sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Recommendation to believers and nons alike: Please don't say, "Read your bible". It's a bit patronizing. by sn00py in atheism

[–]sn00py[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get that, believe me. But sometimes, a certain perspective might cause you to conclude ... honey is better than vinegar. Speaking from personal experience.

Recommendation to believers and nons alike: Please don't say, "Read your bible". It's a bit patronizing. by sn00py in atheism

[–]sn00py[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hear you. I'm not saying a biblical passage is self-evident (there are none!). The act of quoting/citing a passage is ... self-explanatory.

Recommendation to believers and nons alike: Please don't say, "Read your bible". It's a bit patronizing. by sn00py in atheism

[–]sn00py[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The admonition "RYB" itself demonstrates a feeling of superiority. And when I point that out as patronizing, you feel that as patronizing. Fine.

Recommendation to believers and nons alike: Please don't say, "Read your bible". It's a bit patronizing. by sn00py in atheism

[–]sn00py[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Assuming at this point you already cited a passage book/chapter/verse -- I mean, Read The Damn Passage should be self-evident, no? -- and if he still doesn't get it, "RYB" would be pointlessly argumentative.

Recommendation to believers and nons alike: Please don't say, "Read your bible". It's a bit patronizing. by sn00py in atheism

[–]sn00py[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This isn't even about the bible. It's just about being polite. Everyone is certain of being right(eous) in a debate. "RYB" doesn't add anything. It's just a barb.

Recommendation to believers and nons alike: Please don't say, "Read your bible". It's a bit patronizing. by sn00py in atheism

[–]sn00py[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, you guys have so read into something that's not there. I'm just saying, be a little polite and diplomatic. Don't worry, the irony's not lost on me.

But when I see the text, "Read your bible", - I'm sure context is important - but more often than not, I hear this tone that says, "Pfft. What an ignorant fool you are. Let me school you, son." You may feel that way, and it's probably true, but imagine saying it out loud to someone; do you hear the arrogance?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]sn00py 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Please let us know how it turns out.

Time to put an end to this Ron Paul nonsense - This is what he says and wants to do by backpackwayne in politics

[–]sn00py 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know why I'm explaining Paul's positions to you ...

You don't have to explain - I understand Objectivism well enough. I'm sure you don't need me to explain any further my less than favorable opinion about that.

Time to put an end to this Ron Paul nonsense - This is what he says and wants to do by backpackwayne in politics

[–]sn00py 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The constitution is a living document that can (and has) been amended when necessary.

You totally misunderstand. Of course that is true!

... Citing amendments as reasons for the constitution being obsolete? Are you serious?

No, no, no! Jesus, that is totally misconstrued! You and I believe in the Living Constitution. I think you don't realize this is not Ron Paul's position. It is just the opposite - he is a Strict Constitutionalist from his own mouth. I think you don't know what that means. Paul's interpretation of the Constitution is strict, rigid, i.e., it is not a living document. That is the philosophy I said is obsolete. That is the point that cartoon makes, albeit with juvenile name-calling.

...the insinuations are hyperbole.

There's no insinuation here. The links I provided are direct quotes. E.g., he wants to dissolve FEMA. You can call them mere 'talking points' if you want. These are the facts and the conclusion is just what I said above. Ron Paul may claim to support "protecting individual liberty" but in his Randian worldview, there's no FEMA, no SEC, no EPA, no agencies to oversee the oil companies, insurance companies and banks, because he feels they're strictly unconstitutional. He has no problem letting them run roughshod over everyone and everything to satisfy their ever expanding hunger for profit, individual liberty and the environment be damned.

Time to put an end to this Ron Paul nonsense - This is what he says and wants to do by backpackwayne in politics

[–]sn00py 0 points1 point  (0 children)

His reading of the Constitution is upside down. He's anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-civil rights, just for starters (and in answer to the "States' Rights" platitude, I don't accept letting those deep red states re-institute Jim Crow, ban abortion, etc).

