Forum archives » General Discussion » Tobor Takes on Oppression

« Prev Page 1 of 5 Next »

DragonXero
October 22, 2001 4:28 AM

40068

Post #22747link

kramer_vs_kramer
October 22, 2001 4:41 AM

Is "antipatriot" a word?

Post #22749link

andydougan
October 22, 2001 5:55 AM

Not if dictionary.com is to be believed.

Post #22755link

DragonXero
October 22, 2001 5:58 AM

*shrugs*
The ACLU is going to be fighting for the "Nonexistent words union".

Post #22758link

kramer_vs_kramer
October 22, 2001 6:04 AM

If this ACLU are fighting against jingoistic nonsense then count me in.

Post #22761link

DragonXero
October 22, 2001 6:12 AM

Can you make the ACLU oodles and oodles of money if they fight for your cause?
If so, you may just be the man they're looking for. Or hermaphrodite. Or woman. Or child of any gender, race, creed, color...
I'm fucked.
They're gonna sue me now, on the basis of not mentioning every single culture, gender, and variable within the human race.

Post #22763link

kramer_vs_kramer
October 22, 2001 6:24 AM

So they're like the "political correctness gone mad" squad?

Post #22764link

DragonXero
October 22, 2001 6:34 AM

That's the geist of it.
Don't ever say or do anything that may offend anyone, or you will get a lawsuit.

The KKK actually utilized the ACLU once. The group wanted to "Adopt a Highway" and the state wouldn't allow it. So, the KKK went to the ACLU, asked for help, and the ACLU got that Adopt a Highway sign put up!

Post #22766link

evil_d
October 22, 2001 6:44 AM

The ACLU is a liberal organization which often assists in the legal defense of victims of discrimination in the United States. They are, as DX implies, people who believe that freedom of speech applies to dissenters as well.

Post #22767link

DragonXero
October 22, 2001 7:01 AM

And OFTEN go overboard to win a case. More often than not, they care more about the money they will win with the overhead of an easy case than they do about defending the rights of the plaintiff.

In my opinion, it is much more damaging to the groups it defends than it is helpful.

That's okay though, the groups become stinking rich anyway.

Not to mention, while they claim "free speech", they are constantly attempting to silence anything that isn't decidedly liberal, such as a harmless phrase like "God Bless America".

Next, they're going to go for the gold: getting "In God We Trust" off our money, and making it illegal to practice religion in any way that you may actually be seen.

Then, onto making it illegal to *not* be a minority.

Post #22768link

DragonXero
October 22, 2001 7:05 AM

I bet I wouldn't get shit if I complained that I can't get a job because my hair is long.
But if I were gay, they'd throw money at me.

Post #22770link

kramer_vs_kramer
October 22, 2001 7:10 AM

Get a haircut you hippy.

Post #22772link

Spankling
October 22, 2001 8:49 AM

quote:
I bet I wouldn't get shit if I complained that I can't get a job because my hair is long.
But if I were gay, they'd throw money at me.
As if you're not gay...

Post #22776link

wirthling
October 22, 2001 8:56 AM

Ugh. Where do I begin?

quote:
Can you make the ACLU oodles and oodles of money if they fight for your cause?

The ACLU is a non-profit organization. They do not get paid by clients or seek judgments for themselves or as a percentage of what their client gets. The ACLU is funded by member dues, contributions, and grants from individuals and foundations. They receive no government funding.

quote:
If so, you may just be the man they're looking for. Or hermaphrodite. Or woman. Or child of any gender, race, creed, color...

They even fight for the rights of long-haired, Holocaust-doubting, xenophobic metaltards when their basic constitutional rights have been violated.

quote:
Don't ever say or do anything that may offend anyone, or you will get a lawsuit.

The KKK actually utilized the ACLU once. The group wanted to "Adopt a Highway" and the state wouldn't allow it. So, the KKK went to the ACLU, asked for help, and the ACLU got that Adopt a Highway sign put up!



You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, right? The ACLU stood up for an organization that has extremely unpopular views because they felt that that organization was being given less access to basic constitutional rights than others solely because of their views.

quote:
And OFTEN go overboard to win a case.

