Two local programs awarded national anti-poverty grants
The U.S. Catholic Church's national anti-poverty initiative has awarded two Oregon programs with grants totaling $75,000.
The Catholic Campaign for Human Development has given $35,000 to a Forest Grove farmers market run by Adelante Mujeres and $40,000 to a Portland workers' rights project called VOZ.
VOZ is a worker-led organization of day laborers that develops leadership and empowers members to build relationships with employers. This happens through educational workshops and dispelling stereotypes about day laborers.
The campaign grant will help fund monthly leadership workshops, a day laborer advocacy and educational campaign; a day labor leadership school and the Day Labor Committee and Action for Immigration Reform.
If you are Catholic it's up to you to decide what your contributions to the church are going to be but you should know that your money is going to illegal alien advocacy groups that are pushing for amnesty.
36 comments:
In Miglavia, a farmers market that caters to Latinos is an "illegal alien advocacy group." Contrary to what you might be thinking, however, there is nothing racist about such an assumption, nothing at all. ;-)
Welcome to Miglavia.
VOZ is an illegal alien day labor group. Those are some of the illegal aliens who are stealing jobs, stealing health care, stealing social services and their children are stealing education from our children, raping and murdering our children. The catholic church is breaking many laws. I would say they are working for the devil, not god.
I guess the liberals/progressives are okay with the criminal aliens stealing all those resources. The liberal/progressives are mostly useful idiots for obama, wyden, merkely and they don't mind having their education being dumbed down. They are too dumb to figure out their education has been stolen.
I always feel a giddy thrill when Dave lectures us about "useful idiots" and "being dumbed down." I suspect he knows all too well about that, because he must have felt pretty dumb after I slam-dunked his ass a few threads back on a topic he refused to come back to. FP, after demanding "facts," decided to disappear after being presented with them. Miglavian cowardice and stupidity, pure and simple. Go ahead, Dave. Tell us more about being dumbed down. What's that like, exactly?
4:28,
You have some catching up to do.
Why don't you let someone a little more objective than yourself determine whether or not you accomplished a "slam-dunk"? And by "someone", I mean someone not anonymous.
I checked the other thread. Many, many, many words (of yours) that are of no interest or relevance, so I hope you don't waste any more time producing even more.
My point, my only point, was to make a simple declaration of fact: The U.S. military has a history of killing civilians, and that was all, that was my point.
You in claiming that I was "lying," effectively maintained that they did not.
You were, and are, totally wrong.
You can continue yapping all you like, but the discussion (an exchange involving two or more people) really is over.
Goodbye.
I stopped giving to the Church when they allowed themselves to be co-op'd by government. Going on the dole in this manner debases the Catholic/Christian spirit of giving. The Church now parrots the government agenda like a dog begging at the table of government cash hand outs.
Anon 5:11 (4:28)
First off, you claimed that they murdered civilians, which is a statement that you had to later modify because it wasn't accurate. Now you're telling me that your only point was to declare the the U.S. military kills civilians? What purpose does that serve?
Fine. Our troops kill civilians. So does every other military in the world, past and present. Civilians kill civilians.
What's next: you're gonna tell me that the Pope is Catholic?
I don't know why I keep coming back to this ... I think I'm intrigued by your determined stupidity.
I did not change my statement. I clarified it for the purpose of discussion because it became evident to me pretty quickly that I was talking to someone who was going to parse and pick, Clinton-style, over what words mean. If you'll go back and read what I said, I stood my ground:
" ... There is no question that both (words) apply."
That was my position, and it remains my position, and it applies to the U.S. military -- in huge numbers, as my documentation shows.
What purpose does that serve?
Once again, if you will go back and READ my comments, you will see that I already stated why I made this point. I was responding to Dave's comment about Che.
I might add that Dave has never provided documentation for his accusation, while I did.
You know, I'd also add this: If we consider that what the military, U.S. government and media call the "insurgency" is made up, in large part, of Iraqi civilians who have taken up arms against a foreign invader and occupier, then we can also say, with absolute accuracy, that the U.S. military TARGETS civilians.
As the bodies pile up, so do the numbers, FP.
And, if you choose to give you money to an organization like Oregonians for Immigration Reform that has ties to a website promotes racism and white supremecy, you should know as well.
