"A personal note to all the atheists that seem to hang around the Light. I moderate this blog myself, and I have watched with amazement as patient Christians have lovingly answered your predictable objections. I have let most of the blogs through in the hope that you may soften your heart and listen, although, by the proud way most of you talk, that doesn't seem likely."
Can you please explain what you mean by "the proud way most of us talk", because I seriously doubt that you or anyone else can really differentiate between the way you and other Christians write and the way we do. You won't even acknowledge that the bible verses that you claimed "confirmed science" did nothing of the sort, and in fact, that a simple reading of the verses you listed revealed that they said nothing even remotely like what you claimed they did.
Ray Comfort wrote:
"We don’t need to prove to you anything about Christianity. We are very secure in our faith, because it's not founded on a "belief," but on the immovable Rock of Ages--Jesus Christ, before whom you will bow the knee."
People who promote creationism are far from secure in their faith. Ray, the doctrine that "if one thing in the Bible is wrong, then the rest of the Bible is in jeopardy" is the very reason why so many Evanglicals are so desperately trying to re-write science to be more in line with the doctrine of biblical literalism. If you trully were secure in your faith, Intelligent design, ICR, CRI and all the other creationist organizations wouldn't be working so hard and so desperately to force their opinion, and would have no reason to even exist.
If you and other creationists were secure in your faith, you wouldn't be going on TV to confront atheists with an alleged proof that science proves God. If you were secure in your faith, you would admit when you are just plain wrong, rather than say nothing, and hope nobody notices.
I think you need to seriously evaluate some of the stereotypical pabulum that you've presented as "light", and read your Bible to verify passages before you promote more lists of "amazing prophecies" that other people wrote, that represent bible verses for what they clearly never say.
25 comments:
You're full of donkey shit.
Wow, that's such a compelling response... I guess I have no choice but to repent and accept Jesus, all because of you!
(note: that's sarcasm...)
Why the fuck would I want you to convert to Jesus? I hope you realize I'm not a Christian, just support people who are Christian.
Well, you gotta admit, "You're full of Donkey shit" doesn't give me much to go by. I mean, if you came out and made a specific point about my post that you disagreed with, I might have taken it seriously and given you a nice response.
No, it's just a short and sweet sentence describing your character, which is full of lies and deceit.
Hey, why don't you go back to fucktube and scream and haller about useless topics like Beer is for Morning?
Seriously, when did the internet become a dumping ground for rejects like him...
Capnasshole wrote:
"No, it's just a short and sweet sentence describing your character, which is full of lies and deceit."
Well, now, that at least gives us something to go by. So, from the material I've already written, especially from this blog, to keep everything on topic, specifically what lies and deceit have I actually written. List specifics.
I gotta tell you in advance, the 3rd time you post a link to an article that does not support your claim, I'll stop paying attention to you, because such behavior proves that you're just being a troll.
Let's see what's lies and deceits about you: Your views on ME!
1. You claim I'm a racist.
2. You claim I support wackjobs.
3. You claim I'm a dumbass frat boy and college sophomore. Both untrue.
I mean, what do you expect from someone who blindly supports the civil rights act of 1964, the destroyer of wealthy black communities. You're the fucking racist, and also a liar and a general dipshit.
You cannot even prove any of these claims against me, you simply just SAY them. And you're already not addressing some of my points, something I foresaw. You're a fucking coward, I forgot to add that.
Capnasshole wrote:
"Let's see what's lies and deceits about you: Your views on ME!
1. You claim I'm a racist."
Well, you're the guy who has a video on Youtube with your sorry-assed mug clearly and plainly stating:
"What does Martin Luther King mean to me? Because of the great efforts and sacrifice of Doctor Martin Luther King, I can today, with no stigma or prejudice, have sex with black women. Gos Bless you Doctor King! God Bless you!"
This statement may not be intentionally racist, but I think that plenty of black people would take issue with you, and would consider you a racist, because You really are belittling everything that he stood for, and everything that black people have ever struggled for in America.
No, I don't think you're about to go around and burn crosses or join the Klan, but you're the type of racist I like to call the Archie Bunker racist -- just really, really dumb when it comes to stating your beliefs -- you make poor choices.
Capnasshole wrote:
"2. You claim I support wackjobs."
Yes, I did. You claimed to support Ron Paul. In addition to claiming that the Civil War was "unnecessary" (He is one who argues that the Civil war was not about slavery, too) and published a newsletter which called the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday "Hate Whitey Day," and that "the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society". Paul also said, of gay people "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
When Marvin Liebman, a founder of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and a longtime political activist, announced that he was gay in the pages of National Review, a Paul newsletter implored, "Bring Back the Closet!" Surprisingly, one item expressed ambivalence about the contentious issue of gays in the military, but ultimately concluded, "Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals."
And let's not mention his rhetoric that seems to sometimes be right in line with what the John Birch Society promotes, and his close ties with the "Christian Reconstructionist" Gary North -- North is a Fundy whack-job who claimed that the Y2K problem in computer software would lead to the downfall of civilization, and he encouraged his listeners (to his Christian Radio program) to sell all their possessions and buy gold to prepare for armageddon. North was a manager in Paul's congressional office.
