Fischer: PTSD Caused By Satanic Curse »« Garrow, Santilli Call For Military Coup

Comments

  1. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Americanism. Fuck yeah.

    That’s code for bad plastic surgery, big hair and tanning gel.

  2. ChasCPeterson says

    “We talk about ‘American exceptionalism’.
    What does that mean? What is ‘American exceptionalism’?
    Let me tell you what it is, OK?
    It’s not that we’re ‘special’.

    But we are.”

    got it.

  3. says

    It’s not Muslinophobia if they really are trying to kill us all. And they are. Scary Muslins could be hiding under your bed at this very instant, and as I speak to you now Muslin agents are burrowing ever deeper in to our Nation’s fabric! In my hand I have a list of one hundred know Muslin agents…

  4. John Hinkle says

    She’s actually an ok speaker in a semi-godwin sort of way. It’s just her train of thought that repeatedly derails.

  5. naturalcynic says

    modus:

    Scary Muslins could be hiding under your bed at this very instant…

    Not mine. I still have a waterbed. It also keeps away monsters and things that go bump in the night.

  6. vilstef says

    Remember friends, according to the Reich-wing all this hate talk they practice is good Americanism.

  7. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Not mine. I still have a waterbed. It also keeps away monsters and things that go bump in the night

    Which is scarier, things that go bump in the night or things that go slosh in the night?

  8. John Pieret says

    Modus … Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

    ____________________________________________

    In case anyone can’t figure it out, that’s just dredging up some history.

  9. says

    John Pieret “Modus … Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
    Nope. Never did. I’m history’s worst monster.

  10. felidae says

    “A government of the white people, for the white people, by the white people and not by any terrorist,communist, fascist, muslin negro who deny American exceptional ism” Ms Geller is exceptional as she one of those people whose inner ugliness shines right to the surface

  11. John Pieret says

    Ms Geller is exceptional as she one of those people whose inner ugliness shines right to the surface

    I prefer to think of it oozing to the surface.

  12. kevinalexander says

    naturalcynic @4
    Don’t forget the Aquatic Muslim Hypothesis. They could be activating their suicide torpedoes as we speak.

  13. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Pam Geller 1 minute 55 secs there :

    “You have a president who in every single case sides with the enemy.”

    Someone really should let Osama bin Laden know about that seeing as how he can’t be dead any more then.

  14. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @2. Rev. BigDumbChimp :

    Americanism. Fuck yeah.
    That’s code for bad plastic surgery, big hair and tanning gel.

    Attacking people – especially women – on the basis of their appearance and physical looks?

    I thought that wasn’t done here on FTB at least not by those who think of themselves as the good guys, right?

  15. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @4. Modusoperandi : “It’s not Muslinophobia if they really are trying to kill us all. And they are.”

    Its Muslims not Muslin but it ake it that’s deliberate caricature on your part?

    Thing is, there is at least some truth in that statement because some Muslims *are* trying to kill us all.

    You remember 9-11-2001, the Bali bombings, The London subway bombings, the Madrid train attacks, the violence of so many Muslim Jihadists everywhere pretty much around our globe. (Except maybe Antartica?)

    No, it isn’t all of them, most of them aren’t terrorists – but most (not all, most) terrorists are Islamist these days and that is a fact.

    What we choose to do about it is another topic again.

    But, yes, some Muslims, some Muslim groups absolutely *are* out to kill us

    Al Quaida,
    Jemaah Islamiyaa and offshoots,
    The Taliban,
    Hamas,
    Islamic Jihad,
    Boko Haram,
    Abu Sayyaf,
    The Chechens (Boston marathon bombing & oh yeah, their war with Russia)
    The murderers of Lee Rigby,
    Lashkar-e-Taiba
    Al Shabbab

    The list goes on …

    Let’s not pretend reality ain’t real here eh?

  16. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @14. felidae & 15. John Pieret : Attacking a woman’s appearance again like 2. Rev. BigDumbChimp? Not cool.

    Disagree with what Pamela Geller says? Okay fair enough.

    Abuse Pamela Geller for her superficial appearance and call her ugly? That’s misogynist and also irrelevant personal abuse unrelated to the merits or otherwise of her arguments.

    Apply the same consistent standards here to the FTB side as to the MRA one. I know how quick you’d be to call this out if the target was someone on your politico-cultural side of the Left-Right divide.

  17. skinnercitycyclist says

    “American Exceptionalism” is a right-wing pseudo-intellectual’s way of mindlessly screaming “USA!!1!!!USA!!!1!!11!” without actually having to attend a NASCAR event.

