Why Democrats can't win back the House

[SciFiAuthor]

I'll list two:
My church
And MV/This web site

Please take this opportunity to fuck off and die

What the hell are you doing in a church? If liberalism should have taught you anything it's that there is no god and you shouldn't be worrying about that shit. If there is a god, then Christianity teaches you that you're going to roast your ass off for being an abortionist so you shouldn't be worrying about that shit once again. You can't just form-fit religion to your political views; God is not made of Play Dough, he's the ultimate absolutist that makes a point of judging the shit out of those that don't do what he says. Now, that doesn't mean churches are bad charities, so what's the money going for?

As far as this website, with all respect to MV and you providing the forum for which I am thankful . . . it's not feeding fucking Uganda here. It's Bellgab, not the Salvation Army. If I go up to some dude next to the railroad track that hasn't bathed since April and is clutching a bottle in a paper bag and ask him "What has Bellgab done for you?" he's not going to say "MV was like a white angel in the night, handing me this bottle of peach schnapps and saying that he feels my butthurt."

And if he does say that, I will fully admit to being wrong and slink off to the corner.

Jeeezus Dubb.

[SciFiAuthor]

gobs of Liberal kansas volunteers .... 

http://www.mosaicinfo.org/liberal/ways_2_help/volunteer.htm

Looks like a political action group to get Democrats elected. What the fuck are they actually doing? I see shit about housing or whatnot, but I also see obviously political leanings. Are there strings attached? How much volunteering actually goes on? Why are they fucking around with Latvia, it's a developing EU country experiencing dramatically increasing affluence, why not Congo? Not satisfying.

[pate]

Funny how the writer could do a whole article on the House elections and avoid mentioning gerrymandering.

I don't know, maybe the author wanted to get published?

lGerry mandering is what, an old 18oo's notion? (19th century?)  I think it was refinde (I'll spell check myself thankyouverymuch) in the 20th century.  where are we now, and why is Gerrymandering such a diffiCULT thing for the Rethuglikkkans? 

I always vote Rethuglikkkan, not because I like them, but because I despise Democraps.

Tell me Democrap Party how you stood on racial integration, oh say 70 years ago?

Tell me again how the Rethuglikkkan Party is racist?

This is the Politics thread, right?

Can any Democrap explain to me how you did indeed diverge from the Communist Party back in the heydays, and why I should vote for a Communist today?

Just sayin'


I will NEVER vote/botherwith/listen to a Democrap...

[onan]

Oh cut that shit out Onan. You point out problem after problem and preach away, but you're the guy we pay to fix them as far as mental health or at least tell us what the fuck's wrong and you couldn't fucking give me a satisfying answer when I asked where the specific hang-ups in the system were. So I'll do it again, give me a real charity that does real good where I can find liberals and I'll go to the fucking thing and report back. Let's live in truth. I'm willing. But I sure as fuck don't see them in the sandwich kitchen in St. Louis.

Wow, what the fuck crawled up our ass? Your position is irrational. Liberals do not volunteer was your point. That is simply stupid. What the fuck is a "real" charity?

[SciFiAuthor]

Wow, what the fuck crawled up our ass? Your position is irrational. Liberals do not volunteer was your point. That is simply stupid. What the fuck is a "real" charity?

No, my point was that most liberals don't volunteer, or they say they do for some bullshit about a church. WTF? A church??? What the fuck is a church doing in here? You don't buy that shit, so let's talk about these liberals in here talking about donating to churches. Shall we?

A real charity is one that actually does real good on the ground. Not some feel good crap to pat one's self on the back and say one did something while sipping a latte, or some garbage about a fucking church that a liberal theoretically should fundamentally disagree with on a fundamental basis, or of they don't then it's a dumbed down crap church that appoints gay bishops despite god being clear on the matter because they're liberals scared shitless of dying. It's a fucking illusion Onan, you know that. The big charities are corporations, you know that too, and this shit about churches from these people (other than you) makes me want to barf. Why the fuck are they going to church?

God damn it. People giving to bullshit "causes" and going all churchy. Just prescribe me some Prozac so I can ignore this thread. Fuck. Delusional.

[Yorkshire pud]

I think it's a bit troubling that being charitable is seen as a political thing, (Although I appreciate that in the USA 'Liberal' has been bastardised to not mean it's literal meaning)  In the UK we tend to volunteer/ doneoate/ participate in fund raising because it's a good idea and not because of political persuasion. I know of no charity that asks/ demands/ expects any political declaration before it lets someone work or volunteer for it.

