Sharpton Insults Mormons; Will He Be Held To The Imus Standard?
J Young
http://catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_2/070509_sharpton.htm
On May 7, Rev. Al Sharpton debated author Christopher Hitchens at the
New York Public Library on the question of God's existence. In the
course of the debate, Hitchens made a snide reference to a Mormon
candidate for the Republican nomination (Governor Mitt Romney). When
Sharpton had an opportunity to respond, he said, "As for the Mormon
running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him
anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation."
Catholic League president Bill Donohue spoke of this issue today:
"Rev. Al Sharpton says he has been preaching for 48 of his 52 years
and that he was ordained a minister at the ripe old age of nine.
Therefore, he should know better than to insult people of faith,
independent of religious affiliation. What he said about Gov. Romney
is reprehensible.
"Applying the same standard of justice Sharpton invoked against Imus
for his racist quip, this should finish Sharpton's career. But will
it? It is up to Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John
Edwards to denounce Sharpton. After all, they all condemned Imus and
all of them recently spoke at Sharpton's National Action Network
convention in New York City.
"Sharpton is more than a man of the cloth. He is a former presidential
contender who is integrally tied to the Democratic party. Therefore,
it is incumbent that he be held accountable for his bigoted outburst
towelie
> http://catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_2/070509_sharpton.htm
>
>
>
> On May 7, Rev. Al Sharpton debated author Christopher Hitchens at the
> New York Public Library on the question of God's existence. In the
> course of the debate, Hitchens made a snide reference to a Mormon
> candidate for the Republican nomination (Governor Mitt Romney). When
> Sharpton had an opportunity to respond, he said, "As for the Mormon
> running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him
> anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation."
So the next president will be Scottish?
Geoff
> "Applying the same standard of justice Sharpton invoked against Imus
> for his racist quip, this should finish Sharpton's career. But will
> it? It is up to Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John
> Edwards to denounce Sharpton. After all, they all condemned Imus and
> all of them recently spoke at Sharpton's National Action Network
> convention in New York City.
Pfffft...Mormons are loons...what's to argue?
The women on the Rutgers basketball team are hard working young woman. I
have no problem with what Imus said as far as his right to say it goes. But
it was a despicable comment and his getting fired is in no way an
infringement on his right to say shit like that.
Parsifal
> http://catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_2/070509_sharpton.htm
If he is, will you shut up? If he doesn't, does it then "nullify"
Imus' fault?
Osprey
"Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:FZSdnXm0d9x1Nt_b...@giganews.com...
>J Young wrote:
>> http://catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_2/070509_sharpton.htm
>
>> "Applying the same standard of justice Sharpton invoked against Imus
>> for his racist quip, this should finish Sharpton's career. But will
>> it? It is up to Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John
>> Edwards to denounce Sharpton. After all, they all condemned Imus and
>> all of them recently spoke at Sharpton's National Action Network
>> convention in New York City.
>
> Pfffft...Mormons are loons...what's to argue?
Why are mormons loons? Why do you go and attack people, who simply belong
to a different religious organization.
I know a few mormons, they are fine individuals.
Your statement is no different than a bigot or a racist who makes a general
statement about..say a homosexual, a black, ect...
I think you should apologize for your ignorance, bigotry, and discriminating
attitude.
>
> The women on the Rutgers basketball team are hard working young woman. I
> have no problem with what Imus said as far as his right to say it goes.
> But it was a despicable comment and his getting fired is in no way an
> infringement on his right to say shit like that.
It was a terrible thing for him to say and firing him was too harsh in my
opinion, because you have many other people who say and do worse things, and
you don't see anyone wanting to fire them. Rosey O'Donnell comes to mind.
And people like Jackson and Sharpton, are in no way shape or form
saints...they have a good deal of racist history themselves, and bigotry.
Imus deserved to be suspended, without a doubt. But they picked and chose
him because they wanted to get hypocrites like Jackson and Sharpton out of
their hair.
LC
Insulting to pretty much everyone with normal intelligence, "J Young"
<youngo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178771853.6...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Catholic League president Bill Donohue spoke of this issue today:
"Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"
In other news, insane troll "J Young" insults pretty much everyone:
"I'm not much for poetry but I'll give it a shot:
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Watch your wallets
Here comes a Jew"
From: "J Young" <youngopini...@aol.com>
Message-ID: <NvydnZ_KuseAq5vY...@giganews.com>
"I'm a devout Catholic and would like to see the Muslims start
stoking-up the ovens in Tel Aviv."
Message-ID: <1158543753.0...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
"Q: What's the difference between a Muslim and a bucket of shit?
A: The bucket"
Message-ID: <25e1e54f.04011...@posting.google.com>
"Q: what's the difference between a jew and a pizza? A: pizza doesn't scream
when you put it in the oven.
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha ;-)"
Message-ID: <9aGdnT4p1b9...@giganews.com>
"This idiocy about the goats is more attributable to the fact that these are
Africans you're discussing; not the brightest, most rational of people"
Message-ID: <1d-dnS6HIquQ8JDY...@giganews.com>
Geoff
> "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:FZSdnXm0d9x1Nt_b...@giganews.com...
>> J Young wrote:
>>> http://catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_2/070509_sharpton.htm
>>
>>> "Applying the same standard of justice Sharpton invoked against Imus
>>> for his racist quip, this should finish Sharpton's career. But will
>>> it? It is up to Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John
>>> Edwards to denounce Sharpton. After all, they all condemned Imus and
>>> all of them recently spoke at Sharpton's National Action Network
>>> convention in New York City.
>>
>> Pfffft...Mormons are loons...what's to argue?
>
> Why are mormons loons? Why do you go and attack people, who simply
> belong to a different religious organization.
> I know a few mormons, they are fine individuals.
> Your statement is no different than a bigot or a racist who makes a
> general statement about..say a homosexual, a black, ect...
I agree. Mormons may even be better citizens on average than Americans as a
whole. My point stands...they are loons. Perhaps I should qualify that.
Mormons hold many beliefs that even the most superstitious Catholic would
laugh at. They aren't crazy per se. They are like any theist that believes
any number of unsubstantiated utter bullshit just because they were taught
that by their childhood authority figures. Only more so.
Do native Americans wear special underwear that they believe protects them
from evil spirits? Do homosexuals believe that an angel delivered gold
tablets to a confidence man and declared him a prophet. Do lesbians believe
that blacks are cursed progeny of Cain. Do blacks think that native
Americans are the lost tribes of Israel.
Shit, I can go on and on about absolutely farcical Mormon beliefs, but I'm
running out of minorities to set these beliefs against.
> I think you should apologize for your ignorance, bigotry, and
> discriminating attitude.
Nope. It's true. Their beliefs are just this side of Scientology. I was
certainly being argumentative. I don't need to apologize. I really didn't
mean that Mormons are crazy and I've known many along the way. I was given
the BOM by a friend of mine in Chattanooga and had a good laugh and lots of
lively discussion.
Speaking of whom, this guy said he had traced his genealogy back to Adam and
Eve. I shit you not. That's absurd.
>> The women on the Rutgers basketball team are hard working young
>> woman. I have no problem with what Imus said as far as his right to
>> say it goes. But it was a despicable comment and his getting fired
>> is in no way an infringement on his right to say shit like that.
>
> It was a terrible thing for him to say and firing him was too harsh
> in my opinion, because you have many other people who say and do
> worse things, and you don't see anyone wanting to fire them. Rosey
> O'Donnell comes to mind.
But their employment or lack thereof is not up to us. Rosie O'Donnell is an
offensive cuss and her fame is a complete mystery to me. This fascination
for obnoxious New Yorkers is beyond me too. Stern is another one.
> And people like Jackson and Sharpton, are in
> no way shape or form saints...they have a good deal of racist history
> themselves, and bigotry.
No doubt. But who would hire these guys in the first place, let alone fire
them. ;-)
> Imus deserved to be suspended, without a doubt. But they picked and
> chose him because they wanted to get hypocrites like Jackson and
> Sharpton out of their hair.
I wouldn't worry about Imus. I'm sure he'll be working soon enough if he
isn't already. I for one never could see the appeal of his show. Or Stern
for that matter. But, hey, that's just my opinion.
flores...@hotmail.com
> J Young wrote:
> >http://catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_2/070509_sharpton.htm
> > "Applying the same standard of justice Sharpton invoked against Imus
> > for his racist quip, this should finish Sharpton's career. But will
> > it? It is up to Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John
> > Edwards to denounce Sharpton. After all, they all condemned Imus and
> > all of them recently spoke at Sharpton's National Action Network
> > convention in New York City.
>
> Pfffft...Mormons are loons...
The kkkosher bigot speaks.
>what's to argue?
Nary a thing.
> The women on the Rutgers basketball team are hard working young woman. I
> have no problem with what Imus said as far as his right to say it goes. But
> it was a despicable comment and his getting fired is in no way an
> infringement on his right to say shit like that.
LMAO!!!! I just luv that kkkosher logic.
Just a reminder though: most blacks don't like kkkosher people
and their "defending" of everything black.
Ray Fischer
>
>"Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:FZSdnXm0d9x1Nt_b...@giganews.com...
>>J Young wrote:
>>> http://catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_2/070509_sharpton.htm
>>
>>> "Applying the same standard of justice Sharpton invoked against Imus
>>> for his racist quip, this should finish Sharpton's career. But will
>>> it? It is up to Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John
>>> Edwards to denounce Sharpton. After all, they all condemned Imus and
>>> all of them recently spoke at Sharpton's National Action Network
>>> convention in New York City.
>>
>> Pfffft...Mormons are loons...what's to argue?
>
>Why are mormons loons? Why do you go and attack people, who simply belong
>to a different religious organization.
Like, say, neonazis? People's Temple? Heaven's Gate?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
skyeyes
> Why are mormons loons? Why do you go and attack people, who simply belong
> to a different religious organization.
> I know a few mormons, they are fine individuals.
...who believe that they're going to turn into gods and each (male)
Mormon will be getting his *very* *own* *planet*, where he will be
able to keep his wife/wives perpetually pregnant.
> Your statement is no different than a bigot or a racist who makes a general
> statement about..say a homosexual, a black, ect...
Mormons *are* loons. The only thing loonier than Mormonism is
Scientology.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
fla...@verizon.net
On 10-May-2007, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
> J Young wrote:
> > http://catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_2/070509_sharpton.htm
>
> > "Applying the same standard of justice Sharpton invoked against Imus
> > for his racist quip, this should finish Sharpton's career. But will
> > it? It is up to Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John
> > Edwards to denounce Sharpton. After all, they all condemned Imus and
> > all of them recently spoke at Sharpton's National Action Network
> > convention in New York City.
>
> Pfffft...Mormons are loons...what's to argue?
There is a huge difference in these 2 comments.
