View Full Version : Divorce agreement...
two shoes
07-06-2010, 10:02
Had to share...
DIVORCE AGREEMENT
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce.... I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.
Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sureour two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).
We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .
You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.
We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.
We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.
You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.
We'll practice trickledown economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.
Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you Answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American
P. S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, &Jane Fondawith you.
P. S. S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.
Ok, lets stir the pot with more stereotypes. Woohoo! [LOL]
Since all the Conservative government leaders will be busy in the airport restrooms (or sodomizing their 14 year old pages) who will run the Conservative side? I mean, the united States of Jesusland will have to take all the racist bigots and Ted Haggards - right? You also have to take the special interest bribe groups such as MADD due to their liberal-incompatible ideology. This is a clever move on our part to insure your government is ineffective and allow us to subvert your military.
In the USJ, you'll need to install Government cameras in your bedroom so the Fed can monitor your morality (see link at the bottom). Also please note that birth control is a sin, and nudity is almost as filthy as *gasp* dancing. But don't worry if your daughter gets knocked up - the Bible says its ok to stone her (or sell her into slavery). You should also note that to be "Conservative" one must eschew all modern conveniences such as automobiles and electricity. Good luck with your donkey carts and horses since we own the automobile manufacturers (except for Ford, but since we own the UAW they won't be around longer than a few weeks).
I say "good luck with your donkey carts and horses" because we get all the farmland and farmers, since they are the #1 recipient of "welfare" in this country. I believe we will start the bidding at one ounce of gold per pound for corn, and 2 ounces of gold per pound of bacon. Obviously we would need to be paid in gold since your unchecked economy of greed would collapse under the weight of the state sanctioned monopoly called WalMart.
Its not just all the food we get, either. How about the entire steel industry? Ouch, that has to hurt. But since you absolutely must rid yourselves of anything that smacks of corporate welfare...we'll take it, I suppose. I think that pretty much leaves you with a starving Army armed with stones and mud. Hey, that sounds just like the other great "conservative" nations like Palestine, Syria, Iran, Best Korea, Lebanon, etc...
We will also have to enforce, through trade sanctions, our exclusive usage of math and science. Conservatives all know that the Bible contains all the science required for a functional society (circa the height of the Roman Empire), and math is the work of the devil as it is a tool used to disproves things written in the New Testament. This should be fine with you, as you are determined to make do with the preacher man praying over your sick children instead of seeking medical help.
But maybe the conservative Great Nation will be a nice place to live for the average Joe since it will be totally devoid of alcohol. Prohibition was a roaring success the last time it was tried, and led to lots of peaceful homes. Right?
In short, it sounds like a good deal to me. Just remember that the Liberal Nation won't allow dual citizenship, so you'll be stuck with having to live day-to-day under someone else's morals. Hopefully they aren't Mennonite or
Quaker (or psychotic). [Luck]
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/06/12/2260481/texas-gop-platform-is-hard-line.html
HBARleatherneck
07-06-2010, 11:31
wow, just....wow.
We will also have to enforce, through trade sanctions, our exclusive usage of math and science. Conservatives all know that the Bible contains all the science required for a functional society (circa the height of the Roman Empire), and math is the work of the devil as it is a tool used to disproves things written in the New Testament.
Lots of confusion in your post my friend... but irregardless of that: Show me just one thing in the Bible that is disproven or refutes itself by ANYTHING in this world and I'll eat my hat.
ChunkyMonkey
07-06-2010, 12:01
N/M... misread the statement
two shoes
07-06-2010, 12:04
Lots of confusion in your post my friend... but irregardless of that: Show me just one thing in the Bible that is disproven or refutes itself by ANYTHING in this world and I'll eat my hat.
I don't know if those are his "feelings" about it, but it is funny to see how the numb-nuts on the other side may view anyone with a spine or morals... The biggest contrast between the two write-ups is that the liberal view is pushed to the furthest extremes of what may be considered right wing, while the conservative view seems based more or less on the facts available.
May I join you, in the dinning experience of your hat, if in fact, proof is provided? I have experience in cooking and eating crow... Grilled and covered in steak is best...
