« British Dhimmis Nix the Three Little Pigs | Main | Spurlock's Tasteless Bait and Switch »

It looks to me like the Algorian Church of Gaia is on a membership drive.

I'm certain we'll be hearing very soon how homosexuality can save the earth from mean ol' Mr. Global Warming.

Don't even smile - I'm not kidding.

British moonbat avalanche:
CONVICTS LIVING IN £250 ($500) -A-NIGHT GUEST HOUSES TO EASE PRISON OVERCROWDING
Criminals are being treated to £250-a-night bed and breakfast in private homes on residential streets instead of being held in jail.
HEADMASTER CHECKS UNHEALTHY LUNCHBOXES
The blueprint also includes plans for:
* The identification of fat families and children who are at risk of becoming overweight and a campaign to get a third of Britons taking 1,000 more steps daily by 2012

GOVERNMENT TO BEAT OBESITY EPIDEMIC BY PAYING FAT PEOPLE TO LOSE WEIGHT
Ministers said the Health Service and employers could give vouchers to the overweight to spend on healthy food in supermarkets. They also suggested that those who manage to lose weight could be given cash prizes.

Waittttttt... Isn't this the same overbearing holier-than-thou windbag who previously campaigned against popular music as immoral?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center

OT: Volcano under Antarctic ice found, likely to be cause of melting and ice movement.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/surprise-theres-an-active-volcano-under-antarctic-ice/

Volcanos now... Will the horrors of global warming never cease?

Can any of you put aside the Gore bashing for one moment and explain to me what you could possibly have against the idea of two consenting adults of the same sex getting married?

I really want to know, because, frankly, I really could give two shits if that's what they wnat to do. I can't, in my wildest imagination, see how this could harm me, or anyone, in any way.

I realize that justifying views with reason is not this group's forte, so we'll need someone special for this task.

Can any of you put aside the Gore bashing for one moment and explain to me what you could possibly have against the idea of two consenting adults of the same sex getting married?

I really want to know, because, frankly, I really could give two shits if that's what they wnat to do. I can't, in my wildest imagination, see how this could harm me, or anyone, in any way.

I realize that justifying views with reason is not this group's forte, so we'll need someone special for this task.

Long time reader, first time poster. Let me get this straight...gay marriage will reduce promiscuity among gay people? They will just automatically be more inclined to stay with their partner, just because they were married? That makes no sense. Gore, if gay people, straight people, purple people, whoever are going to be putting the goods out there for whomever, marriage is not going to deter them. Seriously.

I guess CO can't answer the question...

Hashfan,
I believe the main problem is that gays are saying they're being discrimated against. So if they are allowed to marry under the previous statement how soon will it be that pedos,beasties and polygamists are all allowed to marry because they're being discriminated against? It's hard to close Pandora's box once it gets opened.

hmm, nice attempt Farmer Ted, but you haven't answered the question.

Why do you have a problem with two consenting adults getting married?

I'm not talking about a man marrying a child, or an animal...we are talking about two adults. What is the danger?

try to answer a question, by addressing the issue at hand...not by dreaming up other non-related scenarios, OK? No one is advocating marriage between man and child, or man and animal...you are just being ridiculous.

If gays want to have civil unions they already have that and they get the tax benefits. The only reason they want to use the term "marriage" is to poke a finger in the eye of tradition where marriage has always been between a human man and human woman. Once you cross that line by allowing same sex marriage - its hard to justify not allowed more than 2 people to get married if they are "consenting adults" and once you do that why not a human and an ape? (if the ape consents via sign language). In Islam 10 year olds can marry old men - should we allow that too even if the child consents to it? More and more we hear of teachers and others having sex with teenagers or younger. In the end this whole thing is just another sign of the breakdown of America society.

so basically you feel that if two men get married this will lead to the breakdown of American society. this is the danger? How exactly will this happen?

What you appear to be saying is that if we let one man marry another man, people will then want to marry monkeys? Is this right? I really don't see how one leads to another.

Nice try, but I still don't have a coherent answer to the question as to what the danger is in allowing two men to marry. All i get is some crap about people marrying animals, whcih as far as know, is an extremely rare and nearly unheard of wish in America.

You really think that once gay marriage is condoned, people will be rushing to marry animals? You are joking, right?

Hasfhanatic, let me take a shot at answering. First, you need to realize that anything I say will be torn apart or spun into something different simply because I view certain things differently than many here.