I've been involved in a children's charity where at no time has politics been brought into the fund raising. The volunteers and those within it couldn't care less who you voted for; it isn't important. The kids and the families who will benefit from it do.

I see it in simple terms; Do you wish to help this charity? Are you prepared to approach it and ask what you can do? Do you want to help if they tell you what is involved? I don't see where it says "On condition you voted for x y z at the last election"

[Yorkshire pud]

No, my point was that most liberals don't volunteer, or they say they do for some bullshit about a church. WTF? A church??? What the fuck is a church doing in here? You don't buy that shit, so let's talk about these liberals in here talking about donating to churches. Shall we?

A real charity is one that actually does real good on the ground. Not some feel good crap to pat one's self on the back and say one did something while sipping a latte, or some garbage about a fucking church that a liberal theoretically should fundamentally disagree with on a fundamental basis, or of they don't then it's a dumbed down crap church that appoints gay bishops despite god being clear on the matter because they're liberals scared shitless of dying. It's a fucking illusion Onan, you know that. The big charities are corporations, you know that too, and this shit about churches from these people (other than you) makes me want to barf. Why the fuck are they going to church?

God damn it. People giving to bullshit "causes" and going all churchy. Just prescribe me some Prozac so I can ignore this thread. Fuck. Delusional.

Bloody hell; you had a bad night didn't you? 

[SciFiAuthor]

Wow, what the fuck crawled up our ass? Your position is irrational. Liberals do not volunteer was your point. That is simply stupid. What the fuck is a "real" charity?

And, of course, I repeat that I'm willing to head to any liberal charity in the metro St. Louis area and check it out and report back. Just give me one. I'll do cell phone vids, and then let's compare conservative charity to liberal charity. After all, the end result should be positive, right? Then we'll know the truth. But I want something that actually helps people and doesn't indoctrinate them or isn't some bullshit about volunteering people that make 15 grand a year to learn about the power of solar panels they can't afford.

[SciFiAuthor]

Bloody hell; you had a bad night didn't you? 

Hello Yorkie! *Slips in the tongue*

Nah, just being a shit disturber.

[SciFiAuthor]

I think it's a bit troubling that being charitable is seen as a political thing, (Although I appreciate that in the USA 'Liberal' has been bastardised to not mean it's literal meaning)  In the UK we tend to volunteer/ doneoate/ participate in fund raising because it's a good idea and not because of political persuasion. I know of no charity that asks/ demands/ expects any political declaration before it lets someone work or volunteer for it.

I've been involved in a children's charity where at no time has politics been brought into the fund raising. The volunteers and those within it couldn't care less who you voted for; it isn't important. The kids and the families who will benefit from it do.

I see it in simple terms; Do you wish to help this charity? Are you prepared to approach it and ask what you can do? Do you want to help if they tell you what is involved? I don't see where it says "On condition you voted for x y z at the last election"

I won't contest. Be charitable to be charitable for Christ's sake. Don't do it because you're scared shitless of death and hoping some god might smile on you. Liberal Christians? What the holy fuck? Just do it to donate time and effort to make a better world. Jesus. And totally don't do it for political reasons. So I concede to you. If you're out to help kids, great, I'm out to give sandwiches to homeless people. This is not bad, we're just being effective on the ground.

[onan]

No, my point was that most liberals don't volunteer, or they say they do for some bullshit about a church. WTF? A church??? What the fuck is a church doing in here? You don't buy that shit, so let's talk about these liberals in here talking about donating to churches. Shall we?

A real charity is one that actually does real good on the ground. Not some feel good crap to pat one's self on the back and say one did something while sipping a latte, or some garbage about a fucking church that a liberal theoretically should fundamentally disagree with on a fundamental basis, or of they don't then it's a dumbed down crap church that appoints gay bishops despite god being clear on the matter because they're liberals scared shitless of dying. It's a fucking illusion Onan, you know that. The big charities are corporations, you know that too, and this shit about churches from these people (other than you) makes me want to barf. Why the fuck are they going to church?

God damn it. People giving to bullshit "causes" and going all churchy. Just prescribe me some Prozac so I can ignore this thread. Fuck. Delusional.