What they both said was insulting, of course, but Sharpton's comment
was doctrinal in nature. He HAS to believe this about Mormons: FWIU,
MOST XIans insist that Mormons aren't really Xians, or even monotheists
(something about every single Mormon man becoming a god of his own
with his own planet...?).
All that can really happen is that no Mormons should ever vote for Sharpton.
But how can Sharpton "be fired"? From WHAT?
>
> The women on the Rutgers basketball team are hard working young woman. I
> have no problem with what Imus said as far as his right to say it goes.
> But it was a despicable comment and his getting fired is in no way an
> infringement on his right to say shit like that.
Perfectly stated.
NO ONE has "taken away Imus' rights.
What has been done is that his employers' exercised their right
to protect their cash flow.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 10-May-2007, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
> Their beliefs are just this side of Scientology.
Good grief, I never really noticed that...
I wonder if L. Ron Hubbard stuck a lot of that in there, just because he
could...?
Susan
David Schwartz
> There is a huge difference in these 2 comments.
> What they both said was insulting, of course, but Sharpton's comment
> was doctrinal in nature. He HAS to believe this about Mormons: FWIU,
> MOST XIans insist that Mormons aren't really Xians, or even monotheists
> (something about every single Mormon man becoming a god of his own
> with his own planet...?).
I don't see how this makes things any better for Sharpton, if anything
it makes things worse. KKK members hatred of Jews and blacks may well
be "doctrinal in nature". If anything, that simply makes it worse.
What it means is that they will stand behind, defend, and spread their
hatred, insisting it has a rational basis.
IMO, an inconsistent half-hearted bigot is better than a fully-
consistent bigot who is fully-committed to his bigotry.
DS
VApolluan
> On 10-May-2007, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Their beliefs are just this side of Scientology.
>
> Good grief, I never really noticed that...
Are you serious?
> I wonder if L. Ron Hubbard stuck a lot of that in there, just because he
> could...?
>
> Susan
Boy, do I have a book that cant be written...
osprey
> On May 9, 10:55 pm, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why are mormons loons? Why do you go and attack people, who simply belong
> > to a different religious organization.
> > I know a few mormons, they are fine individuals.
>
> ...who believe that they're going to turn into gods and each (male)
> Mormon will be getting his *very* *own* *planet*, where he will be
> able to keep his wife/wives perpetually pregnant.
>
> > Your statement is no different than a bigot or a racist who makes a general
> > statement about..say a homosexual, a black, ect...
>
> Mormons *are* loons. The only thing loonier than Mormonism is
> Scientology.
This is what gets me about liberals.
Liberals claim they support freedom, freedom of choice, freedom for
people to be who they want and how they want to live, live and let
live...ect...
But that's not true is it? No, instead I see liberals name calling
and attacking others all the time.
I don't agree with their beliefs either, but I'm not going around
calling them "loons" because of their religion and beliefs.
Cazador
J Young wrote:
> http://catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_2/070509_sharpton.htm
>
>
>
> On May 7, Rev. Al Sharpton debated author Christopher Hitchens at the
> New York Public Library on the question of God's existence.
Haha. I'd like to have seen that. Hitchens must have eaten his lunch
despite having to prove a negative.
In the
> course of the debate, Hitchens made a snide reference to a Mormon
> candidate for the Republican nomination (Governor Mitt Romney). When
> Sharpton had an opportunity to respond, he said, "As for the Mormon
> running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him
> anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation."
>
> Catholic League president Bill Donohue spoke of this issue today:
What an arrogant and self-serving act. Hypocritical. I'll explain
below.
> "Rev. Al Sharpton says he has been preaching for 48 of his 52 years
> and that he was ordained a minister at the ripe old age of nine.
> Therefore, he should know better than to insult people of faith,
> independent of religious affiliation. What he said about Gov. Romney
> is reprehensible.
>
> "Applying the same standard of justice Sharpton invoked against Imus
> for his racist quip, this should finish Sharpton's career. But will
> it? It is up to Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John
> Edwards to denounce Sharpton. After all, they all condemned Imus and
> all of them recently spoke at Sharpton's National Action Network
> convention in New York City.
The same standard, indeed. Racism is a real problem. Deborah is the
poster girl for that. But soapbox rivalry among superstitions is not,
at least not in secular states which protect civil liberties. Imus/
Sharpton are apples/oranges. If I believe in the Man in the Moon I
should be able to proclaim it even if it offends Mormons. If I believe
Mormonism is crackpot I will say it--and I do, here and now. Crackpot.
Hyper-sensitive demands for political correctness are a large part of
America's present crisis.
There is no end to what we're not supposed to talk about. Joseph Smith
was an obvious snake oil salesman but Sharpton, equally so, isn't
supposed to mention it. People aren't supposed to speak their minds on
myriad subjects. I'ts become a bit complex. Let the religionists do
their second century BC mumbo jumbo and and ignore it. Utah is going
to go Republican in any event. Sharpton knows he has no constituents
there. Why should he give a damn? And anyway, if Romney is nominated I
don't care why people vote against him in the privacy of the booth.
Politics is rough and tumble and that apparently can't be avoided--
except in the relative sense. We stumble across a Lincoln once in a
while just as a blind pig occasionaly finds an acorn. Right now that
pig is in extremis.
>
> "Sharpton is more than a man of the cloth. He is a former presidential
> contender who is integrally tied to the Democratic party. Therefore,
> it is incumbent that he be held accountable for his bigoted outburst
This Catholic poseur *agrees* with Sharpton about Mormonism! Therefore
by definition his "outburst" was not bigoted. I'm sure the Pope would
have to agree.
Finish his career. Haha, that's hilarious. Sharpton thrives on this
stuff. And in any event he is a civil rights activist and was
exercising his civil rights. Eternal vigilance is the price of
liberty, etc., etc.
Now, as to Father Abraham and Moses. They were not historical
personages any more than were Adam and Eve. And Bishop Usher was a
credulous fool when he used the Bible to calculate that age of the
earth, created by God he thought in 4004 B.C. The men who wrote those
parts of the Old Testament/Torah were Joseph Smith types. Snake oil
specialists. The ethical systems emerging from it are another matter.
And all of them, Christian, Buddhist, whatever, are of human origin,
obviously.
Hitchens is a trip.
Brian Westley
>On May 10, 1:03 pm, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>> On May 9, 10:55 pm, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Why are mormons loons? Why do you go and attack people, who simply belong
>> > to a different religious organization.
>> > I know a few mormons, they are fine individuals.
>>
>> ...who believe that they're going to turn into gods and each (male)
>> Mormon will be getting his *very* *own* *planet*, where he will be
>> able to keep his wife/wives perpetually pregnant.
>>
>> > Your statement is no different than a bigot or a racist who makes a general
>> > statement about..say a homosexual, a black, ect...
>>
>> Mormons *are* loons. The only thing loonier than Mormonism is
>> Scientology.
>This is what gets me about liberals.
>Liberals claim they support freedom, freedom of choice, freedom for
>people to be who they want and how they want to live, live and let
>live...ect...
Yeah. So?
>But that's not true is it? No, instead I see liberals name calling
>and attacking others all the time.
More free speech. Got a problem with that?
>I don't agree with their beliefs either, but I'm not going around
>calling them "loons" because of their religion and beliefs.
But you could if you wanted to. That's what freedom means, loon.
Of course, you've just accused liberals of lying, which in my
view is more serious than calling someone a loon.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Ray Fischer
>On May 10, 1:03 pm, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>> On May 9, 10:55 pm, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Why are mormons loons? Why do you go and attack people, who simply belong
>> > to a different religious organization.
>> > I know a few mormons, they are fine individuals.
>>
>> ...who believe that they're going to turn into gods and each (male)
>> Mormon will be getting his *very* *own* *planet*, where he will be
>> able to keep his wife/wives perpetually pregnant.
>>
>> > Your statement is no different than a bigot or a racist who makes a general
>> > statement about..say a homosexual, a black, ect...
>>
>> Mormons *are* loons. The only thing loonier than Mormonism is
>> Scientology.
>
>This is what gets me about liberals.
>Liberals claim they support freedom, freedom of choice, freedom for
>people to be who they want and how they want to live, live and let
>live...ect...
>
>But that's not true is it?
Of course it's true, bigot.
> No, instead I see liberals name calling
>and attacking others all the time.
So YOU are objecting to other people having the freedom to criticise
religions. YOU are the one attacking people for speaking.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
skyeyes
> On May 10, 1:03 pm, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 9, 10:55 pm, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why are mormons loons? Why do you go and attack people, who simply belong
> > > to a different religious organization.
> > > I know a few mormons, they are fine individuals.
>
> > ...who believe that they're going to turn into gods and each (male)
> > Mormon will be getting his *very* *own* *planet*, where he will be
> > able to keep his wife/wives perpetually pregnant.
>
> > > Your statement is no different than a bigot or a racist who makes a general
> > > statement about..say a homosexual, a black, ect...
>
> > Mormons *are* loons. The only thing loonier than Mormonism is
> > Scientology.
>
> This is what gets me about liberals.
I'm *hardly* a liberal. I don't even believe in welfare for most of
the people who are getting nowdays. Stop trying to cram people into
pidgeon holes, willya?
> Liberals claim they support freedom, freedom of choice, freedom for
> people to be who they want and how they want to live, live and let
> live...ect...
Yes. And? I never said they shouldn't be allowed to adhere to the
faith of their choice - I just said that the faith in question is
looney. And it is. I will defend their right to belong to that faith
with my very life, if it comes to that. That doesn't mean can't call
a spade a spade.
> But that's not true is it? No, instead I see liberals name calling
> and attacking others all the time.
But I'm not a liberal. What's you point?
> I don't agree with their beliefs either, but I'm not going around
> calling them "loons" because of their religion and beliefs.
Have you ever actually studied what the Mormons or Scientologists
believe? Just because they have a right to believe it doesn't mean I
don't have an equal right to call the thing what it is: looney.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of FEline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-May-2007, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 8:56 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > There is a huge difference in these 2 comments.
> > What they both said was insulting, of course, but Sharpton's comment
> > was doctrinal in nature. He HAS to believe this about Mormons: FWIU,
> > MOST XIans insist that Mormons aren't really Xians, or even monotheists
> > (something about every single Mormon man becoming a god of his own
> > with his own planet...?).
>
> I don't see how this makes things any better for Sharpton, if anything
> it makes things worse. KKK members hatred of Jews and blacks may well
> be "doctrinal in nature". If anything, that simply makes it worse.
I guess I didn't explain myself carefully enough.
What people are complaining about is that Sharpton spoke
openly about the doctrinal differences between most
Xians and Mormons.
Unlike racial bigotry (such as you refer to below), there is
almost no way of "proving him wrong/right" so as to referee,
here.
