BIll O'Reilly's tactic has always been to interrupt people and making them irritated, probably cause he isn't smart enough to win an argument otherwise.

At 4/6/07 08:25 PM, grime-reaper wrote: in the bible it says love thy neighbour. Neighbour being everyone. So the instruction is love evryone right? But if i love everyone then that means i love a stranger the same as i love my parents or i love a mass murder the same as i love my wife.
So that would then heapen the concept of ove transforming it from somethig speical and unique into something common and mundane as mud.

SO Isnt loving everybody wrong?

OR Is it still a good thing

Well this has a lot to do with semantics and how you interpret words; but Jesus loved/loves everyone regardless of who they are, and his teachings centered around leaving the old traditions that were pretty harsh sometimes and focused more towards caring and forgiveness. And of course loving a random person is different from loving a family member for instance, since you don't have any connection with them, but the love for "thy neighbor" would be more like respecting them and their choices and as previously mentioned, being understanding and co-operative. If you are a christian: God created human and loves it beyond any limits, and if you are a christian then you should love God and his entire creation, and show people respect, understanding and forgiveness, no matter who they are,

This however, has been completely raped and pillaged by the christian church over the last +1000 years, and are nothing but empty words when used by war loving, hateful and dark regimes such as the U.S. Government.

Jesus christ.... Americans are scary someties... And I thought Jesus Camp had to be an exaggeration :(

At 7/26/06 05:43 PM, DF64 wrote: I'm sick and tired of hearing people say if they lived in America that they'd be in fear of a terrorist attack most people from other countys make it sound like its very common getting attacked here in the united states.

erm? what? I've never heard anyone say that... Ever :s (and I live in Europe)

But yeah, there probably is a common idea that Americans are overly scared of terrorism..

At 7/11/06 04:30 PM, ArchFascist wrote:
Having gay sex spreads STDs, so no more gay sex. = Your logic for banning smoking. By the way, if the smoke's bothering you just take a damn step back. The actual fumes rise into the air.

Having straight sex spreads STDs too, and you're an idiot.

Being a smoker in Sweden, where smoking in all public buildings is banned (clubs & bars included), I don't really mind the ban. It's not that hard to go outside for a smoke, cool air once in a while istheshit if you're at a club and most importantly you don't smell like shit when you come home (just because I smoke doesn't mean I want to smell like 200 other people's cigarettes).

One down-part to the ban though, is that in the first couple of weeks of the ban, a lot of clubs started to smell like sweat and vomit with the distinct smell of tobacco being removed... But most places have dealt with that now, with ACs and what-not.

Holy shit... Since humans and chimpanzees have ~95% similar DNA, would that be incest then? :S

... ;D

At 7/22/06 07:39 AM, Makaio wrote: your one to talk, look at your post.

fixed version

how about you "Speak English or Die (lol)" as SOAD says, but seriously make sense of what your saying. If you're asking if that's right then no it isn't and you should go tell that person who told you that he should ....uh...... get a bit smarter...also, is this supposed to be a poll?

i lost out at half a dozen, and that isn't even grammatically correct, its a lot easier to read though.

You didn't fix "make sense of what your saying"... It should've been you're.

Seriously - what is it with Americans and grammar?

At 7/20/06 11:12 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:
BARF

Well of course he can't be right all of the time ;)

I've mostly read his work on media analysis...

At 7/19/06 09:51 PM, AngryToaster wrote: Read some Noam Chomsky, peeps.

Already did :) He's on of the greatest thinkers of today...

And by the way, I don't really get the hype of the flag. It seems like a terrible waste of energy getting all upset by some people burning a sheet with some colors on it. If you want to be patriotic - fine... I don't see the value in blind patriotism, but whatever floats your boat - I still think you could focus your patriotism in trying to make your country better, instead of attaching it to an inanimate object like a flag.

At 7/19/06 01:48 PM, White_hole wrote:
it was closer to 54 or something, it cant compare to 9/11.

oh noews :'( you are so wrong!

Yes, stop immigration... Especially arabs. They are always evil and want to bomb the shit out of everything...

And while you're at it, kill some homosexual and put up some fun summer death camps for jews and romani people... maybe some castrate retards too.

