"Borders, Language, Culture" = "Bigotry, Bigotry, Bigotry" at the end of the day.


When did borders, language, and culture become bigotry?  Something wrong with having secure borders, english language only, and American culture in America?

"The modern definition of bigotry is winning an argument with a liberal." -Rush Limbaugh.

If this isn't intended as satire, f*c* knows what is - it's a joke, GWB.  You should know what a "joke" is, FFS - you voted for one, after all ;)




You know, I just got the dam* joke.  Getting old.  The Euro nations are getting overpopulated with muslims, no question about that, and if they start fighting like they do in Israel, it wouldn't be long before the EU voted for an unconditional surrender...certainly before they had the bal*s to fight back like Israel. 

I'm mostly talking about Spain, France, and Germany.  Not really talking about England and Italy.

"The modern definition of bigotry is winning an argument with a liberal." -Rush Limbaugh.

Nah... you don't have to win the argument: if that were the case, there'd be a whole lot less bigotry in the world.


The Euro nations are getting overpopulated with muslims, and if they start fighting like they do in Israel, it wouldn't be long before the EU vote an unconditional surrender.

That's another cracker from the anti-Muslim disinformation bureau, if ever there was one...


I'm mostly talking about Spain, France, and Germany.  Not really talking about England and Italy.

You really don't know your French and Germans.  Or your Spanish, for that matter.

I'm mostly talking about Spain, France, and Germany. Not really talking about England and Italy.


The French are taking it to the Muslims in there own country.. at the moment they are probably the most hostile towards Islam. The Spanish love a good fight and the Germans.. we'll we all know about them.

The Spanish love a good fight


The sure did raise the white flag after the train bombing on March 11, 2004.

As for France...well...a new French study that asked the soap-phobic frogs in that country which countries do they think are the biggest threat to peace.  Here are the results in order, starting with the biggest threat to global peace:

1. Iraq
2. Israel
3. Afghanistan
4. The United State of America
5. Palestine
6. Iran
7. Pakistan
8. Algeria
9. Libya

And Syria was number 12.

--So the frogs in France think America and Israel are bigger threats than Syria, Chnia, North Korea, Iran, the people fighting Israel (there is currently no such country as Palestine.)  The French have issues.

America survey (biggest threats to peace in the world):

1. North Korea
2. Iran
3. Syria
4. Iraq
5. Palestine

See the difference between America and France?

Here is an excerpt from the article talking about this new survey:

"Israel was ranked number two, just after Iraq, on a list of countries that threaten world peace, according to a recent survey conducted by French newspapers. Syria, Iran and Libya also appear on the list, albeit after Israel. The survey was conducted jointly by five local dailies in northwest France, which have a combined readership of about 175,000.

The list includes a total of 15 countries. Following Iraq and Israel were Afghanistan, the United States, Palestine, Iran, Pakistan, Algiers and Libya in that order. Syria appears number 12 on the list.

A similar survey carried out a year ago ranked Israel "only" number four on the list of countries that threaten world peace.

"There is no doubt that distortions in the French media influence the survey," Deputy Foreign Minister Rabbi Michael Melchior said in reponse to the list. "Even if there is a legitimate criticism of Israel, in many cases we see a distortion of reality in the French media, which explains the absurd results of the survey. In any event, we do not apologize for our existence.""

As for me, I'll post my favorite France-bashing quotes, and boycott French goods:

France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes." -Mark Twain

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." -General George S. Patton

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." -Norman Schwarzkopf

"We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it." -Marge Simpson, on the cartoon television show "The Simpsons."

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure" -Jacques Chirac, President of France

"As far as France is concerned, you're right." -Rush Limbaugh

"The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee." -Regis Philbin

"Next time there's a war in Europe, the loser has to keep France." -Tony Snow

"Raise your right hand if you like the French. Raise both hands if you are French." -An old saying

"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it." -John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona

"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people." -Conan O'Brien, from "Late Night with Conan O'Brien"

"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France!" -Jay Leno, on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno"

"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag." -David Letterman, on "The Late Show with David Letterman"

LMAO Gotta love those quotes..

Actually GW the Spanish haven't waved the White Flag.. they have been fighting terrorism a hell of a lot longer than Bushie has been able to spell it.

I am no fan of the French either, i admire the way they have not let the culture become to PCised but it wasn't much of a culture to begin with in my opinion.

I don't think that survey was asking who do they think is gonna come along and Nuke them.. just which countrys could cause problems.. I am a big supporter of Israel GW however problems are caused by the Israeli government every day. Yes of course Syria, N.Korea etc are bigger threats but we are talking about the French here. Mr & Mrs Isolationalist Policy.

Actually GW the Spanish haven't waved the White Flag.. they have been fighting terrorism a hell of a lot longer than Bushie has been able to spell it.