"Paul has denied that he had anything to do with the newsletter articles, and that he doesn't know who wrote them. The identity of the author of the controversial pieces remains unknown, but Reason magazine identified then prominent paleolibertarian activist Lew Rockwell, who also served as Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, as "Paul's chief ghostwriter". The magazine also cites a 1993 tax document showing that the year the newsletter made the "welfare checks" comment in regards to the L.A. Riots, Ron Paul & Associates reported an annual income of $940,000. The document listed four Ron Paul & Associates employees in Texas (Paul's family and Rockwell) and seven more employees around the country. This now-defunct entity, in which Paul owned a minority stake, was during some periods the publisher of the newsletters; at other times, they were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976." ("Angry White Men in the New republic)
None of these thing can be considered "normal mainstream views" by themselves, and together, they add up to whack-job -- at least in my book.
Here is my support for this:
New Republic archives:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129
CNN Archives:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/
(Read the end paragraph, where he says "I am the anti-racist because I am the only candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- who would protect the minority against these vicious drug laws," --here's a hint, this statement implies that he believes that the drug problems of the USA mostly affects minorities.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Political_positions
You may not agree that these things add up to him being a whacko, but you're entitled to that opinion.
Capnasshole wrote:
"3. You claim I'm a dumbass frat boy and college sophomore. Both untrue."
I never claimed that. I said "YOU REMIND ME OF a dumbass frat boy or college sophmore trying to be the next Dennis Leary or something."
This is not the same thing as claiming that you ARE. You remind me of a piece of shit, too. Does that mean you are a piece of shit? No, it doesn't. Shit doesn't write email back you you or make web-sites that backfire on them.
Capnasshole wrote:
"I mean, what do you expect from someone who blindly supports the civil rights act of 1964, the destroyer of wealthy black communities."
Just because some conservative or libertarian whack-job argues that the civil Rights act did that, doesn't make it true. I challenge you to provide a shred of evidence to back up the claim that the civil rights act of 1964 destroyed the wealthy black communities.
PLease cite which specific passages in the act did this, and how.
Use this link to see the actual text of the act:
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript
Do you even realize that the Civil Rights act of 1964 was about VOTING RIGHTS? Prior to the signing of the act into law, it was not uncommon for black people in certain counties in America to routinely be prevented from voting by local white auithorities, usually by deciet, or by intimidation. Do you even know what Jim Crow was all about? The Civil Rights act was about GUARANTEEING THE RIGHTS OF BLACK PEOPLE AND OTHER MINORITIES THE RIGHT TO VOTE. Prior to the act, their right to vote varied from state to state, especially in states in the South. Black communities were and are still Gerrymandered out by politicians, to prevent them from having any voting power.
Capnasshole:
"You're the fucking racist, and also a liar and a general dipshit."
UH... So what was that you said about Martin Luther King day, again?
Really, Capn -- get a friggin' life. You think you're being clever, but you're just making an ass of yourself in public. People can see what a dingleberry you are on your Youtube videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/CapnOAwesome
>>>>Well, you're the guy who has a video on Youtube with your sorry-assed mug clearly and plainly stating:<<<<
Hey, mighty Janitor, I have a real job, a real life and have been on TV, what exactly makes me sorry assed? What have you EVER acomplished by some nasty-ass ugly broken website and a few shitty blogs (Bagpiping? You got to be shitting me!)?
>>>>>This statement may not be intentionally racist, but I think that plenty of black people would take issue with you, and would consider you a racist,<<<<<
So because the New Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam would find them racist, it means I'm a racist. Holy dogshit, I didn't know peoples views and opinions can be judged that way. I personally find your blog offensive, because it shows the apex of stupidity. Does that make you the apex of stupidity? Well, no, because their are a few retards less intelligent than you There are black people here in Seattle, yea know, a city with people in it, that I know and WATCH my videos do not find it racist. How do you come up with this shit?
Here's just one video of mine that proves without a doubt that I am not racist:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x7GL4pOrxm0
Do not discard my videos. I promised to play by your rules, remember?
>>>>because You really are belittling everything that he stood for, and everything that black people have ever struggled for in America.<<<<
They didn't struggle for much if you ask me.
>>>>No, I don't think you're about to go around and burn crosses or join the Klan, but you're the type of racist I like to call the Archie Bunker racist -- just really, really dumb when it comes to stating your beliefs -- you make poor choices.<<<<
So having sex with non whites is RACIST? It's because you believe in hands off racial purity, isn't it? Geesh, you're such a budding neo-nazi!
What poor choices have I made? You don't even know my name....
>>>>(Read the end paragraph, where he says "I am the anti-racist because I am the only candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- who would protect the minority against these vicious drug laws," --here's a hint, this statement implies that he believes that the drug problems of the USA mostly affects minorities.)<<<<
And they don't?
Here's something from the CNN (Communist News Network if you ask me) report you showed me which acts spot on:
Another says, "The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."
In what way is that false? I mean you're shooting yourself in the foot.
The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer."
Nothing wrong with going against Israel, it's a violent Jewish state. Sure, muslims are more violent, but Jews are too. Watch my satrical videos on the topic:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XKfg_zgMoEU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=q2Rshg-ufP8
Martin Luther King Jr. was a Pro Communist Agitator, and we got the photographic evidence to prove it!
