Islamic & Christian Fundamentalism--What's the difference?

[RobDownSouth]

I feel sorry for Laurel. She is obliged to read what eyer posts.

Eyer is feelin' especially victim-y today.

On a scale of 1-to-Miles, he's about a 9.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

You didn't check the link before you posted this, did you?

That post violated our rules, so it was removed when it was brought to our attention - which was your post, because it was not reported previously.

If she makes a similar post again, she will be warned again. If she continues to violate that rule repeatedly, she will be given a last warning. If she violates the rule again, she will be banned. Most users get the point the first time, and don't continue breaking the rules just to break the rules.

Girlsmiley was never banned from the site. She wasn't even warned. Her thread was removed because it violated our rules. I understand she was just messing around, but it still broke the rules. She never reposted it. Life went on.

Your eyer account was banned because you repeatedly posted material that had been removed for violating our rules.

You were warned. You did it again. You were warned again - three or four times. You kept on deliberately breaking the rules. You received far more warnings than other users have received before. Finally you were told that if you kept breaking the rules, you would lose your eyer account. You broke the rules again. You lost your account.

This has been explained to you, multiple times.

You feel you are entitled to special treatment. You think you are a special snowflake who should be allowed to break the rules. You are incorrect.

http://www.crushable.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Game-of-Thrones-1.gif

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vKKJkXuBzEs/TddVprzRlDI/AAAAAAAAAFY/B_WG2S1R6LY/s1600/original.gif

http://static1.gamespot.com/uploads/original/394/3946872/2829959-8015380047-King-.gif

http://38.media.tumblr.com/e2a3508d95fd09a038227d8ff8cf1804/tumblr_inline_naj58w72OU1rcxlj5.gif

DRAG THE MOTHERFUCKER, MAMA.

 

[richard_daily]

Blow your cya, intentional disingenuousness back up where it issued forth from.



You can handle that if you like, girlsmiley.



No, as usual, it is you who is "incorrect".

I just think you're not only a totally partisan piece of shit, but that you're also an intentionally disingenuous, two-faced, lying twat, projecting your blatant subjectivity of enforcing rules here onto to me simply because you don't possess the nads to honestly admit your blatant subjectivity.

You've banned me numerous times for what you rule is threatening material, yet I have never threatened anyone here as you contrive to portray. Just like you had to pull out of your disingenuous ass that I was accusing you of underage association simply because your insatiably power-hungry ego longed to ban me again.

In fact, the first time you banned me for so-called threatening material you didn't issue a warning at all, you simply deleted the thread and banned me. The post itself didn't threaten anyone at all - you banned me simply because one of your baby killer pals reported it and you champion the intentional and torturous murder of totally innocent and completely defenseless human life, too.

Say Hi! to that anti-"Free Speech" 4x6 wedged from up your lying butt.

Yet, you do not even warn (let alone ban) posters who continue to post, "When I kill [insert poster's name]", "I will behead [insert poster's name]", and you will not ban a poster who directly, maliciously told another poster the exact, criminally despicable act he'd do to that poster's daughter.

Keep slurping on that, two-face.

I'd like to create a poll thread which quotes verbatim that first-time post you banned me for posting threatening material, without any warning at all, just so everyone can read what a partisanly subjective moderator you are, and that you lie out of your teeth when you disingenuously suggest you always warn posters first before banning them.

Just that one will do. I don't care about all the other times you've butthurt banned me because I simply and directly quoted other posters' posts that you didn't warn or ban them for, just substituting your name in place of the actual posters they posted they'd "kill" and "behead".

So, tell us again out of one side of your mouth why you allow some posters to joke around about killing and beheading other posters because you state you know they're just joking around, while - at the very same time - you spew out of the other side, "I understand she was just messing around, but it still broke the rules".

Why do you so easily admit your treat posters differently for the very same offenses, yet also need to so pseudo-righteously insist that you don't?

We know why.

And please let me know if I have your permission to repost the non-threatening post you instantly banned me for without any warning whatsoever to give your blatant subjectively more prospective for all to read.

'Cause you know, "snowflake", I'm all about your blatantly subjective rules enforcement.

Thanx so much.

What a dummy.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Blow your cya, intentional disingenuousness back up where it issued forth from.



You can handle that if you like, girlsmiley.



No, as usual, it is you who is "incorrect".