The biggest contrast between the two write-ups is that the liberal view is pushed to the furthest extremes of what may be considered right wing, while the conservative view seems based more or less on the facts available.
So you don't think that the scared of war, scared of guns, un-Christian and un-patriotic country depicted in the original piece is a stereotype then? You really think that ALL cops and ALL soldiers share your political affiliation?
The biggest contrast between the two pieces is that the first one was a work of humor, the second one was an apparently serious reply.
I think the best thing for the conservative movement would be to separate it from religion completely. Most of the stuff covered by religious beliefs is stuff that the government shouldn't be involved in at all in the first place.
Bear, there is considerable confusion about the events of Easter. Namely that no one can really make a chronological time line that everyone agrees with, using the information in the New Testament. However, that is off topic since you missed the point that the guy was just posting that response because it existed, not because that is the way he feels.
May I join you, in the dinning experience of your hat, if in fact, proof is provided?
You may, I will say when I am wrong, but I don't think I'm wrong on the infallible truth of the Bible. Now that is very subjective since there are numerous versions of the bible and different translations: I.E. One of the most agregious confusions is the 6th commandmant. It often gets wrongly translated from the archiac Hebrew as "Thou shalt not kill" when it literally reads "Thou shalt not MURDER". There is a big difference between kill and murder. Anyways...
The biggest contrast between the two pieces is that the first one was a work of humor, the second one was an apparently serious reply.
Big AMEN on that response.
I think the best thing for the conservative movement would be to separate it from religion completely. Most of the stuff covered by religious beliefs is stuff that the government shouldn't be involved in at all in the first place.
Bear, there is considerable confusion about the events of Easter. Namely that no one can really make a chronological time line that everyone agrees with, using the information in the New Testament. However, that is off topic since you missed the point that the guy was just posting that response because it existed, not because that is the way he feels.
First paragragh: A-friggin-men. Institutional religion has done more to contribute to the worlds problems than any thing I can think of... Conservatism has nothing to do with religion and vice versa.
Second paragraph: I understand your point about Easter and I'll include some stuff below but I don't think the timeline was written down as it was irrelevant to what teh passage is trying to correlate. I still say that science and math have done nothing but to PROVE that events in the Bible did happen. ANd I apologize for jumping on, I thought with him posting that, it was what he believed. My apologies.
Taken from: GotQuestions.org
Easter: The four Gospels make it clear that Jesus was crucified in conjunction with the Jewish Passover (Matthew 26:17-19 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Matthew%2026.17-19); Mark 14:12-16 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Mark%2014.12-16); Luke 22:7-15 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Luke%2022.7-15); John 18:28 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/John%2018.28),39 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/John%2018.39); 19:14 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/John%2019.14)). The four Gospels also make it clear that Jesus was raised from the dead three days later, on the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Matthew%2028.1); Mark 16:2 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Mark%2016.2),9 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Mark%2016.9); Luke 24:1 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Luke%2024.1); John 20:1 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/John%2020.1),19 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/John%2020.19)). Biblically speaking, then, Christ’s resurrection should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the Jewish Passover meal. However, this is not the case. Easter is celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox (March 21 in 2008, the first day of spring). This method of determining the date of Easter often results in Easter being before Passover and/or displaced far from Passover. Easter can potentially be observed anywhere between March 22 and April 25.
In church history, there was a significant amount of debate that went into determining when Easter would be observed. As a background, please read our article on the origins of Easter (http://www.gotquestions.org/easter-origins.html). Dating Easter in conjunction with the vernal equinox and full moon had nothing to do with the biblical account of Christ’s resurrection or the Passover. It was pagan practices, such as the spring fertility goddess rituals that the Catholic Church “absorbed” and attempted to Christianize, that resulted in Easter's being linked to the vernal equinox and the full moon. The only thing that is biblical regarding when Easter is now observed is the fact that Easter is always on a Sunday.