Some of the cases they take and arguments they make are a bit troublesome to me, as they tend to take an extreme "slippery-slope" arguments, but at least they are sticking to their guns. The ACLU believes that the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are unalienable and that no compromise can be made where those rights are concerned. The ACLU is consistent in that way.

quote:
More often than not, they care more about the money they will win with the overhead of an easy case than they do about defending the rights of the plaintiff.

Again, they don't make any money from the cases they win. Check your facts before posting nonsense like that.

quote:
That's okay though, the groups become stinking rich anyway.

Ah yes, we can all see how prosperous minorities have become.

quote:
Not to mention, while they claim "free speech", they are constantly attempting to silence anything that isn't decidedly liberal, such as a harmless phrase like "God Bless America".

The ACLU believes strongly in the implied separation of church and state (I say "implied" because it is not explicitly stated in the 1st Amendment, but tons of precedent has been established by the Supreme Court over the years that confirms the separation of church and state). You are free to say "God Bless America" all you want. It's different if you use public institutions (those funded by American taxpayers) to make statements about any kind of God. The concept at play here is referred to as "coercion." Since the government is supposed to be the protector of our right to practice religion (or not) however we please, it is not the government's place to actually promote any one religion.

quote:
...and making it illegal to practice religion in any way that you may actually be seen.

Pure and utter bollocks.

quote:
Then, onto making it illegal to *not* be a minority.

See above.

quote:
I bet I wouldn't get shit if I complained that I can't get a job because my hair is long.

You're correct. Unless you could show that you have long hair for religious reasons health reasons or for other reasons over which you have no control, there is no particular reason Constitution-wise that an employer can't discriminate against you because you have long hair. There was actually a famous case the ACLU argued concerning the hairstyle of a woman whose employers were wanted changed. She argued (successfully) that her hairstyle was part of the tradition of her religion and refused to change it. (Note that the ACLU defended the expression of religion here.)

There was a time in college when I was waiting tables and my employer asked me to cut my hair. I called the ACLU at that time, and they said pretty much what I said above. I cut my hair (not all off, but shorter).

By the way, I now have long hair and a job that pays me fairly well. You can have long hair and get a job if you have skills the employer wants.

Post #22777link

DragonXero
October 22, 2001 9:13 AM

Hrm.
That whole argument can be shot down with two words:
Writhling sucks.

Look, the original idea of the ACLU may have been noble, however, I really doubt that's what's happening anymore. They've been caught up in a wave of PC garbage.

Okay, let's just say that my religion *does* require me to never cut my hair or shave. There ARE religions like that. The companies in question didn't even ASK if it was for religious reasons, they simply turned me down, no questions asked.

It just makes me sick that someone could be offended so much by the word "God" that they would sic the ACLU on a school for a completely noble display of patriotism. The ACLU doesn't have to jump on the case of every cockneyed nut that whimpers about something he or she doesn't particularly like.

Imagine the *shit* the child of this moronic parent has to go through now. The parent and the ACLU have caused more pain in this case than they ever could have caused satisfaction. The parent pulled the child out of the school for a couple days. I bet that kid has an intricate knowledge of what the inside of a toilet bowl looks like now.

In closing, the idea great, but then, everyone loved the idea of utopianism, such as socialist ideals. Russia, China, Cuba. Yeah. Utopias. Right.

Oh, I'm not Xenophobic. I like people from most places as much as I like people from the States...

In short, if you believe everything that the PR branch of the ACLU tells you without questioning, you're just asking to be shafted, just like a few of the people they defend have been.

One last thing. The Marquee displayed on a school board was *not* a religious phrase, but a patriotic one. If you are going to argue that people should be allowed to force patriotic messages down from a billboard, I will step from the realm of opinion and say you are dead fucking wrong.

In the words of Yngwie Malmsteen, after finishing his 5th or 6th consecutive recital of "The Star Spangled Banner" in front of thousands of asshole Brazillians, who were throwing shit and shouting "Bin Laden!" the whole time: "God Bless America. And fuck you all!"

Post #22780link

boorite
October 22, 2001 9:24 AM

quote:
And OFTEN go overboard to win a case.


Such as when? What constitutes going overboard, in your opinion?

quote:
Not to mention, while they claim "free speech", they are constantly attempting to silence anything that isn't decidedly liberal, such as a harmless phrase like "God Bless America".


