You may or may not like Dennis Miller

Madren · Post by **Madren** » March 23, 2003, 10:11 am

[quote="Zeilya]

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
[/quote]

I would like to see my sisters' reaction to some Islamic fellow trying to court her, spewing this fucking Bullshit.
(twin sister - capt. air force)
(younger - naval academy )

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » March 23, 2003, 5:24 pm

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/miller.asp

thanks for the pity millie, it helps me get through these dark times

Millie · Post by **Millie** » March 23, 2003, 6:16 pm

You just posted the link which proves that I'm right. Was that your intent?

IWAssassin · Post by **IWAssassin** » March 24, 2003, 7:59 am

With the numbers, one must ask what question was asked.

Asked "Are you a christian" a lot of people in America will say yes.
Asked "Do you regularly attend church" and 66% dont.
Asked "Do you believe in god" and 52% will say they dont or arent sure.

See the ignorant masses tend to put labels as expectations. For many being christian means simply being good to your fellow man, and has nothing to do with believing in god, or as specifically defines christianity over other religons, christ.

52% of americans when asked do you believe in god will say they do not. Of those a majority will still say they are Christian or Jewish or Muslim, think about that.

At the same time think about WHY buisness leaders and politicians are fairly unvariably religous. First you still have 48% of the population who likely will not vote for you [or support you as a CEO] if you say you do not believe in a god or divine entity. Of the 52% of the rest, some people will percieve declaring yourself "agnostic" or "athiest" as akin to being satan even though they themselves would have that label, and those that know better about the agnostic and athiest labels know that what religon you are or arent doesnt make much of a difference.

Thus even if you are personally a complete athiest, it is better for your career in buisness or politics to be percieved as being a religous person and go to church and say you are X religon even if you dont believe a damn word of it.

Psyloche · Post by **Psyloche** » March 24, 2003, 9:35 am

Lost somewhere earlier in this thread was that Islam was a violent people or some horseshit. If practiced right, the Islamic faith is probably one of the most peaceful things. However, there's many idiots who claim to be working in the name of Allah to gain support from people. I even think they tied the Code of Hammurabi with Islam, thats not right either. The Code of Hammurabi was from Mesopotamia I think around 300BC? Yeah that area is the Middle East basically but Islam didn't even come around til a few centuries later after Code of Hammurabi was written... point being, not Muslim created. Just like any other religion it has its faults, but if followed correctly -- it sure as hell isn't violent.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 24, 2003, 10:44 am

Rekaar. wrote:http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=irregardless

blow me =p

Uhm, Mirriam Webster is like a white trash dictionary.
Irregardless is not a real word just the same as nuclear is not properly pronounced 'NOOK-YOO-LUR'.

Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » March 27, 2003, 1:04 pm

Kyoukan I must ask why the Soviet Union was officially a nation that did not practice religion when you say that socialists do not block religion only fascists do, that seems contradictory.

I am willing to bet that only 14% of the planets population has a clue, if any of you long timers are unsure of this, just remember Greater Faydark the first 2 weeks of EQ release or drive on a crowded Highway.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 27, 2003, 2:59 pm

the soviet union wasn't a socialist nation, it was fascist under the guise of communism, which is an extreme form of socialism.

a proper socialist would be some place like finland or norway.

the north koreans also insist they are socialist. they aren't.

I know, it's like school for you isn't it?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » March 27, 2003, 3:00 pm

So what dictionary do you use, tough guy? Dictionnaire Quebecois?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » March 27, 2003, 3:24 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:the soviet union wasn't a socialist nation, it was fascist under the guise of communism, which is an extreme form of socialism.

a proper socialist would be some place like finland or norway.

the north koreans also insist they are socialist. they aren't.

I know, it's like school for you isn't it?

So an extreme form of socialism is not socialism? For that is what you are saying. Perhaps the soapbox has grown a little tall, because you have bypassed reality entirely on this line of thought.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 27, 2003, 5:29 pm

the soviet union wasn't a socialist nation, it was fascist under the guise of communism

I see just like regular school, you fucking fail this one too.

There's a surprise.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » March 27, 2003, 6:19 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:the soviet union wasn't a socialist nation, it was fascist under the guise of communism, which is an extreme form of socialism.

What part of your sentence are you neglecting in your last post. Sigh I give you win, you can state complete opposites and remain convinced you are right.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » March 27, 2003, 6:22 pm

She's saying that communism is an extreme form of socialism, not fascism.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 27, 2003, 6:25 pm

Kylere wrote:What part of your sentence are you neglecting in your last post. Sigh I give you win, you can state complete opposites and remain convinced you are right.

JESUS WEEPING CHRIST ON HIS THRONE YOU ARE SO STUPID

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » March 27, 2003, 6:46 pm

No it was communism that devolved into socialism and gained marks of facism.

But it was an openly atheistic government based on communism and socialism NOT facism

Millie · Post by **Millie** » March 28, 2003, 2:34 am

Kylere, just give up. You're wrong.

There has never been a true Communist government in modern history (with the possible exception of the kibbutzim in Israel). True Communism requires that there be no central government, no single ruler, and total equality among everyone. I think we can all agree that such a thing never took place in the USSR; as such, we can't describe it as having ever been Communist in the pure sense of the word.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » March 28, 2003, 10:44 am

Actually it started with the concept of communism, it did not stay there, because humans being humans, someone wanted power.

But it was originally intended to be communist, it just ended up socialist. Therefore I am not sure how you can imply I was wrong Millie, since I had previously stated this, and it is fact.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 28, 2003, 10:46 am

Can I just say I don't like Dennis Miller?

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » March 28, 2003, 11:03 am

Ahhh I love semantics, but this one I am gonna stay outta.

Millie · Post by **Millie** » March 28, 2003, 11:59 am

Kylere wrote:Actually it started with the concept of communism

Yes, but earlier in this thread you said it started off *as* Communism. There's a significant difference between starting off as Communism and starting off with the intention of reaching Communism. I'm glad you understand the difference; you just hadn't made it clear enough in your previous post.

Simple misunderstanding. Not worth fighting about.