3,094 Forum Posts by "Empanado"
At 10/18/08 08:11 PM, PineappleWinnie wrote: I have been reading a bit about Eva Peron (a well known figure in Argentina), and in general I have the perception that the woman was, in reality, a prostitute. She pretty much whored her way into Argentinian radio and acting life. Then she hooked up with Peron and became first lady (or wathever) thanks to sexual favors. Their pseudo-communistic regime is full of myths, but in reality there is none, just a tale of prostitution, sex, and power hungry people. More about Eva Peron here:
I don't understand what in here makes her a prostitute. The fact that she was in showbusiness? Oh yes, the NERVE of some sluts pursuing a career.
Also, "became first lady (or wathever) thanks to sexual favors"? Are you aware what "First Lady" means? It means being the wife of the President. So basically you think she's a slut because she had sex with her husband, or with the man who would soon be her husband?
It's true that Juan Perón was pretty much a proto-Chávez set on Mussolini mode instead of Castro mode, but calling his wife a slut is a pretty lame burn, dude.
Okay, if there's one thing I hate it's forum drama so I'll just keep this short and say I'm quitting the BBS. Bye.
Foreign diplomats and world leaders would do a quick research on African American culture, and they would then greet Mr. Obama with some kind of Crips handshake and "straight up, yo", "fo'real, homey", "where da bitches at man". Then they would try to freestyle. Obama would say "I BEG YOUR PARDON?" and it would be very awkward.
Seriously, nobody will care. Although maybe whatever corrupt Kenyan president is in charge at the time will think that Obama is his homie and will ask for a shitload of foreign aid and maybe invade a couple of neighbouring nations as well.
Not trying to sugarcoat any of the shenanigans going on in Cuba right now, but it seems like lately (last few months) both the public opinion and the government have been opening up a little bit. Not sure if anybody in here caught it when it happened, but a few weeks ago a group of Cuban students interviewed a high-ranking government official, and, among other things, they said "INTERNET" (in Spanish, I'll try to look for a source in English). They questioned the man about why they can't leave the island, why they can't have democracy, why they can't access to tourist hotels, et cetera. What's more surprising is that none of them mysteriously disappeared afterwards. Also, Cuba just released some high-profile political prisoners, yadda yadda.
I'm not saying that they're going to turn overnight into the magic fairy land of rainbow unicorns and chocolate, but who knows, maybe they finally got the memo - the Cold War is over.
Correct me if I'm wrong - But aren't there also Italian-American, Irish-American, German-American and french-American leagues, associations and institutions, amongst others? Wouldn't they be roughly the same, considering that black people can only group themselves as "black" or "african" since they have no way to establish what part of Africa they come from? (Unless they're recent immigrants from an specific country, in which case they also have their own specific grouping)
On a completely related note. If there's a guy who's a rapist, and he's also racist, would it be okay to call him a "rapcist"?
Speaking of Batman -- I'm afraid that this might be terribly awesome. Even though the Japanese totally gayed Bruce Wayne up by the look of it.
I discovered an entrance to Hollow Earth on my backyard!! Do you want to come check it out?
What's with half of the Politics BBS supporting genocide everytime a thread about the Balkans pops up?
Hooray for the Balkans, the only place in the Earth where people can still defend their god-given right to commit heinous genocides and ethnic cleansings.
At 2/15/08 10:46 AM, RommelTJ wrote: I hate to sound like a 12 year old, but "Putin" in Spanish means "Faggot" or "Gay". It used to be a common joke down here where I live.
Actually it means "little man-whore".
At 2/15/08 01:16 AM, Ravariel wrote: Then again, that might be interesting... to be able to write music FOR my own blog... Something tells me that'd be rather novel on the 'sphere.
Just get a Blogger account like the rest of us mortals. Being a blogger pretty much makes oneself a social pariah, so I don't really see why you should actually pay to lower your social status. Also, keep in mind that if you get more than three visits a day, it's mathematically impossible not to attract a crazy obsessive stalker girl via AIM, MSN or e-mail within a two-month period, max.