They do not want public schools hanging signs and banners about God. Do you? Speaking for myself, the government is not my minister, and the Capitol is not my church.

quote:
Next, they're going to go for the gold: getting "In God We Trust" off our money,


I hope so. It doesn't belong there. It was placed there during the Civil War at the behest of a minister. Congress made it our national motto in 1956, during the height of the McCarthyite persecutions.

That our government and many citizens cannot understand the phrase no law respecting an establishment of religion is a national disgrace.

quote:
and making it illegal to practice religion in any way that you may actually be seen.

Then, onto making it illegal to *not* be a minority.



You can read about the causes in which the ACLU is involved here:

http://www.aclu.org/news/pressind.html

If you object to a certain case you find there, I'd sure love to hear about it.

You know, they're taking on John Ashcroft, our fundamentalist Attorney General, because he wants to "protect children" by censoring the internet. Sound good to you?

Post #22783link

kaufman
October 22, 2001 9:33 AM

Wirthling may suck, but he's also right.

The ACLU is actually a most conservative organization, believing in the precepts of a 212-year-old document that is supposed to be the Law of the Land. Among its shockingly awful positions:

  • Free speech is free speech
  • People have the right to do what they want with their own bodies, including viewing controversial materials, ingesting politically incorrect substances, and arranging for medical procedures to terminate their own pregnancies.
  • People have the right not to be arrested or detained simply because they look different.
  • The US Constitution fairly strictly limits the powers of the Federal Government. Abuses of such should not be tolerated, nor should criminal acts (murder, theft, harassment, invasion of privacy) done in the name of Uncle Sam.
  • There is no official national religion or religious stance; thus, the government should not take any action suggestive of one.
  • Individuals have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  • Individuals have the right to fair treatment by law enforcement authorities, and to a fair defense in court.
  • Ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Not the other way around!

Pretty horrifying stuff, eh? And yet, I'm a card-carrying member.

Post #22786link

boorite
October 22, 2001 9:33 AM

quote:
I bet I wouldn't get shit if I complained that I can't get a job because my hair is long.
But if I were gay, they'd throw money at me.

Let me get this straight: You don't want to get fired for having long hair, but you don't want the ACLU fighting to give sexual orientation the same protection?

Or are you saying that your long hair should be similarly protected-- so you could sue your employer, in which case you'd need the ACLU or something like it?

I admit I don't get it.

Post #22787link

attitudechicka
October 22, 2001 9:34 AM

quote:
The KKK actually utilized the ACLU once. The group wanted to "Adopt a Highway" and the state wouldn't allow it. So, the KKK went to the ACLU, asked for help, and the ACLU got that Adopt a Highway sign put up!

That's St. Louis for you. They don't have a sign currently, however. Everyone keeps stealing them. They have a 24 hour camera on the sign now (when one is up).

Post #22788link

Spankling
October 22, 2001 10:13 AM

quote:
Pretty horrifying stuff, eh? And yet, I'm a card-carrying member.
A cheer goes up among the enlightened.

Reading that stuff makes me all misty, like watching "It's a Wonderful Life" after drinking rum all night.

Post #22795link

lemur68
October 22, 2001 10:37 AM

ACLU Defends Nazis' Right To Defend ACLU Headquarters

http://www.theonion.com/onion3211/acludefends.html

But even though this makes fun of them, I still think you, DX, are a reactionary twit.

Post #22798link

Spankling
October 22, 2001 10:46 AM

40096

Post #22801link

lemur68
October 22, 2001 10:50 AM

quote:
ACLU Defends Nazis' Right To Defend ACLU Headquarters



uh, that should read "Burn Down ACLU yadda yadda"....

Post #22802link

wirthling
October 22, 2001 11:23 AM

Sorry for all the typos in my previous post. I was in a hurry and didn't proof-read. Hope it made sense anyway.

Post #22803link

ObiJo
October 22, 2001 4:21 PM

quote:
They do not want public schools hanging signs and banners about God. Do you?
Some little birdy told me "Free Speech is Free Speech." However, there were cases in my own state where the ACLU was fighting against VOLUNTARY praying in schools. No praying during moments of silence. No meetings of a christian club on campus. No posted banners for churches on campus. I see nothing wrong with non-forced religion in school. These are all individual practices, and within individual rights.

I also have no problem with schools (that is, non-individual rights) hanging "God Bless America" signs. Even as an atheist. It comes down to Majority rules versus minority rights. A christian is in NO WAY violating a muslim or a jew's freedom of religion by hanging a banner. In the same way, a christian country is in no way violating its minority citizens' rights by doing the same.

