backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 233 comment(s) - last by michael67.. on May 28 at 7:00 PM

Matthew, the chimp at the heart of the legal action
Austrian Chimpanzee launches appeal to gain formal legal status as a human being.

The European Court of Human Rights has agreed to a preliminary hearing to determine whether chimpanzees are entitled to the legal status and protections granted to human beings. 

The action is being sponsored by the Association Against Animal Factories, an activist group based in Vienna.  Eberhart Theuer, the group's legal advisor says, "This case is about the fundamental question: Who is the bearer of human rights? Who is a person according to the European Human Rights Charter?"

At the center of the case is Hiasl, a 26-year old chimpanzee now called Matthew by his keeper, Briton Paula Stibbe.  Matthew currently shares a shelter with another chimpanzee named Rosi in the town of Voesendorf, outside of Austria.  Their upkeep runs nearly $8,000 a month and the shelter recently filed for bankruptcy. 

Donors have stepped in to offer assistance, but Stibbe says only official status as a human can permanently prevent Matthew from being transferred out of Austria.  That status would force the state to appoint a guardian to look after his status, and presumably also entitle him to government assistance for upkeep.

A win for the group could have sweeping ramifications for the entire European Union, with legal precedent existing for apes -- and possibly other animals -- to receive the rights, protections, and even medical, financial, and social benefits of human beings.

A lower court dismissed the original case without directly addressing whether or not an ape could legally be adjudged a human.  So Miss Stibbe and the AAAF appealed directly to the European Court of Human Rights, which has agreed to a preliminary hearing.

Miss Stibbe says, "Since he has no close relatives, I am doing this as the person closest to him."  She says she also plans to legally adopt Matthew as well.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
This is a joke right?
By FITCamaro on 5/23/2008 10:58:41 AM , Rating: 5
While I do not deny the genetic similarity of apes and other monkeys to humans, nor their intelligence, they are not human beings and as such, do not and should not have the rights of one. Yes they should have the same rights as animals like don't torture them and such, but the right to vote? Since thats what the thing would get if this case were successful.

This is nothing more than a guy who doesn't want to loose his pet. Deal with it buddy.




RE: This is a joke right?
By BMFPitt on 5/23/2008 11:04:43 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Yes they should have the same rights as animals like don't torture them and such, but the right to vote? Since thats what the thing would get if this case were successful.
If voters in the EU are as intelligent as those here (judging by their track record I's say yes) then they might was well let apes vote. Free bananas for everyone is a much cheaper pander than the Farm Bill.


RE: This is a joke right?
By snownpaint on 5/23/2008 1:48:08 PM , Rating: 1
"get your damn paws of me, you stinkin' apes!"

So lets say they have Ape Rights, not Human but Ape rights.. Does that mean we have to protect their homes/area of living? How about their pursuit of happiness?


RE: This is a joke right?
By Bonesdad on 5/23/2008 3:37:18 PM , Rating: 5
It's actually "Get your stinkin paws off me, you damn dirty ape!"


RE: This is a joke right?
By Strunf on 5/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: This is a joke right?
By B3an on 5/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: This is a joke right?
By Hawkido on 5/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By Hawkido on 5/23/2008 5:20:32 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah only a true Ape would be responsible for the 2 greatest wars on the planet, then make fun of the country that saved your collective asses both times. Wanna try for the third?

Socialism at its best:
"Lets tear everything down to the same level so we are all equal, 'cept me of course..." - Socialist Liberal Mantra


RE: This is a joke right?
By Nik00117 on 5/23/2008 5:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'm german, and thats a low blow. Seriously I hear it all the time, you caused 2 two WWs extra blah blah.

Well we'll take blame for the 2nd one, that was entirely us.

1st one was far more complicated. It was like a diminona affect after the duke got killed. Countries took sides armed up and began fighting.

Its been over 60 years since Hilter was around, Germany has recovered fully along with the rest of the EU.

Now I suspect that poeple picking on bush is ok, why you ask? Cause thats not 60 years ago, shit its not even 60 minutes ago hes still in office. so seriously you don't need to be banging on something that happened over 60 years ago. Most germans weren't even alive back then. And a lot of the ones that were were very young at the time. I mean my great grandma is one of the few I can recall out of hundreds if not thousands of germans i've seen and talked too.


RE: This is a joke right?
By imperator3733 on 5/23/2008 6:18:36 PM , Rating: 2
World War I was the result of a lot of different things, two of them being extreme nationalism and alliances that involved all of Europe. The real blame for it is on the Austro-Hungarian Empire for not declaring war on Serbia sooner. If the AHE had declared war when the shock of the assassination was still fresh, most of the other countries would not have done anything -- they might have even supported it. Germany did give the AHE a blank check for support, so you could use that argument, but the war was because of the assassination and then a delay in a declaration war.


RE: This is a joke right?
By heeros1 on 5/24/2008 10:10:59 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree that Germany isn't the same. I can't talk for all schools, but the school I attended in Germany (up to 10th grade) was pretty lenient compared to the American schools I attended afterward, but one thing they did not tolerate was "nazi" behavior. you could get into some big trouble if you drew the "hakenkreuz" or shouted "heil hitler" or similar things. I was very surprised how freely some of these expressions were being used in American schools.


RE: This is a joke right?
By B3an on 5/23/2008 6:01:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yeah only a true Ape would be responsible for the 2 greatest wars on the planet


Well your current Monkey has already started one war, so he's getting there himself...

I know education isn't one of most americans strong points... but the U.S had little to do with WW1. You also joined 3 years late aswell ... sounds familiar... infact it was almost over when the U.S joined in.

And the reason the U.S probably got involved in the WW2 was because you came to realise, that if the whole of Europre fell under Nazi control, it would be you yanks next... and back in them days you wasnt the power you are now, you wouldn't have stood a chance on your own.

And it's funny how some yank always brings up Germany in things like this... like the whole of Europe consists of Germany...


RE: This is a joke right?
By imperator3733 on 5/23/2008 6:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
World War I was almost over when the US joined -- Germany was about to win. After the Russians dropped out, Germany shifted all of the eastern front troops over to the western front. It was only American intervention that made the Allies win. So, the US had a lot to do with WWI.