He was also a plagiarist douche bag.
By the way, I still think Communism is a threat, and anyone who claims that's living in the past is a fool. Dr. King just inspires radical Communism.
>>>>I never claimed that. I said "YOU REMIND ME OF a dumbass frat boy or college sophmore trying to be the next Dennis Leary or something."
This is not the same thing as claiming that you ARE. You remind me of a piece of shit, too. Does that mean you are a piece of shit? No, it doesn't. Shit doesn't write email back you you or make web-sites that backfire on them.<<<<
Uh....
>>>>Just because some conservative or libertarian whack-job argues that the civil Rights act did that, doesn't make it true. I challenge you to provide a shred of evidence to back up the claim that the civil rights act of 1964 destroyed the wealthy black communities.<<<<<
Let's see:
1) The Civil Rights Act hinders businesses by not allowing them to segregate. Businesses have the right of all people, which includes to segregate.
2) Removing segregation and making segregation illegal by law destroyed black commerce. Before the Civil Rights Act, black millionaries set up successful black communities for blacks only, and they were well off being separated from whites. But along comes this fucking act, and all the commerce ends, and those millionaires end up in rags. Do you see why stupid white liberals were wrong in creating the act?
3) Change has to be natural, it can't be forced all at once.
I hope I clarified my position for you.
>>>UH... So what was that you said about Martin Luther King day, again?<<<
That despite being a Communist, he removed social stigma of sex with other races, which is a good thing.
>>>Really, Capn -- get a friggin' life. You think you're being clever, but you're just making an ass of yourself in public. People can see what a dingleberry you are on your Youtube videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/CapnOAwesome<<<<
Bravo. And no one else thinks like that in regards to me!
The Civil War was not about slavery! The Union was more violent and intolerant than the south and even ran concentration camps. In Elmira, N.Y., a concentration camp meant for 5,000 prisoners held nearly 10,000. Union soldiers sold tickets to local gawkers, who apparently enjoyed the site of dying men dressed in tatters. Union camps were also infested with smallpox and a host of other deadly diseases. Don't you know anything about American history?
Capnasshole wrote:
"Hey, mighty Janitor, I have a real job, a real life and have been on TV, what exactly makes me sorry assed? What have you EVER acomplished by some nasty-ass ugly broken website and a few shitty blogs"
Whooptie-friggin-doo. You were on TV. That must mean you're beyond criticism, I guess. Am I supposed to be in awe of you because you made videos of yourself being a dumbass?
Capnasshole wrote:
"(Bagpiping? You got to be shitting me!)?"
what? you got a problem with people who decide to learn how to play one of the hardest (and oldest) instruments? What does the fact that I play pipes (among about a dozen other instruments) have to do with politics?
Capnasshole wrote:
"So because the New Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam would find them racist, it means I'm a racist."
Oh, I think a lot more than just Black militant groups would be offended. I think that plenty of AVERAGE black people, as well as plenty of white people, too, would find your comments about King and your belittling of the black struggle in America quite offensive. I mean, you claimed that they weren't fighting for much.
I guess they should have just grinned and put up with lynch mobs, with cross burnings, with the imbalance in justice, with the Jim Crow laws, and with being kept out of the public colleges that their taxes were paying for, and not being allowed to buy homes in better parts of town. All of that, according to you was "nothing much" to struiggle for. So you'd have no problem if the shoe was on the other foot, right? I mean, you think it's okay for one group of people to beat up and murder another one based on their skin color, I guess.
Capnasshole wrote:
"Holy dogshit, I didn't know peoples views and opinions can be judged that way. I personally find your blog offensive, because it shows the apex of stupidity. Does that make you the apex of stupidity? Well, no, because their are a few retards less intelligent than you"
Take this retard named Capnawesome for example... Oh, boy he's such a drooling self-absorbed, ignorant shit...
Capnasshole wrote:
"There are black people here in Seattle, yea know, a city with people in it,"
That's almost as funny to read as a Bush-ism! "Duh...I live in a city that has people in it... DuH!"
Capnasshole wrote:
"that I know and WATCH my videos do not find it racist. How do you come up with this shit?"
Uh... I watched the video. I found it offensive. Is there anything else that is required? What, do you think you're beynd reproach or something?
Capnasshole wrote:
"Here's just one video of mine that proves without a doubt that I am not racist: Do not discard my videos. I promised to play by your rules, remember?"
UH... BUt just above, and later on, you talk about what a good thing segregation was, and how businesses have a so-called right to be segregated. Let me give you a clue, because you apparently have none.
Segregation was unfair. Segregation was not a frigging picnic. Every single time in histiry a group has instituted racial or ethic segregation, it has become unfair. Segregation was nothing more than blatant attempt to keep black people powerless, by denying them the same access as white people. The KKK-types claimed it was "separate but equal", but it wasn't, and I don't think you can successfully argue that it was equal. You have argued in favor of the "right to segregation". Sure -- I agree that dumbasses and paranoid sociopaths have the right to SELF-SEGREGATE, but that means that they have to do it themselves. Having government and business do it without the consent of the people is wrong -- and that's what Jim Crow was all about, you moron.
Capnasshole wrote:
"They didn't struggle for much if you ask me."
