image stats
rating
3.2
votes
15
views
1176
uploader
dv8
comments
29
date added
2009-09-29
category
Stupid
previous votes
Loading..
log in
Username:

Password


indent register
indent recover

another reason to carry firearms

1 star2 stars3 stars4 stars5 stars
another reason to carry firearms

Comments for: another reason to carry firearms
dv8 Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2009 01:26AM

CHICAGO — Cell phone footage showing a group of teens viciously kicking and striking a 16-year-old honors student with splintered railroad ties. the student was just at the wrong place, wrong time and was killed.angry
smiley
frankzilla-1970 Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2009 03:39AM

thats just an excuse. wrong place wrong time my arse. just a bunch of animals using that for an excuse to kill.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2009 06:59AM

It is going to get worse.
maddie Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2009 09:18AM

i hope so. They can kill each other all day i hope. Its not a bad thing jgroin. Jgroin your outlook is like that guy in a crowd holding the sign,"THE END IS NEAR".
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2009 11:57AM

the saddest thing about demo-twerps is that they are so blind to reality, they think marxism is the answer.

as for the post....just another example of a lynch mob...yes they can be black.
maddie Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2009 12:08PM

Shit the only MARXism you've experienced is from Black and White John WAyne WAr movies.
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2009 12:54PM

No, maddie, That was propaganda, and since we won it is not considered to be bad thing. Marxism is extreme atheists trying to stop the us of the word Christmas in schools because it has some religious meaning behind it.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2009 03:40PM

Black on black violence or black on white violence is statically a multiple of white on white violence and assuredly white on black violence, at least here in the US, but that's an awfully inconvenient truth to black folks who cry racism every time the percentage of black populations in prisons are mentioned. Guess that correlation just dudn make the synaptic passageways, especially when they can just whip out the ol tired race card again instead (*horse*)

BTW wolfie, lots of us atheists just want the government to adhere to the principles of separation of church and state defined within our Constitution, nothing more and nothing less. Religious types only want adherence to their right of religious freedom ..... so long as it's in agreement with their own chosen religion totally
lost

smoking
smiley



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29/09/2009 03:47PM by Mrkim.
blinkermann Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2009 05:47PM

I just want to muddy the water with some more political definition
Capitalism is primacy of ownership (all value goes to the owner of the property, asset, labor, vagina, whatever)
Socialism is all about fairness (in the extreme it goes all the way to "its is not fair that some people are smarter, etc, etc)
Marxism is an extreme subset of socialism that idolizes the prolateriat and espouses violence and spurns religion as a way to keep people in their place
Communism is a lot like Marxism, but more specifcally defines how things are owned.
Totalitarianism is economic and political power combined for specific power elite
Soviet style communism is totalitarianism dressed up as Marxism and/or communism

The US is currently rather socialist with some strong capitalist underpinnings. Germany and France (for example) have a little bit more socialism and a little less capitalism. (e.g. employees get to vote at sharholder meetings)

It appears that the democrats want to take the US toward socialism a little (how far? that depends on how long they have the white house and congress). This might be good news, unless you are rich, smart (or both). Interesting, it is mixed if you are good looking. If you are a good-looking guy, but not super rich, you can expect more pussy as we move toward socialism -- though your extra earning potential from being good looking is diminished. If you are a good looking girl, you get the same amount of sex in either system, it is just worth more in capitalism -- though you will generally have sex with richer, less good looking guys.
frankzilla-1970 Report This Comment
Date: September 30, 2009 01:47AM

wtf does an athiest care about the seperation of church and state for? you guys dont believe in god or any dieties so therefore theres just the state as far as you should be concerned.
frankzilla-1970 Report This Comment
Date: September 30, 2009 01:50AM

so lets let people who have a view on religeon have the say of whether they say a prayer in school. just like fools who dont vote the whine about then idiot in office...youre not a part of the goup...GETS TO STEPPIN AND DONT CUT THE CORNERS biznitch
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: September 30, 2009 06:51AM

Separation of church and state was designed to prevent the government from forcing the people to belong to one religion. Now it appears that it is being used to promote atheism.

Black on black violence will never stay black on black so it is not good. They are becoming more emboldened because one of their own is in the White House, how long before total violence breaks out?
frankzilla-1970 Report This Comment
Date: September 30, 2009 09:07AM

incase you havent noticed since the dawn of man, nay the creation of man there has been all out violence. all you need is too much stubboness and lack of a "give a damn" and you have some idiot punching another guy in the mug for having a difference of opinion.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 30, 2009 11:40AM

why should an atheist care about church and state? isn't that obvious? no? o.k. then, why would a religious person want their government to be involved in a "moral" (according to them) foreign policy? (or any legislation excluding somebody else's beliefs?) to inflict their religious values on the "infidels"? hmmmmm
maddie Report This Comment
Date: September 30, 2009 03:04PM

WOW, all good points, and i luv that seperation of church,that should be rule number #1.

