Great White North Big Brother

[Bubba Wheels]

Heard a Canadian call into the O'Reilly radio show today. Apparantly in Canada you can be fined up to $25,000 and thrown into prison for getting caught watching the Fox News Channel there. Looks like Big Brother has moved onto our northern border.

[Hurst2112]

This is a joke right?

[Butter]

Did you know that in Canada, their bacon is like our ham? Amazing!

[Hurst2112]

Also, you can't use their dimes for a makeshift screwdriver. They bend to easily.

[Bubba Wheels]

This is a joke right?

No joke, from what I hear.

[Maple Leafs]

It's absolutely true.

It's because our government doesn't want us to have access to right-wing news and viewpoints, and not at all because Fox News isn't available in Canada and you would need to steal satellite signals to get it up here.

Good information here, guys, keep it coming.

[Peregrine]

Well it's a bit confusing. Canada has limits on what US networks its citizens can view, mostly because they have to have a certain percentage of Canadian content. Those that don't, but are desired by Canadian cable/satellite companies, like Fox News, HBO, ESPN, are currently going through the application process and though they were rejected once, they might not be this go-round.

[WSUCougar]

I've heard they also have beavers on their nickels and mooses on their beer cans.

Pah!

[Hurst2112]

THey don't use the same alphabet either. Something about a letter zed?

[SirFozzie]

Their dollar is called the Looney, and the Two Dollar bill is called the Toonie.

[WSUCougar]

http://www.2112.net/artifacts/volume1/track3/smbd.jpg

Beauty, eh?

[Johnny93g]

In Canada, we all live in igloos

[RendeR]

Damnit, big brother can't have candada, where the hell will those of us with any common sense MOVE to if he takes them over too????

[The Afoci]

I heard in Canada, men have vaginas and women have penises. The breasts belong to jesus.

[Simms]

Hey Johnny....see you on the slopes tomorrow?

[Simms]

Their dollar is called the Looney, and the Two Dollar bill is called the Toonie.
It's not a "bill" anymore....it's a coin. :)

[Johnny93g]

Hey Johnny....see you on the slopes tomorrow?
Ill be there, then maybe we can discuss the Leaf game while ice-fishing for our dinner, eh

[kcchief19]

It's absolutely true.

It's because our government doesn't want us to have access to right-wing news and viewpoints, and not at all because Fox News isn't available in Canada and you would need to steal satellite signals to get it up here.

Good information here, guys, keep it coming.You know, I think you are the funniest guy at FOFC. :)

Hmmmm ... no Fox News, cheap prescription drugs and friskie French Canadian babes -- maybe all those draft dodgers were smarter than we thought. Sounds like Canada is an NFL franchise away from being Utopia.

Way to go, hosers! :D

[bbor]

We have poutine too :)

[Suicane75]

We have poutine too :)


I love po........oh, poutine, nevermind.

[sterlingice]

It's absolutely true.

It's because our government doesn't want us to have access to right-wing news and viewpoints, and not at all because Fox News isn't available in Canada and you would need to steal satellite signals to get it up here.

Good information here, guys, keep it coming.
This might be your best non-hockey post ever ML :D

Actually, this thread has some of my favorite posts I've seen over the past week. :D

SI

[Bubba Wheels]

You know, I think you are the funniest guy at FOFC. :)

Hmmmm ... no Fox News, cheap prescription drugs and friskie French Canadian babes -- maybe all those draft dodgers were smarter than we thought. Sounds like Canada is an NFL franchise away from being Utopia.

Way to go, hosers! :D

Ha! You sound just like the kind of guy that needs government telling you what's good for you and what isn't.

[MJ4H]

You know, I think you are the funniest guy at FOFC. :)


Me, too.

[sterlingice]

Ha! You sound just like the kind of guy that needs government telling you what's good for you and what isn't.
As opposed to someone who thinks the Canadians have a vast left wing conspiracy, as reported on O'Reilly. ;)

SI

[Bubba Wheels]

As opposed to someone who thinks the Canadians have a vast left wing conspiracy, as reported on O'Reilly. ;)

SI

Maybe you didn't read the original post. This is fact, not fiction: How much more proof do you need? I'm thinking that maybe we should, for the benefit of the sensative eyes and ears of our Northern neighbors on these boards, have somekind of 'rating' system at the begining of each thread. You know, like movies and TV, so nobody from Canada gets a look at something that they shouldn't see not approved by their government. ;)

[Bubba Wheels]

http://www.2112.net/artifacts/volume1/track3/smbd.jpg

Beauty, eh?

BTW, absolutely the funniest thing Canada has ever produced, laugh every time I see it. :D

[Crapshoot]

Bubba, did you not read what Maple Leaf said ?

[sterlingice]

Maybe you didn't read the original post. This is fact, not fiction: How much more proof do you need? I'm thinking that maybe we should, for the benefit of the sensative eyes and ears of our Northern neighbors on these boards, have somekind of 'rating' system at the begining of each thread. You know, like movies and TV, so nobody from Canada gets a look at something that they shouldn't see not approved by their government. ;)
So, because I can't get Cinemax without stealing cable, the government is trying to protect me from it, too?

SI

[Suicane75]

Bubba, did you not read what Maple Leaf said ?


Now why in the blue hell would he go and do a thing like that? :D

[Suicane75]

And Bubba, it's good to know that when the FCC and the religious right wanna start taking away what I can watch and listen to that you'll be there with me on the front lines trying to stop them, come here buddy, we're going to a rally!

[Scarecrow]

And Bubba, it's good to know that when the FCC and the religious right wanna start taking away what I can watch and listen to ...
I thought that was Tipper GORE's job.

[Suicane75]

I thought that was Tipper GORE's job.


Yes, because putting a label on a record and removing anything they deem indecent from the airwaves are exactly the same thing. If I could go back to 1987 and rail against her I would. I don't quite understand why 2 wrongs make it alright but if it's what gets ya thru the day.

[Bubba Wheels]

So, because I can't get Cinemax without stealing cable, the government is trying to protect me from it, too?

SI

No, because you have the OPTION of getting Cinemax if you want, legally. You do NOT have the option of getting Fox News in Canada because the GOVERNMENT won't allow you to, and regardless of the so-called economic tag Canada tries to put on it its still censorship (Big Brother does NOT want you to see it!)

[ice4277]

No, because you have the OPTION of getting Cinemax if you want, legally. You do NOT have the option of getting Fox News in Canada because the GOVERNMENT won't allow you to, and regardless of the so-called economic tag Canada tries to put on it its still censorship (Big Brother does NOT want you to see it!)
I don't have the option of getting TSN here. Must be censorship, the US does not want to spread hated Canadian values such as curling and hockey :(

[Bubba Wheels]

I don't have the option of getting TSN here. Must be censorship, the US does not want to spread hated Canadian values such as curling and hockey :(

I don't know about TSN, but you don't have the option of getting Fox News because your Government doesn't think its good for you. Sorry.

[ice4277]

Actually, since I live in Detroit, I get American cable channels. TSN is a Canadian sports channel. I don't see that as an option from Comcast.

[Reno]

I don't know about TSN, but you don't have the option of getting Fox News because your Government doesn't think its good for you. Sorry.

I guess they must think ESPN and HBO aren't good for them either.

[Bubba Wheels]

Actually, since I live in Detroit, I get American cable channels. TSN is a Canadian sports channel. I don't see that as an option from Comcast.