The US got involved in World War II because of Pearl Harbor. That is the only reason at the time that the US entered the war. The US did not declare war on Germany (In fact, the US was the only country that Germany declared war on during WWII). I'm not saying that something would not have happened later on that would have brought the US into the war (like WWI), or that Americans weren't sympathetic to the Allies, but the US entry into the war did not have anything to do with Germany. It was because we were attacked.


RE: This is a joke right?
By heeros1 on 5/24/2008 10:16:31 PM , Rating: 2
I don't quite remember, but I believe some of the US involvement in W.W.II was the sinking of US ships by german submarines, and a letter from/to mexico and germany about plans to invade the US together, but that might have been later, like I said I don't really remember.


RE: This is a joke right?
By imperator3733 on 5/25/2008 1:40:13 PM , Rating: 2
The letter that you refer to was the Zimmermann Telegram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram ), which was sent on 16 January 1917. This, along with German U-Boats sinking American ships, was one of the reasons that the US entered WWI .

I believe there were some incidents with German U-Boats before the US entered WWII, and some American ships were ordered to engage the Bismarck if encountered, but none of that was a reason for the US entering the war.


RE: This is a joke right?
By michael67 on 5/24/2008 6:28:45 AM , Rating: 1
I always wonder how any post about the EU comes down to that we are all "hart bleeding socialist idiots"

quote:
Yeah only a true Ape would be responsible for the 2 greatest wars on the planet, then make fun of the country that saved your collective asses both times. Wanna try for the third?

Yeah we should thank America for the rest of our lives on our hands and knees????

I grow up in Holland and when i was young, we ware thankful for the liberation and and food drops on Holland by the US and properly own my existence to them.

Now a days i see 90% of the problems in the world have there roots from the always short term and self interested US foreign policy's over the last 50+ years.

I give one example, but could give dozens more and all well documented.
Iran:
During the fifties Iran had a real Pro western leader that wanted Iran modeled after European/US model
During his term he wanted to renegotiate the contracts that Iran had whit British petroleum (BP) that ware made up before WOII to get a fair prize.
Brittan saw that this would cost them billions of pounds and went to the US because they ware still devastated after cost of WOII.
British MI6 and CIA set up plan under a "false flag"(1)
This plan was to get the Shah(2) in power as a puppet of the west.
This was done by terrorist bomb attacks and and under the claim of a non-terrorist group wanted separation from Iran.
And by supporting the troops loyal to the Shah.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag#Terrorism_...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi...

There are dozens more examples ware CIA involvement was soul focus on the self interest of the US.

quote:
Socialism at its best:
"Lets tear everything down to the same level so we are all equal, 'cept me of course..." - Socialist Liberal Mantra

Capitalism on it best:
"Lets just think of my self and screw everyone else, its doggy dog, and put it all under a national sauce so my hands are clean"
Conservative capitalistic Mantra

Did this statement help you seeing my point of view?. no it just polarizes opinions and makes you feel its you against me, and makes you even less seeing my point of view!
Screaming that all people of the EU hart bleeding socialist is just nonsense.

I would strongly advice all fans of the capitalistic model to take a good look at the documentaries of Adam Curtis how American society is manipulated to adopt a extreme form of Capitalism by the the "captains of industry" because they ware scared shirtless they would loose there change to control society and make more money.

Hey analyses not only US but global history by the use of psychoanalysis, these documentaries are very powerful to open up eyes left and right, and are also not left ore right orientated as he is evenly harsh on left as on right wing party's

It will also show that for example one of America's greatest presidents, Roosevelt would even bin seen by current average EU standards as "EXTREEMLY LEFT"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Adam+Curtis&...

quote:
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it;
Those who fail to learn history CORRECTLY.. are simply doomed.

Don't remember ware the quote comes from but it has a lot of truth in it


RE: This is a joke right?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/2008 7:52:31 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I always wonder how any post about the EU comes down to that we are all "hart bleeding socialist idiots"


Not all of you. Just your government.

quote:
Yeah we should thank America for the rest of our lives on our hands and knees????


I don't think he was saying that. But a little respect would be nice once and a while.

quote:
Now a days i see 90% of the problems in the world have there roots from the always short term and self interested US foreign policy's over the last 50+ years.


Hey lets pull big numbers out of our ass to make our arguments look more solid. Also If you are going to accuse the CIA of funding terrorism you had better bring more proof then Wikipedia links!

quote:
There are dozens more examples ware CIA involvement was soul focus on the self interest of the US.


Who's interest should the CIA be focused on ? Other nations have well developed intelligence agencies too you know. Are you saying they aren't " self focused " as well ? Besides, whats good for the US is good for the world. Hate that fact all you want.

quote:
Hey analyses not only US but global history by the use of psychoanalysis, these documentaries are very powerful to open up eyes left and right, and are also not left ore right orientated as he is evenly harsh on left as on right wing party's


Have you ever heard of a spell checker ? I can barely read and understand this paragraph. So I guess I can't debate whatever point you are trying to make here.

Basically a bunch of EU snobs were bashing Bush, and he pointed out that because of European idiocy, the world was plunged into war not once, but twice. And yes, the United States was instrumental in those wars. By comparison the " Iraq War " was barely ever a war. And certainly not a World War. This argument is going to come up every time Europeans get on their high horse about things. Sorry your feelings got hurt though.


RE: This is a joke right?
By Strunf on 5/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By michael67 on 5/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/2008 10:02:29 PM , Rating: 4
Ok so lets review.

1. Clinton was a better president than Bush. ( on what planet ? )
2. The CIA and the CIA alone is responsible for %90 of the worlds problems.
3. Germany plunged Europe into world war, so the fact that almost a dozen countries watched and did nothing while the German war machine was getting underway means...? Oh thats right, the CIA must have caused that one too.

4. Because the USA is big, it doesn't cooperate with other nations. So the trillions in foreign aid every year, being in the UN, and responding to EVERY natural disaster that happens in any country means .. uhh... yes clearly we're isolationist.

5. America is actually heavily INVESTED in other countries. So obviously we would love to ruin the world and spread misery. Maybe, if we try really hard, we can cause an even 100% of the worlds problems instead of only 90% !

6. If Obama wins, we'll be more " loved " and terrorist will go away. Oh did I say terrorist ? I meant those guys the CIA made.

quote:
No, my feelings don’t get hurt, its just a shame that a lot of Americans haven’t got a clue what’s happening in the EU and the World, and there lack of historical facts.