I believe in the seperation of church and state. But seperation of church and state, as outlined in the first amendment,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

is explicitly stating that the government should stay out of religion. The founders purpose was to prevent the government from creating some governmentally forced religion and forcing its citizenry to practice. This is FAR different from allowing a God Bless America sign on government property. In fact by passing laws to remove this God Bless America sign, you'd actually be breaking the first amendment by "prohibing the free excercise thereof." You'd be limiting individual and majority rights (of a predominantly christian citizenship) for an ill-conceived notion of what seperation of church and state means.

quote:
Not to mention, while they claim "free speech", they are constantly attempting to silence anything that isn't decidedly liberal, such as a harmless phrase like "God Bless America".
My problem with the ACLU is that they have a political agenda. Or maybe I'm wrong and have missed all the cases the ACLU has done for their pro-smoking, anti-abortion picketing, anti-affirmative action clientele.

Shouldn't this be in the Arguments Go Here forum? This is ruining my comic buzz.

Post #22828link

andydougan
October 22, 2001 5:55 PM

quote:
Get a haircut you hippy.

Where's yer Kappa? Can't afford it?

Post #22845link

andydougan
October 22, 2001 5:55 PM

quote:
Can you make the ACLU oodles and oodles of money if they fight for your cause?
If so, you may just be the man they're looking for. Or hermaphrodite. Or woman. Or child of any gender, race, creed, color...
I'm fucked.
They're gonna sue me now, on the basis of not mentioning every single culture, gender, and variable within the human race.

No, I think you've got all the genders covered.

Post #22846link

andydougan
October 22, 2001 6:09 PM

quote:
Unless you could show that you have long hair for religious reasons health reasons or for other reasons over which you have no control

I agree with just about everything wirthling said in this post, but I find this a little dubious. You have as much power over your religion as you do over the way you happen to want to look. If you want to have long hair, then whether it's for religious reasons or just because you like having long hair is irrelevant. Why is religion always ranked alongside race and health as some intrinsic part of you which is outwith your control?

Post #22852link

wirthling
October 22, 2001 6:27 PM

quote:
quote:
Unless you could show that you have long hair for religious reasons health reasons or for other reasons over which you have no control

I agree with just about everything wirthling said in this post, but I find this a little dubious. You have as much power over your religion as you do over the way you happen to want to look. If you want to have long hair, then whether it's for religious reasons or just because you like having long hair is irrelevant. Why is religion always ranked alongside race and health as some intrinsic part of you which is outwith your control?

Actually, I thought about that while I was writing that. I think the key is that the U.S. Constitution explicitly spells out that religion is protected. Other beliefs are not as strictly protected when it comes to the workplace. For instance, a nudist can be barred from coming to work nude. As long as an employer does not discriminate on the basis of those factors set in law, employers can discriminate as much as they please. I don't necessarily agree with that, but that is the legal precedent that has been established in American law, at least as far as I know.

Post #22856link

andydougan
October 22, 2001 6:45 PM

quote:
Actually, I thought about that while I was writing that. I think the key is that the U.S. Constitution explicitly spells out that religion is protected. Other beliefs are not as strictly protected when it comes to the workplace. For instance, a nudist can be barred from coming to work nude. As long as an employer does not discriminate on the basis of those factors set in law, employers can discriminate as much as they please. I don't necessarily agree with that, but that is the legal precedent that has been established in American law, at least as far as I know.

How does the Constitution define a religious belief, though? If you think it's morally wrong to wear clothes, why is that any less religious than someone who thinks it's morally wrong to shave?

Post #22869link

wirthling
October 22, 2001 6:56 PM

quote:
quote:
Actually, I thought about that while I was writing that. I think the key is that the U.S. Constitution explicitly spells out that religion is protected. Other beliefs are not as strictly protected when it comes to the workplace. For instance, a nudist can be barred from coming to work nude. As long as an employer does not discriminate on the basis of those factors set in law, employers can discriminate as much as they please. I don't necessarily agree with that, but that is the legal precedent that has been established in American law, at least as far as I know.

How does the Constitution define a religious belief, though? If you think it's morally wrong to wear clothes, why is that any less religious than someone who thinks it's morally wrong to shave?

