Crap Throwing Monkey

I wish I'd heard it...listening to someone bash Ralph Wilson's presumed greed through the questionable mechanism of defending Dan Snyder's obvious greed has a certain humor factor going for it...

I haven't followed closely (been busy being brainwashed by the enemies of racial purity). I know there's been some violence in Israel and the occupied territories, but has it pretty much toned way down since Abbas took office?

Actually, I've defended both repeatedly...and did so again not five minutes ago. But the only responses I get from you amount for the most part to "I'm rubber, you're glue..." and "I know you are but what am I?" Frankly, I'd expect more from a self-proclaimed MENSA member...but frankly, your repetition of the unconscionably stupid theory that I've been brainwashed by the enemies of racial purity is about the level of discourse I'd expect from an avowed National Socialist.

They ESPECIALLY scream "Nazi" when someone's stated views: Compare SO nicely with the teachings of Nazi Party philosopher Alfred Rosenberg: But he's not a Nazi, no. He just thinks like one.

Well...okay, I didn't include Lysenkoism. But that's because his theories, based as they are in parthenogenesis, are discredited. So I assume you're a big believer in them. Actually, I've written a couple of papers on Goedel's (the correct spelling, btw, not "Godel") Incompleteness Theorem as it relates to...well, to things that are way beyond your intellectual abilities. Like math. And words. Goedel was a genius. You...well, not so much...

Not since she married Tom Cruise. They're of different human species, therefore she's an immoral liberal who practices "marital genocide".

"But it's only because I love and idealize all races, to the point where I believe they should be strictly segregated in the interest of racial purity so my blonde-and-blue ideal isn't corrupted - whoops, did I say that last part out loud?"

It's not hate, you just don't understand because you're brainwashed by my lies and propaganda... Man, it's rare that the entire board finds themselves unified on a single theme. Congrats, Kurt, your Nazi racist theories have managed to help all of us find common ground where none previously existed...

And then KurtGodel77 came along and made it the basis for labelling the different races as "speciation", based on nothing more than geographical separation in contravention of all known biological and genetic theory. And one short step from that, he decried the "marital genocide" leading to the diminution of blonde hair and blue eyes. And suddenly, it doesn't look coincidental that both "Kurt" and "Godel" are of Germanic origin.

Where? I never heard that. Can you cite a case. Seriously, I'm not asking because I disagree, I'm asking because I don't know.

But God forbid if she tries to marry a white boy...

Like "This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a long time..." Still, I percieve a difference between the media's (not just Newsweek's) "We heard a rumor, let's run with it!" attitude and a "Holy sh--, did Howdy Doody just say that out loud?" White House moment. Our Commander-in-Chief can't change who he is, but the media can and I think should strive to place the "investigative" back in "investigative reporting".

I'm torn...on the one hand, the idea of aborting a pregnancy because it's "inconvenient" is horrible to me. On the other hand...I can't help thinking that these kids were most likely spared a life of pure and utter hell being raised by such a shallow unfeeling mother. It's just too bad that, when doctors abort "inconvenient" pregnancies, they can't also sterilize the parents. People who think that way have NO business having children to begin with.

I see...so the natural way, way back in the Stone Age was to intermix the different human subspecies, but now that we've "progressed", we can keep the subspecies segregated for the betterment of the genomic environment... Would that be a "separate but equal" segregation, Kurt, or would it involve more of a class structure where the elite subspecies lord over the lesser ones? Because once you go with an economically inequal segregation, you end up with members of the lesser subspecies killing each other for their sneakers...

Neither can you automatically assume something is true because it's single-sourced and a hot topic. Although I may be bitching about the lack of confirmation, I realize the real issue is always that a balance must be struck between the type of story, the ability of the reporter, and the amount of confirmation required (and the rush to scoop other outlets; I may hate the commercial aspect of the press, but I can't deny its effects are important). I would not suggest that a single eyewitness report on, say, a car accident is irresponsible necessarily (sometimes it would be)...but on a story as inflammatory and important as the one we're discussing doesn't it make more sense to hold off publication pending an independent confirmation? Hell, I wouldn't even buy a sandwich on a single recommendation from a coworker...but it's okay if Newsweek irrepairably damages national security on an equivalent basis? And if it IS okay for Newsweek to damage national security on the basis of a single-sourced unconfirmed story (i.e. "rumor")...why is it anathema when the US Government does it? I'm sensing a double-standard here...