Oh, sure Capn... I'm sure it wasn't so bad having the occaisional relative LYNCHED FROM A TREE, because they "got uppity" and sassed a white guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_massacre
I'm sure that it wasn't so bad for the parents of those 4 girls who were killed when that church was bomkbed by several Klan members, including one who was a local law enforcement officer...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bombing
I'm sure it was just a trivial thing to have a 14-year-old Emmett Till get hunted down, beaten to a pulp, and then drowned by a group of oler white adult men, just for "whistling at a white woman, then endure watching them get aquited, and openly boast to the world about murdering him...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till
Yeah, and I'm sure that preventing black people from voting was actually doing them a favor... After all, it's such a terrible burden for us white people to have to select leaders. It was just too much to put on the backs of black people, too...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Lou_Hamer
Yeah, Capn, that's not much... All those killings, all the injustice, and all. Do you think we should bring it all back, because it was not all that much to deal with?
Capnasshole wrote:
"So having sex with non whites is RACIST? It's because you believe in hands off racial purity, isn't it? Geesh, you're such a budding neo-nazi!"
Sorry, but you obviously have no frigging clue about what I was saying. You belittled Martin Luther King, the civil rights struggle, and millions of black people who fought for simple, basic human and constitutional rights from 1865 - 2008 in one sentence. It's not about you having sex with anyone -- although I would consider your having sex with any human being, a crime against humanity. :)
Capnasshole wrote:
"What poor choices have I made? You don't even know my name...."
I don't need to know your name to know that you pretty much trashed the entire civil rights movement with one stupid choice of words. Then you made the even more stupid decision to put it up on Youtube so the rest of the planet can see what an ignorant piece of shit you are.
Capnasshole wrote:
(about drug abuse being a mostly minority issue) "And they don't?"
No. According to the USA's own crime statistics, all racial and ethnic groups are proportionally represented when it comes to crimes, including drug-related crimes. What is also evident from the department of Justice's statistics is that non-white minorities routinely get more severe sentences for the same crime that white people get arrested for. White people getting the death sentence for murdering black people is almost never punished by the maximum sentence (LIfe without parole or death). However, the opposite is true about black people killing whites -- They nearly always get the maximum.
Capnasshole wrote:
"Here's something from the CNN (Communist News Network if you ask me) report you showed me which acts spot on: Another says, "The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters
If you ACTUALLY read the article, that was merely stating what was included in one of the Ron Paul newsletters, not simply a report on the facts about riots. Again -- just because a politician (or his best friend who write his newsletters for him) makes a claim does not mean it's true, or even worth considering.
What makes it true is an actual analysis where the facts are researched -- something that you obviously can't and never seem to have done. Apparently, you think that just grabbing the quotes of people who agree with you is enough. It's not. You have to CHECK THE FACTS -- and that takes some work -- reading articles carefully, and being objective, which you obviously know nothing about, since I haven't seen you do it yet.
Capnasshole wrote:
"In what way is that false? I mean you're shooting yourself in the foot."
Show me the statistics and fact that say it's true. You're shooting yourself in the foot if you don't.
Capnasshole wrote:
"The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer. Nothing wrong with going against Israel, it's a violent Jewish state. Sure, muslims are more violent, but Jews are too. Watch my satrical videos on the topic:"
I agree that Israel is not a good ally of the USA. No argument there. The reason I am against our continued support is because they are doing exactly the same thing to Palestinians as the USA did to black people 50 years ago.
Capnasshole farted:
"Martin Luther King Jr. was a Pro Communist Agitator, and we got the photographic evidence to prove it! He was also a plagiarist douche bag."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King
The "photo" of MLK attending a communist meeting" was not what it is promoted as at all. It was a photo of him attending an Evangelical Christian school ministry when he was barely 20! When you see the photo, note how all the young men are about the same age, and they are all dressed in school uniforms -- white shirts, dark ties, dark pants.
The FBI tried for decades to link King with the Communist party USA, and NEVER FOUND ANYTHING. They tapped his phones, the phone of his friends and family, and all they could come up with was that several members of the Communist Party USA had spoken to him on occaision to offer help in organizing marches. King had a Lawyer, Stan Levinson, who also had ties to the communist party. However, all of the work they did -- all of the wiretaps, the sworn testimonies of people who were taken in for questioning, and all the research found NOTHING on King to prove that he was a communist. All they could prove was that he talked to people who were communists on occaision. The FBI watched himlike a hawk, and probably even took notes on how many turds he crapped evey time he used the toilet, because that's how fucked up the FBI was under J. Edgar Hoover.
Capnasshole wrote:
"By the way, I still think Communism is a threat, and anyone who claims that's living in the past is a fool. Dr. King just inspires radical Communism."
Care to back that up with some research? I don't care if you believe it, but it's not a fact until you can substantiate it. Communism is not a threat now, and never really was a threat. The whole cold war was the result of a paranoid foreign policy, based on the teachings of Leo Strauss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss
The Power Of Nightmares, a documentary on how the cold war was fabricated, and how modern events are being spun in the same ways by our politicians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk1WkmioQvA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t77MRdL0jtM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snla4aanmmw
Capnasshole wrote:
"Let's see: 1) The Civil Rights Act hinders businesses by not allowing them to segregate. Businesses have the right of all people, which includes to segregate."