Imus' remarks were disgusting because they were purely subjective
and deliberately inuslting.
Sharpton - tho' we all know he's a filthy little (okay, big) pig - could
soldily claim to have been giving a religious opinion.
Susan
hille...@yahoo.com
> The same standard, indeed. Racism is a real problem.
> Deborah is the poster girl for that.
Says Cazador the antisemite.
Geoff
> This is what gets me about liberals.
> Liberals claim they support freedom, freedom of choice, freedom for
> people to be who they want and how they want to live, live and let
> live...ect...
Oh Mr. Strawman, give me an out
I don't have a point and I just want to pout
> But that's not true is it? No, instead I see liberals name calling
> and attacking others all the time.
Oh please...I will defend to the death everyone's right to be a complete
utter fucking idiot. OTOH...it opens them up to criticism. How the heck is
my criticism affecting anyone's freedom pray tell?
> I don't agree with their beliefs either, but I'm not going around
> calling them "loons" because of their religion and beliefs.
No, but it's not beneath you to criticise liberals. Unlike your baseless
accusations though, my criticism of them is entirely merited.
Geoff
I don't think anyone here is defending Sharpton.
Geoff
Thank you and I appreciate you applying some clarity.
Geoff
> On May 9, 10:55 pm, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why are mormons loons? Why do you go and attack people, who simply
>> belong to a different religious organization.
>
>> I know a few mormons, they are fine individuals.
>
> ...who believe that they're going to turn into gods and each (male)
> Mormon will be getting his *very* *own* *planet*, where he will be
> able to keep his wife/wives perpetually pregnant.
>
>> Your statement is no different than a bigot or a racist who makes a
>> general statement about..say a homosexual, a black, ect...
>
> Mormons *are* loons. The only thing loonier than Mormonism is
> Scientology.
Jinx...1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10...you owe me 10 Cokes!
Cazador
> On 11-May-2007, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 8:56 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > > There is a huge difference in these 2 comments.
Indeed, I've already explained that to you.
> > > What they both said was insulting, of course, but Sharpton's comment
> > > was doctrinal in nature. He HAS to believe this about Mormons: FWIU,
> > > MOST XIans insist that Mormons aren't really Xians, or even monotheists
> > > (something about every single Mormon man becoming a god of his own
> > > with his own planet...?).
The use of "Xian" is a calculated insult designed to humiliate and
degrade the "goyim," the use of which latter term is also an insult.
If you don't stop using them I'm going to report you to the National
Council of Churches and they will turn it over to their lobby's organ
in Washington. They will see to it you lose your job and are
blacklisted forever, like Don Imus.
>
> > I don't see how this makes things any better for Sharpton, if anything
> > it makes things worse. KKK members hatred of Jews and blacks may well
> > be "doctrinal in nature". If anything, that simply makes it worse.
>
> I guess I didn't explain myself carefully enough.
> What people are complaining about is that Sharpton spoke
> openly about the doctrinal differences between most
> Xians and Mormons.
> Unlike racial bigotry (such as you refer to below), there is
> almost no way of "proving him wrong/right" so as to referee,
> here.
>
> Imus' remarks were disgusting because they were purely subjective
> and deliberately inuslting.
You don't get it either. Deliberation prior to the delivery of insults
is in fact a literary specialty much valued in our culture. We can't
live without it. H. L. Mencken and Ambrose Bierce are famous examples
and Shakespeare cultivated the art as all Jews know. Wilde was
wickedly good at it: see "The Wicked Wit of Oscar Wild". If insults
are inevitable in democratic societies, and let's hope they remain so,
we can only hope the quality of them goes up.
Imus' comments were objectionable not because they were designed to
insult but because they were racist. Racism is something America has a
national interest in suppressing. Insults in the generic sense? Give
me a break. It's an art form
That said, Deborah's "filthy little big pig" comment about Sharpton is
hard to interpret as anything but racist. She is invited to try. She
should not have said it. It was very coarse and reflects poorly on the
quality of her upbringing. Her mother would be horrified. Mind you
though I believe in her *right* to say it and to continue useing
myriad racial slurs against Palestinians. From her I would expect
nothing else. If we're to remain free we just gotta have the right to
be wrong.
> Sharpton - tho' we all know he's a filthy little (okay, big) pig - could
> soldily claim to have been giving a religious opinion.
>
> Susan
>
> > What it means is that they will stand behind, defend, and spread their
> > hatred, insisting it has a rational basis.
That's what's done on a daily basis in the continuing effort to
demonize the Palestinians. Those poor folks have been completely out
maneuvered in the propaganda war. That can't be outlawed now can it?
No, of course not, it's anti-Semitic to even mention such an
abomination.
>
> > IMO, an inconsistent half-hearted bigot is better than a fully-
> > consistent bigot who is fully-committed to his bigotry.
You should have no right or power to silence what you personally think
adds up to bigotry directly or indirectly. If the state wants to get
into the business it's even more dangerous. Some things we just have
to live with as the price of a free society.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Avi Shlaim, perhaps the best of the Israeli revisionist or
"New Historians", says:
"For many years the standard Zionist account of the causes, character,
and course of the Arab-Israeli conflict remained largely unchallenged
outside the Arab world. The fortieth anniversary of the establishment
of the State of Israel, however, was accompanied by the publication of
four books by Israeli historians who challenged the traditional
historiography of the birth of the State of Israel and the first Arab-
Israeli war. The four books are Simha Flapan's The Birth of Israel:
Myths and Realities, Benny Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian
Refugee Problem, 1947-1949, Ilan Pappe's Britain and the the Arab-
Israeli Conflict, 1948-1951, and my own Collusion Across the Jordan:
King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine.
Collectively the authors came to be called the Israeli revisionist, or
new, historians." (Shlaim, Avi, The Iron Wall, Israel and the Arab
World, Norton, 2000) I've borrowed Iron Wall and have ordered the
rest. It will be a busy and pleasant summer.
Geoff
Haha...are you calling me Jewish? Just another stupid religion like
Christianity.
And the whole "kkk..." thing is striclty ad hominem. Did you care to address
my statement? Do you think that Mormon beliefs are somehow mainstream?
>> what's to argue?
>
> Nary a thing.
>
>> The women on the Rutgers basketball team are hard working young
>> woman. I have no problem with what Imus said as far as his right to
>> say it goes. But it was a despicable comment and his getting fired
>> is in no way an infringement on his right to say shit like that.
>
> LMAO!!!! I just luv that kkkosher logic.
>
> Just a reminder though: most blacks don't like kkkosher people
> and their "defending" of everything black.
Once again, you fail to address the argument and merely spew invective, ad
homs and strawmen. Run along now, little shaver, adults are chatting here.
You could get hurt.
Cazador
I defended him against Deborah's racist slur, but not otherwise.
flores...@hotmail.com
> On May 11, 1:52 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> The use of "Xian" is a calculated insult designed to humiliate and
> degrade the "goyim," the use of which latter term is also an insult.
Absolutely. And Blowhole and other assorted Christian-hating bigots
use it as such. They could easily stop using it, but that of course
would go against their hardcore hatred and bigotness.
> If you don't stop using them I'm going to report you to the National
> Council of Churches and they will turn it over to their lobby's organ
> in Washington. They will see to it you lose your job and are
> blacklisted forever, like Don Imus.
Just report Blowhole to the Coast Guard.
> > I guess I didn't explain myself carefully enough.
> > What people are complaining about is that Sharpton spoke
> > openly about the doctrinal differences between most
> > Xians and Mormons.
> > Unlike racial bigotry (such as you refer to below), there is
> > almost no way of "proving him wrong/right" so as to referee,
> > here.
Prove that you're not a sea mammal, Blowhole.
> > Imus' remarks were disgusting because they were purely subjective
> > and deliberately inuslting.
You insult sea mammals everywhere. I used to like whales.
> That said, Deborah's "filthy little big pig" comment about Sharpton is
> hard to interpret as anything but racist. She is invited to try. She
> should not have said it. It was very coarse and reflects poorly on the
> quality of her upbringing. Her mother would be horrified. Mind you
> though I believe in her *right* to say it and to continue useing
> myriad racial slurs against Palestinians.
Nothing wrong with seeing the differences between the races, as there
ARE differences between the races. She is most certainly racist, as
is her krill-scooping pal Blowhole. The hatred drips from their
posts.
Cazador
Yeah, yeah, the same old Israel Lobby nonsense described so well by
Mearsheimer & Walt. If I were to describe Jews qua Jews as she
describes the Palestinians you'd have a case. I don't do it and you
know it. It doesn't occur to me to do it and I know it. I've never
done it in my entire life. Generic anti-Semitism is a profoundly
stupid intellectual vice; it's indefensible. Deborah demonizes all
Palestinians and you border on it in more subtle ways which make me
wonder what's in your soul. But I'll settle now for what's in your
head.
flores...@hotmail.com
> floresriki...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Pfffft...Mormons are loons...
>
> > The kkkosher bigot speaks.
>
> Haha...are you calling me Jewish?
Your quacking is so similar as to be rather indistinguishable. If
you
cuddle with them, and talk their mantra, you are kkkosher.
> Once again, you fail to address the argument and merely spew invective,
Being a kkkosher kkklan member, you ought to be rather accustomed
to such. Without smear, libel and slander, they'd have little to
say.
> homs and strawmen. Run along now, little shaver, adults are chatting here.
Where?
Thandarr
>
> Pfffft...Mormons are loons...what's to argue?
>
question is whether the implication that Mormons don't believe in God
is offensive.
I am not sure by which standard we can evaluate the comparative
ridiculousness of superstitions. Are the Mormons any more loony than
the Presbyterians or the Catholics or the Baptists or the Jews or the
Moslems or the Hindus or the Scientologists or the worshippers of John
Frum or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Actually, that's an interesting concept, comparative absurdities of
religions. Oh well.
Thandarr
dsharavi
> The use of "Xian" is a calculated insult designed to humiliate and
Why do some Jews write "J-s-s" and "Xianity?"
Some Jews consider Jesus to have been an ordinary man and
write his name like that of any other man. Some question whether or
not he even existed, possibly being a myth borrowed from similar
stories. Others ascribe to him the status of a "deity worshipped by
others," whose name Jews should not pronounce. Many extend this ban to
the written form. Some write "Xianity" as a simple shorthand, like
"Xmas," while others prefer not to write "Christianity" lest it appear
that they consider Jesus to have been the Messiah.
Note that the shorthands "Xianity" and "Xmas" do not derive
from attempting to "blot out" the Jesus's name; rather, they arose
because the first letter of the Christ in greek (Christos) is a Chi,
which looks like an "X". In fact, the shorthand is used by many
Christians.
The possible halachic problem with writing Christ derives
from the fact that "christos" is the Greek word for Messiah/moshiach.