Just some blogger-on-blogger advice.
At 2/13/08 02:36 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote:At 2/13/08 12:54 PM, neon-dude wrote: it's not that I'm rascist butWhenever anyone starts a sentence with that phrase, it means the following clause will be racist. No exceptions.
It's not that I'm racist but I like cake.
Cake is hereby declared racist
At 2/12/08 10:05 PM, Proteas wrote: "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." Sura (2:191-193)
I'm only going to stop on this one because it's copy-pasted on every single "Islam is violent" thread and it's taken so out of content that it's not even funny.
Here's the entire excerpt that doesn't leave out the parts that could cast an unflattering light on such truthiness as "muslims are a bunch of maniac spree killers":
(2:189 is about moons and doors and something. Following verses are 190 through 194; from 195 onwards a different subject is treated.)
"FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression - for, verily, God does not love aggressors.
And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away - for oppression is even worse than killing.
And fight not against them near the Inviolable House of Worship unless they fight against you there first; but if they fight against you, slay them: such shall be the recompense of those who deny the truth.
But if they desist - behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.
Hence, fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God alone; but if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, save against those who [wilfully] do wrong.
Fight during the sacred months if you are attacked: for a violation of sanctity is [subject to the law of] just retribution. Thus, if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him just as he has attacked you - but remain conscious of God, and know that God is with those who are conscious of Him."
Notice the wording here - desist, not yield or surrender.
Basically, these verses advocate self-defense instead of agression, and opting for peace when the chance arises. The Quran's advice regarding war against non-believers can be pretty much summed up in the last line - "Thus, if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him just as he has attacked you - but remain conscious of God, and know that God is with those who are conscious of Him."
I mean, seriously people, it's not even that hard to double-check the Quran passages before posting them as irrefutable proof of Islam being the religion of Satan.
At 2/12/08 10:13 PM, Imperator wrote: Does anyone know a site where I can read entire books of the Qu'ran, instead of just snippits people use in these debates?
The best that I could find was
this, you don't exactly get to read "entire books" all at once, but it has pretty much all verses so you can just individually search them one-by-one.
At 2/12/08 05:07 PM, WolvenBear wrote:At 2/12/08 02:28 PM, Empanado wrote: The same article states that, other than Iraqi officals meeting with Bin Laden to secure his cease of support to anti-Saddam insurgents, there were no significant ties confirmed - training camps, resources, guns - nothing substantial.Gotcha, meetings to cease hostilities don't count as "ties". What a load of crap.
They're not substantial ties - or at least, not the kind of ties that counts in a phrase such as "war on Iraq was ok because they had ties with Al Qaeda"
Actual ties worthy of notice would be if the Iraqi government had provided any sort of resources to Bin Laden - training camps, military equipment, logistics - you know, all those things that they didn't give. Osama, as stated in the article, only granted the meeting because he wanted to boost his rep in Sudan - a completely external reason. It's like saying that the US has ties with North Korea because it hasn't attacked it yet.
At 2/12/08 02:27 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Bunk.
The same article states that, other than Iraqi officals meeting with Bin Laden to secure his cease of support to anti-Saddam insurgents, there were no significant ties confirmed - training camps, resources, guns - nothing substantial.
No one has ever claimed Iraq cause 9/11. To say there were no connections between Iraq and al Quida is provably false.
Okay, I made a mistake. Let me rephrase that: No ties of real significance existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the invasion.
The point remains that, while there might exist valid reasons to support the attack on Iraq, the ones claimed by the OP are moronic, and people still clinging to them do nothing more than raise disinformation and make even more of a mess of things, as far as public opinion goes.
At 2/12/08 12:33 PM, Imperator wrote: I love the fact that they only seem to hate OUR freedom for some odd reason.....I mean, they don't really hate you Canucks do they? Maybe you guys aren't really free then......DUN DUN DUN!!