  18. says

    “Abuse Pamela Geller for her superficial appearance and call her ugly? That’s misogynist and also irrelevant personal abuse unrelated to the merits or otherwise of her arguments. ”

    Seriously? Do you comprehend the difference between appearance and sexual discrimination? Man, if I don’t see you yelling at anyone who called Christie unattractive or fat as sexist anti-male pigs who should be better than that, then I’m going to need to pull out my biggest “derrr” card.

    Misogyny is a serious problem, and not comprehending the difference between that and commenting on social physical norms or using social attractive norms as a basis for comment is utterly unrelated, lest you specifically make them so. Since none did but you, that does not bode well for how you interpret the thought-processes of others.

    The worst part is I agree with the sentiment, there’s no reason to comment on the physical appearance of someone who, specifically, you’re disagreeing with on intellectual groups, but to somehow knee-jerk jump to this sexual bigotry leap so you could play some self-righteous straw man fighting hero instead of actually address the real sources of these problems is a far bigger problem with FTB.

  19. says

    Now, excuse me, I have to write angry letters to Conan for his Christie fat jokes, calling him sexist, and Colbert on calling Boehner orange, for being sexist. I’ll be busy for awhile, they’ve both been to that well many times.

  20. Michael Heath says

    Chris Adam-Connor writes:

    Misogyny is a serious problem, and not comprehending the difference between that and commenting on social physical norms or using social attractive norms as a basis for comment is utterly unrelated, lest you specifically make them so.
    […]
    Now, excuse me, I have to write angry letters to Conan for his Christie fat jokes, calling him sexist, and Colbert on calling Boehner orange, for being sexist. I’ll be busy for awhile, they’ve both been to that well many times.

    I get this obvious snark, but you’re wrong in the conclusion you’re promoting. Conan’s fat jokes about Gov. Christie demonstrates bigotry towards the obese, it’s no better than making fun of the mentally ill. Some day the country will understand this as they do when it comes to the mentally ill.

    And Stephen Colbert’s jokes about Rep. Boehner’s skin color demonstrates how deep our racism runs.

    Both running jokes are in bad form, a failure in character, and demonstrative of these respective jokester’s own bigotries.

  21. khms says

    StevoR

    Thing is, there is at least some truth in that statement because some Muslims *are* trying to kill us all.

    You remember 9-11-2001, the Bali bombings, The London subway bombings, the Madrid train attacks, the violence of so many Muslim Jihadists everywhere pretty much around our globe. (Except maybe Antartica?)

    No, it isn’t all of them, most of them aren’t terrorists – but most (not all, most) terrorists are Islamist these days and that is a fact.

    Some Muslims are trying to kill some of us.

    I’m not aware of any Muslims trying to kill all of us. They might wish to, the same way our own colnago80 might wish to nuke them all, but they know that is unrealistic.

    Further, I seem to recall seeing statistics that in both Europe and the US, the vast majority of terror attempts were by non-Muslims – homegrown right-wing violent extremists are much more common in these parts.

  22. says

    Well, not ALL muslims are trying to kill us, tis true–but LOTS of them do!!

    And we must never, ever forget or forgive the >1B muslims who were in NO FUCKING WAY involved with 9-11 or the ongoing depradations of Al Q and its clones. OKAY?

    I mean where the fuck would we be today if we had forgiven the Vietnames (sort of), the JAPS, the KRAUTS, the FROGS and the LIMEYS for what they did to us?

    Michael Heath:

    If Christie Crème wasn’t JohnWayneGacy SKKKary KKKlown actin’, his looks wouldn’t be an issue. As is, it’s pretty obvious that his bloated, out-of-control physical body is an absolutely appropriate container for his equally bloated, out-of-control ego.

    Johnny Boner IS orange. I don’t see it about racism at all; it’s about the fact that he’s as phony as that fucking “tan” of his.

  23. colnago80 says

    Re StevoR @ #20

    You left out Hizbollah.

    Re khms @ #

    I’m not aware of any Muslims trying to kill all of us. They might wish to, the same way our own colnago80 might wish to nuke them all, but they know that is unrealistic.

    Excuse me, in no way, shape, form, or regard have I suggested nuking all Muslims. I have stated that there is nothing wrong with Iran that a half dozen well targeted 15 megaton bombs wouldn’t cure Unless khms is going to argue that all the worlds Muslims are in Iran, that hardly constitutes nuking all Muslims.

  24. says

    Michael Heath “And Stephen Colbert’s jokes about Rep. Boehner’s skin color demonstrates how deep our racism runs.”
    Really? I thought it was because pumpkin isn’t a human color.