The coupe' de graz. Your " facts " have been disproved by about 4 posters on this thread. Your opinions are biased and skewed. And the only proof you bring are wikipedia links written by clueless Internet people just like you. Your historical facts are conspiracy theories mixed with revisionist history with a dash of unsupported wildly unfounded percentage based statements.


RE: This is a joke right?
By michael67 on 5/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: This is a joke right?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2008 9:41:10 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Hey that you really dint like Clinton docent mean he was a bad President, but at least even if McCain will be the next president there will be a man there that has at least a brain.


I actually did like Clinton. Because at the time I was younger, dumber, and liberal. But the fact that he purjured himself and was impeached in 1998 pretty much disqualifies him from being a " better prez than Bush ". So your wrong, its pretty safe to say any president who gets impeached is in fact a " bad " president.

quote:
NO, I was saying: Now a days i see 90% of the problems in the world have there roots from the always short term and self interested US foreign policy's over the last 50+ years


If you still believe that your too far gone debate with. America is the ultimate scapegoat. Its responsible for all the worlds problems, yet when it does anything good you give all the credit to someone else. You call the US selfish, I point out we do give, and you post articles saying we don't give ENOUGH. So tell me, is there a critical mass of giving that will start making a bigger difference ? How much should we lower the quality of life for the average American to give to other countries who never give to us or lift a finger when we need help ?

quote:
Thank you for making my point that Americans haven’t got a clue what’s happening in the EU and the rest of the World


Because we see things a different way and don't buy your spin we're all ignorant ? Frankly I don't think Americans should go around caring about what happens in the " EU ". Yet you people seem far too interested in what happens here.

quote:
Yeah Bush cares really for Africa.


Once again, ultimate scapegoat mindset. There are SOOOO many things wrong with that article you posted its not even funny. Liberalist slant to the extreme. America did not cause the African HIV epidemic. America is not the ONLY country that has condoms to donate. In fact, where is your precious EU on this one ? You just finished explaining to me the EU does 60% than the US in foreign aid. So why is it only Americas job to help Africa ?

quote:
Oops the US isn’t generous as you think and the EU country’s even give 4 times more and my country even gives 7 times more.


Ok so why is there a huge " condom crisis " in Africa ? Where is the EU ? Where is the UN ? Oh thats right, lets blame America.

quote:
No, if he wins the US will not be loved more just trusted more because it will appear to many people that the American people voted out a “greedy selfish bastard that only want there oil ore act in self interest”(1) and wants to change there role in the world.


Bush can't be " voted out " because hes already at his maximum second term. The most legally allowed. What hes doing isn't for popularity. And oil ? I want to ask people where all that oil is we " went to war for " given that our gas prices are nearing $5 a gallon. By the way it was a $2 when the Democrats took congress and promised a change for the better.

So I should have intimate knowledge about how European governments work, but you thought Bush was going to be " voted out " this year ?


RE: This is a joke right?
By michael67 on 5/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By MrPoletski on 5/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By onelittleindian on 5/27/2008 1:39:17 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
They impeached Clinton for lying about a blowjob
They impeached Clinton for lying under oath, in a sexual harrassment case which demonstrated he had a longstanding history of sexually harrassing and even abusing women who worked for him. Would you like for your mother, sister, or daughter to have a boss like that, a man who sends a state trooper to take them to his hotel room, and puts their career on the line for not "performing"?

Such things are against the law for good reason. So put your idiotic BS back where it belongs.


RE: This is a joke right?
By MrPoletski on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By masher2 (blog) on 5/27/2008 3:23:44 PM , Rating: 4
> "that was Paula Jones and her case was thrown out of court "

Err, Paula Jones won a settlement against Clinton, and he was additionally disbarred for his actions as well.

And Paula Jones was hardly the only woman to accuse him. Don't forget Gennifer Flowers (sexual harrasment, intimidation), Juanita Broadrick (rape), Kathleen Wiley (harassment, sexual assault), Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, and quite a few others.

You can quantify all this as him just "boning a secretary", but the fact remains that countless women suffered as as result of his crimes, and had their lives blighted as a result.

> "What about lying to congress about a war?"

Bush said nothing to Congress about Iraq that Clinton didn't also say...and he simply concurred with the conclusions of the US intelligence service (which agreed with those of the English and Germans, as well btw).

But continue with your fantasy that Bush simply made it all up. The facts certainly aren't going to sway you.


RE: This is a joke right?
By MrPoletski on 5/28/2008 9:39:56 AM , Rating: 1
What? Bush controlled what evidence went into the intelligence reports, cherry picking data, then claims he saw the same intelligence as congress. He lied. Colin powell went to the UN saying they know he is seeking ingerian yellowcake when that data was refuted by the CIA - but they left that data out and punished the agent when he blew the whistle.

Sadly, you don't get facts in the USA, you get fox news. I bet you think al qeada was involved with saddam and that WMD's were found too right?


RE: This is a joke right?
By Drexial on 5/27/2008 1:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
FTAA and NAFTA to give the shortest answer possible.


RE: This is a joke right?
By masher2 (blog) on 5/25/2008 2:03:44 PM , Rating: 5
> "Nazi Germany would never get away now a days whit what they did then building up in secret a army"

Err, there was nothing secret about the Third Reich's military buildup...all of Europe knew of it. The only thing they didn't know were Germany's intentions on how they planned to use it.

> "Hey that you really dint like Clinton docent mean he was a bad President"

The fact remains that the Clinton Administration was by far the least productive in recent memory. Clinton was certainly both a charismatic and a crafty individual...but he accomplished nearly nothing while in office.

> "Oops the US isn’t generous as you think and the EU country’s even give 4 times more "

Wrong on a few counts. First of all, you're using a highly misleading metric that measures not total giving, but rather share of GDP. Secondly and much worse, you're ignoring by far the largest portion of US giving -- private contributions. The US has by far the largest amount of private contributions of any nation on earth, a sum which far outweighs governmental aid.


RE: This is a joke right?
By michael67 on 5/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: This is a joke right?
By mindless1 on 5/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By Justin Case on 5/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By Ringold on 5/25/2008 4:07:54 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
1. There is no "European government".


The person you responded to was responding to a person who was said he was from Holland.

Besides, one could have a spirited debate about how much your assertion is even true after the Lisbon treaty.

quote:
2. The main countries in the EU are currently ruled by center-right parties or coalitions.