Hence some argue that writing the name Christ in full tacitly
acknowledges (G-d forbid) that Jesus was the Messiah.
http://shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/01-index.html
> degrade the "goyim," the use of which latter term is also an insult.
Goyim = nations
> That said,Deborah's"filthylittlebigpig" comment aboutSharptonis
> hard to interpret as anything but racist. She is invited to try. She
> should not have said it. It was very coarse and reflects poorly on the
> quality of her upbringing. Her mother would be horrified. Mind you
> though I believe in her *right* to say it and to continue useing
> myriad racial slurs against Palestinians. From her I would expect
> nothing else.
You're invited to point to where, exactly, I made any such comment
about Sharpton.
Or is your libel merely another of your alcohol-induced fantasies?
> (Shlaim, Avi, The Iron Wall, Israel and the Arab
> World, Norton, 2000) I've borrowed Iron Wall
But, naturally, haven't read it any more than you've read the Pappe
crappe you keep beating your meat over.
Was your retirement from law practice the result of a conflict with
your day job?
Deborah
dsharavi
> > I don't think anyone here is defendingSharpton.
> I defended him againstDeborah'sracist slur
Point to where I made any "slur" against Sharpton, and to your alleged
"defence" of that slur.
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> > The same standard, indeed. Racism is a real problem.
> > Deborah is the poster girl for that.
On May 11, 12:18 pm, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Says Cazador the antisemite.
Make that "Cazador the stupid antisemite". Unless you consider "stupid
antisemite" the redundancy it is, of course.
Deborah
hille...@yahoo.com
> Yeah, yeah, the same old Israel Lobby nonsense
> described so well by Mearsheimer & Walt.
I read about 10 pages till I decided "enough bullshit".
There are several good criticisms of the paper, e.g.
http://www.adl.org/Israel/mearsheimer_walt.asp
www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=189&x_article=1105
www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=35&x_article=1099
They pointed out, among other things, factual erros.
How do you deal with that?
> Deborah demonizes all Palestinians
Says who?
> and you border on it in more subtle ways which
> make me wonder what's in your soul.
I am an engineer. I like solutions that actually solve
the problems, and I learn from failures. I usually
take the time to trace failures to wrong assumptions.
E.g. in the early 1990's I supported Oslo. I was
wrong. The bad assumption I made was the
assumption that the Palestinians wanted peace.
hille...@yahoo.com
> insult but because they were racist. Racism is something America has a
> national interest in suppressing. Insults in the generic sense?
So what?
The First Amendment is the law of this land. If you think that
racial insults should not have such a protection then amend
the Constitution.
Till then, just follow the letter, and the intent,
of the First.
Salah Jafar
SJ
hille...@yahoo.com
> degrade the "goyim," the use of which latter term is also an insult.
So sue God for promising Abraham to make a big "goy"
out of him in Genesis 12:2, and leave the rest of us alone.
Benyamin Cramer
<hille...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178930355....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The yids would be left alone if they stuck to their tribe, and did not
involve themselves in every nation's politics.
Guess that's too difficult a notion for you to get your head around, huh?
>
JoelKatz
> I guess I didn't explain myself carefully enough.
> What people are complaining about is that Sharpton spoke
> openly about the doctrinal differences between most
> Xians and Mormons.
Right, but it is absurd to characterize this comment as "speaking
openly about the doctrinal differences". For example, defenders of
Imus say that he "criticizes" various groups equally, but this comment
was not a "criticism" in any meaningful sense of the word.
> Unlike racial bigotry (such as you refer to below), there is
> almost no way of "proving him wrong/right" so as to referee,
> here.
Huh? Are you saying there is some objective test to tell if people are
"nappy-headed hos"?
> Imus' remarks were disgusting because they were purely subjective
> and deliberately inuslting.
> Sharpton - tho' we all know he's a filthy little (okay, big) pig - could
> soldily claim to have been giving a religious opinion.
Religious opinions are equally subjective. Suppose I genuinely believe
that black people are deserving of insult because they are genetically
inferior, does that make it somehow better if I insult them?
People who really believe it and mean it are *worse* than people who
are just trying to be funny. People who will insist their comments
*mean* something is really wrong or inferior about the people they
insult are worse.
Imus was giving his opinion that those women were nappy-headed hos. He
didn't believe it, he was just trying to be funny. He was rude and
insensitive. But there is no reason to believe that he considers black
women inferior. He didn't really mean anything by it, at least not as
far as I can tell.
Sharpton genuinely believes that mormons are inferior to him in a very
meaningful sense. What he said was insulting to all mormons, and he
*meant* it.
DS
Geoff
Obviously, you are incapable of writing anything meriting response. See ya.
*plonk*
flores...@hotmail.com
So why did ya respond?
*plink*
flores...@hotmail.com
> On May 11, 1:20 pm, Cazador <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The use of "Xian" is a calculated insult designed to humiliate and
>
> Why do some Jews write "J-s-s" and "Xianity?"
> Some Jews consider Jesus to have been an ordinary man and
> write his name like that of any other man. Some question whether or
> not he even existed, possibly being a myth borrowed from similar
> stories. Others ascribe to him the status of a "deity worshipped by
> others," whose name Jews should not pronounce. Many extend this ban to
> the written form. Some write "Xianity" as a simple shorthand, like
> "Xmas," while others prefer not to write "Christianity" lest it appear
> that they consider Jesus to have been the Messiah.
> Note that the shorthands "Xianity" and "Xmas" do not derive
> from attempting to "blot out" the Jesus's name; rather, they arose
> because the first letter of the Christ in greek (Christos) is a Chi,
> which looks like an "X".
Okay, but let's say that many Christians find it offensive, wouldn't
people
with even a shred of decency stop inserting the X simply for THAT
reason?
I mean, we've all been told to stop using other spellings and labels
and other things that various groups have decided are offensive.
Example: "colored" or "negro" for black or African American.
I mean, where's all that sensitivity that your tribe is always
pushing?
Doesn't it apply to Christians too. If not, why not? Do explain.
Cazador
> On May 11, 1:20 pm, Cazador <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The use of "Xian" is a calculated insult designed to humiliate and
>
> Why do some Jews write "J-s-s" and "Xianity?"
> Some Jews consider Jesus to have been an ordinary man and
> write his name like that of any other man. Some question whether or
> not he even existed, possibly being a myth borrowed from similar
> stories. Others ascribe to him the status of a "deity worshipped by
> others," whose name Jews should not pronounce. Many extend this ban to
> the written form. Some write "Xianity" as a simple shorthand, like
> "Xmas," while others prefer not to write "Christianity" lest it appear
> that they consider Jesus to have been the Messiah.
> Note that the shorthands "Xianity" and "Xmas" do not derive
> from attempting to "blot out" the Jesus's name; rather, they arose
> because the first letter of the Christ in greek (Christos) is a Chi,
> which looks like an "X". In fact, the shorthand is used by many
> Christians.
> The possible halachic problem with writing Christ derives
> from the fact that "christos" is the Greek word for Messiah/moshiach.
> Hence some argue that writing the name Christ in full tacitly
Free Lunch
flores...@hotmail.com wrote in
<1179010199....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>On May 11, 6:21 pm, dsharavi <dshar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 11, 1:20 pm, Cazador <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The use of "Xian" is a calculated insult designed to humiliate and
>>
>> Why do some Jews write "J-s-s" and "Xianity?"
>> Some Jews consider Jesus to have been an ordinary man and
>> write his name like that of any other man. Some question whether or
>> not he even existed, possibly being a myth borrowed from similar
>> stories. Others ascribe to him the status of a "deity worshipped by
>> others," whose name Jews should not pronounce. Many extend this ban to
>> the written form. Some write "Xianity" as a simple shorthand, like
>> "Xmas," while others prefer not to write "Christianity" lest it appear
>> that they consider Jesus to have been the Messiah.
>> Note that the shorthands "Xianity" and "Xmas" do not derive
>> from attempting to "blot out" the Jesus's name; rather, they arose
>> because the first letter of the Christ in greek (Christos) is a Chi,
>> which looks like an "X".
>
>Okay, but let's say that many Christians find it offensive, wouldn't people
>with even a shred of decency stop inserting the X simply for THAT reason?
Why would Christians find it offensive when it is a Christian shorthand.
If they are offended, they are being foolish and ignorant. Their
behavior is not Christian in any sense.
>I mean, we've all been told to stop using other spellings and labels
>and other things that various groups have decided are offensive.
>Example: "colored" or "negro" for black or African American.
Have you ever seen a Chi-Rho above an altar? Does it offend the
Christians in the pews?
>I mean, where's all that sensitivity that your tribe is always pushing?
>Doesn't it apply to Christians too. If not, why not? Do explain.
I'm sorry that there are Christians who are so ignorant of their own
religion that they take offense at their own religious symbols, but
that's not my problem. That is the problem with ignorant Christians. I
will be happy to help enlighten them, but I certainly won't indulge Bill
O'Reilly-style lies.
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-May-2007, dsharavi <dsha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 1:20 pm, Cazador <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The use of "Xian" is a calculated insult designed to humiliate and
>
> Why do some Jews write "J-s-s" and "Xianity?"
What a stupid liar he is: THEY are the ones who made up the term,
& they even use it for shorthand on their own groups.
Susan
Cazador
Damn, Liz, I would have thought that after all your whining about my
not citing famous Israeli scholars you'd be in a better mood now. I'm
finally knuckling under and getting you some good stuff and what do
you do? You revert to little hit and run operations like this. Anyhow,
I think you ought to get serious yourself and dig out the Foreign
Agents Registration Act. I've given you my analysis. Now it's your
turn.
BTW, DoD is offended not that he understands what the word weak meant
in context. He needs a little more mothering. Can you help?
fla...@verizon.net
On 12-May-2007, JoelKatz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 11:52 am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > I guess I didn't explain myself carefully enough.
> > What people are complaining about is that Sharpton spoke
> > openly about the doctrinal differences between most
> > Xians and Mormons.
>
> Right, but it is absurd to characterize this comment as "speaking
> openly about the doctrinal differences".
Yes, he was being insulting.
But, unfortunately, that is what he could call it, & there is no
proof to the contrary except that we all know what a pig
Sharpton is.
I am NOT saying he wasn't insulting, rude or obnoxious, and
that I wouldn't like to see him disappear tomorrow.
I'm saying that he was lucky in the insult he chose to make
this time.
> For example, defenders of
> Imus say that he "criticizes" various groups equally, but this comment
> was not a "criticism" in any meaningful sense of the word.
>
> > Unlike racial bigotry (such as you refer to below), there is
> > almost no way of "proving him wrong/right" so as to referee,
> > here.
>
> Huh? Are you saying there is some objective test to tell if people are
> "nappy-headed hos"?
