Jump to content

P 2.0

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About P 2.0

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  1. Do you deny the possibility?

    Yes. And I love that in the alternate universe in which the author of that 'article' lives, Alinsky is the reason why American politics are so contentious.
  2. Another attempted wake up call

    I'd offer up a classic "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" apology, but I'm pretty sure ILMAN wasn't offended by my referring to people in the middle east as brown people. Given that he's a healthy advocate of indescriminately killing them all, I'd be stunned if he cared much how they might be labeled. Mr. Fireman, I gather you and I have different interpretations of "racist."
  3. The Messiah- Fascist

    Wait. What did you predict? Are you patting yourself on the back for predicting a column? Once again, you cite an OPINION piece as proof of some crackpot theory of yours or another. Awesome.
  4. Another attempted wake up call

    Out of curiosity, what are you really afraid of? Do you think, for example, that unless we go over there and incinerate all those brown people that they're going to take over our country? Just curious, because every day, President Obama seems to let you down, either by action or inaction, and I'm wondering if you think all of these little incidents are going to result in the destruction of the country or if your worst-case scenario is less calamatous.
  5. Im not a huge Rush Limbaugh fan, but this is pathetic

    Wait. I thought your team insisted waterboarding wasn't even torture. Now it's a death sentence?
  6. The Stones or the Who?

    Thanks, marv. Saved me the trouble. And I agree that the list goes on. And on. Fact is, George Martin and the Beatles revolutionized the recording of rock music. And the Beatles revolutionized what it meant to be a rock band. I would never suggest that without the Beatles, there would be no Led Zeppelin or whatever, but the incredible difference in the popular music /rock landscape pre- and post-Beatles is mind boggling. A much bigger difference than what Led Zeppelin caused. Regards the incredible growth and transformation of the Beatles as songwriters and in the recording studio, Jimmy page sums it up pretty well: "Look at the Beatles. Here was a band that went from 'Please Mr. Postman' to 'I am the Walrus' in a few short years."
  7. The Stones or the Who?

    I agree. Folks seem to forget that Lennon and McCartney wrote a few songs FOR the Stones because Jagger and Richards didn't know how. The Stones were an album or two behind the Beatles throughout the sixties (e.g. "Their Satanic Majesties Request" came out 6 mos. post Sgt. Pepper and it's pretty obviously the Stones attempt at keeping pace with The Beatles). The idea that the Beatles are overrated is pretty ridiculous. Anyway, I'd give the edge to The Who over the Stones. Then, of course, Matchbox 20.
  8. Don't mess with the O Dog!

    I love that the author of the linked blogpost goes by the handle 'Tyler Durden.'
  9. Liberal politicians coming out of the woodwork

    I can't speak for everyone who was "outraged" by Palin's wardrobe, but I'll say this: the part of the story that stuck with me was that a BUNCH of money was spent on stuff for the kids and Todd, but more importantly, the Republican booster who'd given his credit card no. for the purchases was surprised and upsed by how much money she'd spent. That last bit is the key to the story. When the story broke on the Palin wardrobe thing, I didn't think much of it, other than to think: "Oh no. Come on, team. You can't go after her for this. It's only going to look sexist." It makes perfect sense to me that the RNC would provide clothing to her (and to her family as well as they appeared alongside her throughout the campaign) and I don't think it's out of line for her to have gotten the clothes. Was it too much money? Heck, I don't know. It seems like a lot of money, but compared to what? Is it fair to compare what a VP candidate wears or spends on clothing to what I wear or spend on clothing? Absolutely not. Anyway, regarding the shoes -- whether or not Ms. Obama paid for them or what they cost, I can see the point that she doesn't seem "in touch" with the people if she's wearing expensive shoes. On the other hand, if she were kicking around in a tracksuit and flipflops, she'd be an even worse example and would seem to have no regard for what she symbolizes to so many in this country. Not that there's no room between $500 sneakers and flipflops, but she's a wealthy person for crying out loud. If she wants to rock some top-notch kicks, so be it. So there she is at a soup kitchen, you know, being in touch with the common people. But since her shoes are expensive, she's not in touch? I wonder how many of those criticizing her shoes are more in touch with the average American and demonstrate this by regularly volunteering at soup kitchens...
  10. Hey Yoyo..... who had 9 days in the pool?