Well, how much freedom can be had in a country that is ruled with an iron fist by a liberal party governed by a evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet?
At 2/11/08 02:47 PM, Imperator wrote: "and Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II was pushed off his horse into a small creek."
hahahahaahah! Classic Roman Emperor death. Kudos!
Actually he didn't die - and we shouldn't be too harsh on Joseph. At least he knew how to have sex, which can't be said from other contemporary European kings. The wiki article says that Joseph wrote of Louis: "he introduces the member, stays there without moving for about two minutes, withdraws without ejaculating but still erect, and bids goodnight..."
So yeah, a bunch of truly awesome dudes were in charge of Europe back in the day, losing 10% of your army against invisible Turks and not knowing what your dick is for.
Well- It's true that the US military has unquestioned superiority regarding technology, air force, naval forces, deployment capacity, and pretty much everything else.
But in my book it still doesn't beat defeating 100,000 austrians when you're not even there.
Yeah, yeah. "Only after the last fish has been caught, only after the last river has been poisoned, only then will we realize that money can't be eaten" and all that jazz.
Destroying the enviroment is awesome, hippie, deal with it.
At 2/10/08 03:45 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: In a totally unrelated matter, I bit my tongue really badly a week ago and it refuses to heal. It hurts like a bitch and is a little swollen, making eating and talking awkward. Any advice?
You could- you could make a vow of silence. Like the older brother in Little Miss Sunshine. Say it's because of Nietzsche. Everything's cooler if it's because of Nietzsche. Or so I've heard.
And eating? Uh. Intra-venous? It's pretty cool I guess since that way you can play the trumpet or whatever while you're eating.
At 2/10/08 03:01 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote: "Yes, yes, yes, blah blah blah, Christianity and Jews have that, too."
It shouldn't matter. Very, very, very, few Christians and Jews practice that.
Yet many Muslims still live in the 6th century, sadly.
I'm afraid that you're oversimplifying the issue of Islamic terrorism, and to be honest that does more harm than good.
I mean - You admit that Christians and Jews also have "that" in their respective sacred books, but they don't practice it. The real question is, how come so many Muslims go crazy while most Christians and Jews are chillin'? I mean, we've stablished that the religion - the set of beliefs themselves, [Q'uran + faith + religious traditions] (not to be confused with cultural or political traditions) probably doesn't contain anything that can't be found in some point during the history of Christianity and Judaism.
Just like believing in salvation via good deeds and/or faith in Jesus Christ, going to church in general and/or following the bible are some of the things that make you Christian, the things that are undeniable requisites to being Muslim are the Five Pillars (creed, charity, praying, fasting and pilgrimage) and following the Q'uran. That's all that Islam, in and by itself, is about.
Islam in its basic definition is 5 pillars + Q'uran, everything else being an external construction, much like the line that divides Christianity as a whole from the Catholic or Orthodox Church.
So we know that :
1) the Bible and the Torah have crazy parts about butchering a lot of people.
2) the Q'uran has crazy parts about butchering a lot of people.
The fact that a lot of Muslims actually want to butcher a lot of people can't be just explained by the Q'uran, since that doesn't explain why other texts about butchering don't ellicit the same butchering urges, or why western, well-adjusted and adapted Muslims (as opposed to first and second-generation immigrants who tend to favor sentences such as the famous "behead those who behead Islam") don't want to butcher no peoples either. Since the explanation can't be found in the Five Pillars of Islam either, we are left out of explanations within Islam itself.
That is, unless there's some sort of invisible evil hand that magically makes Islam much more evil than any other religion despite not having any inherent evil that can't be found elsewhere, as I said earlier.
So what do all these countries full of rabid fanatics with AK's have in common, other than Islam? They're all in the Middle East or Africa. They were all under the sphere of influence of the Ottoman Empire. Let's remember that the Ottoman Empire was pretty fond of (coincidence!) butchering. And, here's a big one, they're all brutal dictatorships, repressive monarchies or thinly-disguised theocracies.