Sounds like a good plan!

Well 2012 does seem like a pretty likely year if any when looking at the current political climate in the world.. WWIII is approaching! :)

The european union sucks ass... I hope Sweden gets the fuck out before it's too late.

I'd say it kind of depends how the US handles itself in global politics in the coming years/decades...

Both China and India are hot bets... I mean, from what I've heard, The US tries its best not to piss off China too much, especially regarding military actions around Chinese territory, and dealing with the Taiwan conflict...

(I have no source for this though, so google it yourself or choose if you want to believe it or not... I'd gladly be proven wrong with some good sources - "educate me!", haha)

Other than that... If the Arab world were to join forces, I think they would have a pretty good chance of forming a super power. Lots of people and lots of religious conviction, though they might need a while to develop the economy and military enough to challange the other big boys(girls?) which are in charge at the moment.

At 7/19/06 12:39 AM, Bizarro wrote: Anarchism is still more or less the absence of authority, it is the idea that "government and or authority is bad, we would be better off without it".

Yes, of course... But this doesn't mean that people can't organize things that other people participate in. If you argree to that, then I think we agree on the definition. If not - then, yeah write something spiteful like I did ;P

:By the way I mentioned nothing of chaos and disorder(although others did)

Yeah, that wasn't really directed at you either, even though I responded to your post.. Very confusing to say the least... I haven't really disagreed with you so far, I think..

Yeah...uh I mean...not yeah meaing I agree or know this, more in the sence of "yeah lets not bring that up again" :)

Haha, ok, let's not :)

At 7/19/06 12:46 AM, The_Pandar wrote: Still wondering why anarchists are paying into a massive multinational corporation for internet access and a computer to run it on.

Yes, that is indeed a mystery... Though I guess it's a form of using your enemy's weapon against themselves (using commercial web pages to spread propaganda, etc).

And no, Pandar, I will never forget your failure.

At 7/19/06 12:06 AM, Bizarro wrote: Just because they take a word and decide to skew and make up the meaning of it doesnt make it true. Anarchy is the absesnce of political authority, thefore and Anarchist is one who strives for the absence of political authority.
Even if you somehow think what I just said is "ignorant" or "not thought out" you cant deny the fact that what you posted is extremely close to a little somthing called communism in which everyone is equal and shares thier means with others, which has been proven to be unattainable.

Actually, you're the one's skewing up the word... Since anarchy when derived from anarchism (which it is when talking about a political theory) means the entire concept of Anarchism, and not the adjective "anarchy" as in "chaos" and "disorder".

If it's attainable or not is a whole different discussion... And probably the discussion which should have taken place instead of these ignorant pieces of shit trying to make fun of someone while they're even worse themselves.

(though I do have to point out that the author of this thread also doesn't seem to have that big of a clue what anarchism really means as a political ideology)

I see you managed to browse to wikipedia during your hentai and or masturbating downtime to look all this up. Excellent effort my friend.

I don't masturbate... My penis is too big ;P

Clarification: The last part of my last posts was aimed at the same ignorant people I was yelling at in the beginning of the post.

Also, I have to say that I find it quite amusing that the author of this thread "cant eat greens that have been covered in pestacide or treated with a groth hormone", when he smokes cigarettes... Now that is pure irony ;P

And now back to pointing out idiots in this thread:

Iamrecognized - for saying "a peaceful anarchist march is not anarchist".:
This has no factual base what-so ever.

The_Pandar for saying "You took the leadership in organizing an Anarchy march? Irony.":
People organizing events is not against anarchism as long as the people participating are doing it out of free will. This is where you fail, and the biggest irony of this, is that you tried to point out that someone failed, when you were even worse yourself.

Athlas for saying "Anarchists who amass? That's the most hypocrit thing I've ever heard.":
For reasons stated in my previous post... And you have to be the worst one yet. Idiot.

shi_huangdi for the same reasons as Athlas.. He might be even more of an idiot for pointing it out after Athlas.

Bohalin for looking up the word in a dictionary instead of as a political theory (as anarchy refers to anarchism when talking of political theory) and then complaining about other people's research...

Shadez119 just for being a total moron. I mean, come on. Read his post.