I wish good deeds always produced the perfect fix, exactly as I wanted. I wish there weren't stupid people. But not all charities are going to move mountains.

How one feels about themselves for (take your pick) doing a good deed... what's the harm? Although, in a hypothetical discussion, doing good deeds for a reward in an after life does seem to diminish the work. But in the real world some people want to help, some of them are liberal. If someone wants to help; I am all for letting them.

The church stuff, who should or shouldn't be involved... fuck if I know. I don't go to church. I am by almost all measure an atheist. Yet I give a good chunk of change to a local religious organization. Does that make me inconsistent?

[b_dubb]

It isn't pretty when dolphins go on a bender

[pate]

I think it's a bit troubling that being charitable is seen as a political thing, (Although I appreciate that in the USA 'Liberal' has been bastardised to not mean it's literal meaning)  In the UK we tend to volunteer/ doneoate/ participate in fund raising because it's a good idea and not because of political persuasion. I know of no charity that asks/ demands/ expects any political declaration before it lets someone work or volunteer for it.

I've been involved in a children's charity where at no time has politics been brought into the fund raising. The volunteers and those within it couldn't care less who you voted for; it isn't important. The kids and the families who will benefit from it do.

I see it in simple terms; Do you wish to help this charity? Are you prepared to approach it and ask what you can do? Do you want to help if they tell you what is involved? I don't see where it says "On condition you voted for x y z at the last election"

I love it when socialism cloaks itself in religion...

I haven't even read this one:

http://unitedchristianschurch.com/blog/2014/02/11/christianity-vs-socialism-communism/

The first few paragraphs seem to reconcile it all...

The way I see it, most religions do not DEMAND that you take care of the poor, they ask you to look to your heart, your Diety to give you a reason...  To give to those filthy poor oppressed etc... whichever..

Let's call them Yanks.

I don't need to be told that the poor need my helping hand, I do offer it from time to time.

What bothers me is that some people like to assume that no helping hand is ever offered from private individuals, and thus the world needs a government to look out for those unfortunate souls...

Sort of removes the need for people like myself.  My judgement of need is no longer relevant (even though I vote and am willing to be a part of the society) I do not choose to help those that I see that I feel can't/won't/don't help themselves.  Therefore my idea of society is 'anathema' and subject to dismissal...

My private humanism is over-ruled by the governmental humanism, and that is for the benefit of all of us...

THAT is how we solve the problem of poverty?

[onan]

I love it when socialism cloaks itself in religion...

I haven't even read this one:

http://unitedchristianschurch.com/blog/2014/02/11/christianity-vs-socialism-communism/

The first few paragraphs seem to reconcile it all...

The way I see it, most religions do not DEMAND that you take care of the poor, they ask you to look to your heart, your Diety to give you a reason...  To give to those filthy poor oppressed etc... whichever..

Let's call them Yanks.

I don't need to be told that the poor need my helping hand, I do offer it from time to time.

What bothers me is that some people like to assume that no helping hand is ever offered from private individuals, and thus the world needs a government to look out for those unfortunate souls...

Sort of removes the need for people like myself.  My judgement of need is no longer relevant (even though I vote and am willing to be a part of the society) I do not choose to help those that I see that I feel can't/won't/don't help themselves.  Therefore my idea of society is 'anathema' and subject to dismissal...

My private humanism is over-ruled by the governmental humanism, and that is for the benefit of all of us...

THAT is how we solve the problem of poverty?

It doesn't have to be an either or, unless one is looking for a way out.

[pate]

I am absolutely looking for a way out of communism, and socialism.  The proponents of which tell me that I have a way out;  I don't participate, I don't congregate in short I am not welcome and am encouraged to show myself the door...

Where then go I?

Not suicide, because my personal morality forbids it.

[Yorkshire pud]

I am absolutely looking for a way out of communism, and socialism.  The proponents of which tell me that I have a way out;  I don't participate, I don't congregate in short I am not welcome and am encouraged to show myself the door...

Where then go I?

Not suicide, because my personal morality forbids it.

What is this communism you have subscribed to? If you're not happy with living in such a system get out of it. Communism is a collective and mutually consenting societal model. It doesn't ask that you leave or demand that you stay, up to you.

I'm still curious where it is you live though.

[WildCard]

I am absolutely looking for a way out of communism, and socialism.  The proponents of which tell me that I have a way out;  I don't participate, I don't congregate in short I am not welcome and am encouraged to show myself the door...