And the proof you offer to back up this claim is where?
Capnasshole wrote:
"2) Removing segregation and making segregation illegal by law destroyed black commerce. Before the Civil Rights Act, black millionaries set up successful black communities for blacks only, and they were well off being separated from whites. But along comes this fucking act, and all the commerce ends, and those millionaires end up in rags. Do you see why stupid white liberals were wrong in creating the act?"
What are you basing this on? Where is your proof? What studies or analysis shows this? OPinions are not worth shit in this type of discussion. You need to provide some support for these statements from reliable sources. Do you even understand the difference between objective and subjective information?
Capnasshole wrote:
"3) Change has to be natural, it can't be forced all at once."
You're entitled to your opinion. However, if you argue for "change has to be NATURAL", then you are leaving yourself open to saying that we should have just let whites keep lynching blacks, keep burning crosses, keep opressing and preventing blacks from voting, and keep blowing up black churches.
Don't you think that the civil Right protestors and freedom marchers were a NATURAL RESPONSE to over 100 years of being treated like shit?
Capnasshole wrote:
"I hope I clarified my position for you."
Well, you have at least told me that you really are a shitty researcher who has ignorant opinions, and who appears to be in favor of racial segregation.
Capnasshole wrote:
(About Martin Luther King) "That despite being a Communist, he removed social stigma of sex with other races, which is a good thing."
And didn't you claim that black proplr didn't struggle for much? You literally said that lynching, church bombings, organized harrassment, preventing blacks from voting, and murding black people with impunity was not much to struggle for.
Capnasshole wrote:
"Bravo. And no one else thinks like that in regards to me!"
I'm sure you are the 8th wonder of the world, in your own mind.
It's just too bad for you that you look like a pathetic asshole troll.
>>>>Whooptie-friggin-doo. You were on TV. That must mean you're beyond criticism, I guess. Am I supposed to be in awe of you because you made videos of yourself being a dumbass?<<<<
What are you talking about? Check me out on television:
http://www.yourreligionsucks.net/capn1.mpg
>>>Oh, I think a lot more than just Black militant groups would be offended. I think that plenty of AVERAGE black people, as well as plenty of white people, too, would find your comments about King and your belittling of the black struggle in America quite offensive. I mean, you claimed that they weren't fighting for much.<<<
But none of the whites and blacks I know find it offensive, so I assume it can't be all that offensive.
>>>>>I guess they should have just grinned and put up with lynch mobs, with cross burnings, with the imbalance in justice, with the Jim Crow laws, and with being kept out of the public colleges that their taxes were paying for, and not being allowed to buy homes in better parts of town. All of that, according to you was "nothing much" to struiggle for. So you'd have no problem if the shoe was on the other foot, right? I mean, you think it's okay for one group of people to beat up and murder another one based on their skin color, I guess.<<<<
They should have closed their mouths and taken it like men, and waited for change to come that wouldn't devastate the private industry.
>>>>Take this retard named Capnawesome for example... Oh, boy he's such a drooling self-absorbed, ignorant shit...<<<
Don't see how I am self-absorbed OR ignorant. But I guess you make the calls now bitch...
>>>>That's almost as funny to read as a Bush-ism! "Duh...I live in a city that has people in it... DuH!"<<<<
Again, what are you trying to say?
>>>>Uh... I watched the video. I found it offensive. Is there anything else that is required? What, do you think you're beynd reproach or something?<<<<
But because you find it offensive doesn't mean others will. You seem to believe that almost shares your dumbass opinions. Opinions don't mean shit to me without facts.
>>>>UH... BUt just above, and later on, you talk about what a good thing segregation was, and how businesses have a so-called right to be segregated. Let me give you a clue, because you apparently have none.<<<<
Yes, I did. Everything must be sacrified for the good of the private industry, even certain freedoms.
>>>>Segregation was unfair. Segregation was not a frigging picnic. Every single time in histiry a group has instituted racial or ethic segregation, it has become unfair. Segregation was nothing more than blatant attempt to keep black people powerless, by denying them the same access as white people. The KKK-types claimed it was "separate but equal", but it wasn't, and I don't think you can successfully argue that it was equal. You have argued in favor of the "right to segregation". Sure -- I agree that dumbasses and paranoid sociopaths have the right to SELF-SEGREGATE, but that means that they have to do it themselves. Having government and business do it without the consent of the people is wrong -- and that's what Jim Crow was all about, you moron.<<<<
Businesses are people too, ya know, and they have the right to self-segregate. Jim Crow laws in business are a good thing, since they weed out undesirables! It's about business, not civil liberties! I can argue, and win such argument about being separate and equal, can I not?
>>>>Oh, sure Capn... I'm sure it wasn't so bad having the occaisional relative LYNCHED FROM A TREE, because they "got uppity" and sassed a white guy.<<<<
Exaggerations from the media.
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_massacre<<<<
Who cares about that incident?
>>>>I'm sure that it wasn't so bad for the parents of those 4 girls who were killed when that church was bomkbed by several Klan members, including one who was a local law enforcement officer...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bom<<<<
Two words: Isolated case.