Spain did, in my opinion.  They got bombed, scared, dumped the popular party and elected the socialist, and he withdrew all Spanish troops out of Iraq.  They pulled a France.

.. I am a big supporter of Israel GW however problems are caused by the Israeli government every day.

Same here, but in my opinion, Israel is mother Teresa compared to Palestine.  Arafat was a terrorist, Sharon is a defender.  Israel cannot let these people keep sending 10-year-olds to blow themselves up on Israeli buses.

And, for any other France-haters here, here is the web's biggest list of French products to boycott, and American ones you can buy instead to fight the trade deficit.  America first, France...near last!

Link: http://www.howtobuyamerican.com/content/db/b-db-boycottfrance.shtml

Usefull site.. I'm not totally in to boycotting everything French but i do try and do my best to not support the economy's of those countries who are essentially on 'the other side' although not for the war, I'm not exactly for supporting a country who said oh Saddam's a lovely chap.

See on your point about Sharon being a defender thats exactly what he is, however it was churchill himself that said the best defense is a strong offense. Sharon has carried out pre-emptive attacks, now does this constitue as him 'terrorising' the Palestinians.. no.. however from a man who has said he dosen't want to fire another shot if he dosen't have to.. it seems somewhat hypocritical.

See on your point about Sharon being a defender thats exactly what he is, however it was churchill himself that said the best defense is a strong offense. Sharon has carried out pre-emptive attacks, now does this constitue as him 'terrorising' the Palestinians.. no.. however from a man who has said he dosen't want to fire another shot if he dosen't have to.. it seems somewhat hypocritical.


Personally I lost all respect for the people who want a new Palestine's cause when they were offered something like 90-95% of what they had wanted by the former Isreali Prime Minister and they refused it, Arafat refused.  It is not plain as day that the Palestianian people do not want a compromise, they want a war, and Sharon is giving it to them.  That is why Isreal went with the right-wing Sharon, because right-wingers have an advantage in elections when it comes to national security and national defense issues, so the people of Israel saw that Palestine wasn't accepting, they went with Sharon to defend them.  I say Palestine has what is coming to them, they had their chance, and they could give up any second, but instead they are going to use this election to pick Arafat Jr.

Yeah it's true.. i think they were offered about like you say 90% of what they wanted.. and i think all of the land they wanted and they refused. This is because Arafat wanted war to go on because he knew that was the only way he could retain his power.

This is because Arafat wanted war to go on because he knew that was the only way he could retain his power.


That's exactly it.  I'm glad the bas**** died.

may he rot in hell forever

may he rot in hell forever


Amen to that.

Only if a supposedly perfect deity created imperfect beings and then punished them with hell for his own mistakes in design.  ::)

imperfect beings and then punished them with hell for his own mistakes in design.  ::)


Ever heard of free will?

Yeah it's true.. i think they were offered about like you say 90% of what they wanted.. and i think all of the land they wanted and they refused. This is because Arafat wanted war to go on because he knew that was the only way he could retain his power.

Arafat was facing the wrath of the Palestinian peple if he took the deal.  Furthermore, there is evidence (scarcely publicized) that the deal would have divided the Palestinian territory into non-contiguous islands under Israeli patrol.  It's true there is no deal on the table now as good as even the lousy one Arafat rejected.
There is also a whole host of economic and social justice issues that must be reconciled if any two-state solution is to work.  It'll take more than just land.
I'm not a Yasser Arafat fan myself, but I think it is a mistake to personify him as evil for it blinds us to the subtleties and ramifications of the issues involved.

Arafat was facing the wrath of the Palestinian peple if he took the deal. Furthermore, there is evidence (scarcely publicized) that the deal would have divided the Palestinian territory into non-contiguous islands under Israeli patrol. It's true there is no deal on the table now as good as even the lousy one Arafat rejected.
There is also a whole host of economic and social justice issues that must be reconciled if any two-state solution is to work. It'll take more than just land.
I'm not a Yasser Arafat fan myself, but I think it is a mistake to personify him as evil for it blinds us to the subtleties and ramifications of the issues involved.

Thanks for that, Maxwell - it's pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

Only if a supposedly perfect deity created imperfect beings and then punished them with hell for his own mistakes in design.  ::)


Well, I don't that conceiving of God as a 'being' with human characteristics makes any logical sense at all...  What are we talking about here -- the 3rd grade sunday school image of a grandfather-type with a long white beard and heart of gold?  :-\\  Cute.

Well, I don't that conceiving of God as a 'being' with human characteristics makes any logical sense at all...

Who says there has to be logical sense?  We're talking religion, remember: "and in his own image created he him", and all that.

Thanks for that, Maxwell - it's pretty much exactly what I was going to say.