Where then go I?

Not suicide, because my personal morality forbids it.

Galt's Gulch or Bust!

[SciFiAuthor]

I wish good deeds always produced the perfect fix, exactly as I wanted. I wish there weren't stupid people. But not all charities are going to move mountains.

How one feels about themselves for (take your pick) doing a good deed... what's the harm? Although, in a hypothetical discussion, doing good deeds for a reward in an after life does seem to diminish the work. But in the real world some people want to help, some of them are liberal. If someone wants to help; I am all for letting them.

The church stuff, who should or shouldn't be involved... fuck if I know. I don't go to church. I am by almost all measure an atheist. Yet I give a good chunk of change to a local religious organization. Does that make me inconsistent?

Well, not all charities are really charities. The bigger they get the more corporate they become and more money goes to management than doing good. At that point they just become businesses. They may be non-profit, but people are taking salaries.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't help. I'm saying that the reality of the world is that most people don't, and those that do are doing so because of a fear of God. Take away that and you end up with the vast majority of liberals. We all know them: the narcissistic self-centered foodie in Starbuck's complaining that the blonde roast wasn't up to snuff this morning before promptly dropping their face into the Iphone for the day. These people are not donating Onan, on any level.

Actually, no, you're not inconsistent at all. The most effective local charity I found was a preacher working North St. Louis. He runs a sandwich kitchen. So I go down there, pick him up and we buy sandwich materials, air conditioners when it gets hot, etc. The guy is great. He's got every denomination you can think of down there, including atheists, agnostics, muslims, etc. The one thing he doesn't have are the latte liberals. But it's a good charity because I don't have to give money (even though I do), only materials, and I can sit there and make sandwiches and hand them out and see that it's a real charity.

[SciFiAuthor]

What is this communism you have subscribed to? If you're not happy with living in such a system get out of it. Communism is a collective and mutually consenting societal model. It doesn't ask that you leave or demand that you stay, up to you.

I'm still curious where it is you live though.

Getting out of communism usually meant getting purged by Uncle Joe or run over by a steamroller in China. Not a friendly bunch, the communists. But I think he means the socialist standards by which most western nations are run today, and I don't blame him for wanting out. But I guarantee if he decides not to participate, i.e. not paying taxes, he's not free to do so. Men with guns will show up and imprison him.

[Yorkshire pud]

Getting out of communism usually meant getting purged by Uncle Joe or run over by a steamroller in China. Not a friendly bunch, the communists. But I think he means the socialist standards by which most western nations are run today, and I don't blame him for wanting out. But I guarantee if he decides not to participate, i.e. not paying taxes, he's not free to do so. Men with guns will show up and imprison him.

Uncle Joe imprisoned communists. If they were lucky, they were put to death quickly. Uncle Joe was no communist; he was devious enough to jump on the tails of the revolution that usurped the Tsars in 1917, that brought in the peoples revolution, who didn't want to be ruled again by elitists. That was short lived when it was hijacked by another elitist masquerading as 'one of the people'. As they had nothing to compare with, they fell into line and the rest as they say is history.

[PB the Deplorable]

Uncle Joe imprisoned communists. If they were lucky, they were put to death quickly. Uncle Joe was no communist; he was devious enough to jump on the tails of the revolution that usurped the Tsars in 1917, that brought in the peoples revolution, who didn't want to be ruled again by elitists. That was short lived when it was hijacked by another elitist masquerading as 'one of the people'. As they had nothing to compare with, they fell into line and the rest as they say is history.

Pud, there is more to Marxism than simply creating and running collective businesses.

Karl Marx and his friends such as Engels spent years thinking and writing.  Their works include far more than what can be boiled down to 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'.  Much much more.

They were armchair revolutionaries.  Much of it was about current systems being overthrown and establishing a new order.  They thought it would happen by itself, but encouraged people to help the process along.  'Workers of the world unite!' wasn't just a peaceful call to organize.  He was an agitator, and worked to pit management and owners against labor. 

Lenin once lamented that Marx taught them how to create a revolution and overthrow a government, but not how to govern afterward (sorry, I couldn't find the actual quote).


I realize you want Marxism to be idyllic, limited to a few small farm and businesses collectives operating in bliss, but that's not what he spent his lifetime writing about and trying to accomplish.  Far from it. 

