quote: Originally posted by any number of liberal crybabies on any number of message boards, not to mention any number of liberal bloggers, columnists, and pundits speaking on various talk shows on radio and TV:
(Insert name of religious person with power) frightens me.... it scares me to think that (insert name of religious person with power) is making decisions that affect me and my family... I have nightmares about (insert name of religious person with power)... I'm just so scared and frightened all the time... when I read what (insert name of religious person with power) said, I had to hide under my blanket until my mommy came and told me everything will be alright..."
You know, if liberals had the fear of God in them, scary old (insert name of religious person with power) wouldn't be nearly as frightening by comparison.
[edit] made it a bit funnier (in my opinion.)
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm an atheist, but I still found this kind of amusing.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A) Strawman: I've never met/heard an atheist that is "scared and frightened all the time" due to this issue. Granted, I've never been to Iran, but I doubt that you're referring to that since you refer to liberals B) Conflation of groups: liberals != non-religious. Both Paul Martin and John Chretien were Catholic. Obama is Christian and so is Clinton, if you consider them liberals or "extreme liberals" in your parlance C) So your argument is, "yes (insert name) is horrible. But consider God, he's so horrible and fearsome that he makes (insert name) look mild by comparison. Thats why we we're ok with (insert name) and you should too"? Wow. Thats convincing. Can I vote for kmbboots's God instead?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Wow. I am trying to imagine a scenario or desire where where I have to have enough faith in a frightening God so I could be more scared of Him then a person imposing their religious will on me through secular power.
Why am I supposed to seek that kind of faith in that kind of God again?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I think you guys are missing the point... and that frightens me.
[edit] Except for Dan.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm pretty sure it wasn't meant to be serious, guys. It was just a little wordplay.
Edit: I could try to break it down and show you the way I'm reading it, but dissecting humor that way tends to drain away any amount of funny it may have had.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Don't bother Dan. I'm just gonna come right out and say that that post was just for you.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Darn. I thought it was pretty funny too.
Posted by Heffaji (Member # 3669) on :
The person relaying a joke affects how it is going to be received, which looks to be the case in this situation.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb?
None. They prefer to walk in the dark.
What do you get when you cross a bad politician with a lawyer?
Chelsea.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
*shrug*
You could insert "terrorists" in place of "religious person with power" and it would work just as well for many conservatives.
Or is the truth not funny?
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
It's funny because it's true. Though I would argue it's more accurate for NEOconservatives.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah. Another way to look at it is that "liberals" are more afraid of being forced by their own government to do crap than they are of being blown up by terrorists. That's pretty badass. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
fread winnar
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Actually, I replied before you edited to add that you were trying to be funny. Self-parody can be hard to detect on the Internet.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
No you didn't. I made the edit almost immediately. You posted 8 minutes later... I guess your post might have taken some time to compose, though based on the content, I would be reluctant to admit that.
Tom, it seems to me that liberals are more worried about being forced by the government to not do crap (kill babies, rape little boys, pay taxes, and just generally be offensive all around.) When are you gonna comment on my videos?
And how stupid it is to declare someone the thread winner? If there's a thread winner, it's my original post.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:...rape little boys...
I'm scratching my head to think of the liberals who could be said to be for this.
Although (without being too specific and trying my best to not be offensive in response to something offensive) I can think of a conservative religious organization that protects people who do the above from punishment by the authorities.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not to mention that the folks raping young girls on a compound in Texas could hardly be considered liberal.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:...rape little boys...
I'm scratching my head to think of the liberals who could be said to be for this.
Judge Edward Cashman is a name that springs to mind. Also pogo-sticking their way into the fray are all his defenders in the media who saw Bill O'Reilly as the bad guy for trying to hold Cashman accountable, and for trying to effect legislative change that would prevent progressives from denying justice for such horrific crimes ever again.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Here's the image that comes to mind when I read this thread.
There's a big, dumb bully in school. He goes around taking people's lunch money. Just before he attacks, he always yells "GIMME GIMME!"
One day, a young boy who is regularly had his lunch money stolen is walking down the hall, hoping the bully won't notice him. Suddenly, the bully comes around the corner and shouts "GIMME GIMME!" at the top of his lungs.
Naturally, the young boy cries out in terror for fear of the coming pounding. This time, however, the bully just laughs really loudly and pats the young boy on his back. The young boy only cringes more. The bully then loudly says "hey, it was a joke. I'm being funny. What's wrong with you, why are you such a wienie?"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: ... liberals are more worried about being forced by the government to not do crap (kill babies, rape little boys, pay taxes, and just generally be offensive all around.) When are you gonna comment on my videos?
I must admit. If this post was intended to be a continuation of humorous self-parody, you've brought your mockery of yourself to a whole new level. Insulting on one hand and asking for opinions on your work on the other, indeed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:...rape little boys...
I'm scratching my head to think of the liberals who could be said to be for this.
Judge Edward Cashman is a name that springs to mind. Also pogo-sticking their way into the fray are all his defenders in the media who saw Bill O'Reilly as the bad guy for trying to hold Cashman accountable, and for trying to effect legislative change that would prevent progressives from denying justice for such horrific crimes ever again.
Hmmm...first I had heard of this case but a simple google search finds that a decision by a judge appointed by a Republican governor was defended by a Republican state senator. How is this a liberal problem?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Isn't O'Reilly the one who accused the teenage boy who was kidnapped of liking it? O'Reilly's hardly a paragon of justice, or anything really.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:...rape little boys...
I'm scratching my head to think of the liberals who could be said to be for this.
Judge Edward Cashman is a name that springs to mind. Also pogo-sticking their way into the fray are all his defenders in the media who saw Bill O'Reilly as the bad guy for trying to hold Cashman accountable, and for trying to effect legislative change that would prevent progressives from denying justice for such horrific crimes ever again.
Hmmm...first I had heard of this case but a simple google search finds that a decision by a judge appointed by a Republican governor was defended by a Republican state senator. How is this a liberal problem?
And not that it matters, but a search seems to indicate the man involved in the case was molesting a girl, as opposed to raping a boy.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)