Sure thing.  They're going to run into the same problems--and maybe even more resistance--with the new head of the Palestinian Authority (his name escapes me at the moment).

The one advantage of Mahmoud Abbas (and indeed almost anyone who isn't Yasser Arafat) is that he doesn't have the legacy of terrorism behind him, so there isn't going to that instinctive mistrust - what the Israelis need to do now is get rid of Sharon so that you don't get his past interfering with the Palestinians.

The one advantage of Mahmoud Abbas (and indeed almost anyone who isn't Yasser Arafat) is that he doesn't have the legacy of terrorism behind him, so there isn't going to that instinctive mistrust - what the Israelis need to do now is get rid of Sharon so that you don't get his past interfering with the Palestinians.



If anybody has a legacy of terrorism behind him, it's Ariel Sharon!

Who says there has to be logical sense?  We're talking religion, remember: "and in his own image created he him", and all that.


???  Hmm... Point taken, though I'm not entirely convinced that faith and logic have to be in conflict.  On the other hand, if you're going to adopt a particular extra-logical faith perspective, it seems to me that people might as well at least adopt ones that are empowering -- not ones that cause them suffering and confusion. 

People often conceive of a God 'who' is their own personal caretaker -- but that concept can set them up for disappointment when things happen that aren't in their personal best interest, as is bound to happen.  Constantly.  You lose out on a job to another candidate and wonder "How could God do this to me?  God knows I needed that job!"  Well... so was God supposed to screw the other guy?   ???

But I guess I'm getting way off topic here...

??? Hmm... Point taken, though I'm not entirely convinced that faith and logic have to be in conflict. On the other hand, if you're going to adopt a particular extra-logical faith perspective, it seems to me that people might as well at least adopt ones that are empowering -- not ones that cause them suffering and confusion.

I'm not sure that picking and choosing your own God is in the rulebook... otherwise we'd be in a Discworld multiplicity of deities... but then again, who's to say we're not?

Demmit, Philbo, didn't I just say this was off-topic!  >:(  ;D

I think we do choose our own God -- actually, more accurately, we choose the way we conceive of God.  If we accept that for most people, 'God' is the term used to represent 'everything' -- the totality of the universe AND everything beyong that -- the 'whole enchilada', as it were -- then there can only be one God, far too vast and all-pervasive to be accurately perceved by the human mind.  There's just a multiplicity of ways that we humans try to conceive of and make sense of the inconceivable.  So we think of it as an 'entity' or a 'being', often times we assign it human limitations like gender, 'emotions' and 'intentions' and other such characteristics.

Now, it's perfectly understandable that we would tend to think of God in such a way, since such simplistic frameworks can serve valuable practical purposes -- e.g., to children seeking some reassuring, fundamental understanding of the world and existence in general.  Such simplistic conceptualizations can even be useful to intellectually sophisticated adults seeking a useful, practical framework to form their own personal sense of ethics, or to provide comfort and encouragement in a world often filled with uncertainty and confusion.

But it seems to me useful to recognize that such constructs are not TRUTH, but merely a 'dumbing down' of the vast, immeasurable, ultimately unconceivable reality of God, for practical purposes.  When we actually start to believe and act as if OUR concept of God is REALLY what God IS, we end up limiting the limitless, putting God in a box.  Moreover, we inevitably set up conflicts with others by necessarily pitting our concept of God against all conflicting concepts.  Further, we end up needlessly frustrating ourselves when reality inevitably fails to match our IDEA of what God is, e.g. "How could a merciful God cause a tsunami"?

But again, we're way off topic, demmit!  :D

Since the Israeli-Palistine issue appeared here it might be usefull to look at some history.  Palistine was governed by England under a League of Nations mandate until 1947, when the UN created Israel.  The Jewish saying at the time was "A people without a land, a land without people" (I guess the Palistinians are not human).  Centuries of occupation were set aside, mostly out of sympathy for Jewish suffering under the Nazies.  The rights and claims of Plaistinians were ignored, and thousands were driven from thier homes, thus the refugee issue.  And the western powers thought the Palistinians would welcome this influx of Europeans with open arms?  Would you be wiulling to give up your home to others just because they had suffered, not at your hands but at the hands of others?  Now, had the UN given the Jews the Rhineland,  and expelled the Germans living there, that might have made sense.

And what about all those West Bank settlements, established in violation of UN resolutions?  Seems to me that the Palistinians have good cause to be royally p*i*s*s*e*d, and to want thier country back.  But of course, to you neocons, history doesn't matter, and the Palistinians are just a bunch of rag-heads and sand nig...s.

Is this your idea of liberal compassion?


Is this your idea of everyone who isn't you?

  But of course, to you neocons, history doesn't matter, and the Palistinians are just a bunch of rag-heads and sand nig...s.