You DO know what a "ho" is, don't you?
You *do* realize that "nappy" can only refer to one racial type, right?
>
> > Imus' remarks were disgusting because they were purely subjective
> > and deliberately inuslting.
> > Sharpton - tho' we all know he's a filthy little (okay, big) pig - could
> > soldily claim to have been giving a religious opinion.
>
> Religious opinions are equally subjective.
Depends on whether it can be disproven by fact or not.
> Suppose I genuinely believe
> that black people are deserving of insult because they are genetically
> inferior,
You do realize that this is neither religious nor a fact?
That it can be proven
> does that make it somehow better if I insult them?
>
My point is that by the actual words he used, he could very well
get away with saying he didn't mean to be insulting, even tho'
everyone knows he did.
> People who really believe it and mean it are *worse* than people who
> are just trying to be funny.
I disagree, because people who REALLY don;t mean it would never say it.
> People who will insist their comments
> *mean* something is really wrong or inferior about the people they
> insult are worse.
>
I disagree there, too, of course.
To insist hat Imus wasn't insulting those women by calling them whores is
stupid at best.
> Imus was giving his opinion that those women were nappy-headed hos.
Yes, he weas as insulting as Sharpton, but without a factual leg on
which to sstand.
According to Moron beliefs, they all believe they will become gods with
their own planets, after death, if they have lived the right way (men only).
Peope who believe in G-d don't believe this.
> He
> didn't believe it,
And how do you know?
> he was just trying to be funny. He was rude and
> insensitive. But there is no reason to believe that he considers black
> women inferior.
I disagree, there is every reason, given his comments.
> He didn't really mean anything by it, at least not as
> far as I can tell.
>
AFAICT, he did mean it, because he said it.
> Sharpton genuinely believes that mormons are inferior to him in a very
> meaningful sense.
Yes, I know.
But he didn't say anything about inferior: he said "doesn;t believe in G-d."
> What he said was insulting to all mormons,
I can really only vaguely see why, because he was going off their own
beliefs.
> and he
> *meant* it.
>
Sure.
And Imus did, too.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-May-2007, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
> David Schwartz wrote:
> > On May 10, 8:56 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> >
> >> There is a huge difference in these 2 comments.
> >> What they both said was insulting, of course, but Sharpton's comment
> >> was doctrinal in nature. He HAS to believe this about Mormons: FWIU,
> >> MOST XIans insist that Mormons aren't really Xians, or even
> >> monotheists (something about every single Mormon man becoming a god
> >> of his own with his own planet...?).
> >
> > I don't see how this makes things any better for Sharpton, if anything
> > it makes things worse. KKK members hatred of Jews and blacks may well
> > be "doctrinal in nature". If anything, that simply makes it worse.
> > What it means is that they will stand behind, defend, and spread their
> > hatred, insisting it has a rational basis.
> >
> > IMO, an inconsistent half-hearted bigot is better than a fully-
> > consistent bigot who is fully-committed to his bigotry.
>
> I don't think anyone here is defending Sharpton.
HECK NO!
I was just pointing out that he was lucky in his choice of insult.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-May-2007, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
> >> The women on the Rutgers basketball team are hard working young
> >> woman. I have no problem with what Imus said as far as his right to
> >> say it goes. But it was a despicable comment and his getting fired
> >> is in no way an infringement on his right to say shit like that.
> >
> > Perfectly stated.
> > NO ONE has "taken away Imus' rights.
> > What has been done is that his employers' exercised their right
> > to protect their cash flow.
>
> Thank you and I appreciate you applying some clarity.
You're welcome & my pleasure.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-May-2007, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
> flores...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Pfffft...Mormons are loons...
> >
> > The kkkosher bigot speaks.
>
> Haha...are you calling me Jewish? Just another stupid religion like
> Christianity.
>
> And the whole "kkk..." thing is striclty ad hominem.
And projectory, in all senses: he's the one who hates Jews, like the KKK.
Susan
Did you care to
> address
> my statement? Do you think that Mormon beliefs are somehow mainstream?
>
> >> what's to argue?
> >
> > Nary a thing.
> >
> >> The women on the Rutgers basketball team are hard working young
> >> woman. I have no problem with what Imus said as far as his right to
> >> say it goes. But it was a despicable comment and his getting fired
> >> is in no way an infringement on his right to say shit like that.
> >
> > LMAO!!!! I just luv that kkkosher logic.
> >
> > Just a reminder though: most blacks don't like kkkosher people
> > and their "defending" of everything black.
>
> Once again, you fail to address the argument and merely spew invective, ad
>
> homs and strawmen. Run along now, little shaver, adults are chatting here.
>
> You could get hurt.
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-May-2007, John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us> wrote:
> Geoff wrote:
> > I agree. Mormons may even be better citizens on average than Americans
> > as a
> > whole. My point stands...they are loons. Perhaps I should qualify that.
> > Mormons hold many beliefs that even the most superstitious Catholic
> > would
> > laugh at. They aren't crazy per se. They are like any theist that
> > believes
> > any number of unsubstantiated utter bullshit just because they were
> > taught
> > that by their childhood authority figures. Only more so.
> >
> > Do native Americans wear special underwear that they believe protects
> > them
> > from evil spirits? Do homosexuals believe that an angel delivered gold
> > tablets to a confidence man and declared him a prophet. Do lesbians
> > believe
> > that blacks are cursed progeny of Cain. Do blacks think that native
> > Americans are the lost tribes of Israel.
>
> What the heck. I'll jump in.
>
> Why are beliefs about wearing white underwear any more strange than,
> say, not eating meat on Friday or fasting while the sun is in the sky
> for an entire month or not eating pork or that whole idea of Thetans?
>
> Every religion has its quirks. It doesn't make adherents to said
> religion a "loon".
I think that the point is that people who don't wear the underwear aren't
affected by evil spirits, whereas all the things you mentioned aren't
supposed to actually do anything for you except put your life on a more
spiritual plane.
The Thetans, or anything else from Sientology, is a proven fiction
from L. Ron Hubbard.
Susan
DoD
"Cazador" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179032519.4...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> BTW, DoD is offended not that he understands what the word weak meant
> in context. He needs a little more mothering. Can you help?
No, DoD is perplexed why you are claiming that Deborah called me weak, when
in fact she never said anything like that.
Cazador
> "Cazador" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Then it must have been that darned Susan or the perfidious Ariadne. Oh
well, you are weak, poor boy.
DoD
It was none of them, you stupid old drunk.
cactus
find it offensive.
I don't eliminate letters from "Jesus," but generally refer to the
Christian messiah as "Jesus of Nazareth." It expresses my religious
views without (I hope) causing offense. At least no one has objected to it.
Some Jews will delete letters from the name of G-d because of the
tradition of not writing the name in places where it could be destroyed.
So Most Jews would not do that with "Jesus" because that implies Jesus
of Nazareth had something to do with G-d. Which, in the Jewish
tradition, he did not.
I extend to all other religions the same courtesy that I expect from others.
Benyamin Cramer
"DoD" <navy...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:4646a0d0$0$3264$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Fucking oath she did.
>
>
>
Benyamin Cramer
No. It was the shoveari slime.
>
>
>
dsharavi
> > > > The use of "Xian" is a calculated insult designed to humiliate and
> > > Goyim = nations
Cazador <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Damn, Liz, I would have thought
Who, exactly, are you responding to, you antedeluvian ass? In your
case, a non-response, as per your usual. And, per your usual, you
DON'T think.
Point out EXACTLY where I stated, as you claim in your most recent
spew of libels, that:
"Deborah's"filthylittlebigpig" comment aboutSharptonis
hard to interpret as anything but racist. She is invited to try. She
should not have said it. It was very coarse and reflects poorly on the
quality of her upbringing. Her mother would be horrified."
Deborah
dsharavi
> > > I don't think anyone here is defendingSharpton.
> Point to where I made any "slur" against Sharpton, and to your alleged
> "defence" of that slur.
> Deborah
Still waiting for Mr Watson's response ......
Deborah
Benyamin Cramer
"dsharavi" <dsha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179050528.0...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
We're, most of us, horrified you continue breathing, slime. You take great
pleasure in lying through your rotten teeth and assassinating the character
of every person critical of the stinky yids, at every possible opportunity.
And who can forget your wonderful recipe for cooking Palestinian children.
You're filth, shoveari. A typical stinky yid.
>
> Deborah
>
RJ
Benyamin Cramer <yi...@home.nixpeace.cam> wrote:
(snip some drivel)
"Ben Cramer" admits that he's a troll:
"I'm not here to rebut anything or anyone, cuntface. I'm here
to antagonise and keep you occupied." -- "Ben Cramer",
Message-ID: <dv0e2v$l5a$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>.
RJ.
fla...@verizon.net
You can bet your bottom dollar is was NO ONE but the
loser to whom you replied.
It must be something in the watemlately, because
the lies are even dumber than I ever thought they
could get.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-May-2007, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote:
> flores...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On May 11, 6:21 pm, dsharavi <dshar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 11, 1:20 pm, Cazador <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The use of "Xian" is a calculated insult designed to humiliate and
> >> Why do some Jews write "J-s-s" and "Xianity?"
> >> Some Jews consider Jesus to have been an ordinary man and
> >> write his name like that of any other man. Some question whether or
> >> not he even existed, possibly being a myth borrowed from similar
> >> stories. Others ascribe to him the status of a "deity worshipped by
> >> others," whose name Jews should not pronounce. Many extend this ban to
> >> the written form. Some write "Xianity" as a simple shorthand, like
> >> "Xmas," while others prefer not to write "Christianity" lest it appear
> >> that they consider Jesus to have been the Messiah.
> >> Note that the shorthands "Xianity" and "Xmas" do not derive
> >> from attempting to "blot out" the Jesus's name; rather, they arose
> >> because the first letter of the Christ in greek (Christos) is a Chi,
> >> which looks like an "X".
> >
> > Okay, but let's say that many Christians find it offensive, wouldn't
> > people
> > with even a shred of decency stop inserting the X simply for THAT
> > reason?
Then why don't they ever yell at the Xians who use it?
OOOPS!
> > I mean, we've all been told to stop using other spellings and labels
> > and other things that various groups have decided are offensive.
> > Example: "colored" or "negro" for black or African American.
> >
Which were all made up by NON African-Americans...
> > I mean, where's all that sensitivity that your tribe is always
> > pushing?
And since he obiously ignores it, as this *sentence* *alone* proves....
> > Doesn't it apply to Christians too. If not, why not? Do explain.
> >
> I do not use the X-abbreviation for Christianity because many Christians
> find it offensive.
>
At this point in time, I do it ONLY because it ticks off lying scumwads,
and it is .
You can't find more than a dozen people who actually care about it,
and NONE of them have EVER called out the XIANS who use it...