Living in Detroit, your odds of being Canadian are still pretty high. :p

[Bubba Wheels]

I guess they must think ESPN and HBO aren't good for them either.

One big difference. Fox News is a political channel. Those others are not. And unlike those others, Fox News is raked over the coals pretty regularly by the liberal print and tv media that dominates Canada. So if Fox News is important enough to garner so much other Canadian media coverage, why not give Canadians the option of hearing it all from the source itself? Because, again, those Canadian powers-that-be don't think that it would be good for Canadian sensibilities to see and hear it.

But this is not new for Canada. A couple of years ago their was a big trial in Canada (Toronto, I think, not sure) and instead of sequestering the jury like you would here in the U.S., the ENTIRE nation of Canada was PROHIBITED from viewing or importing ANY news material that had anything to do with this trial. Now that is 'extreme.' And precedent shows that when Big Brother in Canada thinks you shouldn't see it, you won't.

One last point. I'm talking strictly news and politics here. Those of you who think that Larry Flynt is a 'true American hero' and want to lump in pornography into this category, your just depraved.

[Suicane75]

One big difference. Fox News is a political channel. Those others are not. And unlike those others, Fox News is raked over the coals pretty regularly by the liberal print and tv media that dominates Canada. So if Fox News is important enough to garner so much other Canadian media coverage, why not give Canadians the option of hearing it all from the source itself? Because, again, those Canadian powers-that-be don't think that it would be good for Canadian sensibilities to see and hear it.

But this is not new for Canada. A couple of years ago their was a big trial in Canada (Toronto, I think, not sure) and instead of sequestering the jury like you would here in the U.S., the ENTIRE nation of Canada was PROHIBITED from viewing or importing ANY news material that had anything to do with this trial. Now that is 'extreme.' And precedent shows that when Big Brother in Canada thinks you shouldn't see it, you won't.

One last point. I'm talking strictly news and politics here. Those of you who think that Larry Flynt is a 'true American hero' and want to lump in pornography into this category, your just depraved.


So essentially what your saying, is that when it goes against your beliefs it's ok to censor people, but when it comes to your beliefs censorship is wrong.

[Bubba Wheels]

So essentially what your saying, is that when it goes against your beliefs it's ok to censor people, but when it comes to your beliefs censorship is wrong.

Yes, I make a big difference between news/politics and pornography. And if you think pornography shouldn't have any limits on it like filters in public libraries and public schools to keep kids from seeing it because you consider it 'free speech', then in my opinion you are hugely depraved.

[Suicane75]

Yes, I make a big difference between news/politics and pornography. And if you think pornography shouldn't have any limits on it like filters in public libraries and public schools to keep kids from seeing it because you consider it 'free speech', then in my opinion you are hugely depraved.


When did I ever say that?

[Easy Mac]

Sheila: Time's have changed
Our kids are kids are getting worse
They wont obey their parents
They just want to fart and curse!
Sharon: Should we blame the government?
Liane: Or blame society?
Dads: Or should we blame the images on TV?
Sheila: No, blame Canada
Everyone: Blame Canada
Sheila: With all their beady little eyes
And flappin heads so full of lies
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Sheila: We need to form a full assault
Everyone: It's Canadas fault!
Sharon: Don't blame me
For my son Stan
He saw the darn cartoon
And now he's off to join the Klan!
Liane: And my boy Eric once
Had my picture on his shelf
But now when I see him he tells me to fuck myself!
Sheila: Well, blame Canada
Everyone: Blame Canada
It seems that everythings gone wrong
Since Canada came along
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Copy Guy: There not even a real country anyway
Ms. McCormick: My son could've been a doctor or a lawyer rich and true
Instead he burned up like a piggy on a barbecue
Everyone: Should we blame the matches?
Should we blame the fire?
Or the doctors who allowed him to expire?
Sheila: Heck no!
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Sheila: With all their hockey hubbabaloo
Liane: And that bitch Anne Murray too
Everyone: Blame Canada
Shame on Canada
The smut we must stop
The trash we must smash
Laughter and fun
must all be undone
We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before someone thinks of blaming uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuus

[Easy Mac]

When did I ever say that?
Back when you made no mention of it.

[Suicane75]

Back when you made no mention of it.

Oh ok, now I remember not doing that, but that was a while ago.

[Bubba Wheels]

When did I ever say that?

Your statement implied that if I made any distinction between pornography and news/politics as being defined as 'free speech', then 'my beliefs' were somehow not consistant or were biased. My reply was to point out that my beliefs are very consistant even when they are quite biased, as I do not consider the two equal (even though your liberal heros on the Supreme Court might and often do.)

Fact is, when the constitution was written by Madison and his associates, you would have been hard-pressed to find much pornography at all around, public or otherwise. So to claim that 'free speech' was written to include pornography is absurd. This is were you jump in with the liberal views of the 'living constitution' and how that document must be 'stretched' and such to accomidate our new 'enviroment.' Total crock. Pornography, like abortions, is big business meaning big bucks for certain interests. It all comes down to money.

[NoMyths]

Pornography, like abortions, is big business meaning big bucks for certain interests. It all comes down to money.For unintentional comedy, you've got to absolutely love the jump that is made here.

If Bubba actually believes that those of us who support a woman's right to choose has anything to do with money, he's gone insane from too much right-wing talk radio and television. Hey...maybe there's some money in a study that proves such sources are detrimental to peoples' health?

[Crapshoot]

Bubba, you need help. Seriously- you're an embarassment to people like me on the right- your vast left-wing conspiracy smacks of Hilary Clinton-esque innuendo.

[Bubba Wheels]

For unintentional comedy, you've got to absolutely love the jump that is made here.

If Bubba actually believes that those of us who support a woman's right to choose has anything to do with money, he's gone insane from too much right-wing talk radio and television. Hey...maybe there's some money in a study that proves such sources are detrimental to peoples' health?

Ha! I feel like Bobby Fischer here, playing all those guys at chess at once. If you don't think that the abortion business is big business, and that bucks from that big business are not getting into the political system and influencing votes for it, then you really are hopelessly naive.

[Simms]

One big difference. Fox News is a political channel. Those others are not. And unlike those others, Fox News is raked over the coals pretty regularly by the liberal print and tv media that dominates Canada. So if Fox News is important enough to garner so much other Canadian media coverage, why not give Canadians the option of hearing it all from the source itself? Because, again, those Canadian powers-that-be don't think that it would be good for Canadian sensibilities to see and hear it.

But this is not new for Canada. A couple of years ago their was a big trial in Canada (Toronto, I think, not sure) and instead of sequestering the jury like you would here in the U.S., the ENTIRE nation of Canada was PROHIBITED from viewing or importing ANY news material that had anything to do with this trial. Now that is 'extreme.' And precedent shows that when Big Brother in Canada thinks you shouldn't see it, you won't.

One last point. I'm talking strictly news and politics here. Those of you who think that Larry Flynt is a 'true American hero' and want to lump in pornography into this category, your just depraved.
Do yourself a favour and stop talking. Now.

Seriously.

Short of that, please make sure you actually understand what you're talking about before you post again.

[Bubba Wheels]

Bubba, you need help. Seriously- you're an embarassment to people like me on the right- your vast left-wing conspiracy smacks of Hilary Clinton-esque innuendo.

Aadik, thought you claimed to be a 'fiscal conservative, social liberal." Not to worry, we have nothing in common.