Anon 4:20 (4:28),
How is it a clarification of your position when you use a more ambiguous word in place/alongside a word with a specific meaning? If you meant to use the word “murder”, then just stick with it because that word, unlike the word "kill", is more specific: it recognizes motive. Words mean things, anon. If, after all this discussion, you still want to use the word "murder", then still I maintain that you're a liar. You've not proven murder; you've only proven killing, which doesn't really prove anything. I already acknowledged that civilians die in war. You’ve even acknowledged it.
And don't tell me that the difference between murder and killing is semantic. Our laws differentiate between the two, and even assign varying degrees to each, along with varying degrees of punishment.
" ... There is no question that both (words) apply."
That was my position, and it remains my position, and it applies to the U.S. military -- in huge numbers, as my documentation shows.
Then both words apply to our enemies over in Iraq. There are plenty of press accounts of terrorists murdering civilians in Iraq. Hell, terrorists don’t even confine their murder of civilians to Iraq. They do it here, too.
Your documentation has also shown that agents other than the U.S. military have killed five times as many civilians in Iraq. If the number of civilian dead by our troops is huge, then the number of civilians dead by other agents is positively gargantuan.
You know, I'd also add this: If we consider that what the military, U.S. government and media call the "insurgency" is made up, in large part, of Iraqi civilians who have taken up arms against a foreign invader and occupier, then we can also say, with absolute accuracy, that the U.S. military TARGETS civilians.
Fine. I'll grant you that, in a technical sense, they are civilians. So, who are these “Iraqi civilians” that have taken up arms against a “foreign invader and occupier”, yet haven’t bothered to join the Iraq’s military? Wouldn’t a more accurate term for them be “unlawful combatants”? Aren’t they the ones our military is targeting? If that’s the case, then the impression you’re giving isn’t exactly accurate, is it?
Let’s talk about these unlawful combatants. Remember what I said about them?
Conveniently, you leave out the fact that the so-called "insurgents" we are fighting over there in Iraq and Afghanistan routinely hide behind women and children during warfare, using them as human shields.
Your response to this? Crickets. Tell me, anon: what do you think about “insurgents” hiding behind civilians? Where's your criticism of them? Does our military do that?
One final question about your response to Dave that started it all: how was it even relevant? Dave was talking about Che, and you decided to condemn American soldiers. So, the implication is that American soldiers have killed far more than Che. Am I right? There's not much of a comparison, since Dave was condemning one man, whereas you're condemning an entire institution. Wouldn't you say that this is like comparing apples to oranges? So when I come up with an apples to apples comparison, saying that far more civilians have been killed by agents other than American soldiers in the current conflict, all of a sudden it's not significant?
Do you even have consistent standards?
Major development this morning, FP: I've finally come to grips with the fact that you don't get it, and you never will.
FP last time I checked the Pope is/was a nazi. Not to mention he was directly involved in covering up pedophilia in the church. Also I call bullshit on anyone who believes that old fuck protested being a nazi.
Anon,
What is it I'm not getting?
Aren't you the one that came up with that oh-so-witty, yet irrelevant riposte to Dave's comment about Che?
Do you not care about the over ninety-thousand dead civilians in Iraq, who were killed by someone other than the U.S. military? Is that little fact just too inconvenient for you?
I suppose you don't even care that the late Robert Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, which was the terrorist wing of the Democrat party, yet served as a senator for over fifty years? That's about as relevant as the pope being a Nazi at one time, huh?
And in the spirit of your comparison between Che and our troops: what do you think of all those union thugs and administrators who covered up and continue to cover up pedophilia in the public school system all the time?
What was it you said? Oh, right:
Either you do not care what is done in the name of your country and flag and with your tax dollars, or you are not paying attention.
Substitute the phrase "your country" with "education" and that pretty much sums it up for you, doesn't it?
Come to think of it, for a pretty evil bunch, the U.S. military strikes me as being rather inept. I mean, c'mon: they can't even kill half as many civilians as the enemy.
What is it I'm not getting?
The fact that you have to ask is the problem I'm not willing to deal with anymore.
Hey anon, don't let little things like facts get in your way.
Stay classy.
Face it, anon: it is you who has no argument. You haven't proven that our troops commit murder on a regular basis. I took your arguments head on and still haven't seen answers to many of my questions. Your position is indefensible, and as I demonstrated, the facts bear me out.
When I ask you logical questions, questions that you don’t bother answering, it indicates that you have no defense for them, because you haven’t thought your positions through. You’ve always had the luxury of an echo chamber in academia and the media backing up what you believe, so you usually don’t need to defend what you believe. When someone calls on you to actually defend what you believe, you act as if that’s somehow beneath you. While that smokescreen may deflect attention for awhile, it still doesn’t negate the fact that your argumentation and debate skills are poor. Sorry, but the playground tactic of name-calling doesn't work. You can call me stupid all day long, but it does nothing to reinforce the validity of your beliefs; if anything, it diminishes them and you.