The Bible does not instruct Christians to set aside a day to celebrate Christ’s resurrection. At the same time, the resurrection is most assuredly worth celebrating (1 Corinthians chapter 15). Celebration of Christ’s resurrection, then, is a matter of Christian freedom. Christians are free to celebrate the day of Christ’s resurrection and are free to refrain from celebrating. Since it is a matter of Christian freedom and not a biblical command, it would seem that there is also freedom as to precisely when the celebration of Christ’s resurrection is observed. Just as with Christmas, the exact date is not important. It is the fact that Christ was resurrected that is important. Christians are free to follow the traditional dating system for Easter, thereby observing Easter on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. At the same time, the lack of conjunction with Passover and the questionable (at best) motives for the method of scheduling Easter make it highly doubtful that Christ’s resurrection is being celebrated according to the biblical calendar.
Origins: The origins of Easter are rooted in European traditions. The name Easter comes from a pagan figure called Eastre (or Eostre) who was celebrated as the goddess of spring by the Saxons of Northern Europe. A festival called Eastre was held during the spring equinox by these people to honor her. The goddess Eastre’s earthly symbol was the rabbit, which was also known as a symbol of fertility. Originally, there were some very pagan (and sometimes utterly evil) practices that went along with the celebration. Today, Easter is almost a completely commercialized holiday, with all the focus on Easter eggs and the Easter bunny being remnants of the goddess worship.
In the Christian faith, Easter has come to mean the celebration of the resurrection of Christ three days after His crucifixion. It is the oldest Christian holiday and the most important day of the church year because of the significance of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the events upon which Christianity is based. Easter Sunday is preceded by the season of Lent, a 40-day period of fasting and repentance culminating in Holy Week and followed by a 50-day Easter season that stretches from Easter to Pentecost.
Because of the commercialization and pagan origins of Easter, many churches prefer to refer to it as “Resurrection Sunday.” The rationale is the more we focus on Christ and the less we focus on the pagan holiday, the better. As previously mentioned, the resurrection of Christ is the central theme of Christianity. Paul says that without this, our faith is futile (1 Corinthians 15:17 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20Corinthians%2015.17)). What more wonderful reason could we have to celebrate! What is important is the true reason behind our celebration, which is that Christ was resurrected from the dead, making it possible for us to have eternal life (Romans 6:4 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Romans%206.4))!
theGinsue
07-06-2010, 13:12
LOTS of things wrong with the statements in the OP.
Since you are taking aim specifically at MY religious beliefs, I'll just provide you with 1 example of where you're off track.
But don't worry if your daughter gets knocked up - the Bible says its ok to stone her (or sell her into slavery).
What you are referring to is Old Testament (OT) law, also referred to as the Law of Moses. Nothing in the New Testament (NT) directs the use of stoning for punishment. In fact, if you knew the Christian Bible (if you are going to try to lecture from it, you should have a first-hand familiarity with the material), you would know that Jesus changes the criteria for enforcing this OT law when he says "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." John 8:7b (NIV).
With Jesus came a new covenant and new laws, all identified in the New Testament.
I can not fairly do justice to explaining the differences between the OT and the NT laws. I'm sure we have many individuals here on the site who can communicate much more effectively than I can on this subject. I just recommend you know the material before you speak against it.
If you were simply quoting your entire response from another source, my apologies for making it more personal but I still hold to the "know the material" comment.
Another problem this new country would have is that (on average) red states take more money from the Fed than they contribute. So all those states that whine about paying the Fed are actually taking more than they give.
H.
I'll throw my hat in on this one too!
I would have to say blending of science and religion is generally speaking, impossible.
For something to be studied scientifically it must follow a few rules that while somewhat vague provide for the ability to differentiate guesses, thoughts, ideas, and beliefs from facts and theories.
For one, for a thing to be scientifically proven, there must be an ability to theoretically disprove it, otherwise its study belongs in the fields of philosophy or religion. Without this specification it is impossible to make scientific fact as it is impossible to create a repeatable experiment with a control of the variables involved.
Can you scientifically prove God, maybe, can you disprove God, no, impossible, the experiments cannot be done.