[NoMyths]

Ha! I feel like Bobby Fischer here, playing all those guys at chess at once. If you don't think that the abortion business is big business, and that bucks from that big business are not getting into the political system and influencing votes for it, then you really are hopelessly naive.And if you think that a fifteen-year old who gets raped and impregnated is just a dollar sign to the abortion rights movement, your heartless quasi-intellectualism has pretty much invalidated your human race card.

[cuervo72]

http://www.2112.net/artifacts/volume1/track3/smbd.jpg

Beauty, eh?

HBO should have applied to be on in Canada back then, I think this movie was on %10 of the time.

[cuervo72]

.....Fox News is raked over the coals pretty regularly by the liberal print and tv media that dominates Canada.

Without being fined? How can they comment on something they're not allowed to see?
:p

[Suicane75]

[QUOTE=Bubba Wheels]Your statement implied that if I made any distinction between pornography and news/politics as being defined as 'free speech', then 'my beliefs' were somehow not consistant or were biased. My reply was to point out that my beliefs are very consistant even when they are quite biased, as I do not consider the two equal (even though your liberal heros on the Supreme Court might and often do.)

Thats funny, I never once mentioned the word pornography. That you made that leap shows me that you can't handle a one on one discussion because when it comes right down to it youd rather go off and spew a party line against something i never brought up than actually listening to what i say and talking about it. Case in point, no one on the Supreme Court is my hero and i'm not a liberal, but of course it's much easier for you to avoid my point by rambling on about something else than to actualy discuss it.

[Radii]

wow. Just... wow.

[Maple Leafs]

One big difference. Fox News is a political channel.Funny, I thought it was a news channel. Fair and balanced, right? Guess not.
But this is not new for Canada. A couple of years ago their was a big trial in Canada (Toronto, I think, not sure) and instead of sequestering the jury like you would here in the U.S., the ENTIRE nation of Canada was PROHIBITED from viewing or importing ANY news material that had anything to do with this trial. Now that is 'extreme.' And precedent shows that when Big Brother in Canada thinks you shouldn't see it, you won't.I can only assume you're referring to Paul Bernardo. Your description is simply not true. While there were some restrictions on certain materials (such as video of the rape and murder of teen girls... guess they should have shown that on the 6:00 news) and evidence, to say that Canadians couldn't view or report on any of the facts is just plain false.

Bubba, I'll try to be nice about this, but you're either a.) misinformed, and not interested in trying to figure out the truth before you post here, b.) incapable of understanding very basic facts, or c.) lying.

Whichever it is, please either stop it or go away.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Can anyone here tell me what part of Canada Bubba Wheels lives in? I've never been to Canada, but I'd like to go up there and say hello to him sometime.

[Bubba Wheels]

Funny, I thought it was a news channel. Fair and balanced, right? Guess not.
I can only assume you're referring to Paul Bernardo. Your description is simply not true. While there were some restrictions on certain materials (such as video of the rape and murder of teen girls... guess they should have shown that on the 6:00 news) and evidence, to say that Canadians couldn't view or report on any of the facts is just plain false.

Bubba, I'll try to be nice about this, but you're either a.) misinformed, and not interested in trying to figure out the truth before you post here, b.) incapable of understanding very basic facts, or c.) lying.

Whichever it is, please either stop it or go away.

Alright, I take 'em one at a time! I was going into Canada quite abit when that trial happened, if that's the one that is being discussed cause the only thing I remember about it is that the Canadian authorities had instituted a complete news blackout concerning the trial and its details. Cars going into Windsor from Detroit were subject to search for the Detroit News and such. Not at all what your attempting to say, that it just included videos the killer took. Most folks would not have access to them anyway.

[Bubba Wheels]

Can anyone here tell me what part of Canada Bubba Wheels lives in? I've never been to Canada, but I'd like to go up there and say hello to him sometime.

I live in Quebec, Pumpy, and make sure you speak French when you get here! :D

[Bubba Wheels]

Do yourself a favour and stop talking. Now.

Seriously.

Short of that, please make sure you actually understand what you're talking about before you post again.

Strange Brew, eh? Who are you, Dudley Dooright?

[Bubba Wheels]

So essentially what your saying, is that when it goes against your beliefs it's ok to censor people, but when it comes to your beliefs censorship is wrong.

Maybe I didn't understand your position here, since you really didn't clarify and the last thing I talked about was not equating news/political speech and pornography. So if I assumed it was the last comment of mine that you took issue with, and I was mistaken, I stand corrected. But again, you did not qualify a pretty broad accusation.

[Bubba Wheels]

Anybody else I haven't ticked off yet, feel free to jump right in! :cool:

[Bubba Wheels]

And if you think that a fifteen-year old who gets raped and impregnated is just a dollar sign to the abortion rights movement, your heartless quasi-intellectualism has pretty much invalidated your human race card.

Ah yes, not to leave you out of the fun! This old cannard you bring up is the typical argument advanced by the pro-abortionists. Make sure you have the proper prop in tow also, a good, bent coathanger!

Fact is, less than 1% of all abortions preformed are for rape, incest or the life of the mother. Percentage may be a little higher, but we'll never get the real truth on this one because of the lying nature of the abortion pushers. When an attempt to gather info on how often the health of the mother was really in jeopardy during partial-birth abortion procedures the records from the University of Michigan Hospital were requested with all privacy info of the mothers blocked out. See, they just wanted to check on the real health issues always sited to keep partial-birth abortions running and wanted no blame or info on the actual individuals themselves. Its really the only way something like this can be determined.

And, of course, even this attempted request was blocked by the pro-abortionist lawyers, because pure and simple they do not want the real truth to get out. Now why is that?

[ice4277]

Cars going into Windsor from Detroit were subject to search for the Detroit News and such.
Could you maybe provide a link with some info about this, as I have lived in Detroit my whole life and do not remember this at all. Of course, that is probably just the liberal media conspiracy at work, right?

[Bubba Wheels]

Could you maybe provide a link with some info about this, as I have lived in Detroit my whole life and do not remember this at all. Of course, that is probably just the liberal media conspiracy at work, right?

I distinctly remember hearing something about this on wjr or wwj about to cross the Ambassador Bridge into Canada. I remember it cause at the time I half-wondered if I could make a killing loading up on some local U.S. papers beforehand, and then decided just minding my own business and staying out of trouble with Canadian authorities sounded better. But since there is an interest in this I will research it and if wrong I will publically castigate myself. (or just admit that I was wrong.)

[Simms]

I distinctly remember hearing something about this on wjr or wwj about to cross the Ambassador Bridge into Canada. I remember it cause at the time I half-wondered if I could make a killing loading up on some local U.S. papers beforehand, and then decided just minding my own business and staying out of trouble with Canadian authorities sounded better. But since there is an interest in this I will research it and if wrong I will publically castigate myself. (or just admit that I was wrong.)
If you'd like, I can save you the research time and just tell you you're wrong now.

[Bubba Wheels]

If you'd like, I can save you the research time and just tell you you're wrong now.

Well, while I appreciate the offer, I know I heard something along these lines. Seems the Today show may even have picked up on it at the time, although even if it did happen it couldn't have lasted too long. Something newsworthy along these lines was going on. This was maybe, even 3 or 4 years ago.

[Bubba Wheels]

http://www.thememoryhole.org/crime/pickton-blackout.htm

I love the internet!