Once you finally provided documentation of your beliefs (after a lot of needless caterwauling) I examined your proof and found that the numbers just don’t warrant your charges of constant murder compared with other agents. When people other than our troops are killing and murdering civilians at five times the rate of our own troops in Iraq, it renders your criticism meaningless.
Since the value of critical questions doesn’t seem to register on your radar, here’s a definitive statement for you: I fully get what you're trying to tell me, and I reject your position because facts and logic indicate otherwise. It’s possible to argue that our troops have committed murder and war crimes on occasion, but not all the time. Those instances where it has happened have been dealt with and punished, so why bring it up?
However, for some reason, you find it not worthy of your time to examine the murders and atrocities committed by other parties, actions that make ours very tiny and insignificant by comparison, and the lack of response to them. How many people have the communists killed throughout their eighty-or-so years of existence? The number is over a hundred million. How many people has militant Islam murdered throughout their fourteen-hundred-year existence? Yet that doesn’t even warrant an honorable mention from you?
But here’s the real meat of the issue: what is it about America that you hate so much that you feel the need to call our troops murderers?
If you don't a response of anything other than "whatever", or a snide dismissal, then save yourself the trouble and just don't comment. You'll look less foolish.
Whatever.
Anon, weren't you the one getting on my case for not responding to your posts? Weren't you the one crowing about your rhetorical "victory" in my absence?
Where are you now?
Hypocrite.
I responded to your fucking post, in spades. Let me walk your dumb Miglavian ass through this again ONE MORE TIME:
1) I made a statement: The military regularly kills civilians. I didn't even say whether I thought this was good or bad. I just stated the fact. PERIOD.
2) You called me a "liar." You said I hadn't proved it. I hadn't documented it. I hadn't provided sources. And just so we're clear: When you call someone a "liar," you are saying that what they said was NOT TRUE. I didn't say much to start with, but I was a "despicable liar" for saying it. So your position was: My statement was not true. So whether you meant to take the position or not, the position that YOU took by calling me a liar was: "The U.S. military does not regularly kill civilians."
3) I, suspecting you to be a dumb-ass fucking Miglavian who would not be able to understand a rational explanation of reality, declined to go there. In hindsight, this was the right instinct. I should have walked away from your dumb ass then.
4) Giving in, I stated my case, over the course of several posts. Gave examples. Discussed some history. Provided links. Gave sources. Not a difficult thing, really, since it's a no-fucking-brainer.
5) Now you're trying to turn this into a debate over semantics. Politics. Ideology. Values. And "Well what about the other guys?" And because I won't go there, you triumphantly declare that I have no argument and have not provided proof. And you expect people to take you seriously?
Listen to me: If I'm wrong about what this was originally about, then YOU need to prove to ME that tens of thousands of civilians did NOT, in fact, die in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II beneath bombs dropped by the U.S. And that's just for starters. Then we can move on to Vietnam, and you can "prove" to me that there weren't MASSIVE civilian deaths, courtesy of bombs dropped by the U.S. military. Then you need to document for me that hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese did not, contrary to what we know actually happened in the real world that you have such an aversion to, die of exposure to Agent Orange.
So go ahead. Humor me. Try. Make your case.
6) You represent the absolute worst of the right-wing in this country. It's not enough to simply have a different opinion. You think you're entitled to your own facts, your own reality, and you think you're entitled to brush aside ACTUAL reality by simply saying, "You have no argument."
Life doesn't work that way, pal. The real world doesn't work that way. So pull your fucking head out of your ass already. This "argument" was over a long time ago, and while I realize you will never, even if your pathetic life depended upon it, admit that you lost, you did. Big-time. The only thing you're accomplishing coming back with these ridiculous posts is proving how unhinged from reality you actually are. I choose to live in the real world, with facts that even people who disagree can at least agree are FACTS.
Forget it, Jake. It's Miglavia.
Anon,
Profanity and name-calling do not an argument make. It’s an indication you’re losing. It’s also an indication you’re losing it.
Let me spell it out for you loud and clear: I DID NOT SAY THAT CIVILIANS DON’T GET KILLED. I SIMPLY SAID THAT OUR TROOPS DO NOT REGULARLY MURDER CIVILIANS.