THIS IS A MESSAGE TO ALL THE IGNORANT CONSERVATIVE ASSHOLES IN THIS THREAD:

First off: Yes, this thread is kind of lame, and the protest was kind of lame too... It felt a bit Avril Lavigne in some way, BUT:

Lots of people in this thread have pointed out that "anarchists amassing" or "anarchists marching with someone organizing the march" is somehow against the ideology.

I just have to point out that you are even worse than the guy who started this thread, because you have NO KNOWLEDGE of what you are talking about, WHAT SO EVER.

Anyone who has read anything about anarchy as derived from the ideology anarchism knows that it does not necissarily either imply nor mean chaos. It just means a state-less society. And people coming together to do activities is not against the ideology in any way, au contraire, if they are doing it because they want to, it is the very foundation of anarchism.

Read a fucking book about it before you open your mouth next time. Or AT LEAST use google or wikipedia... Here is a text from Wikipedia that would have saved you the embarrassment:

"The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos, nihilism, or anomie, but rather an anti-authoritarian society that is based on voluntary association of free individuals in autonomous communities operating on principles of mutual aid and self-governance."

Ignorant idiots inept of anything else but watching hentai and masturbating...
Read something for yourselves for once instead of letting your gun-toting parents beat information into you every night

There are lots of marches in Sweden, though they are generally topic-specific and not necessarily for "communists only"...

There are Lots of anti-fascist marches (when needed, throughout the year)... These are not always none-violent though, since one part of it is direct confrontations with nazis/fascists. And with direct confrontation, I of course mean beating the living shit out of them.
In Sweden these are primarily organized primarily by AFA and Revolutionära fronten (the revolutionary front)

But back to the peaceful marches: There have been lots of syndicalist/anarchist/communist marches recently in Sweden... And they all usually have a common agenda - the most prominent recently have been about the possible abolishment of job security for young people.
these are primarily organized by Osynliga partiet

And then we have the 1st of may, which is a holiday in Sweden, where lots of different ideologies and groups relating to socialism/anarchism/communism have marches all over the country.

During the first of May (and sometimes on other occasions), a movement called Reclaim The Streets (which Osynliga Partiet is part of organizing in Sweden) is a reoccuring theme - and it's basically a leftist attempt to take back the streetsfrom the companies, back to the people. (The basic idea is that today you no longer walk the streets as a person, you walk the streets as a person, you have become nothing but a consumer, under the constant influence of advertisements.

It's meant as a huge street party, but has a history of ending up in some material destruction (IE breaking the windows of mcdonald's and such), but this has also been overly hyped by the newspapers. The main focus of the event is just to have a huge party on the streets without seeking permission from any public authorities.

There are a lot of great russian composers too.. Even if they don't get that much cred...

And the question in general is pretty lame and retarded to begin with... You just wanted to dickride your own country a bit.

It's like asking "why are so many famous rappers from the united states?" or "why are there so many reggae groups from jamaica?"

Germany, and parts currently belonging to Austria (namely Vienna), were cultural centers for classical music. It hasn't got a lot more to do with it than that... And I certainly do not think it has to do with the average IQ of the country - even though Mozart was indeed a genious.

Haha "Swish" :D obviously, that was supposed to say "Swedish".

It still sucks that you can't edit posts

At 7/14/06 11:53 AM, Krow wrote:
America was the only country to benefit from the war. It came out a super power.

Sweden actually benefited a lot from the war... Economic boom and what-not :)
(yes the people in the Swish government were horrible pussies during the war, but that's not the point)

before any misinterpretations of what I'm saying occurs, I would like to clarify that I am a heterosexual male, but I have some gay friends.. With this stated I'm going to address some issues brought up in this thread:

Anal sex seems to be overly hyped with you people. According to all my gay friends - oral sex is a lot more common as a sexual activity (same with handjobs, penis-rubbing and general caressing) than anal sex. There are a lot of homosexual guys that have never even tried anal sex, and I don't really understand your fixation with it.