Well, he knows better than nature. He is, after all, in MENSA, whereas Mother Nature is not.

Easiest way is probably to put all the "subspecies" of people in their separate camps, to start with. Then, when the camps get too crowded, we can start gassing the undesirable subspecies. Right, Kurt?

Historically, people did not justify their views with Nazi racial theory like you do. Reading comprehension REALLY isn't your strong suit. What, do I need to say it in German or something?

NO mainstream historian I've ever read (dozens, maybe hundreds) has ever indicated that. Once again, you're pulling complete fiction out of your ass, throwing it agains the wall, and hoping it sticks. While it may be a fitting activity when you're debating a crap throwing monkey...it starts to wear, just a little bit, when you honestly think it's an acceptible substitute for actual facts. I don't question it at all. You've demonstrated ("stated" would be more accurate) your pro-Nazi, anti-"liberal genocide" () attitude, and it's not the least bit surprising that a Nazi supporter would be "anti-bolshevik" or against the "syphillitic" FDR, as the Nazi propaganda went. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? I said that most racists were honest and open about it: they opposed it based on the honestly stated belief against defiling THEIR race with human "subspecies". You, on the other hand, dressed up your racist beliefs with the tried-and-true "I love all races, that's why I don't want them mixed with mine" nonsense that you stole directly (damn near verbatim quotes) from Alfred Rosenberg, the Nazi Party philosopher and formulator of Nazi racial theory. I see lots of people opposing interracial marriage...you're the only one I see putting it in the same terms of "racial purity" and "marital genocide" as a threat to Aryan traits that you'll see in Nazi literature.

Pretty scruffy looking guys though. They're probably farther north, in Cape Cod Bay, and the "Others" sailed out of Gloucester.

"I'm an underpaid, injured !@#$ing soldier!"

Realistic? No. Not even remotely. (But more so that 24.) But very, very smart and well-crafted. It's one of the rare shows that doesn't speak down to its audience.

"Interracial marriage is wrong because blacks shoot each other over Air Jordans"????? That is seriously !@#$ed up.

Oh, give it a rest numbskull. You pointedly accused liberal democrats of aiding and abetting the genocide of tens of millions...while simultaneously failing to point out that the same liberal democrats fought to save tens of millions from genocide, the only difference being that we're talking about Nazi genocide in one case and Soviet Communist genocide in the other. That you whine and B word and cry and moan about the Soviets without even mentioning the Nazis is...well, completely predictable, actually. You misrepresent yourself. You justified your opposition to mixed marriages on the theory that mixing of the human "subspecies" was bad in that it would lead to the ultimate mongrelization of racial traits - and in particular, you mentioned blonde hair and blue eyes by the year 2020. Your "enlightened" and "egalitarian" position is hardly unique in that, when you get down to the details of it, you're exclamations of horror at "marital genocide" destroying racial differences ultimately boil down to worrying about your own race being eliminated by intermarriage with "subspecies". And that the physical criteria you choose are Aryan is, again, not the least bit surprising, given that your views are virtual carbon copies of the Nazi racial theory dictating Aryan superiority - right down to the BS "I cherish all races" nonsense that didn't even sell very well 60 years ago. It's not that your views on interracial marriage are Nazi - it's that your justifications for your beliefs are in their entirety. Most racists that opposed interracial marriage at least had the decency to be openly racist bastards. You have to hide behind the same pseudo-scientific crap the Nazis espoused. That's why, where not everyone who opposes interracial marriage is a Nazi, you clearly are.

It's not that I don't take an interest in it; quite the contrary, I have a much greater understanding of it than you. It's your Mickey-Mouse Nazi bull sh-- "liberal genocide" conspiracy theory I don't take an interest in. Actually, it's nothing of the kind. I've REPEATEDLY shown where your stated beliefs are VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL to Nazi racial philosophies (not to mention yet another version of your ridiculous "Democrats are genocidal maniacs"). So far, your only response has been "I'm rubber, you're glue..." I fail to see how it amounts to brainwashing on my part when I repeatedly use your own words to demonstrate your Nazi sympathies.