[Crapshoot]

http://www.disinfo.com/site/displayarticle370.html

The link of the author of Bubba's page- please read. Hilarious stuff..

[Bubba Wheels]

More 'hilarious stuff' from NPR, a real 'rightwing' organization:

http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1P1:28001231&refid=ink_overture_glo_pub

Notice the part where it says those carrying American newspapers into Canada actually 'had them confiscated." But of course all the 'experts' here have stated that this did not actually happen, so NPR must have made it all up! :rolleyes:

[Fritz]

this is a dark day for all bashers of Canada

[Pumpy Tudors]

Anybody else I haven't ticked off yet, feel free to jump right in! :cool:

You know, when you say this, it looks like you're trolling. I don't wish to say whether I agree with anything anyone's saying here. I'm just saying that the above statement makes it look like you're just trying to pick a fight. What's the point?

[Maple Leafs]

http://www.thememoryhole.org/crime/pickton-blackout.htm

I love the internet!
I didn't realize that the quickest way into Vancouver was through the Detroit-Windsor border. Interesting. More good information from you, thanks.

This is pointless. You're clearly trolling. A few of us gave you too much credit by even engaging you.

P.S. A friend of a friend says you can't get Al Jazeera in Canada either. Please investigate and report back to us.

[kcchief19]

P.S. A friend of a friend says you can't get Al Jazeera in Canada either. Please investigate and report back to us.Man, No Fox News, No Al-Jazeera and no Bubba Wheels. Where do I sign up to be Canadian?

[Suicane75]

And Bubba, it's good to know that when the FCC and the religious right wanna start taking away what I can watch and listen to that you'll be there with me on the front lines trying to stop them, come here buddy, we're going to a rally!

Bubba, when I said that, you inferred that I was talking about Pornography. Why is that do ya think? I'd like to venture a guess. Because instead of asking me what I meant, you had a stock answer ready for Pornography. Because when I say that I don't want to be told what I can and can't watch you think that I wanna watch Pornography at 5pm on ABC. The difference is, I listen to what you say and reply to it, you listen to what I say and go to your book of responses and read off of it.

[Bubba Wheels]

I didn't realize that the quickest way into Vancouver was through the Detroit-Windsor border. Interesting. More good information from you, thanks.

This is pointless. You're clearly trolling. A few of us gave you too much credit by even engaging you.

P.S. A friend of a friend says you can't get Al Jazeera in Canada either. Please investigate and report back to us.

RIIIIIIIIIIGHT!! I'm the only one backing up what I say with sources, hyper-links, ect..., yet I'm the one who's trolling! Well, your entitled to your opinions...

As far as being in Detroit and hearing about Vancouver, its a little invention we got here in the states called R A D I O....goes throught the air on invisible waves and you don't have to be right where something's happening to get info on it...

On the Al Jazeera thing, when you learn about radio, move up to the internet, something called 'search-engine,' Its how I was able to look up in 5 minutes what about 5 people were swearing never happened, amazing stuff

And as far as the Detroit-Windsor tunnel, well, I use the Bridge as I've said, but maybe you just need to pull your own head out of it, the tunnel I mean... ;)

[JHandley]

Doesn't Bubba sound an awful lot like Mrs Kippy?

[Fonzie]

http://www.slightlywarped.com/forumpictures/trolls/troll2.gif

[Buddy Grant]

Bubba, were you ever being genuine in this thread or was this all trolling? Regardless, this is the kind of Canada bashing I like best, the News Of The World "Canadians Are Actually Martians" kind of tomfoolery.

[sterlingice]

This thread has provided some of the best uninentional (and intentional) comedy ever. :D

SI

[Hoya1]

OK, as a Canadian who borrowed a satellite signal or two over my years, let’s get something straight. This all comes down to one thing….$$$$$$$$$. Canadian TV networks pay big $ to have exclusive rights to broadcast american shows that are not on the major networks. We don’t get HBO but all of their major shows are split up into various tv stations that end up bidding for their exclusive broadcast rights. A channel like fox news simply has no value here in Canada, so no cdn station is going to pay to have it. When Canadians started buying and hacking Directv and getting free tv a few years ago it was perfectly legal. The Cdn. Government stepped in because big companies like Bell and Rogers were losing subscribers and money to Directv hacking. Directv hacking became illegal and these popular shows, like the Sopranos, were bought and put on Canadian movie networks. Don’t fool yourself and think that our government does not think only about $

[HornedFrog Purple]

Bubba... I suggest quit listening to Coast to Coast AM it's really getting into your head.

[QuikSand]

This is pointless. You're clearly trolling. A few of us gave you too much credit by even engaging you.

And like a beam down from above... the truth shone through.

cue the angelic sounds and clarion call

[Desnudo]

You can unwrap the 2 dollar coin and there's chocolate underneath.

[Maple Leafs]

You can unwrap the 2 dollar coin and there's chocolate underneath.But oddly enough, it's only $1.75 worth of chocolate.

(Don't tell anyone... if word gets out, our entire economy would collapse.)

[Bubba Wheels]

But oddly enough, it's only $1.75 worth of chocolate.

(Don't tell anyone... if word gets out, our entire economy would collapse.)

Guy, from what I'm hearing about the Canadian economy (and I don't say this looking to 'troll'), but you may be in the midst of that happening without unwrapping any chocolate. And that does not make me happy, as it will also surely affect the U.S. economy.

[Bubba Wheels]

In fact, I'm sure I'll get a 'fess up' apology from both Simms AND Maple Leafs for stating (incorrectly) that Canadian authorities did NOT black-out news from not only one, but TWO different trials that took place in their country. Since both clearly stated that this black-out did not happen at all (read the previous posts) I will settle for a simple "I stand corrected' from each. Otherwise, you would not only have to conclude that neither of them back up what they say, but also that I must know more about what takes place in their own country than they do!

Here is me holding my breath waiting for the self-admission of error from both. :eek:

[John Galt]

In fact, I'm sure I'll get a 'fess up' apology from both Simms AND Maple Leafs for stating (incorrectly) that Canadian authorities did NOT black-out news from not only one, but TWO different trials that took place in their country. Since both clearly stated that this black-out did not happen at all (read the previous posts) I will settle for a simple "I stand corrected' from each. Otherwise, you would not only have to conclude that neither of them back up what they say, but also that I must know more about what takes place in their own country than they do!

Here is me holding my breath waiting for the self-admission of error from both. :eek:

Maybe they are still waiting for an admission from you in this thread:

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=24847&page=4&highlight=bubba

You remember when you called people Hitler, said a court case supported you calling everyone Hitler, but you had the facts wrong.

[BishopMVP]

I admire Bubba. Few have managed to toe the line between inflammatory political conspiracy theories and outright trolling that will get you suspended as well as he has. Most who manage to achieve this balance can only do so for a short period of time before they cross the threshold, but he's been going for a good four months and close to 500 posts.

[Hoya1]

I wasn't going to offer anything about Bubba but........he's right on about the Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka trial. It did happen more than 10 years ago though. There was a media ban around here but that was during the trial, I think. The info came out in books after the trial and then the books were taken off of the shelf. Law and order did an episode based loosly on this trial. The current one concerning the Pig farmer in Vancouver is also true, though I'm not sure on the media ban.

[Bubba Wheels]

Maybe they are still waiting for an admission from you in this thread:

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=24847&page=4&highlight=bubba

You remember when you called people Hitler, said a court case supported you calling everyone Hitler, but you had the facts wrong.