Second point, saying a book is verifiable because at this point much of what is in it can be attested to by science is a very slippery slope, best left avoided, as the other side can easily say, "you know what, I just finished The Lord of the Rings, and a lot of that really happened...sort of, too." Can you prove the events of The Lord of the Rings, highly doubtful, can you disprove the events ever took place, amazingly, no.
68Charger
07-06-2010, 14:26
For something to be studied scientifically it must follow a few rules that while somewhat vague provide for the ability to differentiate guesses, thoughts, ideas, and beliefs from facts and theories.
For one, for a thing to be scientifically proven, there must be an ability to theoretically disprove it, otherwise its study belongs in the fields of philosophy or religion. Without this specification it is impossible to make scientific fact as it is impossible to create a repeatable experiment with a control of the variables involved. Well said, And the same can be said for many forms of "Science"... Global warming, "the origin of species" as a whole (parts can be observed & proven, but others have never been observed) even the assertions of the age of the Earth are based on critical assumptions that could be false... Darwin's theory, as a whole, is a religion by definition... it requires faith to believe in parts where there is no evidence to support it.
You know, this perfectly illustrates what happens when blind adherence to ideology trumps free thought and common sense. I really wish the two shrilling extremes didn't keep drowning out the moderate voices of the reasonable majority.
We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids,
Are we really going to assert that the USA was some ultra-conservative utopia before the 1950s? Really? Where does this idea come from? This whole country was based on revolution and leftist thinking. We basically pissed on the whole 'Divine Right of Kings' doctrine and decided the create our own country. Our own Declaration has such leftist writings as 'all men are created equal', and 'Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed'. These were crazy liberal ideas in the 1700's. Let's not forget some of our greatest presidents were liberals: Wilson, Roosevelt, Jackson. All before the magical 1950s. Even Abraham Lincoln, though technically a conservative, held the liberal view that blacks should not be slaves. Shocking.
Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all.
When have we ever? Even at our nation's birth a good chunk for the people wanted to remain subjects of the crown. Our country has a long history of strong political disagreement. It's one of our greatest strengths. Embrace it.
Here is a model separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion.
Yeah, that's a great idea for making a better nation. Instead of working through our differences, as we've always done, let's just break it apart. By the way, we tried this idea once, we called it the Civil War. It costs us dearly in blood but it pretty much settled things. Succession is a dead concept.
We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).
While I'll agree that many liberal nut jobs take their ideology to a ridiculous extreme, Right-wing wackos need to wake up and smell the common sense as well. Without the ACLU black people would still be second-class citizens and my parents would have never been allowed to marry (mixed blood). I'd be viewed as some abomination against god or some other ignorant crazy shit. And wind, solar, biodiesel are somehow 'liberal'? Sure glad the liberals won out when Galileo championed the crazy idea the Earth revolved around the sun. Hate to tell you that 'alternative' energy is the inevitable future. But I will agree that the market should decide 'when' and not the government wielding 'progressive taxes'.
We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.
While I'm a huge fan of capitalism, do you really want to uphold the likes of Enron or AIG as model conservatism? Wall Street is friend to no one except themselves. Get over thinking those 'greedy CEOs' are on the side of right. Their on the side of 'screw everyone but me'. Sara Palin? Really? Her stupidity is more dangerous than an army leftist hippies. Everything needs checks and balances.
You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.
Last I looked we weren't exactly making nice with Iran and the whole mess in Palestine is the fault of conservative and liberal administrations alike. The whole policy of policing the globe is one of our biggest problems. True conservatism would demand we bring our troops home. We're not supposed to be 'invading and hammering places that threaten us' (till they actually do) and getting into entangling alliances was something our Founding Fathers warned us about. But we all know we're well beyond that now.
We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain.
That's not very American. We all have the right to practice, or not practice, any religion we so choose without govt or private interference. Or are you trying to say the roughly 30% of us who aren't classified as Christian aren't welcome? Again, think.
You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.
Agreed.
We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.
What's wrong with Subarus? They're fine cars. Does being a conservative demand one drive some massive hulk of steel irrespective of actual need?
You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.