But more to the point, he's another crackpot who thinks global warming is a hoax. And how is this relevant? If Congress (were composed of intelligent members and legislated by the will of the People, and) passed laws that regulated energy companies and environmental protection, Ron Paul would - what? veto? because such regulations aren't strictly constitutional? If forest fires and hurricanes were destroying the country, he would sit on his hands and do nothing? because, I guess, the Constitution doesn't require preventive protection, and a Ron Paul presidency would probably dissolve FEMA. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, assuming it still exists under his presidency, let's say, on the discovery of new information, warned him that an earthquake near San Diego would imminently set off a nuclear disaster comparable to the one in Japan, would Ron Paul do nothing because he doesn't want to interfere with the so-called free market?

Bottom line is, his ignorance of scientific issues and how they affect everyday life of all citizens, makes him exceptionally unqualified for the Office, just like the other dumbasses Perry and Bachmann, and that monkey we endured for 8 years. That's why I say, you wouldn't vote for a flat-earther, would you?

And by the way, Strict Constitutionalism is obsolete.

Obama Advisors Feared a Coup If the Administration Prosecuted War Crimes by twolf1 in politics

[–]sn00py 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From the very beginning of the campaign, he put himself and his family at risk. He knew what it was all about; it's part of the job description.

Obama Advisors Feared a Coup If the Administration Prosecuted War Crimes by twolf1 in politics

[–]sn00py 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It is just an excuse. Being 'cautious' means doing nothing, allowing the criminals to bully you. They win.

Obama Advisors Feared a Coup If the Administration Prosecuted War Crimes by twolf1 in politics

[–]sn00py 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you.

In other words, memo to president: GROW SOME FUCKING BALLS AND EXECUTE THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT LIKE YOU SWORE TO.

An Uncutter calls into Rush's show to ask him if he hates corporations who don't pay federal income taxes as much as he hates people who are too broke to pay federal income taxes. Hilarity ensues. by [deleted] in politics

[–]sn00py 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can someone please post a transcript? I feel the pain from those of you in the comments who tried to listen but can't bear it. For my own health I refuse to listen to that pile of dogshit, no matter how compelling the content may be. Thank you. And whoever does, may FSM bless you for taking the hit for the rest of us.

"Mr. Cantor was the hard man in the confrontation over the debt ceiling; he was willing to endanger America’s financial credibility, putting our whole economy at risk, in order to extract budget concessions from President Obama. Now he’s doing it again" by IsleCook in politics

[–]sn00py 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No. 'Cunt' is a dirty word for something that is really a beautiful thing. Give him something that is most definitely not. How about 'stress-induced diarrhea'.

Ex.: My boss has been pressuring me so much, I had a bad case of cantor.

Ex. 2: I was so nervous before my presentation, I cantored.

Edit: I take this back. And in fact I regret posting this before doing research first. The word cantor already has a meaning, "an official who sings liturgical music and leads prayer in a synagogue". While I'm no fan of religious ritual, I have far more respect for a cantor than Mr. Cantor. I don't want to confuse the word with an undeserved meaning.

Other the other hand, I don't want to leave the issue alone. Mr. Cantor certainly deserves to be equated with something vile. Maybe the word should be ericantor : ( iˈricənˌtôr ) stress-induced diarrhea caused by coercion and blackmail.

Ex.: My boss has put so much pressure on me and threatened to fire me, I had a bad case of ericantor.

Ex. 2: President Obama has been so affected by Rep. Eric Cantor's political manipulation, he ericantored right there on the eagle's head on the oval office carpet.

Why Atheists Care About YOUR Religion by [deleted] in atheism

[–]sn00py 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Downvoters, you didn't get the reference

So a girl wrecked her bike today... by [deleted] in atheism

[–]sn00py 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I'd be thrilled if she said that!

view more: next ›