting as much screen time, makes this whole bit that if gays are allowed to marry then it will be taught in our schools and it will be in our churches and a few other vague references that personally I think would be a good thing.
The only other is in favor of it and I like how it presents itself. An older couple, old but not what I'd call elderly, going on about how they've always treated their children well and fairly. How that if Proposition 8 passes then a couple of their children's marriages will be declared invalid and how that's wrong.
When I was a much littler me, my parents taught me about marriage. They said that when two people loved each other they formed this perfect union and made a pledge to one another of their love before the world and God. Now it's possible they meant a man and a woman but they didn't say that. Either way, they're definitely for gay marriage now...
...and frankly, I've never understood any reason as to why it was supposed to be wrong.
In my eyes there's 4 types of gay person. There are those born to it who either embrace it or choose not to live that way for any number of reasons; that's 2 right there. There's straight people, as though implying anyone else is crooked, who choose to become gay. Then there's ye olde school and lesser used anymore definition of an exceptionally happy person.
There are those of a more religious bent that say that homosexuality is evil and gays are a blight on the world or an affront against God. Personally I think they're idiots. Simply put, it would seem to me that if God was so against gay people then the Big Guy would stop making them.
Anyway, that's my 25¢ on the matter.
xposted to Power·to·the·People
, & Weirdfolks11:25 PM 8/18/08 ·
According to the top universities across the United States...binge drinking, alcoholic poisoning, and just the general consumption of alcohol is way out of control and far too common these days. The news tonight (Monday) reported that 100 universities across the nation have come to a united stance regarding this and how to best deal with the situation.
They want to reduce the legal drinking age to 18 years of age.
This makes absolutely no sense. Only thing that will likely result from this is that there will be even more of these problems than there are now.
Oddly the 2nd most popular idea was to raise the taxes on alcohol, which apparently have been at the same level the last 16 years. However, this particular idea is not as popular as the one I presented at the beginning of this.
10:13 AM 8/12/08 · I forget the name of the organization but something or other representing the handicapped of the United States are planning on boycotting and demanding changes be made to Tropical Thunder because apparently it's a massive insult to anyone that's handicapped. The people that made the movie are refusing to make any changes and frankly, I can't see why they should.
Got this off radio 740 AM KCBS if you wanna poke around for online resources.
Not having seen the movie as yet, but having caught virtually every trailer...I'm a bit stumped. The only person I've seen with any disability is played by Nick Nolte, in a relatively minor role as the man that wrote the script that got the "movie" started to begin with. He doesn't seem that dim. The example used in the report was Robert Downey Jr saying "I'm a dude disguised as a dude that's playing another dude" which I'm assuming this association is using as sort of stab at being metnally defective...
...which doesn't make sense as the guy's role is an Australian playing an African American role.
Maybe I'm not supposed to understand these things.
xposted to Power·to·the·People
& The·Argument·Clinic9:31 AM 7/30/08 ·
The head of the Pittsburgh Cancer Study recently was quoted as saying that there's enough information available about cellphones to state for certain that parents should not allow their children to have them. This isn't news exactly, there's been information stating that cellphones were potentially cancer causing since shortly after they first came out...
...so then why are they still out there in increasing numbers?
Cigarettes & Alcohol.
It is an established fact that both Cigarettes & Alcohol are bad for us. One causes varying kinds of cancer and emphezima (bad bad bad breathing issues) and the other rots our livers and makes people crash their cars into each other on our roads. However, we still have Cigarettes & Alcohol and that's because they make so much money. A brief bit of American history that showed the realization of the badness of Alcohol, it was made illegal...
...ultimately it was decided that it should be made legal again given how much crime erupted to make it available again.
Strangely, this logic hasn't hit a number of other illegal substances. Like narcotics, which if you were unaware...alcohol is one of these too.
Cigarettes & Alcohol are still legal and in abundance, killing people daily, because they make money. We're killing off our atmosphere by burning fossil fuels yet that's legal even though there's healthier alternatives. There's actually fact to that urban legend about a car, that was made a couple decades back, that ran on water...but that would've stolen money from the oil industry so they killed it off fast.
It's not about what's good for us.
It's about what makes money.
Most of the people that support this stuff, that are in power positions, are going to die not too long into the distant future (possibly taking the rest of us along with them by killing the planet) and probably figure the more money they can have, before they kick the bucket, the better. Anyone left after they're gone...well, they're gone at that point so why should they care?
Let's see all that fundage keep them cool when they're burning in Hell!
Cellphones make money and damn the consequences.
...or "this is the kind of thing I think about when I have insomnia".
It's really not as far fetched as you might think. Also, it does lend itself to why there have been so many arguments and fights between Iron Man & Captain America; the fact this came into my head while thinking about my Cap community had nothing to do with this. It's just, the man takes such a stand against so many free thinking ideas that his falling in step with the superhuman registraction act that led to the Civil War and really...it seem to all go towards him being a communist.