All of which are to the left of the American political center. Even the UK's Conservative's are slightly to the left of center here.

The Economist recently did a detailed analysis, and the only issue I can recall where they were to the right of us to any significant degree, I think, was their belief in trade. I could be wrong, though.

quote:
3. In Europe, the term "liberal" generally refers to right-wing parties (parties that favor free-market capitalism).


An American spoke using words that carried American definitions. My god. How horrible. Perhaps he should've translated it in to French, German, Spanish and Italian so more Europeans could've understood it with greater precision?

In business, the world 'liberal' also refers to free markets, etc, here in the US but it's hard to use it properly. If the person hearing it attachs the modern American political meaning to it, they might equate "market liberalization" with "government take-over,", so I at least never use the "proper" definition in mixed company.

quote:
Care to make more hilarious comments about the politics of continents you don't know?


Care to needlessly flame more, or was there anything actually constructive about your post?


RE: This is a joke right?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2008 9:44:54 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
An American spoke using words that carried American definitions. My god. How horrible. Perhaps he should've translated it in to French, German, Spanish and Italian so more Europeans could've understood it with greater precision?


Of course. Its just more proof that I'm a typical ignorant, selfish, and self centered American.


RE: This is a joke right?
By Justin Case on 5/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By William Gaatjes on 5/25/2008 8:48:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Have you ever heard of a spell checker ? I can barely read and understand this paragraph. So I guess I can't debate whatever point you are trying to make here.


I used the translate function from word 2003 once. I had to laugh so much that i could not get my work done. I stopped using this feature from word after i nearly fell of my chair while laughing. Maybe he is using it too :)

quote:
So I guess I can't debate whatever point you are trying to make here.


And that is a statement purely about yourself.
You cannot interpret what he is is saying and therefore refuse to debate.
A sign of weakness or cheapness.

Is it not so that secret services/intelligence agencies where once cooked up with the thought to make sure long term stability is a reality by using means that a more publicly service like military cannot do ?

More and more people feel these days that for example the cia is just used to make easy money in short term.
No more long term thinking.


RE: This is a joke right?
By onelittleindian on 5/24/2008 10:37:07 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Now a days i see 90% of the problems in the world have there roots from the always short term and self interested US foreign policy's over the last 50+ years.
Rofl, who paid you to make all Europeans sound like a bunch of blinkin' idiots?


RE: This is a joke right?
By MrPoletski on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By MrPoletski on 5/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: This is a joke right?
By masher2 (blog) on 5/24/2008 11:10:41 AM , Rating: 5
> "During the fifties Iran had a real Pro western leader...British MI6 and CIA set up plan...to get the Shah(2) in power"

Your history here is wrong in several places. First of all, the Shah of Iran was *already* in power long before the West got involved.

Mossadegh was Prime Minister -- a position below that of Shah -- and once elected, began attempting to assume dictatorial control over government and to rig elections to ensure retaining his position.

CIA involvement was limited to a minor propagadanda campaign, essentially no more than convincing the Shah to exercise the power he already had to dismiss Mossadegh.

As for the actual overthrow of Mossadegh, most scholars today attribute it to his radical policies causing loss of support among hardline Shia clerics-- the same people ultimately responsible for the deposing of the Shah.

Getting your history from Wikipedia is dicey at the best of times. For articles on controversial, politically charged topics such as this, it's no better than a conspiracy website.


RE: This is a joke right?
By Strunf on 5/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By michael67 on 5/24/2008 2:06:48 PM , Rating: 1
Think you also should see the documentaries as it is a british docu how got more knowledge then the Brits a bout the middle east from that time.
btw i also seen a Dutch's and docu and read books a bout it.

Yes the Shah was in power just like our Queen is technical ruling my country doesn't mean she should have absolute power and have a secret police that reined terror

And if you call bombing "a minor propaganda campaign" then you properly right, otherwise I suggest learn more about the history of Iran

quote:
Getting your history from Wikipedia is dicey at the best of times. For articles on controversial, politically charged topics such as this, it's no better than a conspiracy website.

I now that wikipedia is not always reliable, but most tings written down in that article are are historical correct, even do it doesn't say anything about the bombings.


RE: This is a joke right?
By masher2 (blog) on 5/24/2008 2:32:40 PM , Rating: 5
> "Yes the Shah was in power ..."

Meaning the US and British didn't put him in power, nor did they "overthrow the government".

> "doesn't mean she should have absolute power and have a secret police that reined terror"

Both acts that Mossaddegh himself engaged him before being relieved of power by the Shah...something you conveniently forget to mention.

> "but most tings written down in that article are are historical correct"

And what does that article say the US and Britain did? Did they send troops to Iran? No. Weapons and military hardware? No. I'll quote from the article itself:
quote:
[Operation Ajax] centered around convincing Iran's monarch to use his constitutional authority to dismiss Mosaddeq from office
If trying to convince a world leader to exercise his constitional powers in a favorable manner is a crime, then every nation on earth is guilty every day of each year. That's the entire function of each and every diplomat on the planet.


RE: This is a joke right?
By michael67 on 5/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: This is a joke right?
By masher2 (blog) on 5/24/2008 4:23:29 PM , Rating: 4
> "Our Queen in power to that doesnt mean she can dismiss the siting elected government."

But the Shah did have the constitutional power to dismiss Mosaddegh.

> "could you show ware anything he did was even comparable whit what later happen when the Shah was in power"

That's just the point. What Mosaddegh did was worse than anything the Shah had done up to that point in history.

The Shah's later excesses are besides the point. No one can predict the future. In 1953, the US and Britain were supporting the legal government of Iran, a government was attempting to stop the dictatorial ambitions and human rights abuses of Mosaddegh.

> "Despite this he is generally ignored by the government of the Islamic Republic because of his secularism and western manners."

And that's the real reason Mosaddegh lost power. Not because of a few CIA pamphlets...but because his radical policies caused the real power center in Iran -- the Shia clerics and the landed gentry -- to rise up against him.


RE: This is a joke right?
By michael67 on 5/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By grenableu on 5/24/2008 10:40:09 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
And Mosaddegh paranoia and actions had noting to do whit a man defending his presidency
So you're willing to excuse Mosadeq's tyranny but not the Shah's? They were both doing the same things for the same reasons, to defend their hold on the government. Seems clear your just looking for reasons to blame the US.