Once we realize this, we begin to see a pattern. The longer that a nation with a sizeable amount of Muslims has been a functioning democracy, the less crazy people you'll find in charge (or in the streets burning stuff up, for that matter). Turkey is a rather thriving secular republic. Indonesia is still recovering from the Suharto regime and is still kind of freaky but is steadily marching towards liberalisation. Lebanon has been a rather weird democracy for the last 15 years or so, and despite having deep political problems (being Syria's bitch) and having to deal with Hizbullah and assorted lunatics, it's probably the Muslim country with the most modern laws regarding censorship, free speech, civil freedoms, etc. (Example: It was the only nation in the entire Arab world that didn't have the Borat movie banned)
This all has little to nothing to do with Islam itself. It's all politics. Repressive governments are the ones that created and implemented the Shariah. Repressive governments are the ones that issued fatwas calling for the slaughtering of Salman Rushdie. Repressive governments are the ones that instill anti-semitism, sexism, anti-americanism and homophobia on the general population. None of these things can stem merely from religious influence.
At 2/10/08 03:15 PM, machacker2000 wrote: I mean, it's the same bag of greaseballs who bombed us 4 times.
Exactly what "bag of greaseballs" are you talking about? Considering that Saddam (or Iraq in general) had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq until after the US invasion?
At 2/10/08 04:31 AM, DeathAura wrote:At 2/10/08 04:30 AM, DeathAura wrote: I've read this and heard this from multiple channels on t.v. (NOT FUCKEN FOX) and websites, so here's one...McCain the killerwoops, link screwd up, here it is http://theviewfromsteeltown.blogspot.com /2008/02/would-mccain-invade-venezuela-i f.html
i believe in blogs
At 2/9/08 02:12 AM, Empanado wrote: I know little about Demopublican or Repocratic nominations on the US and A, but I thought that the dude that wanted write the constitution to fill the bible was Huckabee.
"to rewrite", "to fit with the bible". Bleagh.
At 2/9/08 12:16 AM, RobSoko315 wrote: I personally think McCain is crazy for wanting to rewrite the Constitution to fit the bible.
I myself an Catholic, and a good Catholic person (in my opinion) should be respectful of other peoples' religion therefore keeping separation of church and state as is.
I know little about Demopublican or Repocratic nominations on the US and A, but I thought that the dude that wanted write the constitution to fill the bible was Huckabee.
At 2/6/08 03:15 AM, fli wrote: How often do you see Black people in Chile?
When I was in Mexico-- my cousin couldn't stop watching this Black guy who was near us. He had only seen 3 times in his life a Black guy (who wasn't on TV.)
Well I think I'm right there with your cousin. If a black person is seen in Chile, chances are s/he's either Brazilian, Ecuadorian, or a refugee.
Chile's just one of those countries with no black people of its own. Same thing with Argentina - but that's because they're a nation of Aryan fascist neo-nazi bastards. I think that the blackest Argentinian I've ever seen is Juan Sebastian Verón.
If th'candidate ain't black, it ain't rad!
Come on you American pigs1 I want the black guy for prez! Put the black guy on! Black guy for candidate of the Democrublican Party!
I could take on 27 little brats. I'm not a particularly athletic person, but I can kick pretty damn high - as long as my pants are elastic enough, I can pretty much go forehead level. Also, normally I wouldn't have considered using a 5-year old as a weapon, but as soon as I read the option I decided it was just too incredibly awesome of a thing to miss it. Also, I was trampled! (by concert mobs and relentless water currents)
At 2/1/08 10:55 PM, reviewer-general wrote: The people in this world make me want to cry sometimes.
If you want to cry then you're emo.
Real men don't cry NOR do they want to cry, EVER. Because they don't have feelings.
Real men are robots.
beep bop
