@diehardbrownsfan said: It's just the African American culture, expressing it's rightful outrage at the Caucasian power authority. Heh. Seriously is that a real rap act? It doesn't appear that the republicans recorded it; just used it for the ad. If it's real it's gonna be tough to call it "racist" at least by the left's definition. WSS

@heckofajobbrownie said: Probably not the people who employ me to write comedy. I am suprised that they let you outside of the asylum. But getting back to the topic; why are we discussing the fact that 2 buttercups had a spat. Most liberals only yell or cry about semitism when it helps themselves. Otherwise most liberals hate Israel. Liberals will admonish the Muslim faith and the practice of Sharia Law; even if it brings about honor killings/murders.

@vaportrail said:I think the biggest inherent flaw of defining something as "good" or "evil" is that no one's going to define themselves as evil. I'm sure that Bin Laden uses the same type of rhetoric to recruit people against America. Evil, in my opinion, is always relative, and I don't think it really exists; the real battle lines are drawn between "us" and "them." Good and evil are just words used to dehumanize your enemy, and make your group's cause seem like the more righteous effort. Of course you're right. And I think you're agreeing with me in the big picture. I think war is ingrained in human nature and since we have the ability to think in abstract we always make those wars a moral issue. Our guys are the good guys and their guys are the bad guys. And yes we dehumanize the enemy so as not to feel so bad that it was Hans or Kyoko or Ahmed or Joe that gets killed. Beyond pure homerism I don't suppose there's any real moral superiority to any bunch of warriors. Just as you say. But we've fought since man stood upright and before. But you and some other guy have been arguinjg that one mass murder is morally superior to another. I'n the grand view I agree that's bullshit. And admittedly the homer in me is glad we won and glad we get to write the story. Still maybe in some parts of the globe the story reads a little differently ya think? WSS

Wow. Apparently, I'm an idiot. And so are Cal & T. (Just kidding, guys!)

I understand that, but France and Norway and Poland, etc etc etc etc, were all sovereign nations too, during WWII. Allowing smaller friendly nations to be overwhelmed by bigger or multinational parties, just lets the whole world to go hell in a handbasket. Besides, Israel didn't need our help the last time they went to war. The next time, ... how many nations can they fight, without eventual help from us? We should have sat back and let the Nazis take all of Europe? Let Israel be overwhelmed just because it's easier on us to say they are a nation, all alone? If we do that across the board, the whole world will end up a very, very tragic and dangerous place, and that world is getting to be smaller all the time.