RE: This is a joke right?
By nofranchise on 5/25/2008 7:43:04 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
In 1953, the US and Britain were supporting the legal government of Iran, a government was attempting to stop the dictatorial ambitions and human rights abuses of Mosaddegh.


Haha - yeah. Of course that is always why the US intervenes. Like the last time the US and the UK tried to stop the dictatorial ambitions and human rights abuses of a middle east leader. You did it all for the people!

How nice of you - and you had no economic interest what so ever.

Silly robot.


RE: This is a joke right?
By MrPoletski on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By masher2 (blog) on 5/27/2008 3:30:17 PM , Rating: 3
> "Dude, go and read a history book. Britain paid for and the USA carried out a coup "

While it's difficult to argue with the compelling scholarly weight contained in the word "dude", the fact is that the USA did not "carry out a coup". The Shah was already the titular head of government long before the US or Britain became involved, and that involvement was itself extremely limited. Still worse, in 1953, the "brutal dictator" in Iran was Mossadegh, not the Shah, who was busily engaged in consolidating power, rigging elections, and beating and/or killing anyone who disagreed with his policies.

I suggest you read some of the prior posts in this thread, and learn a bit more about what actually happened in Iran in 1953.


RE: This is a joke right?
By MrPoletski on 5/28/2008 9:46:13 AM , Rating: 2
"The Shah was already the titular head of government long before the US or Britain became involved,"

Mossegedah reduced his power to virtually nil.

"and that involvement was itself extremely limited. Still worse, in 1953, the "brutal dictator" in Iran was Mossadegh, not the Shah, who was busily engaged in consolidating power, rigging elections, and beating and/or killing anyone who disagreed with his policies."

The guy was elected by a LANDSLIDE and riots and such were incited as part of the coup. Where the hell do you get this rubbish from?

"I suggest you read some of the prior posts in this thread, and learn a bit more about what actually happened in Iran in 1953."

I suggest you stop talking out your ass and READ SOME HISTORY. Here you go:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe41.h...

"While I certainly don’t condone his socialistic tendencies or his seizure of the oilfields, it is undeniable that by the time of his elevation to prime minister, Mossadeq had the backing of the overwhelming majority of the Iranian population. For the first time in its long history, Iran had a democratically elected leader."

blah blah blah, here comes the 'that just liberal biased BS' reply I guess.


RE: This is a joke right?
By MrPoletski on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By Justin Case on 5/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By masher2 (blog) on 5/24/2008 4:32:55 PM , Rating: 5
> "The US only truly commited to WWII in Europe when it became obvious that Stalin was going to take half the continent as payment for beating the nazis"

Did they stop teaching history entirely in public schools? Until the battle of Stalingrad (which occurred over a year after the US entered the war) the Soviets hadn't won a single major battle against the war, and had done nothing but lose ground continuously.

The notion that the Axis would have been defeated without US involvement is sheer nonsense.

> "In fact, the USSR was also the reason why we dropped two nukes on Japan: to show our new toys to Stalin and to make sure Japan surrendered to us before they even had a chance to surrender to them"

This is the most ridiculous thing I've yet heard. The Soviets hadn't even declared war on Japan until *after* Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The attacks were designed to force Japanese surrender without an invasion of the mainland being required, an attack that would have killed far more civilians than the explosions themselves.


RE: This is a joke right?
By michael67 on 5/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By masher2 (blog) on 5/24/2008 10:45:36 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Truman pushed the dropping of bomb 2 just to get the USSR to fear the US, and almost costed him a cabinet crises over it, because after bomb 1 Japan had tried to surrender
What nonsense is this? Even after the second nuclear bomb, Japan didn't surrender. The Supreme War council voted almost unanimously against it, and even drew up plans to execute officers who disagreed. It wasn't until after the US threatened continued bombings, and the Soviets officially declared war that Hirohito went on the radio to make a public appeal to the people for surrender.

And even THEN it very nearly didn't happen -- a group of officers stormed the Imperial Palace, attempting to stop the surrender from taking place. Had they been succesful, Japan would have continued to fight on.


RE: This is a joke right?
By Justin Case on 5/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By onelittleindian on 5/27/2008 1:41:27 AM , Rating: 3
Lol, where did you hear such crap? Japan wasn't trying to surrender before we dropped the bomb. They were training civilians to fight invading US soldiers. This is well known history chap, look it up.


RE: This is a joke right?
By michael67 on 5/28/2008 7:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, what your saying is completely true.

But you also maybe have heard of the concept plan A and backup plan B ?
One doesnt exclude the other, and also maybe they ware trying to keep the spirits up from people in the country and/ore try to keep them busy ?


RE: This is a joke right?
By Justin Case on 5/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By William Gaatjes on 5/24/2008 9:00:03 PM , Rating: 3
Some war tactics :

I remember from history that the sovjets at that time had a lot easier time to win by letting Germany gain ground. Simple use of terrain and weather made sure that Germany was loosing heavenly against the sovjets even when the Germans had more advanced weapons. Oldest trick in the book.

Way more back in time Genghis Khan used similair tricks.
Genghis Khan used horses and yaks. But yaks came in very handy when the weather was bad and to cold for horses.

I do believe that the US would have engaged the world war sooner or later. The US has a lot of geological riches.
If europa was turned in one unified nation with hitlers way of thinking then the US would have been an interesting target.

One more thing ,
The reason the us and the eu could have a sustainable economy on their own without sacrificing too much is because of sheere size.

The problem always is that if you want to make more money and not find an equilibrium you have to keep expanding. This is the primary reason why we will always have wars. Good politics is about maintaning financial balance.

If you cannot do that , it is easier to take some one elses money. If that may be pure cash or resources, take your pick.

An American friend of mine showed me one of his "treasures",
an original copy of a book written around 1900 i think. He wanted me to read a few passages. This book was from a financial historical expert. What he wrote was pretty basic. To sum it up, with our way life, war will never end cause we have to keep on expanding.

Afcourse this can change but alas, the technological breakthroughs we make are holded back by greed.

We already have the means to solve for example the energy problems but "we" find it to expensive sigh....

War is always about having control. In our western sociëty, money controls people. In other sociëty, religion controls people.

And to all :

Don't go anti eu or anti us or even anti afghanistan.
Lot's of good humble people just working while a few cause all the problems.