PDA: Oh give me a fucking break... So I'm not allowed to kiss my girlfriend on the street any more just because you're a close minded asshole? And same with same sex couples. Get over your own complex and allow people to spread some love. (Now I do agree that tongue-down-throat right in front of people is a bit disrespectful (no matter if a couple is gay or straight), but regular kisses are very harmless IMO, and regardless, none of you should have any say in the matter anyway).

Now on-topic: I agree with the reasons of why men are more commonly used as an example is because of the negative hype around them. People are scared! :)

At 7/12/06 10:54 PM, BlisteringFreakachuu wrote: Who cares, you hate America.

I don't hate Amercia, I never said I hated America, and you should be sodomized by thousands of huge men in smokey the bear-outfits for being so INCREDIBLY off-topic.

I guess this ties back a bit to the depictions of the profet Mohammed in Danish media - but this is brand new, and stirs life into a debate which always seems to bring up controversy, namely:

Where do you draw the line between what is racist, and what isn't?

Here is an example from the 'objectivist' editorial (web)comic Cox and Forkum, posted by a user in another thread here pretty recently, dealing with the fresh subject of the Israel/Lebanon-conflict.

The depiction of the Lebanese character in this picture is severely stereotypical... Which you might say is understandable due to the fact that it is a comic, but nevertheless: The lebanese character is depicted with stereotypical arab features: he's short, overweight, facially hairy, dark, has an "arab nose" (which IMO is the worst part), and he is depicted with a belt of explosives around his waist. Also, the main point of the comic is to depict the character as ignorant.

Now, to me, this comic doesn't look much different from the derogatory pictures/comics of jews that were published in Germany in the first half of the 20th century.. But I'm sure some of you may have different opinions on this. So:

Is this comic racist or not? And where do you draw the line?

(note, picture has been resized to fit page... original article can be found at:
http://www.coxandfor..archives/000877.html

)

At 7/12/06 01:09 PM, Fenrus1989 wrote:
Then if the children care about thier education, they won't work there.

I love this "free market rhetoric".. If the children are from a poor family, they might have to work instead of going to school to help support their household - it isn't always a matter of choice. (And yes, this could happen in the US too)

Your not going to force someone to learn if they don't want to.

But children could be forced to work even if they don't want to...

At least these kids are getting valuable world and work expierence.

They could get that later - after school preferably.

I'll answer these questions from my own religious perspective... Which is a mix of agnosticism, hinduism and judaism

At 7/12/06 06:38 AM, modestcasanova wrote: If the human race is so important why is it bound for extinction?

Well, since I believe in free will, we all have choices we can make - and a lot of people today are making choices that are rather vain, selfish and greedy. We are building tower (society) to reach G-d (that replaces G-d with blind faith in science and power/possesions), which is bound to collapse. The only way to stop is to realise that there is more to life than a constant strive for power and possesions; for the simple reason that we can't continue living like this if we want the earth to continue being inhabitable. And too many people are too blind to see this, so we are most likely fucked.

(Kind of directed towards the Christians) What happens to babies after they die?

Well I believe in a sort of Brahman/world soul, though conciousness within it is questionable. But they are like all humans reunited into the same energy they came from.

If we are supposed to be so loving, why are we able to hate? Even though we are supposed to have full free will, why would the all loving god allow hatred?

Because it wouldn't be a full free will otherwise... And I don't believe in a G-d which "rules the world" in that way.

And by the way:

They wither and decay in their tiny coffins.

Haha, best response ever :D

At 7/12/06 11:37 AM, Dragon_Smaug wrote:

At 7/12/06 10:06 AM, DarthTomato wrote: I'm beginning to wonder what the palestinian prisoners did that was SO bad that israel keeps refusing to release them. anyone know?

Terrorist activities I'm guessing.

My guess is more along the lines of "terrorist activities"

I have a bad feeling about the last month's international events :/

I've been to all of Osynliga Partiet's demonstrations in Stockholm (I was even inside the police building when a window was crashed and the building was stormed by police), so I think my stance is pretty clear. (note that I haven't actually broken any windows myself... I've just been to the big demonstrations walking/running through the streets of Stockholm)

I think the law proposal is just another step towards economical liberalism, where the laws/unions that Swedish worker groups had to fight to get are being stripped in order for companies to exploit the work force (in this case the youth) even more.