Poll_Blind
Poll_Blind's JournalHow dare you try to co-opt Santorum away from straight anal sex practitioners!
Did I say "practitioners"? LOL. I meant WIZARDS. At least the way I do it, baybee! Who knows what I'm talking about, WOOT WOOT?!
YEAH, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!
A goddamned wizard!!!
Wait, what were we talking about, again?
Oh shit...yeah. Right. There ain't nothing gay about anal sex, so Santorum exists as a product of a any anal union.
Did I say "union"? LOL. I meant SPELL
BECAUSE I AM A WIZARD CASTING ANAL SPELLS! Who knows what I'm...
YEAH! J knows what's going on here! Have your Mordenkainen's Disjunction memorized, ladies, BECAUSE THE WIZARD IS WALKIN'
PB
Yossi Sarid: Orthodox Judaism treats women like filthy little things
A word of clarification for those unfamiliar: In Judaism, the Torah are the first five books of the bible- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy and is about 2,400-2,600 years old. The Talmud is a separate entity, a recording of discussions pertaining to Jewish law, and ethics by the most influential rabbis in Jewish history. It is the official "interpretation guide" for the Torah. Functionally, it is very similar to Islamic Shiria Law but unlike Sharia Law (which has regional interpretations), the Talmud contains contradictory opinion. AFAIK, there is no Christian analog to either the Talmud or Sharia Law, something we should all be thankful for.
The Talmud is between 1,500-1,700 years old and for the most part, the misogyny the author is attacking is from there, not the Torah.
Published today in Haaretz, Israel's oldest newspaper:
--snip--
A man must say three blessings every day during morning prayers: He thanks God "that He didn't make me a gentile, that He didn't make me a woman, that He didn't make me an ignoramus." And it's not proper to speak to a woman too much, since "all her conversation is nothing but words of adultery," and whoever talks to her too much "causes evil to himself and will end up inheriting hell." And let's not even talk about the fate of someone "who looks even at a woman's little finger."
The extremists who spit at women, who call themselves Sikarikim, learned their lesson 101 times and learned it well: A husband would do well not to let his wife go outside, into the street, and should restrict her outings "to once or twice a month, as necessary, since a woman has no beauty except by sitting in the corner of her house."
--snip--
And there are many similar halakhot, only a few of which we have collected here. Nor have we cited everything in the name of the ones who said them, for lack of space. The readers are invited to find the references on Shabbat - and to browse around - on their own; this is a good opportunity for study. We will direct your attention to Tractate Shabbat, which does a good job of summing up halakha's attitude toward women: "a sack full of excrement" with a bleeding hole.
Most other forms of Judaism disregard these hateful proclamations and focus on those parts of the Talmud which are more moderate. Or, put another way, when you read about American or Israeli Jews who force women to the back of a but or spit on or attack women they feel are dressed "immodestly" or a million other insane things, you can almost bet they follow an orthodox rabbi who draws on these hateful tracts instead of more moderate ones.
Which is also a nice reminder that the weakest link in Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any religion, are its priests.
PB
If you're using just that quote to interpret support for Paul your argument is not convincing.
"Ron Paul is far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party."I agree with those assertions and I sure as shit don't support Ron Paul. This is another example of selective reading on your part, MineralMan. Taken on its face, those four points speak for themselves...but what they don't do is expound further. That's what you're doing: Filling a void with conjecture.
For instance, take the hypothetical sentence "The dictator was very effective." Selectively read, one could jump to the conclusion that it implies support even more than that rather dry quote you provided. But it doesn't. It's merely asserting that an observation, just like the quote you posted.
Another example, a real-example from 9/11 news coverage- though the quote I use is slightly paraphrased. An article proclaimed "Hijackers ram airplanes into World Trade Centers in spectacular attack!". Again, selectively reading and jumping to conclusions based on the use of the word "spectacular" one could wrongly infer that the attack was positively viewed by whomever wrote the story- which clearly wasn't the case.
Greenwald is merely stating what he believes to be fact. Again, I completely agree with the sentence's assertion as would a large percentage of Americans across the political spectrum.