Let me state that I find homosexuality to be unnatural, ungodly, and nonproductive. In short, I'm disgusted by it as many people are. However, that really isn't the issue although those on the right have been able to manipulate this as a voting advantage for them. You see, Democrats and Liberals tend to cling more to the constitution and adhere to it's intentions. They believe in habeas corpus, regardless (or, irregardless in Huckabee language) how hideous the crime. They believe in freedom of speech as defined by the constitution versus being arrested for telling the vice president that you disapprove of his war or as many on the right have demanded to be arrested for treason if you so much as question the war's rational. They ultimately tend to hold dear to ones alienable rights in accordance with the Bill of Rights.
The political spin of gay marriages is no more than fine tuned fear mongering from the Republican team and in many cases, simply a distraction from more important issues. President Bush likes to use the phrase that homosexuality "is a threat to traditional marriages". That's utter nonsense as I've been married for 24 years and not once has homosexuality threatened me or my wife. This is simply a ploy that suggests the queer next door is out to steal the family dad away. There's a perception that if one is gay, that person will solicit any of the same sex that they can. If I find out someone is gay, I tend to shy away from him as I don't want him hitting on me. What's interesting here is that if the family dad works with a straight woman, there's no fear mongering of her "threatening" his traditional marriage. Another point I'd like to make is that most people consider homosexuality like I do and that is that it's repulsive. If one feels this way, why would they argue against this "threatening traditional marriages" hype least they themselves be gay? The Bush's "you're either with us or against" slogan speaks loud and clear.

So, Hasfhanaticfan, this is simply an issue that's political because Republicans know that Democrats will defend ones rights, even if they disagree. They can then depict Democrats and liberals as "gay lovers", "anti family" and if anyone dares to challenge, they must be a fagot too.

Hash,
You didn't read my comments very carefully. I stated that if homosexual marriage is granted because homosexuals say they are being discriminated against the that opens the door for every kind of sexual preference to be argued that they are being discriminated against. Now do you see Pandora's box opening. No pun intended.

Hash, Anonymous answered the question for me in his/her first 2 sentences.

A tenet that I hold dear is that marriage is a sacred, holy rite. Don't discriminate against me!

Marriage is a cultural institution founded primarily on procreation. All marriages do not produce children, but the institution itself is based on the best way to raise the next generation.

As marriage is also a secular institution that confers certain rights (as well as obligations), a case can be made that its advantages should be available to everyone.

I have no problem with the civil union concept for committed gay partners in terms of such issues as joint property ownership and survivor benefits. However, society should promote behaviors only to the extent they contribute to its long term health and survival. Marriage is the core institution of our culture. Anything that threatens to diminish the viability of this institution threatens the viability of the culture. Marriage confers certain advantages to individuals because in turn it confers advantages to society. Obviously, whatever advantages gay unions would confer in terms of stability cannot be considered equivalent to a union that has at least the potential to produce children. I can see no point in gays demanding the conference of sacredness on their relationships other than to diminish the sacredness of heterosexual marriage.

Gore’s lazily-reasoned point is that it’s only fair to give people whatever they want. He is, as usual, wrong. Allowing farcical gay marriages would of course not destroy society overnight. However it is akin to eating your seed corn, or burning your walls to warm your house. Those who insist on gay marriage have no interest in the future; they are concerned only with changing the world to fit their needs during their lifetime. Those of us that have an interest in the future should not let the unbridled narcissism of the grasshopper class get in the way of the business of building and maintaining a strong house for the next generation.

"A tenet that I hold dear is that marriage is a sacred, holy rite. Don't discriminate against me!"

Are you married, "housewife"?

If so, you're obviously not being discriminated against!

Yes, and I am the CO. And I am crying 'discrimination' sarcastically. It seems as though those who wish to trample on things that I hold dear are welcome to do so. Perhaps if more people like me called 'discrimination' more often, we would be heard. But perhaps we don't want to lower ourselves to the behavior of those with whom we disagree.

Back on topic, Beef put it quite eloquently. It is my opinion that you should read and consider what he had to say, Hash.

But I disagree with Beef's point, housewife, because it could well be used to invalidate the worth of any barren couple's childless marriage!