Well, this accusation is so lame that I shouldn't even respond, but I will for the sake of yourself and any other muddle-headed readers/thinkers out there in 'twist-my-words' land.

The judge used the word 'totalitarian", I added 'like Hitler and the Nazis' purely as illustration because, well, they are the prototypical totalitarians. I was addressing the technique of 'indoctrination' with those words, not calling anybody or 'people' Hitler or Nazis. Anyone reading this post can clearly see that, unless your 1. Really too ignorant to read what has been written; or 2. Intentionally intending to twist and distort words for you own nefarious purposes. I won't claim to be a mindreader and say which one it was that you were motivated by.

[Telle]

Well, this accusation is so lame that I shouldn't even respond, but I will for the sake of yourself and any other muddle-headed readers/thinkers out there in 'twist-my-words' land.

The judge used the word 'totalitarian", I added 'like Hitler and the Nazis' purely as illustration because, well, they are the prototypical totalitarians. I was addressing the technique of 'indoctrination' with those words, not calling anybody or 'people' Hitler or Nazis. Anyone reading this post can clearly see that, unless your 1. Really too ignorant to read what has been written; or 2. Intentionally intending to twist and distort words for you own nefarious purposes. I won't claim to be a mindreader and say which one it was that you were motivated by.

Here's the quote from you from that post "In fact, in a recent Federal Court trial involving a Michigan High School this is exactly what the Judge stated: That when one side is effectively denied its ability to argue its case, whatever the forum, its in effect a form of totalitarianism just like the Nazis." Now, when you claim to be quoting EXACT words from somebody, you can't go and get all pissed off when someone catches the fact that what you wrote was not, in fact, exactly what was stated.

[Bubba Wheels]

Here's the quote from you from that post "In fact, in a recent Federal Court trial involving a Michigan High School this is exactly what the Judge stated: That when one side is effectively denied its ability to argue its case, whatever the forum, its in effect a form of totalitarianism just like the Nazis." Now, when you claim to be quoting EXACT words from somebody, you can't go and get all pissed off when someone catches the fact that what you wrote was not, in fact, exactly what was stated.

I was wrong on one point: I should have specified what the judge said "totalitarianism", and what I said as an illustration "just like the Nazis." But I still don't see where I called anybody that, it was used to describe the practice of 'indoctrination' as I stated earlier. You conviently leave that out.

[Telle]

I was wrong on one point: I should have specified what the judge said "totalitarianism", and what I said as an illustration "just like the Nazis." But I still don't see where I called anybody that, it was used to describe the practice of 'indoctrination' as I stated earlier. You conviently leave that out.

Ok, technically you're right. You didn't call anyone Hitler.. you just said that they would "do Hitler proud" and were "same as Hitler" ...there's obviously a BIG difference from saying that and actually calling someone Hitler :rolleyes:

The fact remains though that the supposed quote you used was very misleading. You made it seem that it was the judge that was connecting Hitler to indoctrination and censorship, and not just you. You were using this as supporting evidence as to why it was right for you to say that what you perceived as censorhip would "do Hitler proud".

[Bubba Wheels]

Ok, technically you're right. You didn't call anyone Hitler.. you just said that they would "do Hitler proud" and were "same as Hitler" ...there's obviously a BIG difference from saying that and actually calling someone Hitler :rolleyes:

The fact remains though that the supposed quote you used was very misleading. You made it seem that it was the judge that was connecting Hitler to indoctrination and censorship, and not just you. You were using this as supporting evidence as to why it was right for you to say that what you perceived as censorhip would "do Hitler proud".

Hitler was/was not the proto-typical case-history totalitarian that everybody (even me) likes to dredge up as the example. Later I think I added Stalin, Mao, and Castro. Take your pick, they ALL be totalitarians, and the whole point (that you seem wanting to bury with all this) is that the hallmark of a totalitarian is to CENSOR (see, i went back and actually looked up the context for all this) the OTHER Side's point-of-view. And this is the last i I dot and t I cross in this argument. If someone wants to bring up a broader point or concept (which was the original intent of this post) then something else might be said on my part. Otherwise its just all name-calling and personal attacks on me. :rolleyes:

[John Galt]

I was wrong on one point: I should have specified what the judge said "totalitarianism", and what I said as an illustration "just like the Nazis." But I still don't see where I called anybody that, it was used to describe the practice of 'indoctrination' as I stated earlier. You conviently leave that out.

Dude, you said I was the same as Hitler and that I would do Hitler proud. Then you based it on a court case that you misquoted (not to mention you had the facts of the case totally wrong and they may prove your argument wrong). And now you act as though you are on the moral high ground and ask other people to apologize to you?!?!

[Bubba Wheels]

Dude, you said I was the same as Hitler and that I would do Hitler proud. Then you based it on a court case that you misquoted (not to mention you had the facts of the case totally wrong and they may prove your argument wrong). And now you act as though you are on the moral high ground and ask other people to apologize to you?!?!

You'll have to put the original quote up there, then, cause I couldn't find it.

[RendeR]

Damn, I quit reading this thread a few days ago because I didn't want to deal with slapping bubba around with reality, and lo and behold the rest of you jump on the blocks and do it for me.


I love yous guys... :)

[John Galt]

You'll have to put the original quote up there, then, cause I couldn't find it.

Bubba said:

"Hitler was the master of indoctrination and censorship. In fact, in a recent Federal Court trial involving a Michigan High School this is exactly what the Judge stated: That when one side is effectively denied its ability to argue its case, whatever the forum, its in effect a form of totalitarianism just like the Nazis. This case, by the way, was ruled in favor of Christians who had been denied the same meeting priveleges after school that other non-academic groups had been allowed (like the Gay and Lesbian club). Just stating the facts, folks."

Notice where you say, "this is exactly what the Judge stated." And then notice where you say, "Just stating the facts, folks." And then notice that you are a close-minded, hate-filled troll.

[Bubba Wheels]

Damn, I quit reading this thread a few days ago because I didn't want to deal with slapping bubba around with reality, and lo and behold the rest of you jump on the blocks and do it for me.


I love yous guys... :)

One Bubba is mightier than 100 Lilliputians! :cool:

[RendeR]

I Heart John Galt.....

[Bubba Wheels]

I Heart John Galt.....

Geez, get a room...

[RendeR]

Its funny Bubba, but when you can't remember your own posts, then deny saying them after they've been QUOTED back to you, you tend to lose a certain level respect.

Then when the quotes are put in front of you again, you ignore the fact that your self induced crashing and burning is happening and turn to lame comments like the one above.

I just re-read this entire thread. You were talking out your ass regarding the court case to suit your own argument, you got called on it, so instead of puffing up and acting like...well...yourself... just admit you were being a dumbass troll and then close that hole in your head, thats that pile of shit 3 feet above your ass.

[Schedule Junkie]

A couple of years ago their was a big trial in Canada (Toronto, I think, not sure) and instead of sequestering the jury like you would here in the U.S., the ENTIRE nation of Canada was PROHIBITED from viewing or importing ANY news material that had anything to do with this trial. Now that is 'extreme.' And precedent shows that when Big Brother in Canada thinks you shouldn't see it, you won't. Most often, when a judge issues an order prohibiting any press coverage, it is in the pre-trial phase, to ensure there is no possible contamination of the jury pool or of witnesses. It does, however, happen occasionally during a trial as well. And whenever it does, the media outlets always go to court to try and get the order reversed, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.