>>>>I'm sure it was just a trivial thing to have a 14-year-old Emmett Till get hunted down, beaten to a pulp, and then drowned by a group of oler white adult men, just for "whistling at a white woman, then endure watching them get aquited, and openly boast to the world about murdering him...<<<<
Didn't the article you link to say: "Carolyn Bryant later asserted that Till had grabbed her at the waist and asked her for a date. She said the young man also used "unprintable" words." Not only that but the article also revealed: "Emmett's father, Louis Till, was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1943. While serving in Italy, he was convicted of raping two women and killing a third. He was executed by the Army by hanging near Pisa in July 1945."
He was a pervert, there is no doubt about it, and could as well grown up to be a rapist, like his daddy. I don't favor killing him, but he needed a good wooping.
>>>>
Yeah, and I'm sure that preventing black people from voting was actually doing them a favor... After all, it's such a terrible burden for us white people to have to select leaders. It was just too much to put on the backs of black people, too...<<<<
It was a burden back then and still is a burden to many of them.
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Lou_Hamer
Yeah, Capn, that's not much... All those killings, all the injustice, and all. Do you think we should bring it all back, because it was not all that much to deal with?<<<<
Wow, a link to an article about some fat black bitch succeeded by a sob story. What's the point of that? What's Fannie Hamer have to do with this?
>>>Sorry, but you obviously have no frigging clue about what I was saying. You belittled Martin Luther King, the civil rights struggle, and millions of black people who fought for simple, basic human and constitutional rights from 1865 - 2008 in one sentence. It's not about you having sex with anyone -- although I would consider your having sex with any human being, a crime against humanity. :)<<<
I don't care if I belittled it. If saying I want to have sex with blacks makes uppity commie pinko bastard blacks offended, then so be it.
By saying me having sex is a crime you're admitting you're a proponent of eugenics. Way to go, dumbass.
>>>>I don't need to know your name to know that you pretty much trashed the entire civil rights movement with one stupid choice of words. Then you made the even more stupid decision to put it up on Youtube so the rest of the planet can see what an ignorant piece of shit you are.<<<<
Prove, without a doubt, with evidence, that I am ignorant on such topics. Also, the names Kevin.
>>>>No. According to the USA's own crime statistics, all racial and ethnic groups are proportionally represented when it comes to crimes, including drug-related crimes. What is also evident from the department of Justice's statistics is that non-white minorities routinely get more severe sentences for the same crime that white people get arrested for. White people getting the death sentence for murdering black people is almost never punished by the maximum sentence (LIfe without parole or death). However, the opposite is true about black people killing whites -- They nearly always get the maximum.<<<<
Who cares?
>>>>If you ACTUALLY read the article, that was merely stating what was included in one of the Ron Paul newsletters, not simply a report on the facts about riots. Again -- just because a politician (or his best friend who write his newsletters for him) makes a claim does not mean it's true, or even worth considering.<<<<
So I can't take what Ron Paul says ever at face value? What are you, a conspiracy theorist?
>>>>
What makes it true is an actual analysis where the facts are researched -- something that you obviously can't and never seem to have done. Apparently, you think that just grabbing the quotes of people who agree with you is enough. It's not. You have to CHECK THE FACTS -- and that takes some work -- reading articles carefully, and being objective, which you obviously know nothing about, since I haven't seen you do it yet.<<<<
Do I need to redirect you to my videos again?
>>>>I agree that Israel is not a good ally of the USA. No argument there. The reason I am against our continued support is because they are doing exactly the same thing to Palestinians as the USA did to black people 50 years ago.<<<<
I'm actually against them because they are Jewish. I hate Palestinians as much as they do, since most are either lousy pinko commie bastards or islamist. I used to feel bad for the Palestinians, but then I realized any ethnic group that lets Yassar Arafat live is bad news. Also, what I have against a Jewish state is its religion, and the fact that they act as hypocrites by promoting gay rights, but not promoting business rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel
I am not anti-gay, but I do not believe gays should have the same rights as straights yet, because it may hinder busniess and destroy gay ghettos. Any state that says other wise I cannot support. Democracy just does not work when you're jewish.
*Proof that Palestine is lousy pinko islamist crapland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_front_for_the_liberation_of_palestine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
Hope I've changed your mind.
>>>>The FBI tried for decades to link King with the Communist party USA, and NEVER FOUND ANYTHING. They tapped his phones, the phone of his friends and family, and all they could come up with was that several members of the Communist Party USA had spoken to him on occaision to offer help in organizing marches. King had a Lawyer, Stan Levinson, who also had ties to the communist party. However, all of the work they did -- all of the wiretaps, the sworn testimonies of people who were taken in for questioning, and all the research found NOTHING on King to prove that he was a communist. All they could prove was that he talked to people who were communists on occaision. The FBI watched himlike a hawk, and probably even took notes on how many turds he crapped evey time he used the toilet, because that's how fucked up the FBI was under J. Edgar Hoover.<<<<
Prove it. Two magical words, aren't they?