> I don't eliminate letters from "Jesus," but generally refer to the
> Christian messiah as "Jesus of Nazareth." It expresses my religious
> views without (I hope) causing offense. At least no one has objected to
> it.
Of course I'll say "Jesus". Why not?
>
> Some Jews will delete letters from the name of G-d because of the
> tradition of not writing the name in places where it could be destroyed.
> So Most Jews would not do that with "Jesus" because that implies Jesus
> of Nazareth had something to do with G-d. Which, in the Jewish
> tradition, he did not.
Well, that, too.
I never even think of that when it comes to wqriting out "Jesus."
>
> I extend to all other religions the same courtesy that I expect from
> others.
And so do I.
Any abbreviation Jews use, I let others use :-)
Susan
Benjamin Cramer
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:tuP1i.2414$Gm.1113@trnddc04...
What the fuck is "watemlately", you dyslexic, thick Irish cunt?
>
> Susan
JoelKatz
> Yes, he weas as insulting as Sharpton, but without a factual leg on
> which to sstand.
> According to Moron beliefs, they all believe they will become gods with
> their own planets, after death, if they have lived the right way (men only).
> Peope who believe in G-d don't believe this.
You can't have it both ways. Either Imus meant something by what he
said or he meant nothing by what he said. If he meant something by
what he said, then he has just as much of a factual leg to stand on as
Sharpton does. They both were expressing beliefs that they truly held
but cannot prove or confirm. If he meant nothing by what he said, then
he is not as bad as Sharpton, because Sharpton certainly meant what he
said.
I see the same difference between Imus and Sharpton that you do. And I
believe is *strongly* cuts against Sharpton. He wasn't just trying to
be funny, he *meant* that a particular religious group was inferior.
DS
RJ
amusing when he boasts of his "language skills", and makes
glaring mistakes in the process. Here are two classics:
"Don't even attempt to lecture a speaker of proper English
on it's use, please." -- "Ben Cramer", in
^^^^
Message-ID: <dntjng$2op2$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>.
"You're spelling's gone to the shitter again, cohen." --
^^^^^^
"Ben Cramer", in Message-ID: <edgr6r$dth$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>.
RJ.
fla...@verizon.net
On 14-May-2007, JoelKatz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 10:02 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > Yes, he weas as insulting as Sharpton, but without a factual leg on
> > which to sstand.
> > According to Moron beliefs, they all believe they will become gods with
> > their own planets, after death, if they have lived the right way (men
> > only).
> > Peope who believe in G-d don't believe this.
>
> You can't have it both ways.
I'm not trying to.
> Either Imus meant something by what he
> said or he meant nothing by what he said.
I'm not the one who is saying he meant nothing.
He definitely meant something nasty.
> If he meant something by
> what he said, then he has just as much of a factual leg to stand on as
> Sharpton does.
And this is just plain stupid.
To pretend that two different people who make 2 different insults
can both be "right" because ONE of them has somehting to back him up is
*insane*.
> They both were expressing beliefs that they truly held
> but cannot prove or confirm.
And there's the firrence.
Not only can Shaprton point out things in Moron beliefs
that back up what he said, Imus can NOT prove these women were whores.
> If he meant nothing by what he said, then
> he is not as bad as Sharpton, because Sharpton certainly meant what he
> said.
And this is wrong, too.
He not only said something worse than Shaprton, he said
something that has no basis in fact - the opposite of Sharpton.
The fcat that Sharpton meant to be rude puts him on a par with Imus.
The only thing that makes him WORSE than Imus is that he pretends
he's a Reverend.
Susan
bob&carole
> J Young wrote:
> >http://catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_2/070509_sharpton.htm
>
> > On May 7, Rev. Al Sharpton debated author Christopher Hitchens at the
> > New York Public Library on the question of God's existence. In the
> > course of the debate, Hitchens made a snide reference to a Mormon
> > candidate for the Republican nomination (Governor Mitt Romney). When
> > Sharpton had an opportunity to respond, he said, "As for the Mormon
> > running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him
> > anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation."
>
> So the next president will be Scottish?
Sharpton is Negroid, he will be protected as usual.
flores...@hotmail.com
> On 13-May-2007, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > floresriki...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On May 11, 6:21 pm, dsharavi <dshar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On May 11, 1:20 pm, Cazador <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> The use of "Xian" is a calculated insult designed to humiliate and
> > >> Why do some Jews write "J-s-s" and "Xianity?"
> > >> Some Jews consider Jesus to have been an ordinary man and
> > >> write his name like that of any other man. Some question whether or
> > >> not he even existed, possibly being a myth borrowed from similar
> > >> stories. Others ascribe to him the status of a "deity worshipped by
> > >> others," whose name Jews should not pronounce. Many extend this ban to
> > >> the written form. Some write "Xianity" as a simple shorthand, like
> > >> "Xmas," while others prefer not to write "Christianity" lest it appear
> > >> that they consider Jesus to have been the Messiah.
> > >> Note that the shorthands "Xianity" and "Xmas" do not derive
> > >> from attempting to "blot out" the Jesus's name; rather, they arose
> > >> because the first letter of the Christ in greek (Christos) is a Chi,
> > >> which looks like an "X".
>
> > > Okay, but let's say that many Christians find it offensive, wouldn't
> > > people
> > > with even a shred of decency stop inserting the X simply for THAT
> > > reason?
>
> Then why don't they ever yell at the Xians who use it?
Christians don't use it Blowhole. Lie number 3,489,501.
But maybe you're referring to those "Christians" who
cuddle up to you Christ-haters for political reasons, Blowhole.
>
> > > I mean, we've all been told to stop using other spellings and labels
> > > and other things that various groups have decided are offensive.
> > > Example: "colored" or "negro" for black or African American.
>
> Which were all made up by NON African-Americans...
Yeah, they prefer "niggers." Very common in slaptown.
They also like "people of color." Some point you're trying
to make sea mammal?
Ariadne
> "Cazador" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1179034291.8...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 13, 12:23 am, "DoD" <navyd...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> "Cazador" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1179032519.4...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > BTW, DoD is offended not that he understands what the word weak meant
> >> > in context. He needs a little more mothering. Can you help?
>
> >> No, DoD is perplexed why you are claiming that Deborah called me weak,
> >> when
> >> in fact she never said anything like that.
>
> > well, you are weak, poor boy.
>
> It was none of them, you stupid old drunk.
That's certainly correct but "perfidious" is a lovely
old-fashioned thing to be called!
I would always be perfidious to a poseur like Cazador.
fla...@verizon.net
Yes - I think I should protest that he doesn't find me "perfidious".
I always want bigots & filth to find me "perfidious"
Susan
Cazador
You're so obsessed with me that you steal my word. Mitts off.
The Revd
cunt & dyslexic wannabe jew, wrote:
> Suzy
Perfidious??? Th*ck Irish cunt, more like.
Benjamin Cramer
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:yP92i.19435$3B5.12653@trnddc08...
You're not a yid, you dyslexic, thick Irish cunt.
JoelKatz
> On 14-May-2007, JoelKatz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> > If he meant something by
> > what he said, then he has just as much of a factual leg to stand on as
> > Sharpton does.
> And this is just plain stupid.
> To pretend that two different people who make 2 different insults
> can both be "right" because ONE of them has somehting to back him up is
> *insane*.
Huh? I am just saying that your position is that they both meant what
they said when they made insulting, bigoted statements.
> > They both were expressing beliefs that they truly held
> > but cannot prove or confirm.
> And there's the firrence.
> Not only can Shaprton point out things in Moron beliefs
> that back up what he said, Imus can NOT prove these women were whores.
No, that's not a difference. First, they were both commenting on
specific people based on attributes of their group. Neither of them
knows about the specific people to argue personal knowledge.
Both of them phrased beliefs in an insulting way. Neither of them can
prove or back up their beliefs in any objective way. Both of them can
point to some evidence to justify the more factual part of their
claims (they do have short, curly hair). Neither of them can point to
any facts, nor could there be any facts, to justify the purely
insulting part of their comments.
The insulting part of Imus's comment was clearly not meant to be
factual. The insulting part of Sharpton's comment was. That cuts
against Sharpton.
> > If he meant nothing by what he said, then
> > he is not as bad as Sharpton, because Sharpton certainly meant what he
> > said.
> And this is wrong, too.
> He not only said something worse than Shaprton, he said
> something that has no basis in fact - the opposite of Sharpton.
What? They did have nappy hair. They were not hos, but that was not
meant as a factual claim, it was meant purely as an insult. Sharpton's
comment similarly has both factual and insulting aspects.
DS
fla...@verizon.net
On 15-May-2007, JoelKatz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 5:59 am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > On 14-May-2007, JoelKatz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
>
> > > If he meant something by
> > > what he said, then he has just as much of a factual leg to stand on as
> > > Sharpton does.
>
> > And this is just plain stupid.
> > To pretend that two different people who make 2 different insults
> > can both be "right" because ONE of them has somehting to back him up is
> > *insane*.
>
> Huh? I am just saying that your position is that they both meant what
> they said when they made insulting, bigoted statements.
No, you were saying that " he has just as much of a factual leg to stand on
as
Sharpton does." which is not the case.
>
> > > They both were expressing beliefs that they truly held
> > > but cannot prove or confirm.
>
> > And there's the firrence.
> > Not only can Shaprton point out things in Moron beliefs
> > that back up what he said, Imus can NOT prove these women were whores.
>
> No, that's not a difference.
Of course it is.
> First, they were both commenting on
> specific people based on attributes of their group.
Nop, they were not.
One was commenting on attributes the group SAYS it has,
theo ther was commenting on fallacious attributes HE ASSIGNED TO THEM.
> Neither of them
> knows about the specific people to argue personal knowledge.
Except that Sharpton is "right".
Mormon theology saysa that each believing man turns itno his own god with is
own planet.
That is definitely not "believing in G-d"
>
> Both of them phrased beliefs in an insulting way.
Absolutely.
Neither of them can
> prove or back up their beliefs in any objective way.
Untrue - see my statement about Mormon theology.
> Both of them can
> point to some evidence to justify the more factual part of their
> claims (they do have short, curly hair)
But they are NOT whores.
You keep missing that.
>. Neither of them can point to
> any facts
Yes, Sharpton can.
>, nor could there be any facts, to justify the purely
> insulting part of their comments.
>
Of course not.
> The insulting part of Imus's comment was clearly not meant to be
> factual.
And you know this... how?
And if it was not meant to be factual, then it's al ie as well, and so that
makes it worse.
> The insulting part of Sharpton's comment was. That cuts
> against Sharpton.
Not at all.
Sharpton at least had a leg to stand on - Imus doesn't.
>
> > > If he meant nothing by what he said, then
> > > he is not as bad as Sharpton, because Sharpton certainly meant what he
> > > said.