I just think you're not only a totally partisan piece of shit, but that you're also an intentionally disingenuous, two-faced, lying twat, projecting your blatant subjectivity of enforcing rules here onto to me simply because you don't possess the nads to honestly admit your blatant subjectivity.

You've banned me numerous times for what you rule is threatening material, yet I have never threatened anyone here as you contrive to portray. Just like you had to pull out of your disingenuous ass that I was accusing you of underage association simply because your insatiably power-hungry ego longed to ban me again.

In fact, the first time you banned me for so-called threatening material you didn't issue a warning at all, you simply deleted the thread and banned me. The post itself didn't threaten anyone at all - you banned me simply because one of your baby killer pals reported it and you champion the intentional and torturous murder of totally innocent and completely defenseless human life, too.

Say Hi! to that anti-"Free Speech" 4x6 wedged from up your lying butt.

Yet, you do not even warn (let alone ban) posters who continue to post, "When I kill [insert poster's name]", "I will behead [insert poster's name]", and you will not ban a poster who directly, maliciously told another poster the exact, criminally despicable act he'd do to that poster's daughter.

Keep slurping on that, two-face.

I'd like to create a poll thread which quotes verbatim that first-time post you banned me for posting threatening material, without any warning at all, just so everyone can read what a partisanly subjective moderator you are, and that you lie out of your teeth when you disingenuously suggest you always warn posters first before banning them.

Just that one will do. I don't care about all the other times you've butthurt banned me because I simply and directly quoted other posters' posts that you didn't warn or ban them for, just substituting your name in place of the actual posters they posted they'd "kill" and "behead".

So, tell us again out of one side of your mouth why you allow some posters to joke around about killing and beheading other posters because you state you know they're just joking around, while - at the very same time - you spew out of the other side, "I understand she was just messing around, but it still broke the rules".

Why do you so easily admit your treat posters differently for the very same offenses, yet also need to so pseudo-righteously insist that you don't?

We know why.

And please let me know if I have your permission to repost the non-threatening post you instantly banned me for without any warning whatsoever to give your blatant subjectively more prospective for all to read.

'Cause you know, "snowflake", I'm all about your blatantly subjective rules enforcement.

Thanx so much.

Here's how fish-brained stupid you are. YOU'VE NEVER BEEN BANNED!! Your sociopathic miserable ass is still here vomiting the same vile filth day after day. Your most blatant violation of any forum rule was surely seen by someone prior to its being deleted, so in that respect some measure of your precious "freedom of speech" has ALWAYS been at least momentarily preserved. But wait. There's far more.

As Laurel has repeatedly made clear, she does not ban people no matter how many times they violate the rules. She only bans accounts. Is it really that inconvenient for you to register another alt ID to continue your privilege of getting another boner from being the world's biggest dick? Apparently not. Here you are.

It is the one rule she has with which I happen to disagree. In my opinion, anyone who repeatedly violates the rules of "membership" or association sacrifices the right of association. It is why we throw people in jail.

Needless to say, if I owned this web domain your recurrent shit stain would have long been forgotten.

Of course, I don't have that power. She does. And your bacterially infected reptilian brain is simply too septic to appreciate the restraint she exercises in merely allowing you to continue to post here at all.

Fecal breath.

 

[BettyPoop]

I know of no Christian minister, regardless of the hatred he may vent with respect to various specific sins or sinners, who advocates that members of his congregation have an obligation to kill such people on God's behalf.

And for all the vitriol that is dispensed from Christian pulpits there are precious few Christians who commit theologically inspired homicides.

That's the major difference I see.

Really? Thievangelicals have all sorts of ways of killing people. They only use guns for abortion clinics most of the time.

 

[Knot Again]

Really? Thievangelicals have all sorts of ways of killing people. They only use guns for abortion clinics most of the time.

http://www.kidsgen.com/fables_and_fairytales/img/fable-and-fairytale.png

 

[eyerami]

And then, all of a sudden, from way, way up north, in flew a gaggle of furious Blurt Bitch Boys to defend their two-faced matron's bunghole honor.

 

[wistfall1]

If there is actually any such thing as christian fundamentalism, it obviously was born in roughly 3 B.C. and existed as such until 312 A.D.

Now, please teach the Board why native christian fundamentalism doesn't fit into your death agenda in the least, no matter how much you need to pimp otherwise.