I think the way that most people would make that differentiation is that a religion implies a group with some kind of structure built around a shared spirituality. What separates a religion from a cult or what may appear to be a cult but is really the early stages of a large-scale religion? I don't really know. Unfortunately, as far as what is legally defined as religion, I think it comes down to what a judge or a panel of judges thinks a religion is. I think a nudist could get away with being a full-time nudist if he or she could persuade a judge that the nudity is religion-based.

Post #22876link

Spankling
October 22, 2001 8:43 PM

quote:
A christian is in NO WAY violating a muslim or a jew's freedom of religion by hanging a banner. In the same way, a christian country is in no way violating its minority citizens' rights by doing the same.
But look at the short list of religions you brought out. I know you can name more, but it didn't happen. Why can't people who worship UFOs and want to drink poisoned Kool-Aid to join the mothership hang up a sign on the school too? It sounds just as nutzo to me. And believe me, there are a lot of places in America where Jews better not try to hang up a sign praising god if they don't want their house burned down.

quote:
My problem with the ACLU is that they have a political agenda. Or maybe I'm wrong and have missed all the cases the ACLU has done for their pro-smoking, anti-abortion picketing, anti-affirmative action clientele.
I put the KKK in that crowd. I'm pretty sure the cases exist where they are warranted.

quote:
Shouldn't this be in the Arguments Go Here forum? This is ruining my comic buzz.
Yes.

Post #22901link

ObiJo
October 23, 2001 12:17 AM

quote:
But look at the short list of religions you brought out. I know you can name more, but it didn't happen. Why can't people who worship UFOs and want to drink poisoned Kool-Aid to join the mothership hang up a sign on the school too?
They CAN. That's my whole point. They're not legally considered a religion, so there is no federal law that prohibits them, only school discretion. So basically, everyone has free speech BUT religious students:

quote:
Ingebretsen v. Jackson Public School District , 864 F.Supp. 1473 (S.D. Miss. 1994), aff'd, 88 F.3d 274 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 388 (1996)

In this lawsuit on behalf of parents, students, clergy and other concerned Mississippi citizens, PFAWF and the ACLU of Mississippi, working with Robert McDuff of Jackson, obtained a preliminary and then permanent injunction against implementation of a 1993 Mississippi school prayer law that would have required all public schools in the state to authorize so-called "student-initiated, non-sectarian, non-proselytizing prayer" at all school events, compulsory as well as non-compulsory. This lawsuit was the first in the country to challenge a "student-initiated" school prayer law.



Free speech to that my friend. Free speech.

quote:
quote:
Shouldn't this be in the Arguments Go Here forum? This is ruining my comic buzz.

Yes.
Ever think that discussions on the internet are doomed from the get go? I've yet to see someone sincerely influenced or convinced by another's opinion that differs from their own. Except in the polemical political forums, where it is usually a ploy. Just a general observance.

P.S. Donkey sodomy.

Post #22910link

Kevin_Keegans_Perm
October 23, 2001 1:10 AM

40163

Post #22920link

bunnerabb
October 23, 2001 3:00 AM

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins. "

- Oliver Wendell Holmes

Post #22923link

andydougan
October 23, 2001 4:59 AM

What if you're punching him in the teeth?

Post #22927link

boorite
October 23, 2001 8:41 AM

My right to sodomize ends where the other man's donkey begins.

Post #22962link

Spankling
October 23, 2001 10:30 AM

quote:
Ever think that discussions on the internet are doomed from the get go? I've yet to see someone sincerely influenced or convinced by another's opinion that differs from their own. Except in the polemical political forums, where it is usually a ploy. Just a general observance.

P.S. Donkey sodomy.


Back atcha big guy!

And I get the point. We need to let it go. And I tried! But I feel compelled to say that as long as America keeps electing Nixon/Ray-gun/Chaney-Bush we will need organizations that fight for normal, open-minded people. Of course, fighting usually goes overboard. It is the nature of conflict to go beyond where you mean to end.

Post #22977link

fuzzyman
October 23, 2001 10:36 AM

And for those of you interested in the ongoing battle, see Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. I sent 'em my $25.

Post #22978link

ObiJo
October 23, 2001 10:41 AM

quote:
But I feel compelled to say that as long as America keeps electing Nixon/Ray-gun/Chaney-Bush we will need organizations that fight for normal, open-minded people.