I don't see how the "reproduce to save our society" sentiments can be applied either, for the simple reason that the argument white supremacists use to promote heightened procreation is to create more "white" children, and that assessment wouldn't hold water here, would it? Not when you factor in that blacks, Spanish, Asian, etc. are reproducing like rabbits, and that can't very well be addressed under the same rationale, no?

I saw a REALLY asinine analogy above, that I have regrettably heard repeated amongst fundamentalist Christians, where homosexuality is equated with pedophilia, bestiality, etc.

First off, children are, by definitions, not adults and cannot be married. Secondly, if you can find me ONE marriage bureau registrar, one justice of the peace, etc. who has ever been approached by any sort of non-human animal, and verbally requested a marriage license to marry a human being, I will cede this portion of the argument.

The whole POINT of the issue is that you would deny marriage equality to two HUMAN BEINGS and exercising heterosexual privilege in order to maintain an unjust status quo from a GOVERNMENTAL perspective, and that IS discrimination.

And, you are married, you have NOT been discriminated against. You have, indeed, benefited from affirmative action, and heterosexual privilege.

Why do liberals always jump to delusions? I read through these posts and see logical, well thought out, well stated comments countered by comments accusing posters of saying (or what's worse thinking) things that were never stated or even implied.

Completely delusional.

I am against same-sex marriage, but if it were something that was voted on by the people instead of ordered by edict from the all-powerful, unchecked judicial oligarchy, then I could accept it.

Hash~ I'm not the one who made the jump from homosexuality to pedophelia to bestialty, so don't put that off on me. I told you before, I cried 'discrimination' sarcastically, so that was explained as well. I actually commented on the lack of logic behind Gore's argument for gay marriage (the whole reduction of promiscuity thing). I was under the impression that THAT was the topic at hand.

Now if you will excuse me, I must go flog myself for benefiting from heterosexual privelege.

Hash:

First, you obscure the point completely by stating it infers that a childless marriage has no worth. The point was that heterosexual marriage has the potential to produce children; homosexual marriage does not.

Your interjection of racist sentiment is another absurd distraction. I actually have no idea what your point was. These concerns are inherent to all people. Without reproduction, there is no society to save. We should all support the raising of the next generation whether or not we have children. To seek to share in the rewards for an undertaking to which you choose not to contribute is not really defensible. One does not need to invoke religious justification for traditional marriage; “heterosexual privilege” is justifiable on pragmatic grounds.

In terms of discrimination, sexual orientation does not deserve consideration equal to race or gender. Race and gender are characteristics, not behaviors. Sexual orientation may or may not inherent to one’s being, but its expression involves conscious choice. We permit most behaviors whose expression does not harm other people. We do not automatically permit behaviors just because they are expressions of some inherent predilection (e.g. non consensual sex or smoking hash). Restricting marriage to male-female unions is non-discriminatory, as the law applies equally to everyone, gay or straight. Any heterosexual man, just as any gay man, cannot marry another guy. This is no more “discriminatory” than laws that prevent both someone who prefers beer as well as someone who is a hash fanatic from smoking hash. The may be libertarian arguments to make regarding these laws, but I don’t think there are valid equal protection arguments.

"Hash~ I'm not the one who made the jump from homosexuality to pedophelia to bestialty, so don't put that off on me."

Oh, I didn't say you did. I said I saw a comment "above", indicating one previous to yours.

"I actually commented on the lack of logic behind Gore's argument for gay marriage (the whole reduction of promiscuity thing). I was under the impression that THAT was the topic at hand."

We are probably closer to agreement then dissention on that aspect as well, because I do not understand what promiscuity has to do with the issue anyway. Loads of straight kids are wild, or have periods of wildness before they are married nowadays, and I'm actually suspicious of Gore for bringing up this wedge issue, with no real explanation why, for the same reason I'm suspicious of V constantly bringing up the abortion issue to Repubs.

"Now if you will excuse me, I must go flog myself for benefiting from heterosexual privelege."

No, no, don't flog yourself, lol!

Just please take a moment to reflect upon the fact that there are decent, loving people out there who only want to be treated as a equal citizen, the way you were!

Just please take a moment to reflect upon the fact that there are decent, loving people out there who only want to be treated as a equal citizen, the way you were!

They're already being treated as equal citizens. Any citizen can marry someone of the opposite sex; it's just not to homosexuals' taste to do so. If they choose not to exercise that right, that's their business.

The problem with changing the law is that homosexual "marriage" would quickly make marriage into a joke. Those of us who grew up in SF need only reflect on the Folsom Street Fair to see what will happen.