I can reason that.....wat do we gotta do next?
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 30, 2009 04:30PM

quit electing lawyers or anybody else that tries to sidestep the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.
elect me (or someone like me)and you won't need to fear god, special interest groups, offending someone because of their skin color, or your own govt.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 30, 2009 05:03PM

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

......Abraham Lincoln

The Audacity of Unawareness

April 15th, 2009 5:03 pm Barack Obama, through his spokesman, claimed today that he was unaware of the tax day tea parties. Granted, the MSM has done a good job in suppressing any sort of coverage ahead of time (and the little coverage they did provide was derisive at best). but how out of touch is the Community Organizer in Chief, really?
This much we know:
- He was unaware that he was attending a church (for 20 years) with a racist pastor who hates America .
- He was unaware that he was family friends with, and started his political career in the living room of, a domestic terrorist.
- He was unaware that he had invested in two speculative companies backed by some of his top donors right after taking office in 2005.
- He was unaware that his own aunt was living in the US illegally.
- He was unaware that his own brother lives on pennies a day in a hut in Kenya .
- He was unaware of the AIG bonuses that he and his administration approved and signed into a bill.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Commerce was under investigation in a bribery scandal.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of the Treasury was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be the U.S. Trade Representative was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the woman he nominated to be his Chief Performance Officer was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be #2 at the Environmental Protection Agency was under investigation for mismanaging $25 million in EPA grants.
PLEASE,,, there are people in comas that are more aware of world affairs than this guy.
frankzilla-1970 Report This Comment
Date: September 30, 2009 10:14PM

because an athiest doesnt have any views on religeon. they dont bvelieve in it. period. but anyone can have a morality issue.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 30, 2009 10:53PM

i would beg to differ on the point of Atheists not having views on religion, most are twice as informed on the facts.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: September 30, 2009 11:02PM

I can only mention why I want separation of church and state, but here goes.

The Constitution guarantees there's supposed to be no collusion of church and state in the beginning because they feared it would lead as it had in England/europe in general where the church played a huge part in the policies and governance of the people. The founding fathers (several of whom held very atheistic views of religion) wanted the governance of the people to be BY the people and without influence from ANY church.

Any time the government shows favor or preference to any church it opens itself to claims of religious discrimination, and rightfully so, so again the idea was to keep the 2 ideologies totally separated.

These all sound like good and proper logic so the question I always have to ask is why isn't that acceptable to "people of faith"? So long as no one is disallowed from worshiping their chosen deity, why is it that people of faith have to carry that one step beyond and expect non-believers to have to publicly listen to their prayers, pledge allegiance to "one nation under god", or feel as if we must agree with the idea of having "in god we trust" on every piece of currency in circulation?

To me the answer is really simple. It 's because they feel as if atheists HAVE NO RIGHTS simply because we have no religion and could never perceive that we should have any right to even TAKE offense to these displays and practices as blatant examples of the lack of separation of church and state handjob

smoking
smiley
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 30, 2009 11:16PM

here's an idea....why don't we back tax the church to...let's say 1776, that should bankrupt them enough that they will need to dissolve most of their assets (land holdings, rent houses,etc.) in let's say a 1 year period. take all that money and split it up between the states therefore getting their heads above water. this will also, no doubt, cause a flood of tax money coming in from the resale of said holdings. this tax money will be put to the repair, upgrades and maintenance of our schools, roads, etc.
damn i'm good!
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: October 01, 2009 06:28AM

I do agree with you Fossil that the churches should be taxed out of existence but the people should not be forced to not believe in God. I have never believed in organized religion in any way.

"In God we trust" or "under God" does not promote any one religion because all religions believe in God under one name or another. If you do not believe in God then why would those words bother you? I always thought an open mind was a good thing so why close your mind to other people's beliefs. I even maintain an open mind to Odamna and open to be proven wrong.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: October 01, 2009 10:03AM

that's not closing my mind to anyones beliefs....it's enforcing the separation of church and state. people will still be able to practice whatever theology they deem valid. research your church assets and tell me why those assets should be tax free. most will have no purpose in the freedom of choice to worship any deity they want. most church rental properties i have seen do not discriminate what religion shall be able to own/rent/buy. they don't care as long as the tax free money is flowing in.
church donations should be taxed the same as if i got a bonus from work (40%).
blinkermann Report This Comment
Date: October 01, 2009 11:11AM

Atheists don't believe in God. They might particpate in religious activities for fun or profit. They might even be in charge of religious groups. But these atheist don't self identify. The people who identify most strongly as atheist have had a negative experience with religion and are usually anti-religion - quite separate from what they really believe.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: October 02, 2009 02:32AM

jgoins: Even though no specific "god" is alluded to it's irrelevant as it is an obvious mention of some religion and since it is endorsed in a federal way it still is an example of collusion of church and state.

My position in this is strictly that this still lies in direct opposition to the Constitutionally stated position and has nothing to do with keeping an open mind. WTF does keeping an open mind and strict application of Constitutionally stated governmental policy have to do with one another? That line just sounds like psychobabble designed to validate people of faiths agreement with having federal mentions of "god", but lacks a logical defense of the argument in relation to the strict application of law.

Blinky: To state that one must have had some negative religious event have occurred in ones life to be vocal about ones thoughts on atheism seems a bit shallow. No such event ever happened in my own life. I simply see agreement with religion as something I can't validate logically or intellectually and since these 2 always play a part in how things occur to me in the world it leads me to feel as if support of any religion is indefensible when viewed in a strictly logical or intellectual context.

Anytime someone asks me to accept anything strictly "on faith" without logical reasoning instead is quite simple asking for too much grinning
smiley

smoking
smiley
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: October 02, 2009 07:06AM

How much would it cost to remove 'in God we trust" from all our money? The pledge of alegience doesn't matter sinve it is not being used much more anymore.
frankzilla-1970 Report This Comment
Date: October 08, 2009 07:47AM

even if you dont believe in god, he believes in you
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: October 08, 2009 08:58AM

For me that carries the same weight as sayin Puff the Magic Dragon believes in me tongue
sticking out smiley

smoking
smiley
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: October 12, 2009 07:38AM

Well he believes in you as well.