Oh, but that last one's a lovely turn of phrase -- is it of your own construction, or has it been appropriated for effect?  ;)

Is this your idea of everyone who isn't you?

No, just his idea of "liberals," whatever they are.

Liberal compassion??? yet another oxy-moron ;D

Liberal compassion??? yet another oxy-moron ;D


That is true, watch out for the left if you are: white, male, Christian, Jewish, living in the south, or making a decent living.

Exactly what am I supposed to be watching out for?  Mean-spirited demagogues?  Oh yes, I see them.  Thanks for the heads-up, though.  How compassionate.  ;D

Since the Israeli-Palistine issue appeared here it might be usefull to look at some history.  Palistine was governed by England under a League of Nations mandate until 1947, when the UN created Israel.  The Jewish saying at the time was "A people without a land, a land without people" (I guess the Palistinians are not human).  Centuries of occupation were set aside, mostly out of sympathy for Jewish suffering under the Nazies.  The rights and claims of Plaistinians were ignored, and thousands were driven from thier homes, thus the refugee issue.  And the western powers thought the Palistinians would welcome this influx of Europeans with open arms?  Would you be wiulling to give up your home to others just because they had suffered, not at your hands but at the hands of others?  Now, had the UN given the Jews the Rhineland,  and expelled the Germans living there, that might have made sense.

And what about all those West Bank settlements, established in violation of UN resolutions?  Seems to me that the Palistinians have good cause to be royally p*i*s*s*e*d, and to want thier country back.  But of course, to you neocons, history doesn't matter, and the Palistinians are just a bunch of rag-heads and sand nig...s.

And how!  The pre-partition kibbutz movement was socialist and agricultural.  It found a fair number of Jews living in relative harmony with Palestinians.  It was not until the partition of Israel, imposed by imperialist forces, that the ceaseless tides of violence and unrest started.  Now Israel is America's tool in the Military-Petroleum complex.

GWB wrote
That is true, watch out for the left if you are: white, male, Christian, Jewish, living in the south, or making a decent living.
What a bunch of effing bull**it!  We are seeing the revenge of the Confederacy right now!  If any region of the country is now persecuted politically, it's the Northeast.  All this white Southern male crybabyism is just a ruse for redneck aggression against everybody else...and it's working!  If a national Democrat candidate comes from anywhere in the Northeast, he's immediately condemned by Rightie pundits as part of the "Northeastern liberal establishment" and "Out of touch with the American people." 
And leave the Jews out of it.  The conservatives don't like Jews anyway, except for the Israeli right-wingers, and a handful of neocon punks such as Michael Medved and Jonah Goldberg.  Jews voted over 70% for Kerry.  Most of them are liberal and live in blue states, especially NYC.
Southern white male Christians are in the driver's seat, and they're driving us off a cliff!  Quit yer whinin'!
::)

That is true, watch out for the left if you are: white, male, Christian, Jewish, living in the south, or making a decent living.


See how it works:

White- Affimative action.

Male- Affirmitaive action, feminism

Christian- the attack of Christmas, the anti-Christian garbage coming out on television.

Jewish- Anti-Isreal

Living in the south- Just read the left-wing blogs after the election.

Making a decent living- Liberals and their taxes.

Michael Medved

Ahh...here we go on the dam* all Jewish republicans.  Dam* those blacks that leave our plantation!  ::)

Oh, but that last one's a lovely turn of phrase -- is it of your own construction, or has it been appropriated for effect?   ;)


Actually, the terms "rag head" and "sand nig..." were used by a cabinate member in the Reagan admin.  No wonder those folks don't trust us.

Actually, the terms "rag head" and "sand nig..." were used by a cabinate member in the Reagan admin.  No wonder those folks don't trust us.


I've never heard the term "sand ni***r," but I have heard and say myself rag head, I never thought of that word as offensive.

Interestling the first time i heard the Sand reference was on the film 3 kings... boy they have about a million terms.

Rag head is fairly derogatory it's basically like saying Cross F***s

Ahh...here we go on the dam* all Jewish republicans.  Dam* those blacks that leave our plantation!   ::)

Feh.  Another self-serving right-wing fantasy there, among a thousand other self-serving right-wing fantasies.
::)

I've never heard the term "sand ni***r," but I have heard and say myself rag head, I never thought of that word as offensive.
"Raghead" is not an offensive word, he says.
No comment needed here.

And, for any other France-haters here, here is the web's biggest list of French products to boycott, and American ones you can buy instead to fight the trade deficit.  America first, France...near last!

Link: http://www.howtobuyamerican.com/content/db/b-db-boycottfrance.shtml


Ummm, GWB.... that site lists Maxim, a BRITISH monthly magazine, as a French product to boycott.

http://www.felixdennis.com/