And anyone who thinks "marriage" would cut down on homosexuals' promiscuity shouldn't be allowed to cross the street by himself.

The homosexual marriage gives rights to the homosexual couples, it does not remove rights from the heterosexual couples. We are accepting that our brothers, our friends, our neighbours can have the same right that we do have, not a similar right, but exactly the same right. Any other thing is just discrimination and this cannot be tolerated in a democratic society. In Belgium, Netherlands, Spain and another places the homosexual marriage is a fact, and a very welcome fact.

Carlos,
Have a nice time in Europe because this is America and we don't want to be eurotrash.

Carlos: Your inability to discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual marriage illustrates a fundamental flaw in liberal thinking. To discriminate means to be able to tell the difference. There is irrational and immoral discrimination, such as judging an individual by his/her race or gender, and there are rational discriminations, such as judging an individual by his/her behaviors or beliefs. I accept that two adults have the right to form relationships in any combination they choose, and a just society lets people make their own choices. It is also in the larger society’s interest to prefer some choices over others, and the society has a justifiable right to discriminate when it comes to conferring advantages. Tolerance is demanded, but favor is earned. Places that ignore this distinction (like Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain) will undoubtedly suffer the consequences.

In Belgium, Netherlands, Spain and another places the homosexual marriage is a fact, and a very welcome fact.

I'm pretty sure we don't need to model ourselves after Eurotrash. But thanks anyway.

But gay people ARE treated as equal citizens, for all intensive purposes. Civil unions were created to give homosexuals couples a way to get the same benefits that married couples get.

Folsom Street Fair...ew. I just threw up a little. Anyone who is not offended by THAT depravity shouldn't be allowed out of the house.

and a very welcome fact

Welcome to whom, besides the vagitarians, and possibly the shirtlifters ?

"I'm certain we'll be hearing very soon how homosexuality can save the earth from mean ol' Mr. Global Warming."

Yes, Jimbo, because homosexuality does not produce children, all human life on the planet will eventually die off, and the Mother Earth can be perfect again! Isn't that what the Global warming freaks are all about, humans dying?

"And anyone who thinks "marriage" would cut down on homosexuals' promiscuity shouldn't be allowed to cross the street by himself."

Jay, I really don't CARE how promiscuous people are, or what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, because it isn't any of my business and it isn't any of yours, either.

What I DO care about is you thinking you have the
right to deny other working taxpaying Americans (and, if you really come from SF, you know they by far carry the BULK of the tax burden there) what you believe is your entitlement by right of your own sexuality.

"Any other thing is just discrimination and this cannot be tolerated in a democratic society."

Carlos, these people are not interested in a democratic society. They are pushing theocracy based on extremist interpretations of apostastic dogma based chiefly on ancient, Talmudic law, which predates democracy and, indeed, our very nation, itself.

There is nothing to do to change such minds, they simply must be disciplined and controlled until saner minds are in power and order can be restored.

Always remember, Carlos, that only the American neocon has the power to destroy your society, and use whatever means necessary to preserve your own ways and your dominant culture.

Jay, I really don't CARE how promiscuous people are, or what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, because it isn't any of my business and it isn't any of yours, either.

I don't care intrinsically how promiscuous people are, but I do when their behavior becomes a public health hazard. And like it or not, homosexual promiscuity spreads disease like crazy, and thereby threatens the normal population. My opposition does not spring from theological considerations, but rather from epidemiological and public policy ones.

Always remember, Carlos, that only the American neocon has the power to destroy your society, and use whatever means necessary to preserve your own ways and your dominant culture.

Think shari'a might make a few changes over there, just possibly? The days of Carlos's culture being dominant are numbered. You might profitably reflect on why that is.

And yes, I really am from SF, which is now unrecognizable architecturally, demographically, and politically (back then a blue collar union type of Democratic city, now long gone) from the city of my boyhood.

i have to say that I am pleasently suprised to see at least some well considered opinions on the subject...even some I don't agree with...

Beef, andy, CO to some exent, Carlos, and of course, the king, hasfanatic all argue respectably and demonstrate more than your basic familiarity with the fundamentals of logic.

Mind you these are not, for the most part, regular posters. The usual crew of nitwits chime in with their calls of "eurotrash" and gay hating Bible babble.

It's clear, more than ever, who the civilized ones are.