  25. John Pieret says

    StevoR @ 21:

    I didn’t take felidae’s comment, “Ms Geller is exceptional as she one of those people whose inner ugliness shines right to the surface” as commenting on her physical appearance but on her ideas and the way she expresses them. If that speech and the blind hate she exudes (without any nuance as to those Muslims who are and aren’t terrorists and calling Obama a terrorist) isn’t ugly, I don’t know what is.

    Even she calls her own campaign “ugly” and “dirty.” That’s the one thing she got right.

  26. Michael Heath says

    democommie writes:

    Johnny Boner IS orange. I don’t see it about racism at all; it’s about the fact that he’s as phony as that fucking “tan” of his.

    Speaker Boehner has repeatedly noted he doesn’t go to a tanning salon nor is his skin color due to his applying anything to his skin, but instead a natural tone if he’s out in the sun.

    If your argument is valid, then it’s also not racist to demean black people for happening to have darker skin relative to other black people with less black skin; or for ridiculing “gingers” given their very white skin and orange freckles. I use scare quotes here because I think it’s wrong to refer to people as “gingers”. I get that South Park’s creators weren’t seeking to demean pale-skin redheads with their “ginger” shows; instead we’re so racist their point largely went “whoosh” and with some groups, back-fired where the term is now a popular slur amongst kids.

    I also think people who resort to such tactics typically don’t have credible arguments to condemn their target. So going after somebody’s weight or looks is perceived by me as a sign of weakness from the person doing the criticizing. That’s because they’re seeking the support of their respective tribe in condemning the “other”, not for the target’s behavior, but simply because he or she isn’t one of, “them”. I.e., tribalism at it’s most basic, ugly level.

  27. Thumper: Token Breeder says

    “It’s not that we’re special, but we are.”

    Fuck me. The stupid, it burns.

  28. Thumper: Token Breeder says

    Christ, SteveoR and colnago80 on the same thread about Muslims.

    Racists unite! This thread is gonna be fun, I can tell.

  29. Thumper: Token Breeder says

    @colnago80

    Excuse me, in no way, shape, form, or regard have I suggested nuking all Muslims. I have stated that there is nothing wrong with Iran that a half dozen well targeted 15 megaton bombs wouldn’t cure Unless khms is going to argue that all the worlds Muslims are in Iran, that hardly constitutes nuking all Muslims.

    Oh good, so you only wish to kill 76.42 million people, as opposed to 1.6 billion. Well, that’s much better. Carry on, then.

  30. says

    Michael Heath:

    You are, as always, welcome to come to whatever conclusions you might, regarding my racism or anything else. It will not make that charge true, but I’m not going to bother with defending it.l

    This:

    “If your argument is valid, then it’s also not racist to demean black people for happening to have darker skin relative to other black people with less black skin; or for ridiculing “gingers” given their very white skin and orange freckles.”

    makes no sense to me. I’m absolutely convinced that Johnny Boner is at least as white as I am, and I’m VERY white. Describing him as being “orange” has nothing to do with race and everything to do with his very obvious habit of lying through his teeth virtually every time he opens his mouth to the media or in congress.

    Johnny Boner is a pathological, serial and ,I would guess congenital, liar. That he might tell the truth is something that I don’t think is likely if he sees the truth as not advancing his “brand”.

    “Orange” is not, afaia, a racial “color”. If there are any orange people out there, I beg their pardon for having maligned them by association.

  31. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @khms :

    Further, I seem to recall seeing statistics that in both Europe and the US, the vast majority of terror attempts were by non-Muslims – homegrown right-wing violent extremists are much more common in these parts.

    Really?

    Citation and supporting evidence needed there.

    @ Thumper : I’m not racist and I don’t think colnago80 is either. You seem to fail to grasp what that word actually means. Hint : Islam is a religious & political ideology not a “race.”

  32. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @30. John Pieret :

    StevoR @ 21: I didn’t take felidae’s comment, “Ms Geller is exceptional as she one of those people whose inner ugliness shines right to the surface” as commenting on her physical appearance but on her ideas and the way she expresses them. If that speech and the blind hate she exudes (without any nuance as to those Muslims who are and aren’t terrorists and calling Obama a terrorist) isn’t ugly, I don’t know what is.

    Emphasis added.

    Inner ugliness rising to show as surface ugliness , yeah that’s getting into insulting based on physical appearance. The fact that this is generally applied to women means it is also arguably misogynist.

    Calling her ideas and speeches ugly is fair comment and subjective personal opinion.