You may want to dig a little deeper and find out why everyone who claims to be following Marx, and who gets a chance, ends up murdering millions, threatening their neighbors, and destroying their country.  I think it's happened enough to be considered a trend, if not an inevitability.  In fact, can you show me even one of these places that hasn't ended up this way without outside intervention nipping them early on (like, say, Grenada).

Since your understanding of Marxism is limited, it's not a surprise you insist Obama isn't one.

[PB the Deplorable]

Gerrymandering is wrong and should be eliminated.  Districts shouldn't be set up in order to provide a 'safe seat' for an individual or a party, or set up to maximize the number of seats a certain party will likely win, or be set up in order that a certain group will have 'their' seat.

States should be redistricted in a way that neighbors and regions are together in the same district.  In large urban areas with multiple districts, the districts would be shaped like pie slices.  Small towns and the surrounding area would be together in one district.  Suburbia and surrounding rural areas would be placed in districts together based on natural boundaries like rivers and mountain ranges (although a community on both sides of a large river should be in the same district, and not separated based on which side of the river one is on).

Most, if not nearly all districts should contain all different kinds of people, although perhaps united by what is best for the town or part of town they all live in.  As many districts as possible should be competitive, and the turnover rate of the elected officials should be high.

[SciFiAuthor]

Uncle Joe imprisoned communists. If they were lucky, they were put to death quickly. Uncle Joe was no communist; he was devious enough to jump on the tails of the revolution that usurped the Tsars in 1917, that brought in the peoples revolution, who didn't want to be ruled again by elitists. That was short lived when it was hijacked by another elitist masquerading as 'one of the people'. As they had nothing to compare with, they fell into line and the rest as they say is history.

Uncle Joe imprisoned perceived enemies. He wasn't imprisoning them for being communists because doing so would have undermined his efforts for collectivization. He actually did quite a lot as far as nationalization and rapid industrialization; all goals originally of Lenin.

I believe the best way to describe Stalin was as a paranoid communist trying to do what the other communists were doing: come up with a personal brand of communism (Maoism, Leninism, Trotskyism etc.) and hoping to fuck that an unworkable idea could eventually be made to function. But make no mistake, communism was Stalin's ultimate goal just like everyone else. He simply was the first to hedge his bet through totalitarianism, something Lenin failed miserably to do, so did Bela Kun, etc.

The only difference between Stalin and his predecessors in communism is that they thought they would have permanent power through the power of their ideas. Lenin was too weak to do anything about Stalin until it was too late because he'd failed to anticipate what Stalin would do. Bela Kun thought himself invincible through public will. Stalin knew that to maintain power and reach communism, an iron fist would be required.

So yeah, he was a communist. Just the same as Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh or Castro. The difference being that some communists point to the ideology of others, such as Marx and Engels, but others make the ideology their own.

[SciFiAuthor]

It isn't pretty when dolphins go on a bender

Nah, I just know that when someone is doing drive-by attacks like the turd post, just go Gordon Ramsay on their ass. I really don't mean you ill will, but you called me a turd without a substantial argument as to specifically why I'm a turd, so I unleashed my inner Satan to make a point. Prove me wrong with ideas, not attacks. My mind can be changed, Onan did it once. Nowhere may well change my opinion on something yet. Same with Yorkie, I secretly read and enjoy his aviation posts but will never admit it. Always start with constructive dialogue and let it devolve into name calling. Don't start with negativity.

[RealCool Daddio]

And, of course, I repeat that I'm willing to head to any liberal charity in the metro St. Louis area and check it out and report back. Just give me one. I'll do cell phone vids, and then let's compare conservative charity to liberal charity. After all, the end result should be positive, right? Then we'll know the truth. But I want something that actually helps people and doesn't indoctrinate them or isn't some bullshit about volunteering people that make 15 grand a year to learn about the power of solar panels they can't afford.

I'm guessing you are full of shit, but I'll bite on the off chance you aren't.

I nominate Covenant House.  They are international now, but American HQ.  A large, well regarded charity serving homeless children.  Here is the scorecard for the St. Louis chapter:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8182#.U-1BR3aCOSN

Of course, determining liberalness or conservativeness of a charity is subjective, but their president is a regular columnist for Huffington Post, works with and praises the Obama administration for their leadership fighting sex trafficking of children, and was very critical (in print) of the Tea party led government shutdown due to its impact, via reduction of services, to already at risk youth.  I trust this will pass your "liberalism" test.