:)-)

Post #22980link

Spankling
October 23, 2001 10:52 AM

quote:

:)-)


And I want to say that I had long hair for 20 years and always had a good-paying job when I wanted one. But 5 years ago it started falling out so I shaved myself bald. And as of last month I too am on the street looking for work. With all the women's shoe stores in Chicago you wouldn't think it was so tough to find employment for such a handsome, normal guy!

Thank you W!

Post #22982link

ObiJo
October 23, 2001 10:56 AM

quote:
With all the women's shoe stores in Chicago you wouldn't think it was so tough to find employment for such a handsome, normal guy!

Thank you W!


I think you should be thanking Clinton for this. He's the one keeping all the ladies off their feet.

Post #22983link

fuzzyman
October 23, 2001 11:02 AM

40179

Post #22984link

Spankling
October 23, 2001 11:06 AM

I wonder what W thinks about the faith-based initiative that took down the WTC.

Post #22987link

DexX
October 23, 2001 12:14 PM

quote:
40163
Damn, spooky. I just lost a bunch of online friends over this very issue the other day. A friend of mine wrote an article arguing that the US attack of Afghanistan is a violation of international laws and treaties. I posted a copy of it to a mailing list I have been on for a couple of years, and... well, two days later I was no longer subscribed to said mailing list. Depressing, eh?

Post #22999link

Kevin_Keegans_Perm
October 23, 2001 12:22 PM

quote:
Damn, spooky. I just lost a bunch of online friends over this very issue the other day. A friend of mine wrote an article arguing that the US attack of Afghanistan is a violation of international laws and treaties. I posted a copy of it to a mailing list I have been on for a couple of years, and... well, two days later I was no longer subscribed to said mailing list. Depressing, eh?

Heh. You multiple mailed that to me and many others on ICQ.

Interesting argument. A Decent lawyer could pick it apart , then again , a 6yr old could pick apart the arguments the US uses to support its bombing of Afghanistan.

Some people were meant to be politicians , and some Lawyers.

And the rest of us to look at them both and shake our heads.

Post #23004link

ObiJo
October 23, 2001 12:29 PM

quote:
But I feel compelled to say that as long as America keeps electing Nixon/Ray-gun/Chaney-Bush we will need organizations that fight for normal, open-minded people.
I wonder when the law was passed that required you to be a democrat to be open-minded. It's an easy out to just call someone close minded when they disagree with you, which is ironically a close-minded practice.

36339

quote:
I posted a copy of it to a mailing list I have been on for a couple of years, and... well, two days later I was no longer subscribed to said mailing list.
I remember getting a similar message through ICQ from you. Maybe they were like me and didn't want to hear about what we shouldn't be doing as we're mourning our dead and checking our mail for anthrax every morning.

Close-minded? Maybe. But in the same way a widow wouldn't want to hear at the funeral how her husband REALLY should have had life insurance.

Post #23007link

evil_d
October 23, 2001 12:55 PM

quote:
Maybe they were like me and didn't want to hear about what we shouldn't be doing as we're mourning our dead and checking our mail for anthrax every morning.

Close-minded? Maybe. But in the same way a widow wouldn't want to hear at the funeral how her husband REALLY should have had life insurance.


A valid point, but after a respectful length of time, it would be appropriate to talk to the widow about how she and her second husband should maybe look into some insurance.

We're still facing the possibility of a large number of casualties on both sides of this conflict, and if there's a way to prevent all that violence and bloodshed, the time to talk about it is now.

DexX, I'd be interested to read that article. Is there a URL? I don't have ICQ, but I do have AIM, and my e-mail address is on my web page.

Post #23016link

fuzzyman
October 23, 2001 1:07 PM

Speaking of articles... this one is particularly good:

This Is a Religious War by Andrew Sullivan, New York Times Magazine.

Post #23023link

fuzzyman
October 23, 2001 1:10 PM

Also, on a slightly different subject... I recommend the book Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond. I'm reading it right now and it is absolutely fascinating.

Post #23025link

Forum archives » General Discussion » Tobor Takes on Oppression

« Prev Page 1 of 5 Next »
stripcreator
Make a comic
Forums
featuring
diesel sweeties
jerkcity
exploding dog
goats
ko fight club
penny arcade
chopping block
also
Brad Sucks