So being able to afford the health care one will invariably need in life is a luxury? So only the rich get the 'right' not to die of something curable? While I'm no fan of govt-rationed health care, our current system of corporate-rationed health care is little better. Our system is broken but instead of working together to fix it both sides are too busy exposing their own brand of stupidity. I really wish common-sense would prevail. It will, eventually.
I'm bored with this now. Soap box retired.
I really wish common-sense would prevail. It will, eventually.
I agree with almost everything you said, except this. I don't want common sense. It is often wrong. I want the problem to be studied, different solutions proposed, each tested and weighed on it's costs and benefits, and the best solution(s) implemented.
H.
PS: I own a Subaru and it's been a very good car.
The fact that this conversation went from politics to religion as quickly and totally as it did, shows me that the second post is more true than I ever imagined.
Also, even though many of us have seen these emails posted in various places a million times before, not everyone has. So, in the future, if people would put things that they are just reposting into a quote box, it will really cut down on people arguing directly with posters instead of concepts.
PS: I own a Subaru and it's been a very good car.
lol, my wife wants one eventually. Supposedly they have interchangable parts with other Subarus such as oil filter, etc... if so, that'd make 'em REAL easy to work on....
lol, my wife wants one eventually. Supposedly they have interchangable parts with other Subarus such as oil filter, etc... if so, that'd make 'em REAL easy to work on....
I know that most of their cars have the same common design. For example, the Legacy, Outback, and Baja's were almost identical, except for the rear body. The Legacy and Impreza families both use that same boxer 4 cylinder engine. I've had mine since I bought it new in 1999, and still haven't put 100k miles on it.
H.
68Charger
07-06-2010, 14:54
The fact that this conversation went from politics to religion as quickly and totally as it did, shows me that the second post is more true than I ever imagined.
Also, even though many of us have seen these emails posted in various places a million times before, not everyone has. So, in the future, if people would put things that they are just reposting into a quote box, it will really cut down on people arguing directly with posters instead of concepts.
I never addressed the original 2 posts, because I recognized them for what they are- satire & commentary... seen them before.. but I disagree that the second post is accurate simply because some chose to DISCUSS religion.. it's one thing to discuss one's viewpoint, completely another to force that view on another... Besides, the thread has now moved on to a discussion about cars- I'll introduce our favorite subject now: How much weight would the roof of your average Subaru support? could you attach a .50Cal belt-fed Machine gun up there without reinforcement?
I agree with almost everything you said, except this. I don't want common sense. It is often wrong. I want the problem to be studied, different solutions proposed, each tested and weighed on it's costs and benefits, and the best solution(s) implemented.
H.
PS: I own a Subaru and it's been a very good car.
Interesting view. And we agree. I guess for me 'common sense' is doing what you described. Maybe I assume too much of my fellow humans =)
I'm struggling to find the words to make my point. The second paragraph focuses on religion more than politics; so does most of the conversation in this thread. No matter anyone's beliefs, why hasn't anyone pointed out that political conservatism is completely independent from religious beliefs? I could hardly make it through the second post because it fails in the very first sentence and continues down that failed path.
I can't comment on the first post because I didn't read it this time. [Tooth]
How much weight would the roof of your average Subaru support? could you attach a .50Cal belt-fed Machine gun up there without reinforcement?
It's probably the same as any other compact sedan. I believe gubmint roll tests require them to be able to survive being dropped on their roof, but it probably wouldn't be the best looking chopped down car after that.
I think the real solution is the sunroof. Crank that baby open, and mount a pole from the transmission hump up out the sunroof to mount the ma duece.
I'd probably take my Jeep if it came to that, anyway.
H.
68Charger
07-06-2010, 15:15
I'm struggling to find the words to make my point. The second paragraph focuses on religion more than politics; so does most of the conversation in this thread. No matter anyone's beliefs, why hasn't anyone pointed out that political conservatism is completely independent from religious beliefs? I could hardly make it through the second post because it fails in the very first sentence and continues down that failed path.