The problem for me is the big lie. I suspect it's not about discrimination. It's that getting gay unions to be co-equal with marriage is really an end run around the constitution. Can't get everyone to agree to it? Get a judge to. No need to fight a hundred battles if gay unions are legal by judicial fiat. And, you know, it's a start. Gay 'marriage' could then become the gay E.R.A.

In that context, Anon, hashfanatic's accusation that we're not interested in democracy is ironic. Let's put homosexual marriage on the ballot and see what happens. I'd be happy to live by the result, whatever that may be.

"Let's put homosexual marriage on the ballot and see what happens. I'd be happy to live by the result, whatever that may be."

With Diebold at the controls, I'm sure you would be.

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963
.........
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural,
healthy."

Proof that hasfanatic is a COMMUNIST! Or at least a commie sympathiser.

GASP!! You mean a real, live COMMUNIST???

Nah, you won't be hard to subjagate. Not at all...

Probably a lot easier to subjugate than English spelling, in fact.

No one of normal intelligence seriously thinks that Diebold has anything to do with influencing election results. No one.

Ha ha! Hash spelled a word wrong!

I probably better spelling and English skills than ANY of you knuckle-draggers!

"No one of normal intelligence seriously thinks that Diebold has anything to do with influencing election results. No one."

Perhaps not in your judgement, but that's certainly not representative of the nation as a whole.

Thanks for proving my point!

I probably HAVE...

What can I tell you? I WORK for a living!

I probably better spelling and English skills than ANY of you knuckle-draggers!

Sure. Whatever you say. You probably better spelling than any of us.

Perhaps not in your judgement, but that's certainly not representative of the nation as a whole.

Of course it is. It's why you lot can't get any traction on your accusations - no grownups take them seriously.

You see, grownups figure that a) Diebold had nothing to gain, and b) everything (including their livelihoods, such as manufacturing ATMs) to lose by getting cute with voting machines. They further figure that any such conspiracy would involve any number of people who could confidently be counted on to blab sooner or later. They reason such because a BJ in the Oval Office, known originally by only two people, became common knowledge among Stone Age natives in Borneo within weeks.

That's why no one takes you or your risible assertions seriously.

Turn it around. If the head of Diebold were a Democrat, would you consider all future eletions in the bag?

To put it in terms to which you can probably better relate, suppose the drive-up clerk was shorting people on their French fries. How long before word got back to the acne-ridden manager, your boss?

"Can any of you put aside the Gore bashing for one moment and explain to me what you could possibly have against the idea of two consenting adults of the same sex getting married?"

Because marriage is, to use a cliche, for the children. Marriage is not a state sanctioned form of cohabitation; it is a legal way of recoginizing the biological reality that only a heterosexual couple can produce children and that they should be the primary caregivers of the these children. The fact that we are having a national debate over gay "marriage" shows far the institution has fallen.

Can any of you put aside the Gore bashing for one moment and explain to me what you could possibly have against the idea of two consenting adults of the same sex getting married?

Because hashfanatic and hasfanaticFAN's much revered and multiculturally respected Koran, Prophet Mohammad, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, Osama bin Laden, Hamas, Fatah and Al Qaeda condemn it as a sin worthy of death by stoning/hanging/beheading.

Can you argue with that?

Seriously, how do liberals reconcile the strongest form of homophobia in the world with multicultural preferential treatment for Islam?

Going by the example set in previous posts, neither of the hashes will respond to this remark in a lucid manner.

Who CARES??

Can't you EVER focus on THIS country, rather than whatever you think is going on in foreign lands?

Homophobia will ALWAYS exist in the hearts of man but being American is supposed to be not giving in to our baser instincts and bizarre, irrational ideologies!

Can you EVER stop comparing yourselves to Islamics, Chinese, Africans, etc. and any other savages you can dredge up, and understand that Americans are to adhere to a higher standard?

If you cannot understand this simple fact, I'm sure some other stuttering, babbling fool will be along shortly to tell you what you want to hear, Mr. "Hot".

Can you EVER stop comparing yourselves to Islamics, Chinese, Africans, etc. and any other savages you can dredge up, and understand that Americans are to adhere to a higher standard?

Lol I am actually a Chinese living in 60% Muslim Malaysia.

So yes, I'm gonna keep on bringing 'Islamics' into the discussion.