What the quote doesn't do- and what you fabricate is the nonexistent "And that's why you should vote Ron Paul."
That's your inferrence, not Greenwald's statement. If you view information with that kind of filter, you're going to be doing a hell of a lot of shadowboxing both here and in real life.
PB
I was really hoping the bolts would give way and his coffin would slide off the car, torpedo...
...across the icy road until it knocked over the a group of generals like ten pins at Firs Bowl.
If I was the only one, the rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves.
PB
NOTE: Be sure NOT to miss this video of weeping crowds on Kim Jong-il's passing!
It's a great reminder of why totalitarian regimes suck.
Everyone you see in this video is either acting out of fear for their lives or because they have been brainwashed as have generations of North Koreans before them.
I was thinking about it this morning and from everything I've seen or read a German under Hitler's Nazi rule could probably still express acres of dissent more than a North Korean living under Kim Jong-il. The national hysteria over Jong-il or his father is much more reminiscent of the psychology of Jonestown, IMO.
Or, put Orwell's way, this is a taste of what that boot looks like, stamping on a face forever:
PB
An unsettling realization about Ron Paul:
It seems to me, the reason why Ron Paul gets play in both conservative and liberal circles is because he is one of the few politicians who will absolutely tell the unadulterated, unvarnished truth about such issues as the failure of the Iraq War, our military adventurism in general and the real reason why Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11- which, by the way, is the reason bin Laden/Al Quaeda said they attacked us. Not the "We must destroy them because of their bluejeans and freedom!" bullshit.
The majority of his ideas are odious to say the least but the fact that he will plainly speak about some matters which few politicians in Washington have the political guts to causes him to receive otherwise undue interest from voters.
Here's the kicker: In a politically healthy America, an asshole like Ron Paul would be lucky to get his ass voted into a position as a state senator but because there is so much wool-pulling going on in Washington, anyone who is actually calling a spade a spade about such major issues as I stated in the first paragraph gets the attention of voters as someone who allegedly "has a clue" and has the strength to be bold.
What they mostly don't get is he has some absolutely uncontroversially correct ideas and a whole boatload of less-explored, extremely sickening ones.
Ron Paul only floats to the top like this because the people who should be making the same bold statements about the state of things are too fucking afraid to. Voters know they're being lied to on a wide range of issues and they naturally turn to voices they think are telling the truth.
Ron Paul is a cancer which grows in political environments like ours. If we had a politically healthier country, his kind (I guarantee you) would never get the kind of attention he has. Ever. Popularity of him or his ideas is a symptom of an overwhelming dysfunctional political system in America and an America desperate for someone they view as a truth-teller, proponent.
And more like him are enthusiastically marching from Mordor every day.
I'm not so worried about him and his kind this year or next year. I'm worried about how many desperate American eyes and hungry American bellies will start to see such ideas and philosophies as "reasonable" in the next decade as this country continues to tumble down the mountain.
The way to stop that fungus from growing is to hold our politicians, our government, accountable now, today.
PB
NYT: Nearly 1 in 5 Women in U.S. Survey Say They Have Been Sexually Assaulted
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/nearly-1-in-5-women-in-us-survey-report-sexual-assault.htmlNearly one in five women surveyed said they had been raped or had experienced an attempted rape at some point, and one in four reported having been beaten by an intimate partner. One in six women have been stalked, according to the report.
“That almost one in five women have been raped in their lifetime is very striking and, I think, will be surprising to a lot of people,” said Linda C. Degutis, director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which conducted the survey.
“I don’t think we’ve really known that it was this prevalent in the population,” she said.
I am almost 40 and I'm a white male and I'm not surprised by these statistics at all. I also won't be surprised when a week, two weeks, a month goes by and these horrifying statistics quietly slip beneath the waves of social consciousness.
One in five, raped.
One in four, beaten.
One in six, stalked.
That's everywhere around you, dear reader. That's everywhere around you nomatter what corner of America you inhabit. An informal conspiracy of societal complacency.
PB
Profile Information
Member since: 2003 before July 6thNumber of posts: 23,864