Murder. That’s the operative word and “regularly” is the operative qualifier. Get it straight. It is not a matter of semantics, as I already pointed out. You know there’s a distinction between murder and killing. Yet you use those words interchangeably, which creates the impression in your mind that I somehow don’t think our troops kill civilians, or never have. You also use the qualifier carelessly. If I went to Tahiti once and told all my friends that I go “all the time”, I’d be a liar, wouldn’t I? Get a clue, anon: you are muddling the issue by your careless word usage. This is print; you can actually edit your comments before posting them.
By the way, guess what, anon? Muslims murdered 61 people on Tuesday. All civilians.
Want more? Muslims murdered at least 48 people on July 18th.
Oh, here’s a good one: Muslims murdered 42 Muslims – at a mosque, no less! Of course, the U.S. was blamed for that one. I guess our troops don’t even have to be on-site to be murderers, do they?
I did some searching. The only news item I could come up with regarding our troops murdering civilians is one from May. Guess how many civilians were allegedly murdered?
That’s right. Three.
Guess how many troops were charged? That’s right: one. That one troop has not been convicted of murder as of this writing.
From the May article:
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, has gone to extraordinary lengths to reduce the accidental killing of Afghan civilians, but now there is a case in which American soldiers are accused of murder.
That’s right. A case. One. Uno. If there were more, we would have heard about them ad nauseum.
So, whatever happened to the marines accused in the Haditha “massacre”? Oh, that’s right: all but one were exonerated. The one left is waiting to stand trial. No conviction as of yet.
Meanwhile, in that same month of May, over in Iraq, Muslims murdered 119 other Muslims in a string of attacks. I believe all the victims were civilians.
I think you have our troops mixed up with someone else.
Post continued below.
(Post continued from above)
Regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I don’t need to prove the civilians there didn’t die. It’s a fool’s errand. However, you seem to have forgotten why they died. It was to get the Japanese to finally surrender, because they weren’t giving up through our use of conventional means. If we hadn’t dropped those bombs, many more than the number of civilians killed would have died in our attempt to defeat them. And need I remind you of Japanese war crimes and the way they treated their prisoners-of-war? They made the Nazis look like pikers. You also seem to have forgetten the commission President Truman assembled to look at the moral and ethical implications of using a nuclear weapon. Most historians agree that using the bomb was the right thing to do. You’re on the wrong side of history on this one, pal.
You want to say that civilians get killed by our troops? Fine. I’ll go with that, but as I demonstrated, it’s not anywhere to the degree that other agents kill civilians. The point here is this: if you want to criticize for merely killing civilians, then your energy would be better spent criticizing those doing the majority of the killings. Is that clear?
You want to say that our troops regularly murder civilians? Nope. Not gonna fly. You haven’t proven it. Like I’ve said before, the few actual murders committed by our troops have been or already are being dealt with. I still maintain that you’re a liar, and your last screed only reinforces the despicable part.
It's not enough to simply have a different opinion. You think you're entitled to your own facts, your own reality, and you think you're entitled to brush aside ACTUAL reality by simply saying, "You have no argument."
Anon, your exact words from the other thread:
You have no argument.
Methinks thou dost project too much.
Oh, by the way, nowhere did I say “The U.S. military does not regularly kill civilians”. That is a statement you put into my mouth.
Anon, look at my posts. Where did I dispute the facts, let alone “claim” my own facts? I disputed one of your sources, a source which you admitted had problems, but I didn’t dispute the facts. I disputed your conclusion, which you’re trying to sell as fact. I used facts from your own sources to support my arguments. Nowhere did I make anything up. How arrogant is it on your part to suggest that someone is not grounded in reality merely because he disagrees with you?
You know what your problem is? You think America is the focus of evil in the modern world. That is the premise on which you made your original statement.
That is a premise which I soundly reject.
In conclusion, I will give you your own quotes:
This "argument" was over a long time ago…
The only thing you're accomplishing coming back with these ridiculous posts is proving how unhinged from reality you actually are.
And yet, here you are. You keep coming back.
Fine, FP.
I really do understand your position. You have accomodated yourself to the needs and language of U.S. imperial interests abroad, and it obviously makes you feel better and probably has something to do with absolving yourself of culpability to tell yourself that the U.S. government merely "kills" innocent people, but at least we don't "murder" them, and you can live with that because it's only "collateral" damage, and hey, the other guys do it, too. I suppose you also believe that we don't "torture" people, we merely use "enhanced interrogation techniques." I wonder if that's a distinction you'd care to discuss while being "interrogated."