Authorities here have decided that having the highest probability of a fair and impartial trial in high-profile cases overrides the media's right to coverage the case in complete detail. This is done, at the discretion of the judge in charge of the trial, to prevent such media coverage from unduly affecting jurors or witnesses. Given the experience in the U.S. with high-publicity cases, e.g. Kobe Bryant, O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson, Martha Stewart, etc., I can't say I disagree with the need to restrict press coverage from time to time.

While you may feel sequestering a jury to be reasonable, the judicial system here feels that it is a considerable hardship on a jury and thus will only resort to such a remedy in very rare cases. Therefore, the other option, restricting press coverage, is adopted instead.

But again, as I said before, this is as much to prevent any press coverage from affecting potential witnesses as it is to protect the jury, and is only done by order of the judge in charge of the trial, if he/she feels that the high-profile nature of the case might warrant such an order. And even then, media outlets can challenge the order in court to have it lifted.

Therefore, I would say your charge that it is the government "censoring" the public to be a rather misguided opinion.

[Bubba Wheels]

Its funny Bubba, but when you can't remember your own posts, then deny saying them after they've been QUOTED back to you, you tend to lose a certain level respect.

Then when the quotes are put in front of you again, you ignore the fact that your self induced crashing and burning is happening and turn to lame comments like the one above.

I just re-read this entire thread. You were talking out your ass regarding the court case to suit your own argument, you got called on it, so instead of puffing up and acting like...well...yourself... just admit you were being a dumbass troll and then close that hole in your head, thats that pile of shit 3 feet above your ass.

You really kiss your momma with that mouth?

[Bubba Wheels]

Most often, when a judge issues an order prohibiting any press coverage, it is in the pre-trial phase, to ensure there is no possible contamination of the jury pool or of witnesses. It does, however, happen occasionally during a trial as well. And whenever it does, the media outlets always go to court to try and get the order reversed, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.

Authorities here have decided that having the highest probability of a fair and impartial trial in high-profile cases overrides the media's right to coverage the case in complete detail. This is done, at the discretion of the judge in charge of the trial, to prevent such media coverage from unduly affecting jurors or witnesses. Given the experience in the U.S. with high-publicity cases, e.g. Kobe Bryant, O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson, Martha Stewart, etc., I can't say I disagree with the need to restrict press coverage from time to time.

While you may feel sequestering a jury to be reasonable, the judicial system here feels that it is a considerable hardship on a jury and thus will only resort to such a remedy in very rare cases. Therefore, the other option, restricting press coverage, is adopted instead.

But again, as I said before, this is as much to prevent any press coverage from affecting potential witnesses as it is to protect the jury, and is only done by order of the judge in charge of the trial, if he/she feels that the high-profile nature of the case might warrant such an order. And even then, media outlets can challenge the order in court to have it lifted.

Therefore, I would say your charge that it is the government "censoring" the public to be a rather misguided opinion.

While I appreciate your rationale for keeping info from the public, it doesn't change the fact that the public is being denied info because the government does not believe they should have it. The U.S. does this with national security matters, but if they ever tried it with a court matter, well, it could never happen.

But the larger point I was trying to make was that this is just another example of the government (for reasons good or bad, that is another debate) seeing fit to deny info to the public for its own purposes. The orginal matter was weather Fox News was being censored in Canada for political or for legal reasons concerning carrier licensing. Some here state that purely political censoring of something like Fox would not happen, but the court cases show censorship (again, justified or not is another debate) in the public arena for something other than national security does take place. And when you have precedence, you have possibility.

[RendeR]

You got nothing.

and everyone else here knows it.

[Bubba Wheels]

You got nothing.

and everyone else here knows it.

So your the voice of the great unwashed masses, eh? Speaking of dictators...

[RendeR]

You've spent this entire page running in circles, you don't have an argument left that hasn't been shown to be little more than misinformation and your own warped perspective on things.

For crying out loud your a right wing conservative you oughta be HAPPY they blacked out the trial.

Do everyone a favor, shut up, figure out what the hell your talking about, then sit quietly and be happy that you have that much going for you.

[MJ4H]

Not that I necessarily agree with Bubba, but I don't like being spoken for in that manner. And yes, "everyone else" here includes me. I was content to just read this thread, but now I feel I must post to point out that, no, not everyone is included in "everyone else here knows it."

Probably smarter just to speak for yourself in these type conversations.

[Bubba Wheels]

You've spent this entire page running in circles, you don't have an argument left that hasn't been shown to be little more than misinformation and your own warped perspective on things.

For crying out loud your a right wing conservative you oughta be HAPPY they blacked out the trial.

Do everyone a favor, shut up, figure out what the hell your talking about, then sit quietly and be happy that you have that much going for you.

If that's really the case, then why do you keep showing up here?

[RendeR]

Because you keep trolling and I'm bored, why else?

now do you have any VALID arguments to make for the comments you made? or shall we just call this thread closed on account of your lack of interest in getting a clue?


Matt: you're right, I shouldn't have spoken for everyone, I made the mistake of ASSUMING that everyone else around here was seeing the obvious in bubbas stupidity, alas I seem to have been wrong. I'll try not to assume so much of people.

[sterlingice]

So your the voice of the great unwashed masses, eh? Speaking of dictators...
How many of the "unwashed masses" have to speak up before they're no longer a bunch of dictators but rather the unwashed masses?

SI

[MJ4H]

Just remember that just because you believe something is stupid does not mean everyone else does. In my opinion, your behavior in this thread has been more offensive than Bubba's. By a good margin. But that's my opinion, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to share it. That would be up to them.

[Bubba Wheels]

Because you keep trolling and I'm bored, why else?

now do you have any VALID arguments to make for the comments you made? or shall we just call this thread closed on account of your lack of interest in getting a clue?


Matt: you're right, I shouldn't have spoken for everyone, I made the mistake of ASSUMING that everyone else around here was seeing the obvious in bubbas stupidity, alas I seem to have been wrong. I'll try not to assume so much of people.

RendeR, other than name-calling, I haven't seen a shred of anything from you to contribute. And yet there you go, claiming that I've got nothing. Maybe alot of good folks here do not agree with me, but you seem to be assuming alot more than just speaking for others. Maybe you should start 'assuming' that you've got a little 'stupidity' of your own to account for.

Most people are followers. Fewer are leaders. Some are independents. But most who think themselves not leaders and think themselves 'independents' are really just followers. Followers are always easy to identify. They are the ones that never have ANY ideas, good or bad.

[Fonzie]

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/explode.gif

[Bubba Wheels]

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/explode.gif

Blimey! Jolly good show, bloke! Wot, not? Care for some bangers?

[RendeR]

Wow, by god you're right, I haven't suggested a thing, in fact all I've done is called you out on your own statements, and instead of answering for any of them, admitting your trolling and blatant disregard for quoting things as they were stated and not altered to fit your opinion, you try to turn this around into some sort moral high ground for yourself.

Whatever, you've made your statements, you've added to your reputation. I don't need to say anything further.

[Bubba Wheels]

Wow, by god you're right, I haven't suggested a thing, in fact all I've done is called you out on your own statements, and instead of answering for any of them, admitting your trolling and blatant disregard for quoting things as they were stated and not altered to fit your opinion, you try to turn this around into some sort moral high ground for yourself.

Whatever, you've made your statements, you've added to your reputation. I don't need to say anything further.