I can't comment on the first post because I didn't read it this time. [Tooth]
I see your point now- because it's the standard tact of the left.. associate them with something emotional & then attack it based on emotion... because their position fails logic. the thread followed the same path just as a response to the 2nd post..
I'm struggling to find the words to make my point. The second paragraph focuses on religion more than politics; so does most of the conversation in this thread. No matter anyone's beliefs, why hasn't anyone pointed out that political conservatism is completely independent from religious beliefs? I could hardly make it through the second post because it fails in the very first sentence and continues down that failed path.
I can't comment on the first post because I didn't read it this time. [Tooth]
It's simple really.
The Right views "liberals" (even Libertarians apparently) as folks who want socialism, welfare babies, crime, no work ethic, and extreme gun control.
The Left views "conservatives" as two faced bigots who proclaim their love of God and Country and Family (as long as said conservatives can still have their Happy Fun Time in the airport stall, or diddle the 14 year old congressional page, or embezzle a few hundred million from their company).
So, the OP was all about the perceived failings of social policies (re: welfare, gun control, etc). My post was about the failing of legislating morals (which requires some amount of religion). Both are totally and equally absurd.
I mean, I really figured someone would notice the "dancing" bit and figure out it was humor.
Some one else summed it up best with the Golden Rule: treat others as you would want to be treated. Conversely, your treatment of others determines others' treatment of you.
68Charger
07-06-2010, 15:20
It's probably the same as any other compact sedan. I believe gubmint roll tests require them to be able to survive being dropped on their roof, but it probably wouldn't be the best looking chopped down car after that.
I think the real solution is the sunroof. Crank that baby open, and mount a pole from the transmission hump up out the sunroof to mount the ma duece.
I'd probably take my Jeep if it came to that, anyway.
H.
great, now I have to get a sunroof for the wife's Suburban... I tried google image search for a Subaru with a machine gun, came up empty.. but I can find pics of Suburbans with gun mounts :-P
Some one else summed it up best with the Golden Rule: treat others as you would want to be treated. Conversely, your treatment of others determines others' treatment of you.
Bottom line... (and for humor) people can't figure out why they are being dissrespectked by cracker when all dey be dewin' is axin' for some bling to feed da babee!!!
great, now I have to get a sunroof for the wife's Suburban... I tried google image search for a Subaru with a machine gun, came up empty.. but I can find pics of Suburbans with gun mounts :-P
That got me to google to see if there was gun mounts for Subarus... I did find that the Subaru Forrester apparently has a "Gun compartment" that will fit 10/22 and other small rifles
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b163/Arthrogrian34/P1000862.jpg
Actually it's for an Umbrella, but I think a small caliber carbine would fit.
H.
PS: Can I derail this thread anymore?
PS: Can I derail this thread anymore?
Yes. What's for dinner? [Beer] [ROFL1]
patrick0685
07-06-2010, 17:39
Yes. What's for dinner? [Beer] [ROFL1]
Buffalo Wild Wings 40 or 50 cent wings, perfect[Beer]
God damn bible thumpers. [Coffee]
Anything is better than left wing crazies.
Byte Stryke
07-07-2010, 00:00
Anything is better than left wing crazies.
(semi)-Nekkid Left wing Crazies! :D
http://aworldofprogress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/deadly-carrots-300x235.jpg
Speaking of "Crazies", Wife and I got that blue-ray on this week, not bad. It wasn't all that it was hyped up to be, but none of them ever are.
We had a Nice Beef Stroganoff tonight.
I WILL teach my wife too cook American Dishes, simply because I DO NOT want to try all 2 million variations of Adobo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobo_%28Filipino_cuisine%29).
:D
so, what were we talking about again?
Teach her to make dishes "vindaloo".
http://stason.org/TULARC/tv/red-dwarf-faq/08-What-is-vindaloo-Red-Dwarf.html
I'm pretty sure if you could get them to give you head they will just rake it. Its just like their politics.
great, now I have to get a sunroof for the wife's Suburban... I tried google image search for a Subaru with a machine gun, came up empty.. but I can find pics of Suburbans with gun mounts :-P
She'll get more use out of this:
http://www.hornblasters.com/
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.