Okay, really, it doesn't have to make sense.
Let's go with appearnace. Contrary to the origin displayed in the movie, Stark was actuall in Viet Nam when he was injured and captured and made his first armor in order to escape. At the time he went with a basic gray and while this may've been due to a lack of available paint, it also sort of gives you the sense that his popular view of America was damaged and had bucled from it's positive stance. Then he comes back to the United States and upgrades to an all yellow armor which may've subconciously been a slam against all people of Asian decent...
...not a view I share but comics many years back, in a very non·PC standard, tended to display anyone from Asia...or more specifically from China...as having yellow skin. Really quite sad but humans tend to express some forms of prejudice in subtle ways.
Mocing right along: Eventually Iron Man took on the more classic red and yellow look and despite several upgrades over the years he pretty much stuck with that color scheme. There may be many reasons why the added red came into play, don't pretend to know any of them, but it's interesting to me that one particular flag shared this same color scheme at the time.
The most popular flag of Russia, the good ol' USSR! Quite possibly the largest face of communism of that time. Yes, they're not communist now but at the time he switched to the red & gold they sure were.
I think not!
text in italics ganked from Whitney
:The California Supreme Court has announced that they will release their ruling on same sex marriage tomorrow (5/15) morning. The Court will post their decision online at 10:00 am. The anticipation in the community is palpable. Whatever the outcome, tomorrow promises to be an historic day.My Turn:
Relatively speaking if the judgement of the courts comes down as it usually does ("you still cannot be married but may have civil unions") then I'd like to officially nominate the day as National Kick Judges In de Booty Day!
When I first enquired what exactly marriage was, inquisitive lil' thing that I was, my parents told me that went two people lvoed one antoher they often would desire a more permanent union. Now, it's possible they actually meant to say "a man and a woman" but they didn't; even if they thought that way bakc then they certainly don't now...
...and as to permanent, let's just say I think that gay people deserve to be just as miserable as straight ones :P
I'm all for gay marriage. Really can't see anything wrong with is so I hope this decision (1 more hour to go) goes in their favor. Only 2 pressing arguments I ever hear, everytime this comes up, is that gay marriage goes against God and it's not natural.
To the first I usually respond that if de Big Guy was so opposed to homosexuals than clearly It would stop making them...as I'm of the mind that while there are those that choose the path, there's also those that're born to it.
As to the against nature one? Please! There's a tonnage of species on this planet that'll boink just about any gender if the mood suits them, not even of their own species in some cases. You think dogs much care the gender of the leg of the person they're humping? Off the top of my head I know that chimps specifically and many other apes, closest species to humans, will bang just about any gender that comes there way (no pun intended). rats do it too as do dolphins. Hell, anyone that's seen Jurassic Park
knows that frogs are nature's favorite little transgenders and, after poking around (not to be taken literally) a bit I've found this is true of a lot of amphibians as well.
So gay marriage is fine by me. More power to 'em!this will likely be xposted liberally
...and it was featured on the news this morning.
xposted to Power·to·the·People
& The·Argument·Clinic5:04 AM 3/18/08 ·
By and large, I don't have any huge issues with the Right to Bear Arms. Personally I'm not a fan of guns and have no intention of ever owning one. This may become an issue if I get married someday and de lady love wishes to own one...but not in my house.
She can have an axe!
Not a year goes by that I don't hear about some kid finding their parents' gun and either shooting themself or someone in their rough age range.
Criminals are still getting guns fairly easily.
See, I don't mind people having them...but there should be something of a better screening process involved. People that either do, or will, have children should be held to a higher standard. They should at least be required to teach their offspring basic gun safety...even if it's "never touch this"...
...this whole hide it in the shoebox at the back of the closet
thang is clearly not working.
Still, the best idea I've heard remains that one I got off the last season of The West Wing
. People should be allowed to have guns...but not bullets. There's nothing in the statute that says you have the right to ammunition. Granted, this wouldn't really deter a hardened criminal (they could probably steal some) but at least a lot less kids would be shooting people accidentally.
Might even cut down on the rate of school shootings.
Anyway, that's my 2¢. I'll be sticking with my right to bear arms by not bearing any.
|March 12th, 2008
|just a quick little thing before I get into this...
|chrisians, christianity, demi-gods, dictionaries, egyptians, end of days, garfield, god, god of the jews, jesus, jews, judaism, messiah, movies, pantheons, polytheism, the crusades, the devil, the spanish inquisition, transmogrification|
...I don't actually believe what you're about to read. It's an interesting little thought that wandered into my head a few months back and I just kept putting off actually writing it up. Till now anyway.
No idea why.8:25 PM 3/11/08 ·
If I have any one failing (DON'T YOU SAY IT!) it's that I watch an unholy (yay subtext) amount of movies. A rather popular theme among some of the more vaguely religious ones is "the greatest trick the Devil ever played was convincing humanity that he does not exist". I've heard this in a bunch of different movies, though only End of Days
comes to mind right now, and it's the kinda thing that makes a mind as warped as mine wonder...