So you claim! Opinions are like...well, in your case...headcovers

[Suicane75]

I put on my robe and wizards hat and cast +3 Negate this thread.

[Chubby]

Ha! I feel like Bobby Fischer here, playing all those guys at chess at once. If you don't think that the abortion business is big business, and that bucks from that big business are not getting into the political system and influencing votes for it, then you really are hopelessly naive.
You're right, and also bucks from right-wing nutjobs like yourself are not getting into the political system :rolleyes:

[Bubba Wheels]

You're right, and also bucks from right-wing nutjobs like yourself are not getting into the political system :rolleyes:

So, according to you, only 'right-wing nutjobs' do not favor abortion? Your a pretty tolerant lefty.

[Chubby]

So, according to you, only 'right-wing nutjobs' do not favor abortion? Your a pretty tolerant lefty.

I'm ambidextrous.

What if the fetus was going to be gay? Can we abort it then?

Good to see you've swerved the thread back into abortion from the supposed censorship that doesn't exist in Canada...

[Chubby]

I put on my robe and wizards hat and cast +3 Negate this thread.

Bubba has his Cloak of Ignorance on so it won't work on him.

[Bubba Wheels]

I'm ambidextrous.

What if the fetus was going to be gay? Can we abort it then?

Good to see you've swerved the thread back into abortion from the supposed censorship that doesn't exist in Canada...

Calling it 'fetus', although medically correct, still doesn't make it less than human life. Does protecting partial-birth abortion fill your sail with wind also?

[Chubby]

Calling it 'fetus', although medically correct, still doesn't make it less than human life.


You didn't answer the question.

If the fetus is going to be gay then can we abort it?

[Bubba Wheels]

You didn't answer the question.

If the fetus is going to be gay then can we abort it?

How long is a string?

[Chubby]

How long is a string?
It's a simple yes or no question. We all know how you don't like to answer questions but just avoid them and spout rhetoric so I'll keep asking til you answer.

If a fetus is going to be gay can we abort it?

[Bubba Wheels]

It's a simple yes or no question. We all know how you don't like to answer questions but just avoid them and spout rhetoric so I'll keep asking til you answer.

If a fetus is going to be gay can we abort it?

You have to answer my question first, how long is a string?

[Chubby]

You have to answer my question first, how long is a string?
No no no see I ask a question then you answer. THEN you ask a question, I answer.

If a fetus is going to be gay then can we abort it?

It's a simple yes or no question, even a simpleton like you can type Y...E...S... or N...O...

[Bubba Wheels]

No no no see I ask a question then you answer. THEN you ask a question, I answer.

If a fetus is going to be gay then can we abort it?

It's a simple yes or no question, even a simpleton like you can type Y...E...S... or N...O...

You also never answered weather you favored partial-birth abortions or not. So that's 2 questions your ducking.

[Chubby]

You also never answered weather you favored partial-birth abortions or not. So that's 2 questions your ducking.

Sure I did but I'll answer it again. I am in favor of leaving any and all abortion decisions up to the woman.

Do you think you are Confucious? "If a bear shits in the woods does it make a sound?" A piece of string is however long you make it. Besides the fact that that isn't a yes or no question.

If a fetus is going to be gay can we abort it? Still waiting......

[Bubba Wheels]

Sure I did but I'll answer it again. I am in favor of leaving any and all abortion decisions up to the woman.

Do you think you are Confucious? "If a bear shits in the woods does it make a sound?" A piece of string is however long you make it. Besides the fact that that isn't a yes or no question.

If a fetus is going to be gay can we abort it? Still waiting......

Well, your either a dummy or a smart ass, but I don't believe in abortion, thought that was clear enough.

[Chubby]

Well, your either a dummy or a smart ass, but I don't believe in abortion, thought that was clear enough.

So you support the birth of gay babies then? I'm just trying to nail down your position.

[Suicane75]

If a fetus is going to be gay can we abort it?


Is it going to end up on the Price Is Right?

[Chubby]

Is it going to end up on the Prices Right?
Shush, you're getting ahead of the conversation. You have to take things sloooooooow with Bubba.

[Bubba Wheels]

Shush, you're getting ahead of the conversation. You have to take things sloooooooow with Bubba.

Ok Tiger, you got the goods on me

[Chubby]

Ok Tiger, you got the goods on me
So you support the brith of gay babies right?

See, this is what I'm talking about. People have to ask you the same question like 10 times before you answer.

[nilodor]

I saw this thread and thought; hey great, a thread about canada. I was sadly mistaken.

[sterlingice]

I saw this thread and thought; hey great, a thread about canada. I was sadly mistaken.
You couldn't have been more wrong. It was about Canadia for a few seconds but that's about it.

SI

[Rich1033]

This all started over the freakin fox news channel? Wow.

[Schedule Junkie]

While I appreciate your rationale for keeping info from the public, it doesn't change the fact that the public is being denied info because the government does not believe they should have it. Nonsense. The public was perfectly free to attend the trial, as were reporters. The restrictions are only on what the reporter can publish, and this solely to ensure a proper trial. On a high-profile case, no judge is going to want to make a decision which may cause an eventual appeal of a conviction. Thus, the tendancy to err on the side of caution when it comes to the possibility of influencing the jury or witnesses.

Again, since decision to ban or restrict media coverage is made on an individual basis on matters of law which are reviewable and can be challeged, calling it some kind of blanket "government sponsored censorship" which invokes visions of Stalinist Russia is a rather unfair statement.


But the larger point I was trying to make was that this is just another example of the government ... seeing fit to deny info to the public for its own purposes. The orginal matter was weather Fox News was being censored in Canada for political or for legal reasons concerning carrier licensing. It's the latter. And eventually, Fox and other networks will wind up on Canadian cable. But not without a lot of wrangling, but that's always the case whenever new cable networks/channels are created and fighting for a spot on the roster of available cable channels. The process usually involved shifting channels around to new numbers and none of the ones already present like that, so they factor into the fight as well.

And as someone said uptopic some, it's also about money.

Really, if you're going to worry about us, maybe you ought to start with the fact that we have a state-run health care system... I mean, that's downright socialist!! :D

[Crapshoot]

My god, I can't stand Chubby, and even then- I find Bubba's little dance hilarious- does he have to keep posting the same question multiple times ? Bubba- if a baby is gay, should it be aborted ? Isn't it sinful to let it live ? :D

[RendeR]

*sits and smiles contentedly.*

[SirFozzie]

Ahem, I haven't said this for several months, but.. I feel like pulling out this in honor of this thread.


KIRBY PUCKETT! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, KIRBY PUCKETT!

[Bubba Wheels]

My god, I can't stand Chubby, and even then- I find Bubba's little dance hilarious- does he have to keep posting the same question multiple times ? Bubba- if a baby is gay, should it be aborted ? Isn't it sinful to let it live ? :D

Your premise is flawed. Babies are not born gay, they become so afterward. Best explanation I get is some kind of 'imprinting' takes place in the early years that cause the tendency in the first place. Also, studies have shown boys without fathers can be more easily influenced that way, and kids living under same-sex unions have a higher percentage of 'experimentation' with the same sex since the usual prohibitive barriers do not exist in that situation.

[RendeR]

your response is just as flawed BW, there is no evidence of any cause, genetic or learned, for homosexuality. The studies you suggest could easily be countered by studies done that say just the opposite. There is no conclusive evidence either way.