RE: This is a joke right?
By Justin Case on 5/24/2008 9:21:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Did they stop teaching history entirely in public schools?


No idea, I went to a private one. I also had a grandfather who was more involved in our role in the war than he was really comfortable with. And no, his name wasn't Prescott.


RE: This is a joke right?
By MrPoletski on 5/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: This is a joke right?
By PhoenixKnight on 5/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By Justin Case on 5/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By MrPoletski on 5/25/2008 11:50:24 PM , Rating: 1
Judging by the EU voting track record we should let apes vote?

You're a yank yeah?

Look at your president, I rest my case.


RE: This is a joke right?
By spuddyt on 5/23/2008 11:29:32 AM , Rating: 4
actually, based on some psychological studies, certain types of apes, can in fact be taught language, to the degree that they can more or less hold a conversation, but even then, they never did get past the level of a 5 year old girl.....
yes this is madness (but then again, what about Humans who have mental issues and can't go out to work, shoud they get human rights?)
(pls don't flame me, I think this is stupid as well, its just food for thought)


RE: This is a joke right?
By amanojaku on 5/23/2008 11:54:04 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
but then again, what about Humans who have mental issues and can't go out to work, shoud they get human rights?


Humans with mental issues have jobs. They're called CEOs and politicians.


RE: This is a joke right?
By Kamea Networks on 5/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By FITCamaro on 5/23/2008 1:45:56 PM , Rating: 5
You went past the line. Yes, there are bad police out there. But the vast majority of them are heroes who deserve your respect and cooperation. I have a complete disgust for anyone who mistreats or gives a hard time to an officer. Appropriate responses to a law enforcement office are "Yes sir." and "No sir".

If you don't like dealing with the cops, don't do anything the f*ck wrong. There will always be bad eggs out there in any profession. That doesn't give you the right to treat all of them like sh*t.


RE: This is a joke right?
By snownpaint on 5/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By Samus on 5/23/2008 3:47:39 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry but I have family relatives and friends that are police officers, and they all share one similarity...they are all dumb as a deer.

The position of a politician or police officer doesn't require an intelligent person, so naturally the jobs attract people who lack just that. Here in Chicago, they recently just started requiring new;y recruited officers to have a 2-year college education (community college, etc) which means for the past 150 years, Chicago Police have had to have no more than a high school diploma, if that.

For someone who represents the law and holds the peace, they should have much better education than this. And that is just why most of them are terrible at performing their job well.


RE: This is a joke right?
By 91TTZ on 5/23/2008 5:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The position of a politician or police officer doesn't require an intelligent person, so naturally the jobs attract people who lack just that. Here in Chicago, they recently just started requiring new;y recruited officers to have a 2-year college education (community college, etc) which means for the past 150 years, Chicago Police have had to have no more than a high school diploma, if that.


You're fooling yourself if you really think that an extra 2-4 years of school is going to make the cops much better. They should already know basic things like "don't beat the crap out of a handcuffed guy", yet cops still get caught doing it. Do you really think that school is going to stop these kind of things?


RE: This is a joke right?
By borismkv on 5/23/2008 7:33:57 PM , Rating: 5
Okay, you know, I really hate this whole condescending attitude that "intelligent" people have towards people who aren't "intelligent." A lack of education does not determine a person's value to society, and I consider the man willing to place his life in harm's way to protect innocent people much more valuable to society as a whole than the person who sits in coffee houses typing out diatribes on their Macs against those awful uneducated people out there who are ruining everything for "intelligent" people. Get your damn priorities straight and start looking at how much value *you* have before you even think to judge another person's worth.


RE: This is a joke right?
By RogueSpear on 5/23/2008 8:50:24 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Here in Chicago, they recently just started requiring new;y recruited officers to have a 2-year college education (community college, etc) which means for the past 150 years, Chicago Police have had to have no more than a high school diploma, if that.

Perhaps in Chicago. I am a police officer and where I work a 2 year college degree has been required since the 80's. I cannot think of a single police officer in my department with less than 20 years of service that does not have BA or BS. We also have many officers with masters degrees, some who are practicing lawyers. Beyond that, I would estimate that at least a full quarter are volunteer fireman, many of them paramedics. At least a quarter are military reservists - one in particular has been sent to Iraq during each war there in addition to be activated and sent to Bosnia. We have officers who are certified to teach K - 12, which in New York is no small accomplishment. There are those who are licensed master electricians, master plumbers, commercial pilots. Our technical services officer makes MacGyver look like an amateur. Without going into too much detail, there have been episodes of a fictional television series that were based on the work done by our forensic lab.

On the flip side we do have some people who are clearly not worthy of badge. There are hot heads, loose cannons, bigots, and plain old jerks. But I think that you'll find that in almost any given population of people. So as whole, we are not perfect. We try our best and on some days we try harder than others.

Last year we had a natural disaster of sorts with snow, ice, and extreme wind. Nearly everyone worked 16+ hour days for a week. Directing traffic, answering thousands of calls for help, pumping the water out of basements while there own was submerged, not to mention being cold and wet the entire week. So the police officers in New Orleans that ditched the city get all of the attention, while the ones who stayed get none. Sometimes it takes an awful lot to keep on caring, believe me.


RE: This is a joke right?
By charlieee on 5/23/2008 10:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
I am in support of hearing this good news. CNN should make more stories like this available when disaster comes around.


RE: This is a joke right?
By FITCamaro on 5/24/2008 2:19:47 AM , Rating: 1
They're not as juicy. Screw the hero. Glamorize the inept.


RE: This is a joke right?
By jvillaro on 5/25/2008 1:37:14 AM , Rating: 2
Well after reading all the stupidity wrote oin this thread im kinda liking the idea of an ape as presidents all world wide... I actually think it would avoid all of us killing each other.


RE: This is a joke right?
By Xerstead on 5/23/2008 1:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
Disabled people already have 'Human Rights'
I only hope they are hearing the case to set the precident of Animals are Not Human.
If they are foolish enough to let this through then expect to see them swinging in for state benefits, housing, child support and care allowance.
And with all the anti-descrimination laws you could be working with one soon...


RE: This is a joke right?
By masher2 (blog) on 5/23/2008 2:45:10 PM , Rating: 3
> "I only hope they are hearing the case to set the precident of Animals are Not Human."

