1. Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups

Comment #203351 by Broshiesq on July 2, 2008 at 5:03 pm

RationalFreeThinker, nicely done with the STD analogy. I always thought the voting in the US went something like: there's a 50% chance that a registered voter will vote. But there's only a 10% chance of that happening.

2. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122231 by Broshiesq on February 5, 2008 at 12:41 am

al-rawandi: So killing more people than Saddam had ever killed and was likely to ever kill was worth overthrowing Saddam?

You're one of those morons who also equates the killing of civilians in the course of Israel's targeted strikes on militants with the killing of civilians by suicide bombers, aren't you? Still, you could predict how many more people Saddam was likely to kill? Impressive. Why didn't you offer your services to the US intelligence community before the war started?

The United States could easily have killed Saddam and both his sons with a cruise missile or a precision air strike from carrier based fixed wing aircraft.

Yeah? Why didn't you offer your services to the US military before the war started?

Saddam would have found himself under increasing pressure from the world community had he remained in power. It would not have been hard to topple him without an invasion.

Really? Well shit, are you saying, as an alternative to invasion, the US should have Killed him? Or Toppled him? Make up your mind, smart guy.

Why we should not have gone in:
7) It has cost a lot of money.
10) It will suck my tax dollars for years to come.
11) It diverts funding from legitimate domestic programs.
13) It has diverted funds and resources from dealing with a potential situation in Pakistan.
14) It has diverted resources from dealing with disasters like Katrina.

Um, these 5 are all really the same point, just whining about how tax dollars are spent. Individual citizens have NO RIGHT to decide how their tax revenue is spent. How childish. You could say the same damn things about any spending with which you didn't agree. So, no, I guess these, at least, are not good reasons. Does that mean I'm beyond hope? Pity.

Let me explain wars to you...

Once again, wouldn't your superior knowledge and understanding be put to better use in a more lofty arena than, say, this thread, educating us dullards on, like, war and stuff?

What exactly is the wider benefit of showing the Muslim world that we don't really value their lives? Except to show people that al-Qaeda is at least part right in their assessments of western powers.

Oh, come on, why stop there. Go ahead, blame us for 9/11. Go ahead, do it. I want you to. Say al-qaeda was at least "part" justified in what it did. GO ON. You pretentious, self-righteous prick.

MaxD: I swear into the Army National Guard this week.

MaxD, don't you mean "solemnly affirm?" Just jokin. All the best, wherever you may end up.

3. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #121683 by Broshiesq on February 4, 2008 at 1:24 am

stephenray: Speaking as someone with two degrees, one in law, and called to the Bar in 2002, I find it absolutely astonishing how many trained lawyers in the US apparently cannot think properly.

Objection. Non sequitur. As an (assumedly trained) lawyer yourself, shouldn't you recognize this? If someone doesn't agree with you, he therefore cannot think properly?

You know, the process by which you consider a hypothesis and look at the evidence one way or another and formulate a response to the hypothesis.

Objection. Relevance. Your definition of "thinking properly" is simply a sort of incomplete description of the scientific method, and it certainly is NOT what is taught in law school. Being an adept lawyer or learning to think like a lawyer has nothing whatsoever to do with adhering to the scientific method. Lawyering is not about trying to explain a phenomenon.

You have all the lawyers in the White House and environs who apparently cannot tell the difference between interrogation and torture

Objection. Conclusion. It's all about how things are defined and the exact words that are used. You should know this.

you have Ben Stein who appears to know next to nothing about a subject on which he is quite prepared to pontificate on for lengthy periods of time whilst never actually breaking the surface of the sea of idiocy in which he is drowning

At least I've never heard lawyers in the US use words like "whilst."

4. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58698 by Broshiesq on July 25, 2007 at 9:06 pm

Don't waste your time with this one, people. Many of the exact same phrases and sentences were repeated by Hedges in his TruthDig debate with Sam Harris. (video posted here 18 June) In my opinion, it is much more enjoyable (is that the right word?) watching and listening to Hedges nonsense than reading it.

5. Beyond Belief: Atheism (with AC Grayling)

Comment #57423 by Broshiesq on July 19, 2007 at 9:41 am

maton100: If there ever was an oxymoron, it would be theistic evolution.

No doubt. I don't think I heard that one before. How about Tim Winter with his "...atheistic fundamentalism" That's a good one, too. But my all time favorite, which, unfortunately I don't think was uttered on this show: Religious Truth!

6. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57410 by Broshiesq on July 19, 2007 at 8:54 am

ungodlystheist, Post 207:
Well Broshiesq, going by this post, you cannot say very much.

Trust me, my brevity was due not to inability but rather my confidence that anyone reading with half a brain would see the irony of your post in which you both lambaste Ayaan's use of the tired "american rags to riches" cliche as well as use your own (worse) cliche, the insipid "two wrongs don't make a right."

ungodlystheist: In one post I said that America is not the only country woith rags to richers stories, and that it is not true that hard work always leads to great wealth - in fact it is very rare!

