Previous 11 - 20 Next
I must add that one always has to be careful when considering the outspoken words of anyone, because just because they may sound like an enemy of your enemy, that doesn't necessarily mean they're your friend. In fact, it usually ends up meaning they are just another enemy on a certain front that, yes, they will be the ones opening the conflict up.
If they're not real Muslims, then the "Muslim world" should not mind if they are all executed, right? Perhaps we should ask the ambassadors of each Muslim country throughout the world exactly how they feel about the matter of their treatment, and whether any who refuse to make a good show at renouncing their criminal actions should ever be set loose again.
In response to:

Obama's Religious Hypocrisy

Chip. Wrote: Feb 07, 2015 2:57 AM
I know BHO and his minions will howl when hearing this, so let them hear it: Atrocities during the Crusades were isolated events, very few and far between, like most any other war, and the Crusades were only conducted to retake land that was holy to them, that had been stolen by and subjugated by the Moslems, who made it impossible to safely travel to/from by any religious pilgrims. The Inquisition resulted in, according to Wikipedia, about 5,000 executions, over several hundred years, which by any historical standard, is inconsequential. Conflicts involving faith among most any other group to this day, have much higher casualty rates and with far less deliberation. Jim Crow laws were much better than present day mindless racial integration policies, and had they been left in effect, could have resulted in slow improvements to both white and black societies, which instead are both worse off now than when Jim Crow laws were ended, in terms of literacy, family values, happiness, employment rates, church attendance. Slavery was wiped out within a few generations after the advent of Christianity, wherever and however it took root. Once this was done, in fact, as it was being done, Christian countries pressured Islamic countries to stop slavery and the slave trade. Anything else?
If I must point out the obvious, someone should have made sure his nose and upper jaw were straightened out while he was still a young kid. But that never happened. Maybe it's not too late, though. Perhaps what should have just happened was, instead of this conversation, he took calls, and first got a call from a diet and fitness expert who wanted to know his thoughts on GMO foods, and whether they may have been around longer than we know, perhaps, like his germs, were manufactured by aliens or random natural occurrences that could somehow be prevented. His second call could have come from a world reknowned nose and jaw plastic surgeon who called because he was curious about knowing at what point Fry would feel things were right in this world, such as whether he would only accept a world in which there were no such thing as disease or any kind of pain at all, or just germs that accepted certain limits to what parts of the anatomy they might infect--sort of gentleman germs that only infected people in their prime, and only when they were ready to fight an infection, and never below the waist, or in the eyes, or the upper head or neck, or somewhere inbetween all that. Then Fry would have been sincerely interested in exploring these questions further, and agreed to meet with the callers for further discussion on a regular basis till a precise idea of what was acceptable could be articulated.
In response to:

Anti-Vaccine Fanatics Kill

Chip. Wrote: Feb 04, 2015 6:48 PM
People who are vaccinated can still carry the germs, so exposure is not eliminated by third party vaccinations. This is actually interesting because I just watched Lawrence O'Donnoll deliver the same basic sermon on his show the other night, I wonder how much big pharma pays people like O'Donnoll and Shapiro for these little lectures for the "herd". What about the quality of the vaccine? Some countries make them without the additives that cause most of the controversy. Why can't these be available in the USA.
In response to:

Obama's Narcissistic Dissing of Israel

Chip. Wrote: Jan 30, 2015 12:59 AM
"Like petulant children, Obama and his crew treat any resistance to their agenda as unprovoked hostility, personally directed at Obama, and lash out personally at those who would resist their dubious and aggressive behavior." -- Author must have had the misfortune of actually seeing such children, and must know that some grow up this way. I'd be interested to know a cure for this condition early on, because this condition is a lot more serious when among adults.
In response to:

The Last Taboo

Chip. Wrote: Jan 22, 2015 3:11 AM
I think that site is managed nowadays by Benny boy here. However, it also appears the same link is here and there on Benson's TH website.
If any lefties don't like American Sniper, just tell them to watch Enemy at the Gates, which is about a Soviet sniper during world war II. Yeah, the Soviets had their sniper heroes. So did the Nazis, who also had their sniper heroes, such as the villain in Enemy at the Gates, and their hero in a Nazi propaganda film shown during the movie Inglorious Bastards. Ask them to compare the merits of the three genres, and I expect they will be forced to think, but not interested in doing so. But it will shut them up. The common denominator with all these movies is that the audience is being manipulated. But I have to say that in American Sniper, I can actually believe that it was only the enemy snipers who shot people who were not doing anything immediately threatening, and that the reasons of the lead character to be fighting were sincere. So while Soviet snipers could be shown killing enemies indiscriminantly, and the Nazis could be shown killing like superhuman snipers, the American is measured, sincere, and human, and walks away, not scarred, but moving on to a new chapter in life. However, I would like to also believe that American snipers do not do what enemy snipers do in real life. In wartime, enemy snipers have routinely killed our soldiers who were just waiting in line for Thanksgiving dinner, or were dodging out of the way of stretcher bearers running past them, or doing any number of harmless things. And they were hated for it. No movies were made that ever glorified American snipers until long after the Rambo and Commando movies started to be made. Sharpshooters, yes, and that was practically how Kyle was portrayed, just a soldier waiting for battle with enemies engaged in battle, from reasonably well concealed positions.
In response to:

Why We Love American Sniper

Chip. Wrote: Jan 22, 2015 2:38 AM
The movie was okay in how it portrayed the lead character when in battle, but with snipers in general, I draw the line where I drew the line. Soldiers have been shot by snipers while they were waiting in line for their Thanksgiving dinners, when ducking their heads up a little too high to make way for stretcher bearers running past, or when doing any number of harmless things. That's what snipers do. Some may argue all of that is fair in war, and if so, then so be it, but there is no need to glorify any aspect of killing in war of that kind.
In response to:

Michael Moore, Michigan Sniper

Chip. Wrote: Jan 21, 2015 2:37 AM
I suspect that Moore didn't see the movie and was thinking of snipers picking off people doing nothing harmful and completely unexpectedly, which is certainly what snipers were known for doing in WWII, at least among Axis snipers, when in fact this actual movie portrayed Kyle as being in battle only against enemies who were themselves using deadly force against him and his fellow soldiers. More of a well placed sharpshooter, really, than of a hidden sniper. Maybe the sniper rules of engagement have changed.
In response to:

The Last Taboo

Chip. Wrote: Jan 21, 2015 2:16 AM
Surely showing what appears to be a link to a porn site on Breitbart.com, is not as bad as this, at least.
Previous 11 - 20 Next