That precedent already exists, however. A decision to hear the case means they're willing to at least consider the possiblility that the plaintiff's case has merit.


RE: This is a joke right?
By snownpaint on 5/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is a joke right?
By Hawkido on 5/23/2008 5:52:01 PM , Rating: 2
Funny that they both earn more than you...

and you pay both their saleries...


RE: This is a joke right?
By HOOfan 1 on 5/23/2008 11:54:04 AM , Rating: 2
to be human you have to be of the genus Homo. Chimps are of the genus Pan therefore they are not human no matter how intelligent they are.


RE: This is a joke right?
By Justin Case on 5/23/2008 12:38:01 PM , Rating: 4
You do realize that's a classification determined by humans, right? I mean, for all you know, chimps may think they're just as homo as you.


RE: This is a joke right?
By HOOfan 1 on 5/23/2008 1:19:19 PM , Rating: 4
You do realize that the court ruling will be made by humans right?


RE: This is a joke right?
By marsbound2024 on 5/23/2008 2:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
This is straight out of the movie "Planet of the Apes." You know, the great movie from 1968, not the new movie. Except it was on the other end of the spectrum with the human in court and the ape scientists trying to prove that he was intelligent and not an abomination. The court ruling was of course made by apes.

In my opinion, while I do respect the intentions, there should certainly be no human rights given to a species that is clearly not human. This is not to say they cannot have rights, but the rights they are given should certainly be different on many levels than our rights. It has already been stated here... no right to vote is one of them.


RE: This is a joke right?
By Justin Case on 5/23/2008 3:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
Now I could say "actually it'll be made by washing machines", but that reference would be too geeky for this site. :^)


RE: This is a joke right?
By 91TTZ on 5/23/2008 1:24:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
to be human you have to be of the genus Homo. Chimps are of the genus Pan therefore they are not human no matter how intelligent they are.


What about gay chimps?


RE: This is a joke right?
By MAIA on 5/23/2008 12:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
actually, based on some psychological studies, certain types of apes, can in fact be taught language, to the degree that they can more or less hold a conversation, but even then, they never did get past the level of a 5 year old girl


That's easy then. Give them the rights of a five 5 year old ...
Anyway, they can understand and comunicate with us. They look like us (well, some...). they can hold a degree of social interaction and they can be taught. They can become hollywood actors and fly bombers (lol).

Anyway we share the same grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand fathers. That must mean something....


RE: This is a joke right?
By MrBungle123 on 5/23/2008 12:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
If we started adjusting everyones rights based on their mental age then everyone in congress would lose their jobs... some how i don't see that getting signed into law.


RE: This is a joke right?
By geddarkstorm on 5/23/2008 12:56:23 PM , Rating: 4
Humans are Homo sapians. I'm pretty sure you need to be one to get counted as one :P. We can give them "chimp" rights, or "ape" rights, or "fairly intelligent and rather amusing animal" rights, but one thing they aren't is human, and they shouldn't get human rights.


RE: This is a joke right?
By glitchc on 5/23/2008 4:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
Remove one grand and you and I are almost relatives.


RE: This is a joke right?
By i3arracuda on 5/23/2008 12:21:47 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
yes this is madness


Madness?

This! Is! Austria!


RE: This is a joke right?
By masher2 (blog) on 5/23/2008 12:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "actually, based on some psychological studies, certain types of apes, can in fact be taught language"

I've seen a few such reports, and followup studies normally indicate the researchers in question at least partially fell prey to their own bias and desire to believe, attributing the chimps a much higher level of communication than they were actually displaying.


RE: This is a joke right?
By MozeeToby on 5/23/2008 2:43:39 PM , Rating: 2
There's a few things wrong with your statement, more the fault of a misleading article than any fault of yours.

First, a Chimpanzee is an advanced primate, but it is not an ape. There are big differences of body and mind between a chimp and an ape. To the best of my knowledge no significant language has been taught to chimps, only apes. Then again, I am not a linguist or animal rights activist so my knowledge is limited.

Second and most important, the court is deciding if the chimp can be legally considered a person, not if the chimp is human. This is much the same way that a corporation is considered a person. It would give the chimp certain rights and responsiblities, including the right to have a gardian which is what the case is really about. This whole thing got blown way out of proportion by people who didn't understand the purpose of the case.

Third and least important, why a five year old girl ? It seems vaguely sexist that you would single out one sex over the other.


RE: This is a joke right?
By masher2 (blog) on 5/23/2008 2:54:39 PM , Rating: 3
> "First, a Chimpanzee is an advanced primate, but it is not an ape"

No. The chimpanzee, pan troglodytes, is an ape of the family hominoidea. They are sometimes referred to as monkeys (which are not apes) but this is incorrect.

> "the court is deciding if the chimp can be legally considered a person, not if the chimp is human"

The court is considering whether a chimp is entitled to the same human rights as a human being. I believe that article made that fairly clear, but if it didn't, I apologize.

For a legal and social perspective, the difference between a chimp who IS human and one who merely has the same rights as a human is essentially nil.


RE: This is a joke right?
By Strunf on 5/23/2008 3:42:57 PM , Rating: 3
Dogs have the same rights as cats, yet dogs aren't cats.


RE: This is a joke right?
By masher2 (blog) on 5/24/2008 11:11:59 AM , Rating: 2
In social and legal rights, a dog and a cat are identical...which was the point I was making.


RE: This is a joke right?
By PrinceGaz on 5/23/2008 4:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is nothing more than a guy who doesn't want to loose his pet. Deal with it buddy.

Did you mean to say that? It's the chimp that is male and its human owner is female. I suppose what you said could still make sense though :)


RE: This is a joke right?
By djkrypplephite on 5/24/2008 6:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
That's true. Ecofreaks can just import chimps and use them and extra votes. They don't know any better.

Regardless of that, this is ridiculous. Europe of course, being as stupid as it is, will likely pass this.


RE: This is a joke right?
By Moishe on 5/27/2008 8:19:37 AM , Rating: 2
If apes are humans, if human isn't the genetic code... then anything can be human.

Easily the vast majority of humans can take care of themselves for far, far less than $8k/month. I suggest letting "Matthew" go free and see how human he appears then.

Just because you dress an animal up and it does stuff doesn't mean it's a freakin human. This is absurd.