No shit America is not the only country with rags to riches stories. Ayaan never said it was. No shit hard work doesn't always lead to great wealth. Ayaan never said it did. As for your contention that it is "very rare," you wouldn't mind terribly explaining how you come up with that conclusory bucket of crap, now would you? Your keystrokes may outnumber mine on this thread but understand that does not evidence your having more to say.

7. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57289 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2007 at 7:01 pm

ungodlystheist, Post 124. :
To make it sound that Anerica is paved with Gold, so long as your not scared of hard work, is indeed a 'cliche', a tired, boring and totally untrue cliche.

ungodlystheist, Post 147. :
Two wrongs do not make a right...

Well, what can I say?

USA_Limey, ease up on PeterK, it's not very sporting to match wits with an unarmed man, and prescribing anything to him may exacerbate things, as I fear he may very well be under the influence already...
PeterK, I highly doubt you would have ripped Ayaan's face off, what with the men she has had to survive in her life, I find it likely she'd have been feeding you your own testicles. And yes, to answer your (follow up) question, you would have asked for more.

8. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56944 by Broshiesq on July 17, 2007 at 11:38 pm

When Ayaan is relating one of the reasons she likes America (you can come here without a penny in your pocket, and if you work hard...) and Avi retorts with: "Is there a school where they teach you these American cliches?", in the tone of voice he uses, implying that she is merely parroting something she heard in order to defend the US as opposed to actually Feeling that way, he is neither probing nor challenging (or playing devil's advocate for that matter), he is being CONDESCENDING. That is not preposterous, it's a fact. It is my opinion he would not have said that same thing to a man, that is just the feeling I had.

9. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56930 by Broshiesq on July 17, 2007 at 9:41 pm

Morrow: right
dudeinthemood: wrong

Although I understand one's reluctance to characterize someone's performance in an interview as a "thrashing", as it's not meant to be a debate, I also (think I) understand what Morrow was saying and it was certainly appropriate. Lewis was thrashed and beaten by this thoughtful, obviously knowledgeable and experienced woman. Sorry, he doesn't get to hide behind the fact that he was acting (acting indeed!) as an "interviewer" and not as a debater to protect him from the observation that he got his smarmy, ignorant, douchebag ass kicked. Ayaan had "bearing". She was pointed and poised even in the face of that dickhead's totally uninformed, condescending stupidity. Was I the only one struck with the sense (Irony) that Lewis never would have acted the way he did had he been interviewing a man? He completely patronized her with his "oh, come on," and "you know they shoot abortion doctors over there?" And his stupid f'ing smiling at her? Are you kidding me? I mean, be an asshole if you want, but if you're gonna interview someone whose views you basically oppose and bring an agenda to the (interview) table, at least have the courtesy to be informed, and try your best to not so plainly illustrate that you're an idiot. I love Ayaan educating him to not confuse the slander of one's beliefs with that of his ethnicity, race, etc. She really shut his dumb ass up with that one.

10. Islamic Creationist and a Book Sent Round the World

Comment #56917 by Broshiesq on July 17, 2007 at 8:33 pm

Quick, tell the publisher to keep pumping these out and sending them west. I think I just solved the US-dependence-on-foreign-oil problem. Next.

11. The Republican War on Science Rages On

Comment #56068 by Broshiesq on July 13, 2007 at 3:14 pm

All those who believe that religious lunacy and the stupid decisions that follow from it is strictly within the domain of the political right, please, spare me. The politicians that remain the most steadfastly true to their religious beliefs are the ones that I probably disagree with the most regarding those particularly religion-infused issues, but at least they don't piss me off for being hypocrites. But when Hillary Clinton says it was her faith that saved her marriage, pandering to the religious, I have to about vomit. She is pro abortion and pro same-sex unions. Those are against the teachings of her faith. She is a hypocrite. Certainly I think a religious wingnut politician, while being true to his faith, is more dangerous to me and the society in which I live, but sorry, I have more respect for that than for a total hypocrite.

12. The US map of faith

Comment #56021 by Broshiesq on July 13, 2007 at 10:23 am

THorsman, the lack of red in Ohio? You've never been to an OSU game I take it. Or the GAB in Cinci?

13. The US map of faith

Comment #56020 by Broshiesq on July 13, 2007 at 10:19 am

rokort, no sweat. Thanks for your reply. I of course would never think that a country's position on these four issues necessarily defines the (most important)activities of such a country, or that their legality is without careful regulation. On the contrary, I simply have a tremendous amount of respect for any entity that is (imo, of course) so clear thinking on these issues of basic personal liberty. I'm afraid I got off the subject of this thread, though. The only reason I even used the Netherland as a comparison (example) is because of the statistic I found stating the 41% non-belief rate of the country, and if true, it makes for a coincidence that's hard to ignore, no? Any idea if this percentage is accurate? I can't even (unfortunately) fathom how different it might be in the US were we to have such a number of non-believers (that weren't still in the closet, that is).

14. The US map of faith

Comment #56018 by Broshiesq on July 13, 2007 at 10:01 am

krogercomplete, got it. It's cool. I'll be rooting for OR and any other state that makes an attempt to get out of the damn stone age where these social issues are concerned.