>
> > And this is wrong, too.
> > He not only said something worse than Shaprton, he said
> > something that has no basis in fact - the opposite of Sharpton.
>
> What? They did have nappy hair. They were not hos, but that was not
> meant as a factual claim, it was meant purely as an insult.
And you know this how?
> Sharpton's
> comment similarly has both factual and insulting aspects.
>
Sure.
He *is* a pig, after all.
Then again, so is Imus.
But Sharpton is a bigger pig, because he has people
who follow him blindly to the point of acting on what he says.
Luckily, he didn't say to actually DO anything to Mormons.
Susan
Chairman Mao says:
now you liberals cannot control the monsters you created.
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:c9q2i.38337$3B5.20961@trnddc08...
JoelKatz
> No, you were saying that " he has just as much of a factual leg to stand on
> as
> Sharpton does." which is not the case.
Nonsense. Please explain how you come to this conclusion. I'll repeat
why I believe they have equal factual legs to stand on. Imus was
talking about people do in fact have nappy hair. They are not in fact
hos, at least, I don't think Imus can present any rational reason to
believe this. Sharpton was talking about people who are in fact
Mormons. They are not in fact religiously inferior to Sharpton, at
least, I don't think Sharpton can present any rational reason to
believe this.
There is no way in which Sharpton's believe in the religious
inferiority of mormons is somehow more defensible than Imus' belief
(if he even had it, we have to assume the worst of Imus to even get
here) that Black female athletes can be described as "hos".
> > First, they were both commenting on
> > specific people based on attributes of their group.
> Nop, they were not.
> One was commenting on attributes the group SAYS it has,
> theo ther was commenting on fallacious attributes HE ASSIGNED TO THEM.
Wow. You're basically defending racism. So if all blacks but one say
that blacks are inferior, that justifies my describing the one black
person who doesn't as inferior?! Sorry, I reject this distinction
outright. Groups don't say things.
> > Neither of them
> > knows about the specific people to argue personal knowledge.
> Except that Sharpton is "right".
> Mormon theology saysa that each believing man turns itno his own god with is
> own planet.
> That is definitely not "believing in G-d"
So what? If there was some black belief that women should sell their
bodies for money, does that justify describing random black women as
"hos"? Of course not.
This type of group judgment is the definition of things like racism.
> > Both of them phrased beliefs in an insulting way.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> Neither of them can
>
> > prove or back up their beliefs in any objective way.
> Untrue - see my statement about Mormon theology.
Sorry, that doesn't justify statements about particular momons.
Perhaps Imus could demonstrate that the vast majority of black female
athletes are in fact prostitutes, that would defend him calling those
particular women "hos".
> > Both of them can
> > point to some evidence to justify the more factual part of their
> > claims (they do have short, curly hair)
>
> But they are NOT whores.
> You keep missing that.
Imus doesn't know that. He judged them based on their group
affiliation, just as Sharpton did.
> >. Neither of them can point to
> > any facts
>
> Yes, Sharpton can.
The same ones Imus can point to. They do have nappy hair.
> >, nor could there be any facts, to justify the purely
> > insulting part of their comments.
>
> Of course not.
>
> > The insulting part of Imus's comment was clearly not meant to be
> > factual.
> And you know this... how?
> And if it was not meant to be factual, then it's al ie as well, and so that
> makes it worse.
This is where we disagree. I think this disagreement is fundamental.
Calling someone a "ho" and not meaning anything by it is significantly
less evil than actual bigotry, where you judge a group as inferior
without any objective justification.
> > The insulting part of Sharpton's comment was. That cuts
> > against Sharpton.
> Not at all.
> Sharpton at least had a leg to stand on - Imus doesn't.
So a KKK member who insults a Jew has a leg to stand on that a Jewish
comedian doesn't. Crazy.
> But Sharpton is a bigger pig, because he has people
> who follow him blindly to the point of acting on what he says.
> Luckily, he didn't say to actually DO anything to Mormons.
I don't think that's what makes Sharpton the bigger pig. I think it's
that he really believes what he says and beliefs that there is
objective justification for his hatred. If there's any reason to
believe Imus feels that way, I haven't seen it.
DS
JoelKatz
> Perfectly stated.
> NO ONE has "taken away Imus' rights.
> What has been done is that his employers' exercised their right
> to protect their cash flow.
Actually, it's not quite clear yet, but it's quite possible that Imus'
rights were violated. He negotiated for certain rights in his radio
contract, including the right to a warning prior to being fired for
insensitive (but not obscene) remarks.
DS
fla...@verizon.net
On 15-May-2007, JoelKatz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 3:06 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > No, you were saying that " he has just as much of a factual leg to stand
> > on
> > as
> > Sharpton does." which is not the case.
>
> Nonsense. Please explain how you come to this conclusion.
I already havem twice.
You simply refuse to accept it.
> I'll repeat
> why I believe they have equal factual legs to stand on. Imus was
> talking about people do in fact have nappy hair.
Which does not mean that he had any right to say what
even you admit he had no right to say.
> They are not in fact
> hos, at least, I don't think Imus can present any rational reason to
> believe this. Sharpton was talking about people who are in fact
> Mormons.
Yes. He was talking about people who believe that *they* will become gods.
IOW, people who do not believe in one supreme being - or, G-d - as Shaprton
stated.
And that was LL he said.
> They are not in fact religiously inferior to Sharpton
Which was not what he said, however much we all know he meant it.
>, at
> least, I don't think Sharpton can present any rational reason to
> believe this.
Except for what he took from their own beliefs - even tho' he never
said outright that he considered them inferior.
>
> There is no way in which Sharpton's believe in the religious
> inferiority of mormons
Which sentiment you have inferred from his speech,
not anything he actually said, unlike the word "ho".
> is somehow more defensible
It is, because there is evidence to support it - as I have said
at least three times, now.
(Then again, it's worse because he's supposed to be a reverend
and Imus is a professional jerk - but that's a different aspect)
> than Imus' belief
> (if he even had it, we have to assume the worst of Imus to even get
> here)
There is no reason to say the word "ho" unless you are trying to be
disrespectful.
> that Black female athletes can be described as "hos".
>
> > > First, they were both commenting on
> > > specific people based on attributes of their group.
>
> > Nop, they were not.
> > One was commenting on attributes the group SAYS it has,
> > the other was commenting on fallacious attributes HE ASSIGNED TO THEM.
>
> Wow. You're basically defending racism.
You are nuts.
I have said nothing to this effect whatsoever.
>So if all blacks but one say
> that blacks are inferior,
I hope it was an honest mistake on your part to get
what I said COMPLETELY BACKWARDS.
I have said three times now that MORMONS SAY THEY
BELIEVE MORMON (MEN) CAN BCEOM GODS.
At NO POINT did I say that Black people said anything
like Imus said - HE ASSINGED QUALITIES to the women,
OT the women themselves.
> that justifies my describing the one black
> person who doesn't as inferior?! Sorry, I reject this distinction
> outright.
And I reject the man in the moon.
I said nothing like this - you just have decided I did.
>
> > >Yes,
> > > Neither of them
> > > knows about the specific people to argue personal knowledge.
>
> > Except that Sharpton is "right".
> > Mormon theology saysa that each believing man turns itno his own god
> > with is
> > own planet.
> > That is definitely not "believing in G-d"
>
> So what? If there was some black belief
Are you seriously saying that Mormon doctrine isn't Mormon doctrine?
That there are "Reform Mormons" somewhere?
Show me any Mormon church that doesn't teach what they say they do.
> that women should sell their
> bodies for money, does that justify describing random black women as
> "hos"? Of course not.
>
> This type of group judgment is the definition of things like racism.
>
Good thing I didn;t say anything like that.
> > > Both of them phrased beliefs in an insulting way.
> >
> > Absolutely.
> >
> > Neither of them can
> >
> > > prove or back up their beliefs in any objective way.
>
> > Untrue - see my statement about Mormon theology.
>
> Sorry, that doesn't justify statements about particular momons.
Except thatit has tpo, unless that person is not a Mormon.
Sharpton spoke about a Mormon beliving what Mormons believe.
If he doesn;t believe what mormons believe, then he's no longer a Mormon.
> Perhaps Imus could demonstrate that the vast majority of black female
> athletes are in fact prostitutes, that would defend him calling those
> particular women "hos".
>
Except that you are stepping even further into the realm of fantasy
to avoid a simple fact.
It is not "the majority of Mormons" - it's MORMON DOCTRINE.
To come up with this silly wishful-thinking analogy just shows you
refuse to grasp the facts on the ground.
> > > Both of them can
> > > point to some evidence to justify the more factual part of their
> > > claims (they do have short, curly hair)
> >
> > But they are NOT whores.
> > You keep missing that.
>
> Imus doesn't know that
So why did he call them that?
Actually, you answer it yourself:
>. He judged them based on their group
> affiliation, just as Sharpton did.
IOW, Imus is a bigot who believes that all black women are hos,
and Shaprton believes that Mormons follow Mormon Dcotrine.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
>
> > >. Neither of them can point to
> > > any facts
> >
> > Yes, Sharpton can.
>
> The same ones Imus can point to. They do have nappy hair.
And you keep pretending that if you ignore for a*second*
that he also called them whores, that this will somehow go away.
it won't.
>
> > >, nor could there be any facts, to justify the purely
> > > insulting part of their comments.
> >
> > Of course not.
> >
> > > The insulting part of Imus's comment was clearly not meant to be
> > > factual.
>
> > And you know this... how?
> > And if it was not meant to be factual, then it's al ie as well, and so
> > that
> > makes it worse.
>
> This is where we disagree. I think this disagreement is fundamental.
> Calling someone a "ho" and not meaning anything by it
You bet we disagree.
Not only can you not in any way say he didn't mean anything by it,
I definitely say that any foul thing you say "for a joke" is just as bad,
because you're pretending that it's funny to say such things when it isn't.
is significantly
> less evil than actual bigotry
Which again is Imus, making racist & sexist remarks, as
opposed to Sharpton, who simply applied Mormon theolog
to a Mormon.
>, where you judge a group as inferior
> without any objective justification.
>
Which is, again, what IMUS did.
Sharpton did no such thing.
He took MORMON DOCTRINE and applied it TO A MORMON.
> > > The insulting part of Sharpton's comment was. That cuts
> > > against Sharpton.
>
> > Not at all.
> > Sharpton at least had a leg to stand on - Imus doesn't.
>
> So a KKK member who insults a Jew has a leg to stand on
How can he, when he would be lying, and SHaprtton wasn't?
> that a Jewish
> comedian doesn't. Crazy.
Yes, because that's also not what I said.
>
> > But Sharpton is a bigger pig, because he has people
> > who follow him blindly to the point of acting on what he says.