Keep livin' the dream, FP.
FP, new anon here ... question for you: Are you a birther?
A.W.
You have accomodated [sic] yourself to the needs and language of U.S. imperial interests abroad…
U.S. imperial interests abroad? What countries have we conquered? Where is our empire?
…and it obviously makes you feel better and probably has something to do with absolving yourself of culpability to tell yourself that the U.S. government merely "kills" innocent people, but at least we don't "murder" them…
CONTEXT, anon. We’re talking about the military, not the entire U.S. government. Civilians are dying in the midst of a war. We are at war, anon. How am I culpable for that? I’ve already told you, the few murders committed by our troops have been dealt with. What is it about that you don’t get, or don’t want to get? Didn’t you read the quote from McChrystal (before he was replaced by Petraeus) that stated we’re doing everything humanly possible to minimize civilian deaths? Are our enemies doing this? No, anon; they aren’t. They’re killing indiscriminately, as the news articles I’ve linked to indicate. Did you even bother to read them?
…and you can live with that because it's only "collateral" damage, and hey, the other guys do it, too.
Anon, I’ve already said that war is hell. Civilians die. But I’m not going to flagellate myself over something that’s been part of the human condition since time immemorial. Why should I? What’s that going to accomplish?
I suppose you also believe that we don't "torture" people, we merely use "enhanced interrogation techniques." I wonder if that's a distinction you'd care to discuss while being "interrogated."
So, anon, what do you consider torture? Waterboarding? The three times that we did it? That’s child’s play compared to what one Yukio Asano did:
Charge: Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs. 2. Did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for PWs.
Specifications: beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward.
Want more? From Wikipedia:
To determine the treatment of frostbite, prisoners were taken outside in freezing weather and left with exposed arms, periodically drenched with water until frozen solid. The arm was later amputated; the doctor would repeat the process on the victim's upper arm to the shoulder. After both arms were gone, the doctors moved on to the legs until only a head and torso remained. The victim was then used for plague and pathogens experiments.
Hey anon, that was Imperial Japan, during WWII. Have we ever done that, or anything like it?
Post continued below.
Post continued from above.
You know anon, it’s shameful that when you’re confronted with genuine evil, you dismiss it, downplay it, distract, dodge, and pretty much give every excuse in the book as to why you shouldn’t have to address it.
The United States has been a force for good in this world. I’m not trying to justify everything we’ve ever done, but we have done more to make up for our past sins than any other country on the face of the planet. Your criticism of our military is, at best, an exaggeration. I don’t know what more the military can do without rolling over and playing dead in order to placate people like you.
Think about that: if they just gave up, then that would be the end of America. If that were to ever come about, you wouldn’t have the luxury of leveling superfluous charges against the institution that protects your freedom, because you’d either be under the thumb of some tyrant, or dead. You take for granted the freedoms fought for and protected by the members of the U.S. military, past and present, and you do a disservice to the memory of those brave men and women who died for something bigger than themselves: our country. A country that you and your ilk continually trash, because you don’t know what it’s like to not be free.
So go ahead, anon. Bask in your glorious self-righteousness. Impugn the memory of those that gave their lives so you could have the freedom to be an ingrate.
A.W.,
No. Are you a truther?
Where is our empire?
Why does the U.S. have more than 700 military bases around the world? You think we have them out of the lilly white goodness of our American hearts?
The United States has been a force for good in this world.
Oh ... I guess you do. When Rome stations garrisons all over Europe, they're the Roman Empire, but when the U.S. stations military bases all over the planet, FP wants to know: "Where is our empire?"
Like I said, FP, keep living the dream. You're obviously comfortable there.
In lieu of responding to any more of your ridiculous posts today, I instead plan to find a brick wall and slam my head against it repeatedly. It will be more satisfying, I think, and I will have spent my time more productively upon completion.
Anon,
I sometimes wonder why I take the time to argue with you, since your command of the English language is so poor.
From m-w.com:
Main Entry: em·pire
Pronunciation: \ˈem-ˌpī(-ə)r\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French empire, empirie, from Latin imperium absolute authority, empire, from imperare to command — more at emperor
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority
And who is that authority, anon?
You want to live in the universe of lies and incompetence? Go right ahead. I've refuted your posts. I've given you a sampling of evidence that the real murderers belong to radical Islam. Your feeble attempts to refute mine (the few you've taken) are a laugh riot, at best. Your last post was nothing more than standard boiler-plate leftist talking points.