If you follow up on your fact finding mission, and report your findings back here, and prove that this is a substandard charity, I will donate $250 dollars to the homeless charity of your choosing, as long as it also serves Canadians, in Canada.  If you find Covenant House to meet your charity quality standards, you will donate $250 to the St. Louis chapter. 

Do I have a bet?

http://www.covenanthouse.org/

[b_dubb]

I called you a turd because in my opinion you are a turd. You said Libs never donate to any cause/org/whatever. How do you explain PETA, NPR, PBS, greenpeace? I gave you two personal charities that I donate to and that didn't register. If it doesn't fit your Right Wing narrative you have no use for it. I wish people would unsubscribe from dogma (Left or Right). Think for yourself for a change. And when you're wrong admit you're wrong.

[SciFiAuthor]

I called you a turd because in my opinion you are a turd. You said Libs never donate to any cause/org/whatever. How do you explain PETA, NPR, PBS, greenpeace? I gave you two personal charities that I donate to and that didn't register. If it doesn't fit your Right Wing narrative you have no use for it. I wish people would unsubscribe from dogma (Left or Right). Think for yourself for a change. And when you're wrong admit you're wrong.

Yeah, but PETA, NPR, PBS and Greenpeace aren't doing anyone any good. Those aren't charities, they are special interest political groups. Greenpeace is particularly bad, do you realize that they are opposing fusion energy development? The one hope humanity has for a unified, singular, safe, entirely clean energy source . . . and they are opposing it. Why would Greenpeace oppose it? Because it promises humanity cheap and unlimited energy--which means more human growth. That's your future and your kids future and that organization is out to hobble human development in favor of a toned-down human race that lives smaller, poorer and at a static technological state. Do you really support that? I don't think you do, so don't tell me that I'm the one subscribed to a dogma here. Greenpeace is fucking evil. Question it.

Want proof? Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/fusion_greenpeace_no/

I don't buy for a moment that Greenpeace is ignorant of what fusion energy is. They're smarter than that. They want your kids to live a shitty life because an expanding developing humanity isn't good for penguins. Well, fuck your kids over and donate if you wish, but that's just following dogma to me. 

[b_dubb]

What turd said

Did someone ask you to write a term paper about Greenpeace? That question is rhetorical.

[SciFiAuthor]

I'm guessing you are full of shit, but I'll bite on the off chance you aren't.

I nominate Covenant House.  They are international now, but American HQ.  A large, well regarded charity serving homeless children.  Here is the scorecard for the St. Louis chapter:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8182#.U-1BR3aCOSN

Of course, determining liberalness or conservativeness of a charity is subjective, but their president is a regular columnist for Huffington Post, works with and praises the Obama administration for their leadership fighting sex trafficking of children, and was very critical (in print) of the Tea party led government shutdown due to its impact, via reduction of services, to already at risk youth.  I trust this will pass your "liberalism" test.

If you follow up on your fact finding mission, and report your findings back here, and prove that this is a substandard charity, I will donate $250 dollars to the homeless charity of your choosing, as long as it also serves Canadians, in Canada.  If you find Covenant House to meet your charity quality standards, you will donate $250 to the St. Louis chapter. 

Do I have a bet?

http://www.covenanthouse.org/

Almost. We shouldn't make it competitive. I agree on the part about the charity we donate to being active in Canada as well as the US, but I will match your $250 and we give regardless of what I find. If covenant house is a good charity, then we both give to it after I find out what's up. If it's a bad charity, then we find one that's good that we both agree on. I know we usually fight like cats and dogs, but on this matter I will drop the BS and do it in good faith on a human level.

[SciFiAuthor]

Did someone ask you to write a term paper about Greenpeace? That question is rhetorical.

You cited Greenpeace so I shot you down with fact. That isn't a charity, it's a movement. Just stop Dubb, you keep giving me shit that isn't charity trying to convince me that it's charity. That's just proving my point for me, man. You're shitting in the other liberal's nests with that shit, they're trying to find real charities to toss at me and you gave me fucking Greenpeace. You're telling me that making the world a better place involves funding a Ken Burns documentary on PBS. I just don't know what to say to that, it's bad thinking on every level. It wouldn't be so bad if you hadn't taken it from a free-thought POV and then countered it with dogma. Holy shit man.

Onan, Prozac, stat. Make it in your kitchen if you have to.