15. The US map of faith

Comment #55870 by Broshiesq on July 12, 2007 at 5:29 pm

krogercomplete, I was not referring to Oregon regarding the four issues I mentioned, but the Netherlands.

16. The US map of faith

Comment #55791 by Broshiesq on July 12, 2007 at 10:17 am

rokort, feel free to call my view of your country simplistic, but it doesn't change the fact that I am right. I mentioned 4 activities that are legal in the Netherlands, and they are. My comment to bruce about Portland becoming like Amsterdam was only half serious. And in case it weren't apparent, YES, I think it is a good thing. Look at the four issues: euthanasia, same-sex marriage, marijuana use and prostitution. There are tens of millions of people in America who deem these activities "wrong" (read "immoral"). I think that's bull shit. None of these activities hurts anyone. To the extent that they remain crimes in the states that they do, they are victimless crimes. But the bigger problem is the federal govt's attempting to legislate when the states should be left alone to decide these issues. Raise your hand if you think it's within the Federal govt's purview to say you can't: smoke pot in your home; pay someone for sex; legally commit to a same-sex partner or; receive help from a doctor to kill yourself if you so desire. The ONLY reason people have to be against these activities is that it offends their morality (read "religion"). And the only reason politicians have to be anti is to coddle to the religious vote.

17. The US map of faith

Comment #55658 by Broshiesq on July 11, 2007 at 10:31 pm

I don't know about the gas and the taxes in OR, but, jshuey, where the hell is the "People's Republic of Oregon" thing coming from? No personal rights? Allowing medicinal marijuana, right to die (uh, "right" is right in that one, there), and (if they pass) same sex marriage, not to mention porn-o-plenty, is sort of defining the laws of a state as personal-rights rich. And as for the 2nd Amendment (the single most important "personal right" in the Constitution if you ask me), Oregon is one of the 36 states that has adopted "shall issue" laws (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18) for the concealed carrying of handguns by its citizens. That's liberty. I unfortunately live in Chicago, not even arguably the most prohibitive city in the most prohibitive state of the Union regarding the right to personal defense. Outstanding. I'm still not rooting for the Ducks, though.

18. The US map of faith

Comment #55619 by Broshiesq on July 11, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Holy shit, bruce, so if you guys legalize prostitution, then Portland will be, like, Amsterdam?

No shit. Look at the Netherlands:
Legal: Euthanasia; Pot; Whoring; Same sex marriage

Religion: None(41%)

Connection? Hmmm

19. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55547 by Broshiesq on July 11, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Aaron, you have the best comment so far. Way to sum up.

20. A force for evil?

Comment #55543 by Broshiesq on July 11, 2007 at 1:31 pm

pewkatchoo: Too much starch in your shirt, just maybe?

Hardly; I would never ruin a Faconnable or Ike Behar shirt with starch.

21. A force for evil?

Comment #55322 by Broshiesq on July 10, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Long sentences rule! I cannot believe you people are criticizing his style and "rewriting" passages of his article. How smug. What's easier, editing a pre-written passage or expressing it first yourself? Too much time on your hands, just maybe?

22. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #54999 by Broshiesq on July 9, 2007 at 4:17 pm

Not that there's anything "wrong" with not being quite as smart as someone else, but how come everytime I hear someone's being accused of intellectually snobbiness, instead of the insult succeeding, it seems like lights start flashing and the accuser is blindingly revealed to be an idiot? It's so obvious that the person has nothing of value to contribute so resorts to basically "accusing" the other person of being more intelligent. Oh, wait, I just answered my own question.

23. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #54965 by Broshiesq on July 9, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Yankee, don't sweat, you were not comparing religion with politics, as "cssimeur" alleged, you were merely, imo, opining that liberal atheists tend to demonstrate less objectivity when it comes to debating politics v. religion, an accusation slightly less objectionable than say, "ksskidude"'s conclusion that "most Americans are ignorant and silly."

24. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54011 by Broshiesq on July 5, 2007 at 12:35 am

stanbeard wrote:
"I reckon if that was where we got our moral guidance from, fewer Americans would own guns."

Try to stay on topic, but if you must stray, at least try harder to give the impression that you know what the hell you're talking about concerning us yanks. Unless you don't care. Cheers

25. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50589 by Broshiesq on June 19, 2007 at 1:46 am

Of course Sam is much more thoughtful and reasoned but he was way too polite. I wanted to reach through my monitor and throttle Scheer, though, totally unprofessional and rude. I was picturing Hitchens sitting there instead of Harris, as Scheer "moderates" :

"Excuse me, Sir, are you asking me or telling me?" In his perfectly condescending tone, of course.

After listening, early on, to Hedges say this: "The question is not whether god exists. The question is whether we concern ourselves with, or are utterly indifferent to, the sanctity and ultimate transcendence of human existence." I was wondering why Harris was wasting his time with this guy.

Some other good lines from Hedges (and my response):

CH: I think god is better understood as a verb, rather than a noun.
Me: God off?

CH: God is inescapable. It is the life force that sustains, transforms and defines all existence.
Me: Ben? Ben Kenobi?