This is why the whole gay/right/wrong discussion always falls apart, it becomes a matter of personal choice as to wether its acceptable or not. The problem is, those who say its not seem to think they have some right to legislate that choice away from everyone.

and your quote "Babies are not born gay, they become so afterward" is complete speculation, you don't actually know, no one actually knows.

[Chubby]

Your premise is flawed. Babies are not born religous quacks, they become so afterward. Best explanation I get is some kind of 'imprinting' takes place in the early years that cause the tendency in the first place. Also, studies have shown boys without fathers can be more easily influenced that way, and kids living under religous nutjobs such as myself have a higher percentage of 'experimentation' with bigotry since the usual prohibitive barriers do not exist in that situation.

So i guess being a religous quack and being gay aren't that different in your mind afterall.

Homosexuality is determined at birth, of course you think science is a farce so you will refuse to see that. You know, they say that the biggest homophobes are usually gay...

[RendeR]

So i guess being a religous quack and being gay aren't that different in your mind afterall.

Homosexuality is determined at birth, of course you think science is a farce so you will refuse to see that. You know, they say that the biggest homophobes are usually gay...


not to alienate a fellow bubba basher, but wht I said to him goes for you as well, there is no conclusive evidence either way, your comments too, are mere speculation and opinion on your part.

[Chubby]

not to alienate a fellow bubba basher, but wht I said to him goes for you as well, there is no conclusive evidence either way, your comments too, are mere speculation and opinion on your part.

I know, I began writing before I saw your post. I agree there's no definitive evidence but I don't want to edit in "It's my belief" in case Bubba wants to go on a "You changed what you said" routine.

[Bubba Wheels]

So i guess being a religous quack and being gay aren't that different in your mind afterall.

Homosexuality is determined at birth, of course you think science is a farce so you will refuse to see that. You know, they say that the biggest homophobes are usually gay...

True science never contradicts the Bible, usually its just ignorance about what the Bible really says that causes all the confusion. Then someone comes along and starts claiming the Bible is not accurate because of something(s) the Catholic Church did or allowed way back when. Very predictable cycle of events that is always recycled by the scoffers.

For instance, in one of the Psalms, the Bible describes the world as a 'sphere', years before the birth of Capernicus. Yet the whole episode involving him and the Catholic Church is usually dredged up by the scoffers as 'evidence' in the Bible's lack of 'scientific fact." Not to mention, of course, what usually comes next (i.e. Crusades, Inquisition, ect...)

[RendeR]

CHUBBY: Good point. You admitted the difference, so its all good.





edited to clarify who I was speaking to.

[Coffee Warlord]

Come visit my webcam!

[RendeR]

True science never contradicts the Bible


you never tire of making statements based on absolutely no real evidence whatsoever, do you?

Now beyond being a self-stated bible efficianado, what qualifies you to make this claim? Even with your loophole for argueing that its generally someone's ignorance that makes it look that way, you really have to offer something up besides your opinion to support this one.

[Bubba Wheels]

you never tire of making statements based on absolutely no real evidence whatsoever, do you?

Now beyond being a self-stated bible efficianado, what qualifies you to make this claim? Even with your loophole for argueing that its generally someone's ignorance that makes it look that way, you really have to offer something up besides your opinion to support this one.

This was already covered somewhat extensively in a previous post. Dinosaurs is the thing I remember being discussed, ect...

BTW, I am hearing on one of the News channels that Noah's Ark may have been spotted and satellite pictures taken on top of Mt. Ararat. Seems some scientists are looking to put together a team of climbers of the top 3 faiths (Jew, Christian, Muslim) and even atheists to go find it.

[RendeR]

True science never contradicts the Bible, usually its just ignorance about what the Bible really says that causes all the confusion. Then someone comes along and starts claiming the Bible is not accurate because of something(s) the Catholic Church did or allowed way back when. Very predictable cycle of events that is always recycled by the scoffers.

For instance, in one of the Psalms, the Bible describes the world as a 'sphere', years before the birth of Capernicus. Yet the whole episode involving him and the Catholic Church is usually dredged up by the scoffers as 'evidence' in the Bible's lack of 'scientific fact." Not to mention, of course, what usually comes next (i.e. Crusades, Inquisition, ect...)


Actually, let me add something, just for you, since you say I never offer anything.

The bible offer no scientific facts, because, by definition a scientific fact must be based on science, theory, followed by experimentation, followed by conclusion. This doesn't happen in the bible. As written the word of christendom is supposedly to love all people and live a good and honest life, by following the scriptures ideals for such things. yes, thats a bit generalized, I admit.

But trying to refute scientific arguments by relying on biblical text is never going to carry any weight, as there is no scientific evidence to back up what the bible says. I'm not talking about the huge numbers of studies, digs, translations etc etc that have been done in the last thousand years, I'm talking of the bible itself, there is no experimentation to prove a theory in the bible, hence, the text of the bible can never be considered scientific in any sense of the word.

[RendeR]

This was already covered somewhat extensively in a previous post. Dinosaurs is the thing I remember being discussed, ect...

BTW, I am hearing on one of the News channels that Noah's Ark may have been spotted and satellite pictures taken on top of Mt. Ararat. Seems some scientists are looking to put together a team of climbers of the top 3 faiths (Jew, Christian, Muslim) and even atheists to go find it.


yes I've watched the documentaries on NGEO and discovery channel too. I hope they find it, it will prove that at least one of the stories included in the bible was based on a real event. It doesn't make the bible a viable historical reference however. Unfortunately, Turkey hasn't allowed anyone into the region in almost a decade, who knows when they'll open the mountain up again.

[Telle]

True science never contradicts the Bible

That is your belief. That does not mean that it is fact. Also, it is unprovable because even if all science to date has not contradicted the Bible (which I doubt is true) there is no way of knowing that it never will. You state this simply upon your belief that the Bible is inerrant and thus can never be contradicted.. however, your belief does not make something fact.

[Subby]

Please.

Only an atheist calls them dinosaurs. Please use the approved "Jesus Horses" instead.

Thanks.

[Bubba Wheels]

Please.

Only an atheist calls them dinosaurs. Please use the approved "Jesus Horses" instead.

Thanks.

Was this a joke? I guess you have to be an atheist to find it funny, maybe if you check out some library books from the 'humor' section though, who knows what your true long-time potential might be?

[Schedule Junkie]

True science never contradicts the Bible ... I can think of one thing straight off:

In "Genesis" it describes the Earth as being created by God in six days. The formation of the Earth took a heck of a lot longer than six days...

...or is it your contention that the use of the word "day" in the Bible was mistranslated from the original source and it should've said in English something like "epochs" or "eons" or "millions of years"?

By the way, what do you mean exactly by "true science"? What then, by extension, is "false science"?

[RendeR]

I can think of one thing straight off:

In "Genesis" it describes the Earth as being created by God in six days. The formation of the Earth took a heck of a lot longer than six days...

...or is it your contention that the use of the word "day" in the Bible was mistranslated from the original source and it should've said in English something like "epochs" or "eons" or "millions of years"?

By the way, what do you mean exactly by "true science"? What then, by extension, is "false science"?


Please note that Bubba only chooses to respond to posts that have no real bearing on teh discussion. He seems to feel that giving a valid answer to anything (see string of questions by another member earlier in the thread) is not worth his time or effort. he will however choose a completely different topic and spout a slanted and unsupported opinion on it.