But I still would like to know how you can cognitively reconcile thrashing the Christianity-inspired views on traditional male-female marriage in one thread (e.g. this thread), and in another thread extol the enlightenedness of Islam (e.g. Historian David Levering Lewis Laments That Europe Wasn't Conquered by Muslims Long Ago).

Wouldn't the rampant homosexuality in Europe be severely oppressed if the Ummayids had conquered it all?

And wouldn't homosexuality be nonexistant in America since a dhimmified Columbus would never have set sail and liberalism would never have usurped the Native American male-female-only relationship 'bigotry'?

If you are so pro-Islam, shouldn't you take into account the fact that Sharia is far more intolerant of homosexuality than Christian fundamentalism? If Americans like CAIR had their way rights to marriage wouldn't even be an issue among the Left - it would be first be gay rights to stay alive!

Or do you just pick and choose parts of Islam to support your the argument requires? I suspect that is it, you selectively and temporarily support stances that best suit the anti-Conservative flow of the moment. Flip-Flop Hillary would be proud.

no one here has ever praised the Muslims for their treatment of homsexuals or women for that matter. No One.

Yet, as hashfanatic clearly stated, we are not talking about Muslims all the time. The muslims are clear on where they stand. you know what they think , and I know what they think about Homosexuals.

The point is we are talking about how homosexuals are treated in AMERICA. you know, the country that tells us they are the leaders and defenders of the rights of ALL humans. If the US is going to brag about it's moral superiority , than we have responsiblity to behave morally. We are supposed to be on a higher moral plane. That's what we keep telling everyone, anyway.

More so than Islamic nations who claim they're morality comes through religion, not rationality, as we claim.

It's such a joke. Any time a problem or weakness in American culture is pointed out to you people, your knee jerk response is to bash the Islamic world. Don't you get it? That's not the point. A criticism of your own country is NOT praise for another. The thickness of you people..

"...and in another thread extol the enlightenedness of Islam..."

Back up, Hottie!

Where did I EVER "extol the enlightenedness of Islam", lol?

That has NEVER been reflective of my viewpoint!

"I am actually a Chinese living in 60% Muslim Malaysia."

YIKES! What can I say, except watch your back, lol!

But this little nugget of information explains a lot...

Wait, wait. Did I read this right:

Can you EVER stop comparing yourselves to Islamics, Chinese, Africans, etc. and any other savages you can dredge up, and understand that Americans are to adhere to a higher standard?

So other people are savages, and inferior to Americans?

I'm a true-blue American, and yet I don't believe that.

Arthur, extremely well said.

It's ironic that leftist bleat that we must adopt their policies "for the children," even when the policies are at best tangentially related to children's welfare ("vote against drilling in ANWR, it's for the children!").

But when it comes to issues that directly affect children - abortion and marriage - leftists take a powder, and in essence tell children to go hang.

Fascinating logic.

But this little nugget of information explains a lot...

Yeah, cos I'm a savage.

"So other people are savages, and inferior to Americans?"

Not necessarily, Jay, because savagery refers to personal (mis)behavior and propensity for violence.

If you behave in a savage manner toward others, you can rightly be called a savage.

Society simply hangs such tags on groups or demographics of people because savage behavior occurs more frequently in certain peoples than in others, and all of the members of the group gets labelled by the moniker.

Hash,
Since I'm a knuckledragger then is it ok if I drag my knuckles across your pastey face? Or will your mommy get upset?

Can you EVER stop comparing yourselves to Islamics, Chinese, Africans, etc. and any other savages you can dredge up, and understand that Americans are to adhere to a higher standard?

Let's try this again. I read this as characterizing Islamics, Chinese, and Africans as savages, because it lists them, and then throws in a reference to "any other savages."

Now you're backing away from that construction, saying the savage characterization "refers to personal (mis)behavior and propensity for violence." Are you now saying that Islamic, Chinese, and African people as a group are fine, but every individual belonging to one of those groups is personally prone to misbehavior and a propensity for violence?

Or, basically, WTF ARE you saying?

Waiting....

crickets....

You're in for a long wait, Jay.

Yeah, I know. I just wanted to see if/how a member of the "reality-based community" who overflows with love and tolerance and understanding for his fellow man was going to try to weasel off this hook, but this one is a "nolo contendere."

What can I tell you? I WORK for a living!

Burning a calorie or two by trotting down to your local welfare office doesn't qualify as "work", Sh#tstain.