Well, if you follow it at all, then you've heard of Jerry Falwell (now deceased), Franklin Graham, and especially Pat Robertson of the 700 club. If you do know any of them, then you do know that there are fundamentalist/fundamentalism Christians. If not, read my original post.

My death agenda? Please, tell me what that agenda is, other than I have stated in my original post, that I wished to make everyone that will listen/read that this Fundamentalism is dangerous (see post #279 above for that St. Petersburg Catholic bishop's mea culpa on it).

BYW, I'm not pimping anything. Are you? You're not very specific about anything save to have some very erroneious date ("3 B.C. as a starting date for this none existing Fundamentalism that you say "if there is any such thing").

Peace,

w

 

[eyerami]

Yeah, I read why you have such a hard time with anything fundamental.

 

[underguy1]

Fundamentalist capitalism is the real problem. The oligarchs are out of control.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Biggest difference between the two is that

Christian fundies and theocratic tyrants are loved by the right who thinks freedom of religion means Protestant Christianity and sometimes putting up with Catholics.

And

IslamoNazis are the fucking WORSHIPED by the left as the greatest thing since the internet and there isn't a fucking thing they can do that the liburhulz won't excuse away or blame on something else ANYTHING but Islam which is the most peaceful loving religion ever.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Fundamentalist capitalism is the real problem. The oligarchs are out of control.

Whut? LOL

State capitals and D.C. have been in a race to crush entrepreneurship and capitalism for decades.

You need millions of fuckin' dollars, an army of lawyers and approval from over 200 bureaucrats to start a lemonade stand these days.

That's NOT capitalism and neither is a government empowered oligarchy like the one we have.

 

[Tryharder62]

The problem is that all groups have their crazies. I've been ashamed of some of the things that have come out under my religious "label." To me faith is about love not hate. If you are to hate and kill then I think you better listen to the other voices in your head. There are good Muslims - There are good Christians - and there are the crazies like ISIS and the Baptist Pastor that said that the killings were from God and that the job wasn't finished. SICK!!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Biggest difference between the two is that

Christian fundies and theocratic tyrants are loved by the right who thinks freedom of religion means Protestant Christianity and sometimes putting up with Catholics.

And

IslamoNazis are the fucking WORSHIPED by the left as the greatest thing since the internet and there isn't a fucking thing they can do that the liburhulz won't excuse away or blame on something else ANYTHING but Islam which is the most peaceful loving religion ever.

http://www.illini-nation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/46440-Obama-Not-Bad-Rage-Face-Q9gf.jpeg

 

[underguy1]

Whut? LOL

State capitals and D.C. have been in a race to crush entrepreneurship and capitalism for decades.

You need millions of fuckin' dollars, an army of lawyers and approval from over 200 bureaucrats to start a lemonade stand these days.

That's NOT capitalism and neither is a government empowered oligarchy like the one we have.

You know as much about capitalism as you do about islam.

 

[hashtag45]

http://www.illini-nation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/46440-Obama-Not-Bad-Rage-Face-Q9gf.jpeg

Indeed.
He tells it as it is.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You know as much about capitalism as you do about islam.

Really.....what exactly about the US is so capitalist?

Is it the mega bureaucratic control over ULTRA regulated markets???

Maybe it's the entrepreneurial crushing red tape the government uses to keep people from making any money in even the most innocuous manners such as mowing lawns and cleaning pools?

Nawww it's got to be all these industries that only exist because government funding.......like green energy....corn....and weapons we won't sell, don't need and can't use? The HC insurance industry/big pharma...omg what a bunch of fuckin' scammers!!

Yea that's capitalism!!! LOL

The US is capitalist only if your ultra fuckin' rich and politically connected. Just short of that you're pretty much stuck as a wage slave and there is fuck all you can do about it. And even if you do well, if you don't pay homage to congress they will come fuck your company up....just ask Bill Gates, a nobleman who once stepped out of line and managed to survive where many others have been utterly destroyed.

That's not really capitalism, that's feudalism. IF the US were capitalist it wouldn't require you have big money and a gang of pols/bureaucrats in your back pocket to open up a hot dog stand.

Here is an infographic on how shit really is here in the good ol' US of A.
http://www.wakeupkiwi.com/images/feudalism-then-and-now.jpg

 

[underguy1]

Really.....what exactly about the US is so capitalist?