    @23. Chris Adam-Connor :

    “Abuse Pamela Geller for her superficial appearance and call her ugly? That’s misogynist and also irrelevant personal abuse unrelated to the merits or otherwise of her arguments. ” -StevoR

    Seriously? Do you comprehend the difference between appearance and sexual discrimination?

    >

    Yes of course I do . Thing is there is a close association between criticising physical appearances of women and misogyny. It is very common for women to be attacked on the basis that they are supposedly ugly quite rare for this to happen to blokes. I think we should leave appearance out of things unless it is in a context where it is relevant – which would NOT be in this context of Pamela Geller’s political views.

    Man, if I don’t see you yelling at anyone who called Christie unattractive or fat as sexist anti-male pigs who should be better than that, then I’m going to need to pull out my biggest “derrr” card.

    I wasn’t yelling and I don’t approve of Chris Christie fat jokes.

    Did you intend to seem to be making something very close to the tired old “what about teh menz?!” line?

    Misogyny is a serious problem, and not comprehending the difference between that and commenting on social physical norms or using social attractive norms as a basis for comment is utterly unrelated, lest you specifically make them so. Since none did but you, that does not bode well for how you interpret the thought-processes of others. The worst part is I agree with the sentiment, there’s no reason to comment on the physical appearance of someone who, specifically, you’re disagreeing with on intellectual groups, but to somehow knee-jerk jump to this sexual bigotry leap so you could play some self-righteous straw man fighting hero instead of actually address the real sources of these problems is a far bigger problem with FTB.

    You are entitled to your opinion here I spose. It is not one I share.

    @28. colnago80 :

    Re StevoR @ #20
    You left out Hizbollah.

    You’re correct – so many Jihadist terrorists groups out there its if not impossible at least a really long tedious process to list them all. I’m sure I left out others as well, it was just a few examples not intended to be a comprehensive listing of them all.

    The fact that there are so many Islamist terror groups implies something in itself about Islam and the modern world we live in. Many here on FTB it seems prefer to be in denial of those implications.

    Excuse me, in no way, shape, form, or regard have I suggested nuking all Muslims. I have stated that there is nothing wrong with Iran that a half dozen well targeted 15 megaton bombs wouldn’t cure.

    Water shortages? Pollution and biodiversity loss? Erosion, desertifcation and topsoil loss – I think these are problems in Iran which nuclear weaponry would exacerbate not improve.

    There are plenty of innocent Iranians who don’t deserve to be killed. Almost all Iranians probably fall into that category.

    I don’t think Iranians should be nuked even with one Hiroshima sized A-bomb if it can possibly be avoided. I don’t think we should resort to wiping out cities – but we should certainly make sure we prevent Iran from harming others and wiping out cities and nations as some of its leaders and zealots wish to do.

    *If* the only way to stop Iran from launching WMDs against others is to nuke its leadership or military then, maybe, it is regrettably necessary and correct to do so. But only if and as it is, given it isn’t the only way to stop Iran presently then the idea of nuking Iran should be avoided and not advocated in my view.

    There is also the obvious fall out problems with using six 15 megaton nuclear bombs with the radiation likely spreading on the wind as dust to other nations and igniting fires that would cause massive amounts of pollution and harm.

    Unless khms is going to argue that all the worlds Muslims are in Iran, that hardly constitutes nuking all Muslims.

    Very true.

    Yet nuking anyone is a rather bad idea.

  33. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    PS. @Colnago80 : Regarding dealing with the Iranian theocracy and the threat it poses; a trio of alternatives (in order of most to least desirable and least to most destructive and harmful in my view) that are less destructive and better targeted than your suggested method of using 6 fifteen megaton nuclear bombs :

    I) An internal revolution and change of culture whereby Iranians themselves rise up against and overthrow the Islamists and shift their culture back to one that is no longer fundamentalist and preferably no longer Islamic. This came close to happening some years ago but was brutally crushed by the Iranian regime.

    II) The targeted assassinations and removal from power of Iran’s leadership by outside powers whereby foreign nations act to do what the Iranian people seemingly wish to do but have proven unable to execute. Directly taking out Iran’s regime without doing damage to its people and infrastructure by sending in elite military units (eg. SEAL teams, SAS, Mossad) to arrest or take out its leadership.

    III) Conventional limited war – airstrikes on Iran’s leadership and military and WMD facilities. A lot of firepower can be used effectively to prevent Iran from threatening its neighbours and the rest of the world without resorting to nukes.

    I think the last of these three possibilities is sadly, now the most probable to occur in reality although I hope I am wrong.

    Realistically I see very little if any chance that anyone will deploy WMDs against Iran unless Iran first begins or is imminently about to begin a strike using WMDs against another nation or nations.

Leave a Reply