>>>Care to back that up with some research? I don't care if you believe it, but it's not a fact until you can substantiate it. Communism is not a threat now, and never really was a threat. The whole cold war was the result of a paranoid foreign policy, based on the teachings of Leo Strauss.<<<
Hmm, let's see....the fact that leftist movements all throughout the west have been violent, are violent, and always will be violent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Red_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_19th_Communist_Organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Organization_17_November
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_greece#17th_of_November
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_front_for_the_liberation_of_palestine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FARC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_path
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Nepal_%28Maoist%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress
I was generous and just gave you links to nine organizations, and including repeated violent incidents from leftist. As the Shining Path says:
"
We start by not ascribing to either Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Costa Rica [Convention on Human Rights], but we have used their legal devices to unmask and denounce the old Peruvian state. . . . For us, human rights are contradictory to the rights of the people, because we base rights in man as a social product, not man as an abstract with innate rights. "Human rights" don't exist except for the bourgeoisie man, a position that was at the forefront of feudalism, like liberty, equality, and fraternity were advanced for the bourgeoisie of the past. But today, since the appearance of the proletariat as an organized class in the Communist Party, with the experience of triumphant revolutions, with the construction of socialism, new democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat, it has been proven that human rights serve the oppressor class and the exploiters who run the imperialist and landowner-bureaucratic states. Bourgeois states in general. . . . Our position is very clear. We reject and condemn human rights because they are bourgeois, reactionary, counterrevolutionary rights, and are today a weapon of revisionists and imperialists, principally Yankee imperialists.
– Communist Party of Peru, Sobre las Dos Colinas"
You're out of your league here Dave. I am much more knowledgeable on this subject than you, and know that not only is Communism a threat, the US has succeeded in defeating Communism in South Korea (We made the country into a democracy, just check its recent history), South America (except Peru and Venezulea, but we will defeat them there), East Timor and even Canada! Communism is the cancer, the US is the answer (cure)!
"You're entitled to your opinion. However, if you argue for "change has to be NATURAL", then you are leaving yourself open to saying that we should have just let whites keep lynching blacks, keep burning crosses, keep opressing and preventing blacks from voting, and keep blowing up black churches.
Don't you think that the civil Right protestors and freedom marchers were a NATURAL RESPONSE to over 100 years of being treated like shit?"
It's not natural when you point a gun to someones head and make them think the way you want them to be. The Civil Rights Act, like the New Deal, are fascism.
>>>>
Well, you have at least told me that you really are a shitty researcher who has ignorant opinions, and who appears to be in favor of racial segregation.<<<<
Pfft.
>>>.
And didn't you claim that black proplr didn't struggle for much? You literally said that lynching, church bombings, organized harrassment, preventing blacks from voting, and murding black people with impunity was not much to struggle for.<<<<
I never said that, I said those events are exaggerated, and that is why they didn't struggle that much. The South aren't the bad guys here.
>>>>I'm sure you are the 8th wonder of the world, in your own mind.
It's just too bad for you that you look like a pathetic asshole troll.
Capnasshole drooled:
"But none of the whites and blacks I know find it offensive, so I assume it can't be all that offensive."
Irrelevent. You offended me and people I know who watched the video you made, and they agree with me that you're just a punk looking for attention.
Capnasshole drooled:
"They should have closed their mouths and taken it like men, and waited for change to come that wouldn't devastate the private industry."
You have simply asserted several times that "black businesses and wealthy blacks were devastated because of the civil rights act of 1964", without one single piece of proof to back it up. I've asked you several times to back up this statement of yours, and you have not done so yet.
Capnasshole drooled:
"Don't see how I am self-absorbed OR ignorant."
Yeah, it's really sad that the ignorant tend to revel in their ignorance, as do you. You wouldn't know what ignorance was if it crawled up your leg, bit you in the ass, then gave you a wedgie, and danced around singing "Ignorance is here again!"
Really Capn, I cannot suggest any stronger that you rush down to the nearest Walgreens, and purchase their stongest laxatives, so that you can more easily pass your head from inside of your ass.
Capnasshole drooled:
"Again, what are you trying to say?"
That you are a dumbass.
Capnasshole drooled:
"But because you find it offensive doesn't mean others will. You seem to believe that almost shares your dumbass opinions. Opinions don't mean shit to me without facts."
You would simply deny anything that you disagreed with.
Capnasshole drooled:
"Yes, I did. Everything must be sacrified for the good of the private industry, even certain freedoms."
So you are against democracy, I guess, and the constitution, and the bill of rights, correct?
I mean, if you believe that Industry trumps constitutional freedoms of citizens, then you obviously are more in favor of fascism.
Capnasshole drooled:
"Businesses are people too, ya know, and they have the right to self-segregate. Jim Crow laws in business are a good thing, since they weed out undesirables!"
And your proof of this sociological positive Jim Crow is what?
So why do you keep tryig to argue that you're not a racist? You obviously hate black people, think that the civil rights act was no good, and you think that segregation is okay. This is the classic party line of Klansmen and Neonazis. Why bother hiding it? Embrace your inner nazi, and just admit that you're a racist asshole who hates Jews and Black people.
Capnasshole drooled:
"It's about business, not civil liberties! I can argue, and win such argument about being separate and equal, can I not?"
You can sure try, but I doubt you'll ever win. I seriously doubt you have gotten any closer to winning anything except the dumbest Neonazi dildo I ever argued with. Even the average Evangelical Christian, including the whack-jobs that handle snakes and drink poison, are smarter than you on an average day.
Capnasshole drooled:
(about Lynchings) "Exaggerations from the media."