Is it the mega bureaucratic control over ULTRA regulated markets???

Maybe it's the entrepreneurial crushing red tape the government uses to keep people from making any money in even the most innocuous manners such as mowing lawns and cleaning pools?

Nawww it's got to be all these industries that only exist because government funding.......like green energy....corn....and weapons we won't sell, don't need and can't use? The HC insurance industry/big pharma...omg what a bunch of fuckin' scammers!!

Yea that's capitalism!!! LOL

The US is capitalist only if your ultra fuckin' rich and politically connected. Just short of that you're pretty much stuck as a wage slave and there is fuck all you can do about it. And even if you do well, if you don't pay homage to congress they will come fuck your company up....just ask Bill Gates, a nobleman who once stepped out of line and managed to survive where many others have been utterly destroyed.

That's not really capitalism, that's feudalism. IF the US were capitalist it wouldn't require you have big money and a gang of pols/bureaucrats in your back pocket to open up a hot dog stand.

Here is an infographic on how shit really is here in the good ol' US of A.
http://www.wakeupkiwi.com/images/feudalism-then-and-now.jpg

Who do you think capitalists are?

Do you think you might be confusing the words capitalism and commerce?

And your chart is libertoonian nuttiness. Central bankers are subservient to politicians.

Don't give me that Ron Paul end the Fed garbage. It's nonsense.

 

[about_average]

Idiot.

says the guy with his head in the sand who's too lazy to even watch the video evidence posted in this very thread.

Graham and Franklin support Mateen killing gays? What evidence do you have to support that?

The fact that they support executing homosexuals for being homosexual makes it very likely they support him, even if they don't come out and say it, like some of the others on the list have.

As for Falwell, yes, luckily he's dead, but he has a lot of people who still admire him and his legacy, including McCain. If 3000 innocent heterosexuals deserved to die in 2001, in part because of the "homosexual agenda", do you really think they don't believe individual homosexuals deserve to be killed?

 

[MichaelinChina]

no difference. In fact, the homophobes at the Westboro Church would welcome the guy who shot up Pulse as a member of their congregation.

 

[miles]

says the guy with his head in the sand who's too lazy to even watch the video evidence posted in this very thread.

The fact that they support executing homosexuals for being homosexual makes it very likely they support him, even if they don't come out and say it, like some of the others on the list have.

As for Falwell, yes, luckily he's dead, but he has a lot of people who still admire him and his legacy, including McCain. If 3000 innocent heterosexuals deserved to die in 2001, in part because of the "homosexual agenda", do you really think they don't believe individual homosexuals deserve to be killed?

Stupid assumptions based on imaginary conclusions...utter bullshit with no basis "in fact".

 

[miles]

no difference. In fact, the homophobes at the Westboro Church would welcome the guy who shot up Pulse as a member of their congregation.

You wouldn't just make up something like that, would you?

That's like saying every Hillary supporter would support Trump's failed assassin.

 

[MichaelinChina]

You wouldn't just make up something like that, would you?

That's like saying every Hillary supporter would support Trump's failed assassin.

To be honest I cannot claim it as an original idea.

 

[about_average]

Stupid assumptions based on imaginary conclusions...utter bullshit with no basis "in fact".

Just two facts for you (I know facts are a foreign concept for you, but what the hell)

1. Franklin Graham supported passage of the laws in Uganda that would execute homosexuals because they were homosexual and would jail anyone who knew a homosexual and didn't turn them in.
Explain why he would not support Mateen's killing of 49 homosexuals?

2. Falwell believed 3000 innocent people deserved to die in 2001 in part because efforts in the US to allow homosexuals to have the same rights as everyone else.
Explain why he wouldn't be fine with Mateen killing those actually "guilty" of being homosexual.

 

[Knot Again]

Just two facts for you (I know facts are a foreign concept for you, but what the hell)

1. Franklin Graham supported passage of the laws in Uganda that would execute homosexuals because they were homosexual and would jail anyone who knew a homosexual and didn't turn them in.
Explain why he would not support Mateen's killing of 49 homosexuals?

2. Falwell believed 3000 innocent people deserved to die in 2001 in part because efforts in the US to allow homosexuals to have the same rights as everyone else.
Explain why he wouldn't be fine with Mateen killing those actually "guilty" of being homosexual.

and you have more issues with those you THINK would be OK with death of gaze then with those that DO KILL GAZE