    So even if nobody is actively advocating incestuous civil unions, you're willing to deny same-sex civil unions just because incestuous civil unions aren't going to be legalized along with them? Is there a real movement looking to legalize multiple-spouse unions? Help me out. As I said, though, I don't have a problem, per se, with multi-spouse families. I think it presents some interesting financial repercussions, but as far as legal rights -- sure, why not? But then, too, what's the big deal if a brother and sister want to marry? Seriously? In either case, I'd hate for the "system" (i.e. the public) to be further taxed by these marriages -- by the potential disabilities of any offspring produced -- but beyond that, why would I possibly care if a brother and sister wanted to marry or if 10 dudes wanted to marry the same woman? The argument against polygamy/polyandry and incest-unions (not sure what the term would really be) is that often such relationships are non-consensual. This is a bit silly -- obviously nobody's advocating an unwilling union. Provided all parties are on board, that nobody's being forced, what's the big deal?
  11. Hey Yoyo..... who had 9 days in the pool?

    I'm not saying I disagree with you, Parrot, I just think that engaging the debate at that level is a waste of time. I can't help but wonder why the "keep gays single" crowd can't address the issue without pointing to other kinds of relationships and saying: "Oh yeah, well what about those?" as if they really care if a brother/sister marriage would work or a multiple spousal arrangement would work. It's like saying: "Hey, I'm all for laws against dogfighting, but only if we also have laws against running over squirrels. What's that? We're not gonna have laws against running over squirrels? Well FINE!!! Then the dogs can go F themselves!" Why can't we just address same sex marriage? It has NOTHING at all to do with polygamy, incest, or bestiality.
  12. Hey Yoyo..... who had 9 days in the pool?

    Can't speak for my fellow banner carriers, but here's how I see it: The issue being discussed is same-sex marriage. Polygamy and incest have nothing to do with it. The reason folks like Dennis Prager say things like: "If two men can marry, why can't a brother and sister?" is because they're trying to convey the skeeved out feeling they get at the thought of two men or two women in a commited, loving relationship to portions of the audience that are not similarly skeeved out by such thoughts. Intra-family marriages are likely less acceptable to the general public than homosexual marriages, wouldn't you say? Granted I don't have the figures to back that up, but I think they are trying to hitch their anti-same-sex marriage wagon to other social taboos (incest, bestiality) in hopes of rallying people who, even if they're not disgusted by the idea of two men getting it on, ARE disgusted by the idea of a guy nailing his St. Bernard. It's a slippery slope argument, right? ("Next thing you know, we're going to have bottles of ketchup marrying roller skates!") But if we create a legal designation that marriage can only be between one man and one woman, why couldn't a father marry his daughter? Why couldn't a sister marry her brother? One man, one woman, right? What's wrong with polygamy? I don't know. Should there be "spousal" type benefits made available for other types of relationships? Let's say, for example, two siblings grow up and never marry and live together in a non-sexual relationship. They share their income, make a home, etc. One dies suddenly. The other is dependent on that income. Should there be allowances made? Are there now? How much of this has to do with money, I wonder. After all, allowing same sex marriages/unions opens up a whole can of liability for insurance companies and the government through Social Security payments, etc. If you have a guy working for you who's got 10 wives, your company insurance policy is going to suffer tremendously under the weight of those added dependents. Is it possible that these objections might just boil down to money? At least that's an argument or objection I might be able to understand.
  13. 3,000? 1,000? Is it even possible to get married that many times?
  14. Hey Yoyo..... who had 9 days in the pool?

    A good question and the answer that's coming is pretty funny. I can't remember who, but someone's going to say that homosexuality is wrong because it cannot result in pregnancy and as such is unnatural. This, of course, will beg the question: So the beej and the doin' it in the ttub are off-limits, even for heteros? It's going to be a good laugh, I tell you...
  15. I told ya he was a phony

    Oh SNAP! Shut it down. No coming back from that one.