Proof?
Capnasshole drooled:
"Who cares about that incident?"
Obviously not racist fucktards like yourself.
Capnasshole drooled:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bom<<<<
"Two words: Isolated case."
Really? According to what historical reference?
Capnasshole drooled:
"Didn't the article you link to say: "Carolyn Bryant later asserted that Till had grabbed her at the waist and asked her for a date. She said the young man also used "unprintable" words." Not only that but the article also revealed: "Emmett's father, Louis Till, was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1943. While serving in Italy, he was convicted of raping two women and killing a third. He was executed by the Army by hanging near Pisa in July 1945.He was a pervert, there is no doubt about it, and could as well grown up to be a rapist, like his daddy. I don't favor killing him, but he needed a good wooping."
You know something At this point, I can see that you're not at all trying to argue any facts. You haven't backed up your claims, and you seem to just be arguing for the sake of having an argument. I am through wasting my posting time playing your stupid little game, because it trully is a waste of time. I'm not responding to you anymore.
You have won nothing. You have only succeeded in being a total asshole, and sprewing a tirade of ignorant crapola that just keep getting smellier and smellier, and I know you're not the kind of guy who would do a courtesy flush.
You need serious help. Seek a proper therapist, or at least go to the local sex shop and purchase a bottle of their best anal-lube to help pull your head out of your ass with.
Snore..Snore Snore...
Come on, that was the best you could do? You completely cracked under my pressure, and resorted to childish insults and stupid suggestions, and dodged most of what I said. I'm through arguing with you on this point, but I'm not leaving your blog, nor am I going to stop debunking you on my blog. See you next argument, and knowing you, it will be very soon :).
Hey Psycho Dick, this is TheAmazingAtheist, a friend of CapnoAwesome. He got the argument against the Civil Rights Act from ME, and I can say without a doubt that it is not racist, I am not racist, and he is not racist! You are simply a ass fucking dipshit, who doesn't know what he is talking about or how to substantiate an argument.
My video on the topic (stupid liberals might get offended: http://youtube.com/watch?v=qJxJAV5rOn0)
Put that in your bong and smoke it bitch.
Busted!
Okay, you are an imposter.
I had a sneaking suspicion that you were not the actual Capnoawesome from the youtube videos that you sent after I asked a couple of leading questions in the debate we were having.
The first thing that tipped me off was the fact that you argued EXACTLY like one of the trolls I have dealt with before. You made pathetic fallacious arguments, of the type I often see christian Fundamentalists make. Though the real Capnoawesome uses the word "fuck" a lot, he actually makes arguments that are well thought out, unlike you did.
Secondly, you posted links to Christian Fundamentalist websites to back up your opinion, and posted links to sites that did not support what you were claiming at all.
Thirdly, your stated position on race was obviously an exaggerated parody of what Capnawesome and amazingatheist wrote or vieotaped on their blogs. All I had to do was watch to realize that you were not representing what they state so clearly on their blogs. You even contradicted what I already knew was previously stated by the real Capnoawesome.
Fourthly, you used completely different email addresses than they use.
I took the liberty of writing to both Capnoawesome and Amazingatheist, at their Youtube videos and confirmed that they know nothing about my blog or this blog.
So in parting, may I suggest you call your local fire department, and ask if you can borrow the services of their "Jaws Of Life" tool, so that you can more easily pry your head out of your ass.
You have been owned.
Wile this guy is probably just some asswipe imposter, TAA (who has left YT) actually did say that the civil rights act destroyed black communities, and I think CapnOawesome makes some pretty lame arguments, he is a total losertarian.
Cool blog btw Dave.
I've seen both these guys videos, and I did not see good arguments. All I saw was two people making complete baboon asses out of themselves. Especially TheAmazingAtheist's video about Racism and the Civil Rights Act. Also, I noticed these guys try to hard to act like Maddox and other internet writers with their attempts to act all self-absorbed. When Maddox does it, it's funny. When they do it, it's pathetic.
You have to realize that the real capn and the real amazing are trying to be funny. That's why they use so much profanity, and also why Amazing can usually be seen sipping from a flask, and acting drunk (or is it acting??)
Hoever, their arguments are not the best, but they are way better than the ones that the imposter made.
Psycho Dave said:
"You have to realize that the real capn and the real amazing are trying to be funny. That's why they use so much profanity, and also why Amazing can usually be seen sipping from a flask, and acting drunk (or is it acting??)"
Oh, I don't have a problem with profanity. Someone can say fuck in almost every other sentence, and still have an intelligent, well thought out point of view. I do not believe The Amazing Atheist or CapnOAwesome have such views. Their views are painfully misinformed (whenever they "debate" with someone on that site they never site sources or evidence, they just kind of fart out their opinions) and illustrated in mostly unfunny ways. I admit some of their videos are funny, but even then they seem to be trying to hard to be the atheist version of maddox or something.
I also don't understand why all the atheist on that site have some kind of libertarian spell under them. They make the most dumbass arguments for their political positions, and seem to worship the idea of an unrestricted private sector as if it was some sacred concept. They even go so far to accuse liberals and socialist and the such of worshiping the state, which I've never seen. I agree on their religious views, but their political views are wacked.
Post a Comment