> > Luckily, he didn't say to actually DO anything to Mormons.
>
> I don't think that's what makes Sharpton the bigger pig. I think it's
> that he really believes what he says
Except that there's no reason for him to think Mormons have
been lying to us about what they believe.
> and beliefs that there is
> objective justification for his hatred.
And how do you know that he *hates* Mormons?
Because he quotes their theology?
> If there's any reason to
> believe Imus feels that way, I haven't seen it.
>
The fcat that he made a filthy sexual slur when there was
NO evidence for it?
Good enough for me.
Good enough for his bosses to fire him, too.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 15-May-2007, JoelKatz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
I'm betting his company, desperate to save their revenue, decided
that "ho" is obscene.
Susan
Chairman Mao says:
so they never forgot.
Liberalism promoted by the ultra-leftist Jew$ is to blame once again.
White Guys that are not Gay or Jewish are the targets.
Thanks again Susan for your liberalism and political correctness gone wild.
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:G6v2i.69971$Ae.58350@trnddc07...
Chairman Mao says:
You created the monster.
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:m5v2i.69956$Ae.7733@trnddc07...
Chairman Mao says:
wrong.
Your liberal ultra-fascist-Jewish types created people like Sharpton and
Jackson for votes, now that the beast runs amuck you cannot complain about
it.
When these people brought in the Black votes for dregs like Clinton you
people thought he was the greatest person.
He delivered, why are you people surprised Sharpton is a racist and hate
monger now, something the rest of us already knew.
This is why I cannot stand liberalism, you destroy and empower only certain
groups for political means.
Look at the Jewish last names in our government that are the worst
offenders, Feinstein, Schumer, the list goes on.
These are the primary reasons your people are hated.
Nobody wants to hear PC diatribe or Limo-lib speak coming from these people.
(Remember you fascist-libs gave JackSon his free pass when he mentione
Hymietown, you looked the other way because he was going to bring in your
voter blocks)
"JoelKatz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1179285612.9...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Chairman Mao says:
Thank liberals....
You can OJ someone get a Jew law outfit and get off.
It cannot get worst than that.
"JoelKatz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1179285841.9...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Benjamin Cramer
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:c9q2i.38337$3B5.20961@trnddc08...
Would you like to get an eight year old to redo that fucked up attempt at a
message, cohen?
Your dyslexia is beginning to take you over, you fucking 'tard.
Benjamin Cramer
cunt.
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:m5v2i.69956$Ae.7733@trnddc07...
JoelKatz
> I have said three times now that MORMONS SAY THEY
> BELIEVE MORMON (MEN) CAN BCEOM GODS.
All Mormons say that? Every single one? There is not a single Mormon
who disagrees with this position? That is, it is fair to state that an
individual who identifies himself as Mormon must hold this position?
(And, of course, to totally ignore what most Mormons actually mean by
this.)
DS
fla...@verizon.net
On 16-May-2007, JoelKatz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 8:43 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > I have said three times now that MORMONS SAY THEY
> > BELIEVE MORMON (MEN) CAN BCEOM GODS.
>
> All Mormons say that?
Like I said in my previous post, it's just one of the things
that determines whether you ARE a Mormon. As I said
in my previous post, there are no "Reform Mormons."
> Every single one?
\Like I said in my previous post, it's just one of the things
that determines whether you ARE a Mormon. As I said
in my previous post, there are no "Reform Mormons."
> There is not a single Mormon
> who disagrees with this position?
Like I said in my previous post, it's just one of the things
that determines whether you ARE a Mormon. As I said
in my previous post, there are no "Reform Mormons."
> That is, it is fair to state that an
> individual who identifies himself as Mormon must hold this position?
Like I said in my previous post, it's just one of the things
that determines whether you ARE a Mormon. As I said
in my previous post, there are no "Reform Mormons."
> (And, of course, to totally ignore what most Mormons actually mean by
> this.)
Why are you trying tomake Imus look less bad by this lame struggle?
No one is defending Sharpton: he is a pig, and, as a "Reverend"
should know better than an *open* pig of a talkshow host.
But, even tho' he meant to be insulting, he made a factual statement
- UNLIKE IMUS.
Susan
flores...@hotmail.com
> On 16-May-2007, JoelKatz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 8:43 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > > I have said three times now that MORMONS SAY THEY
> > > BELIEVE MORMON (MEN) CAN BCEOM GODS.
>
> > All Mormons say that?
>
> Like I said in my previous post,
Nobody cares what you say Blowhole, beginning to get it?
Everybody hates sea mammals who won't stop the spew.
Chairman Mao says:
"Chairman Mao saTHE REPUBLICAN FISHERMAN
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost.
She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to
him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an
hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air
balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above
sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100
degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."
She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican."
"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically
correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm
still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."
The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Democrat."
"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"
"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you're going.
You've risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made
a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your
problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but,
somehow, now it's my fault...................
**************************************
ys:" <Mao-z...@prc.com> wrote in message
news:464ac9b2$0$501$815e...@news.qwest.net...
Chairman Mao says:
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost.
She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to
him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an
hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air
balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above
sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100
degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."
She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican."
"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically
correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm
still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."
The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Democrat."
"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"
"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you're going.
You've risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made
a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your
problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but,
somehow, now it's my fault...................
**************************************
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:i7H2i.7232$4a1.6726@trndny07...
Ray Fischer
>Sharpton was empowered by you libs and ultra-leftist types.
Hitler was empowered by you nazis and ultra-rightist types.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Chairman Mao says:
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:464bbc2b$0$14146$742e...@news.sonic.net...
JoelKatz
> On 16-May-2007, JoelKatz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> > All Mormons say that?
> Like I said in my previous post, it's just one of the things
> that determines whether you ARE a Mormon. As I said
> in my previous post, there are no "Reform Mormons."
First, let's go back to what Sharpton said. He said a particular
Mormon didn't "really believe in god". A "Mormon" is simply a member
of the Mormon Church. It is a type of collectivism akin to racism to
criticize an individual Mormon by assuming he shares a belief even if
most Mormon's have it.
I fundamentally reject your entire chain of reasoning. I understand
it, and I think it's completely wrong. You are defending the very
thing that makes racism wrong -- assuming a member of a group must
have an attribute that most members of that group have because you
consider that attribute defining.
You can conclude that all atheists don't believe in god and that all
blacks are blacks, but you cannot conclude that all Mormons, or any
particular Mormon about whom you know nothing in particular, has a
particular belief. This is no better than calling some particular
black person a ho because many black people are prostitutes.
Sharpton too substituted judgmental terms for neutral terms. Saying a
Mormon doesn't "really believe in god" is precisely the same type of
insult that Imus made by using "ho" rather than "prostitute".
> Why are you trying tomake Imus look less bad by this lame struggle?
> No one is defending Sharpton: he is a pig, and, as a "Reverend"
> should know better than an *open* pig of a talkshow host.
> But, even tho' he meant to be insulting, he made a factual statement
> - UNLIKE IMUS.
Are you seriously arguing that it's a fact that Mormons don't "really
believe in god"?! You might want to spend some time trying to make
yourself look less bad.
DS
JoelKatz
> On 16-May-2007, JoelKatz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> > All Mormons say that?
> Like I said in my previous post, it's just one of the things
> that determines whether you ARE a Mormon. As I said
> in my previous post, there are no "Reform Mormons."
First, let's go back to what Sharpton said. He said a particular
Mormon didn't "really believe in god". A "Mormon" is simply a member
of the Mormon Church. It is a type of collectivism akin to racism to
criticize an individual Mormon by assuming he shares a belief even if
most Mormon's have it.
I fundamentally reject your entire chain of reasoning. I understand
it, and I think it's completely wrong. You are defending the very
thing that makes racism wrong -- assuming a member of a group must
have an attribute that most members of that group have because you
consider that attribute defining.
You can conclude that all atheists don't believe in god and that all
blacks are blacks, but you cannot conclude that all Mormons, or any
particular Mormon about whom you know nothing in particular, has a
particular belief. This is no better than calling some particular
black person a ho because many black people are prostitutes.
Sharpton too substituted judgmental terms for neutral terms. Saying a
Mormon doesn't "really believe in god" is precisely the same type of
insult that Imus made by using "ho" rather than "prostitute".
> Why are you trying tomake Imus look less bad by this lame struggle?
> No one is defending Sharpton: he is a pig, and, as a "Reverend"
> should know better than an *open* pig of a talkshow host.
> But, even tho' he meant to be insulting, he made a factual statement
> - UNLIKE IMUS.
Are you seriously arguing that it's a fact that Mormons don't "really
JoelKatz
> On 16-May-2007, JoelKatz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> > On May 15, 8:43 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > I have said three times now that MORMONS SAY THEY
> > > BELIEVE MORMON (MEN) CAN BCEOM GODS.
> > All Mormons say that?
> Like I said in my previous post, it's just one of the things
> that determines whether you ARE a Mormon. As I said
> in my previous post, there are no "Reform Mormons."
Nonsense. A "Mormon" is simply a member of the LDS church. To argue
that because many Mormons believe men can become gods one particular
Mormon must is no better than arguing that because many blacks are
poor, a particular black person must be poor.
> > Every single one?
> Like I said in my previous post, it's just one of the things
> that determines whether you ARE a Mormon. As I said
> in my previous post, there are no "Reform Mormons."
Exactly, it's *ONE* of the things. Just like saying "betroom" instead
of "bedroom" is one the things that determines whether you are black.
It's not the key defining thing, of course. However, the key defining
thing for being a Mormon is being a member of the Mormon Church.
> > That is, it is fair to state that an
> > individual who identifies himself as Mormon must hold this position?
> Like I said in my previous post, it's just one of the things
> that determines whether you ARE a Mormon. As I said
> in my previous post, there are no "Reform Mormons."
There most certainly are members of the Mormon Church who do not agree
with this doctrine. They may simply remain members out of laziness or
because they don't want to make waves with family and friends.
> > (And, of course, to totally ignore what most Mormons actually mean by
> > this.)
> Why are you trying tomake Imus look less bad by this lame struggle?
> No one is defending Sharpton: he is a pig, and, as a "Reverend"
> should know better than an *open* pig of a talkshow host.
> But, even tho' he meant to be insulting, he made a factual statement
> - UNLIKE IMUS.
Perhaps you forgot that Sharpton said that a particular Mormon does
not "really believe in god" and justified it solely by referring to
Church doctrine. Saying someone does not "really believe in god"
because of disagreements with their church's official doctrine is much
worse than what Imus did.
I cannot believe you are seriously arguing that a claim that a
particular Mormon does not "really believe in god" is a factual
statement. Is "all blacks are stupid" also a factual statement? What
about "all Jews will go to Hell when they die"? If not, why not?
DS