...was that really the greatest trick?
Polytheist by philosophy, there are certain patterns to religions and the pantheons they follow. Granted, I'm not sure the term "pantheon" actually applies to monotheistic religions but I'm lacking another word to use right now so let's apply it unless one of you knows the singular.
Hmmm, just consulted my Garfield Dictionary (if you didn't know I was odd by now) and it says a pantheon is a temple for Gods and not the place upon which they dwell.
Regardless, in the early days (way de fuck back when) the Jews were polytheists. A little slavery with the Egyptians and then freedom with the help of a guy who knew a really neat transmogrification for sticks into snakes, and they followed a new God. The one that became known rather quickly as the "God of the Jews".
Be it gods or a singular god, as a general rule they tend to be associated with one particular group of people...and by "group" that's usually like the people of a country or region. God, for whatever reason, focused It's attention on the Jews and thus they were under that reign...
...up until Jesus.
My personal, but unpopular theory, went along the lines of an old joke. There's a lot of Christians, though not all of them, that don't believe Jesus was simply God's offspring but literally God in human form. While that may make a body wonder who was up in the High Seat at the time God was doing the skinsuit bit on Earth, or maybe just me, there's really no way to know for sure. Regardless, there are those that believe this and thus (use that word a lot in religious posts) when they're praying to God they're actually praying to Jesus. Although, there are those that don't believe God and Jesus are the same person but they still pray to Jesus and God equally.
In most polytheistic systems where the deities have offspring with mortals, the children are often considered to be gods as well; or demi·gods depending. However, Christianity and Judaism have the 10 Commandments, as they're 2 faiths drawing on much of the same source materials. You're not supposed to pray to anyone or anything except God...
... and Jesus isn't God.
It's kind of a sore point with me seeing as I've noted Christians also tend to pray to angels, saints, etc. Praying to Jesus, the resident demi·god/Messiah in question isn't a huge leap really. Still, it strikes me odd regardless of whether or not he was God or is the heir apparant.
Here's the thing. Say you're the Devil and you, mischievous lil' evil thing that you are, are highly motivated to shake the faith or otherwise mess with the people that God has worshipping It. By taking them away from God, regardless wherever they wind up, you score a point in your win column; why wouldn't the Devil have a quota? The Jews love, worship, and adore God and you're not liking that set of circumstances because it just looks bad on your annual review. You need to find some way to detract away from that, something very effective that you know will convince everybody that there's another way to go...
...like say a son of God who can show an even truer path to paradise.
God has a rather longstanding tradition of not interfering, with the occasional miracle or direct communication to someone of faith, and the Devil is really big with throwing the proverbial monkey in the wrench (never sure I've got that term right). Hypothetically it wouldn't be outside the Devil's power to create Jesus and lead a large number of people away from God, if only in the sense that they think they're still following God but none the wiser they're not. Sure, there are those that didn't buy Jesus was the son of God or the Messiah or really worth listening to and they stayed true to their faith.
Discord really kinda puts another mark in the Devil's win column. Maybe not a full point but why mince the details?
Then you've gotta consider the rather interesting twists of Christian history. The Crusades & The Spanish Inquisition being biggies! If you didn't study your history in any detail, or just glazed over the unpleasant parts, missionaries trying to spread the Christian faith back in the day often used torture and food deprivation for those less than willing to come on over to the "true path"; standard cult recruitment methodology. Now, does this kinda behavior sound more like the living up in the clouds Godly thing to do or more along the lines of a certain horny headed naughty boy that lives down below?
What's the greater trick? Proving you don't exist to the masses or leading them away from salvation and just off in any old direction that suited whatever whim was in that diabolical lil' pointy eared head of his?
I don't believe this but you gotta admit, minus my excessive ramblings and colloquial references, it is an interesting train of thought.
So...what do you think?( the aforementioned jokeCollapse )
...but let's go with the basics.
1) Superman can't aim for spit at close range.
2) Superman tends to barrel into situations without much foresight.
3) Superman ain't the goddamn Batman!
4) Superman actually gave Batman a kryptonite ring.
They're not generally known for being all that bright.Political Gay Bashing
Got this from Sylvan
and you better believe I'm gonna xpost it all over the place. I'd like to think this is just an Oklahoma thing, a problem that we could simply fix either by a nuclear strike or using scissors to cut around the borders so it simply slips free of the rest of the United States and sinks into the ocean (me trying for a funny in the face of such idiocy) but truth be told this kinda thing is not limited to there or just politicians. Although, you'd like to think that a politician, fair minded yet dumb things that they are, would have the better sense not to say this kinda shit regardless of how many people they think can hear them.
Clearly I'm giving them too much credit.
xposted to Power·to·the·People
, & Weirdfolks