|
Grex > Agora56 > #84: Newspaper in Denmark prints cartoon pics of Mohammed | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 432 responses total. |
slynne
|
|
response 40 of 432:
| 
Feb 4 00:31 UTC 2006 |
Oh wow, now both Oprah *and* tod are telling us to read _Night_
|
tod
|
|
response 41 of 432:
|
Feb 4 00:37 UTC 2006 |
I am where I am because of the bridges that I crossed. Sojourner Truth was
a bridge. Harriet Tubman was a bridge. Ida B. Wells was a bridge. Madame C.
J. Walker was a bridge. Fannie Lou Hamer was a bridge. Now go treat yourself
to some Apple jeans!!
|
kingjon
|
|
response 42 of 432:
|
Feb 4 00:40 UTC 2006 |
Re #40: I think it was perhaps worth reading. Once. Just like _Lord of the
Flies_, _Red Badge of Courage_, and perhaps _The Scarlet Letter_ (though I like
that because I like that sort of writing). The one addition to that list that I
think nearly no one agrees with me on is _To Kill a Mockingbird_ -- but I don't
like it because it was read *to* us at about half a chapter per class period
(every other day) in ninth grade, so I'd read it about five or six times before
we'd "finished" it.
|
naftee
|
|
response 43 of 432:
|
Feb 4 05:48 UTC 2006 |
whoa !
the newspaper Le Devoir printed ONE of the comics.
|
sholmes
|
|
response 44 of 432:
|
Feb 4 15:32 UTC 2006 |
come to think of it , if god was really unpleased over this incident , he/she
can prolly do far better damage if he/she wants to. So leave it to t he god
eh ...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 45 of 432:
|
Feb 4 18:17 UTC 2006 |
I've never heard of a religion that says "leave it to t he god
eh".
|
naftee
|
|
response 46 of 432:
|
Feb 4 22:47 UTC 2006 |
that's because there is no god, eh.
|
crimson
|
|
response 47 of 432:
|
Feb 5 12:49 UTC 2006 |
Re #45:
That's because most religions have better spelling and grammar.
|
naftee
|
|
response 48 of 432:
|
Feb 6 02:44 UTC 2006 |
gagaga
|
richard
|
|
response 49 of 432:
|
Feb 6 05:35 UTC 2006 |
Yesterday the netherlands and denmark embassies in Damascus, Syria
were torched and burned down by irate muslims screaming that they were
defending the honor of the Prophet from the evil media. These guys
sound like they'd be right at home in the GOP, where they love
religious people and hate the evil media.
|
klg
|
|
response 50 of 432:
|
Feb 6 11:44 UTC 2006 |
(Keep it up, RW. We love it. You da man!))
|
bru
|
|
response 51 of 432:
|
Feb 6 11:51 UTC 2006 |
sorry richard, but your paranoia of the GOP is showing again.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 52 of 432:
|
Feb 6 11:58 UTC 2006 |
Sounds more like they'd be more at home in the Democratic Party (or the ACLU)
where they have exactly the same reaction every time someone suggests that the
theory of evolution might not be either accurate or properly taught in school.
:)
|
nharmon
|
|
response 53 of 432:
|
Feb 6 14:59 UTC 2006 |
Good call Jon!
|
keesan
|
|
response 54 of 432:
|
Feb 6 15:09 UTC 2006 |
You are all acting like 5 year olds.
Theories are by definition not 'accurate', they are best guesses based on the
evidence. And not all members of any party, even the Ku Klux Klan, are the
sort who go around starting fires if they don't like what other people do.
|
richard
|
|
response 55 of 432:
|
Feb 6 15:43 UTC 2006 |
it is in fact the gop that is the home of the fundamentalist right wing
religious powers that be, and it is in fact the gop that sees the media as
evil (well liberal, but to them its the same thing) They have a lot in common
with their brethren fundamentalists over in the muslim world.
|
keesan
|
|
response 56 of 432:
|
Feb 6 16:50 UTC 2006 |
I have some very nice friends who happen to be Republicans and don't go around
setting fires. I don't always understand how people choose their party
affiliations. The Republicans seem to draw from several diverse groups, not
all of whom support all the party lines.
|
jep
|
|
response 57 of 432:
|
Feb 6 16:54 UTC 2006 |
Gee, I didn't know all Republicans started fires. I didn't know all of
us were fanatic religious fundamentalists, either. Can you please tell
me about some more of my beliefs, Richard? (I hate being so much in
the dark about my beliefs.)
|
jep
|
|
response 58 of 432:
|
Feb 6 16:57 UTC 2006 |
I guess Richard is demonstrating that all Democrats believe Republicans
are like that. Richard must have been sent to us by God as an
illustration of why Republicans have such an easy time winning most of
the presidential elections, and why Republican presidents get to
appoint most of the Supreme Court justices. God makes all Democrats
idiots.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 59 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:09 UTC 2006 |
I wouldn't go that far. There are a lot of intelligent democrats.
|
klg
|
|
response 60 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:11 UTC 2006 |
(RW - Who said you could divulge such secrets?? You better not give
out the secret password and handshake!!)
JPJR- Democrats are not necessarily idiots. A lot are well meaning,
but misguided in terms of their thinking as to how people can best
reach their potential and the proper role of government. But they
spend so much energy in defending their ingrained beliefs that that
don't examine them critically.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 61 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:14 UTC 2006 |
Now, you must admit that even though bashing Richard is fun- he has a
point. The GOP IS home to the far right-wing religious nut jobs. That
does NOT mean that all republicans far right-wing religious nut jobs.
Kind of that 'all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are
squares' idea.
|
klg
|
|
response 62 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:19 UTC 2006 |
(And the Democratic Party is home to far left-wing religiou nut jobs.)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 63 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:27 UTC 2006 |
re #54:
> Theories are by definition not 'accurate', they are best guesses based
> on the evidence.
I disagree with you here. Accepted scientific theories are not, perhaps,
foolproof, but they *are* accurate -- as accurate as we can possibly make
them. To the extent that they prove inaccurate they are usually rejected
or revised in favor of more accurate theories whose predictions better
match the observable data.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 64 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:38 UTC 2006 |
Unfortunately for them, the Democratic party hasn't been able to capture
very much of the left-wing religious nut job vote. Most of them voted
for Nader in 2000, for example. However it's not a big factor because
most left-wing nut jobs are not especially religious, while most
right-wing nut jobs are.
|