Go find that brick wall, anon. It might knock some sense into you.
FP, you manage to reveal stupidity and ignorance on every topic you write about. Fine. I couldn't find a brick wall, so let's knock this one around a bit:
The term "empire" and "imperial" have broad meanings in political discussion that go beyond the literal definitions you looked up, and it's not (in the real world, maybe not in Miglavia) a partisan term: Both words are used widely, and by people of ALL political persuasions, including conservatives. Tell you what: Why don't you contact Oxford University Press and/or Professor Gordon Wood, and ask them to explain the title of the book they just published: "Empire of Liberty," which is Wood's latest book on American history. Why not take it up with scholar Thomas Madden, who just wrote a book called "Empires of Trust: How Rome Built -- and America Is Building -- a New World." Give Julie Green a call and ask her why she wrote a book called "The Canal Builders: Making America's Empire at the Panama Canal." Why not ask "American Conservative" editor Daniel McCarthy why he gave a positive review of (and did not question the title of) a book called: "American Empire: Before the Fall," by Bruce Fein? And why he uses the term "empire" himself in his own review? Do these people have a "poor" command of the English language?
Maybe a better question: Before you started posting here in Miglavia, did you spend a lot of time banging your head against a brick wall?
FP, I couldn't help myself: Knowing of your deep fondness for links, I found another for you. It's the web site for the National Interest magazine. Ever heard of it? It's a prominent conservative political journal, published by (LOL!) the Nixon Center and founded by Irving Kristol.
Hate to tell you this, FP, but these guys just don't seem to have any problem whatsoever with using "empire" when discussing the United States. Hmmm ... maybe they have a poor command of the language. Maybe you should offer your brilliant linguistic services to them.
Happy reading ...
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-election-on-empire-1280
P.S. If you wish to object to their use of the word "empire," please write to them at:
http://nationalinterest.org/contact
I keep meaning to address this, since you're so determined to make this the argument.
I've given you a sampling of evidence that the real murderers belong to radical Islam....
So what? Why should I give a shit?
Nowhere in any comment I have ever posted, here or anywhere, have I EVER defended, praised or expressed ANY kind of solidarity with or support for Islamic radicals and terrorists (or WWII-era Imperial Japan). This is a non-issue, in the context of my original, very narrowly-focused statement.
So since you seem to have convinced yourself that 1) This is what we were arguing about in the first place, and that 2) I have been somehow aligning myself with Islamic terrorists, let me be clear: Radical Islam is a dangerous and totally reactionary perspective, and those who practice it, and especially, those who carry out terrorism in its name (like the 9/11 terrorists) are murderers and/or killers, take your pick. I have nothing but contempt for them. The world would be a more peaceful, safer place without them. Not enough for you? They're fucking nuts, OK? Do I need to keep going? You want it in all caps, boldface?
You, like most Miglavians, prefer, instead of sticking to the issue raised by a critic, to change the subject to this (or some other non-issue) as if any sane, rational person is expressing support for radical Islamic terrorists in the first place. It's a straw man argument. A red herring. Won't fly with me, FP. That's why I rarely even acknolwedge it anymore, because it's so plainly fucking stupid on its face. To be critical of the U.S. government is not, contrary to Miglavian debate strategy, to support Islamic terrorism ... and if you really think it is, then may I direct your attention and energies to the members of the Tea party?
You wouldn't be active with the Tea party, would you FP?
Dealing with FP stupidity, cont.
Hey anon, that was Imperial Japan, during WWII. Have we ever done that, or anything like it?
Yes.
Oh God, you're going to ask for proof, aren't you? You're gonna want links, aren't you? And if I list a few, you're going to say I haven't made my case, and that you have (surprise!) "refuted" my argument, and that I've just got my head up my ass, aren't you?
Shit ... I'm not going to play that game anymore. At least, not on a new topic, so:
Golly gee whiz, FP, no, we've never done anything like that, not even close! :-)
I used to think the government study on how cow farts affected the ozone layer was money horribly spent til I heard this!!
Still looking for the guns. I'm in Gresham, Daniels in Sherwood, there must be someone in the metro area that wants to take my money.
In Miglavia, a farmers market that caters to Latinos is an "illegal alien advocacy group." Contrary to what you might be thinking, however, there is nothing racist about such an assumption, nothing at all. ;-)Welcome to Miglavia.
Post a Comment