...
By AmazighQ on 5/23/2008 11:54:49 AM , Rating: 2
How about let the scientist find the missing link between humans and apes. And not go to court solely based on a theory. There is not justification to go to court to give an ape a status of a human. While there is no proof that apes and humans have the same ancestors. Yes yes 3% DNA difference is huge! The intelligence of a monkey is that of a 2-3 year old human. They do not need more to survive in the wild. And the evolution theory says the strongest survive. So why empower the weak. when you give apes right what will there contribution be to the society. we don't need leeching monkey that will live for free.
I just hope I don't wake up someday and see monkey have more right that people in Africa of Asia.




RE: ...
By MrBungle123 on 5/23/2008 12:04:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
While there is no proof that apes and humans have the same ancestors. Yes yes 3% DNA difference is huge!

You really have no idea how evolution works do you?

quote:

The intelligence of a monkey is that of a 2-3 year old human. They do not need more to survive in the wild. And the evolution theory says the strongest survive. So why empower the weak.


"It is not the strongest species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change."
- Charles Darwin


RE: ...
By RMSe17 on 5/23/2008 3:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You really have no idea how evolution works do you?


Macro evolution is a bunch of bull, no one can prove it, no one got anything but fantasy about it. If you think Darwin is so great, why dont you go look up his precondition about finding fossils of "in-between" kinds... and then see how many they found (not counting the fakes that were shown as such)


RE: ...
By mikefarinha on 5/23/2008 4:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
*Sigh*

I used to think like you until I took an intro to Anthropology class.

True to form, there is no *proof* of human evolution in the fossil record... the statistics of bones surviving decay are against us on that one.

If you took an intro to Antho you'd be surprised to learn just how much forensics we can do on the various extinct Hominid and Australopithecus fossils that we have found.

There will never be a complete record to verify against. Scientists do their best to try and paint a picture of a puzzle with out having all the pieces. The result is a surprisingly logical and fantastic, yet incomplete, tapestry of evolution.

Could evolution be disproved? Sure it can, but with our current evidence and understanding it doesn't look likely it ever will be.


RE: ...
By Ringold on 5/23/2008 4:59:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you took an intro to Antho you'd be surprised to learn just how much forensics we can do on the various extinct Hominid and Australopithecus fossils that we have found.

There will never be a complete record to verify against.


I don't understand the problem some have -- beyond ideology, anyway. If you put the following series of numbers in front of someone, they can probably guess the blank values:

1 2 _ 4 5 _ _ 8 9 10

Right? That's something I'd expect in a Pre-K class.

But show them a series of fossils that progressively resemble us more and more, and they refuse to connect the dots?

quote:
*Sigh*


Indeed.


RE: ...
By Duwelon on 5/23/2008 11:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
You've been lied to by the so called intellectual elite. Macro-evolution is a theory for a reason because there is no way to prove it. None. You can try to simplify things to missing links between numbers 1 through 10 but it's more like 1 _ 9_ 981 _ 908928390182031741123890809890123.

THen you have Cosmic evolution. We've never seen stars form but that doesn't the science books from telling us all about how it happens as if it were fact. You've been lied to by people who hate all things "God" and will do anything including lie and cheat to convince themselves and others of it.

Then there's the whole problem of the "big bang" which if you believe evolution, you have to also believe in something like the big bang, which is a very popular theory because of how the universe seems to be expanding. Where does matter come from? Where did space and time come from? These questions are not answerable by science and anyone who claims to know is lying. Evolution and everything tied to it is a religion as much as any other. The difference is is that Evolution has a lightshow with smoke and mirrors where they use real science to pretend their conclusion is also real science.


RE: ...
By SlyNine on 5/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Duwelon on 5/23/2008 11:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
You're so far off topic it's not funny. You started off throwing out a bunch of assumptions about me to support your point. WHich is exactly what text books and professors do. They throw out "some" empirical evidence that shows animals change in slight ways from their parents and use it as "proof" of macro-evolution.

Tell me, what empirical evidence do you have that shows rocks produced organic matter on their own?


RE: ...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/23/2008 11:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
> "They throw out "some" empirical evidence that shows animals change in slight ways from their parents and use it as "proof" of macro-evolution"

Err, that empirical evidence is just the first of dozens of distinct justifications for evolutionary theory. Molecular biology alone provides far more direct and compelling evidence...but, of course, the creationists know nothing of it, and continue to cling to their comfortable beliefs.


RE: ...
By Duwelon on 5/23/2008 11:59:01 PM , Rating: 2
Dozens of distinct justifications that are full of unprovable assumptions.


RE: ...
By Duwelon on 5/24/2008 12:03:06 AM , Rating: 2
Despite what Obama and other far left extremist liberals think, people do not cling to religion for "comfort".


RE: ...
By AlmostExAMD on 5/24/2008 1:15:52 AM , Rating: 2
Pixies and Fairies live in your backyard too, Of course they only come out at night when no one is around to see them,LOL.
If your god apparently created everything then please tell me who created him/her/it?
Science does not try to dismiss the fact that there either is or isn't a god but it tries to find answers to these sorts of questions.
Religion on the other hand dismisses any/everything that conflicts with its belief system and when science finds something to add to there theories religions alter there bible and beliefs to make it work.

Either side your on it's virtually impossible to prove either, Does god live in the sun perhaps? After all a lot of cultures in the past worshipped the sun did they know something we don't? Prove to me that god does not live in the sun(good luck sending a probe inside there). Its all to easy to believe in something without ever trying to question it.

If you truly have a belief in something, then you don't need to waste you're time in defending it for the sake of somebody elses view point unless your a scientist.
If you're deity(s) or whatever you believe in are real, then they are more than capable of defending themselves, they don't need your help.


RE: ...
By MrBungle123 on 5/23/2008 8:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Macro evolution is a bunch of bull, no one can prove it, no one got anything but fantasy about it. If you think Darwin is so great, why dont you go look up his precondition about finding fossils of "in-between" kinds... and then see how many they found (not counting the fakes that were shown as such)


I'm going to assume by your statements that you are a religious person?... and that your "evidence" that we were all created is that there are holes in the Theory of Evolution? how am i doing so far?


RE: ...
By Duwelon on 5/23/2008 11:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
You're belief in the missing links being "yet to be discovered" is not a religion in what way?


RE: ...
By SlyNine on 5/23/2008 11:12:51 PM , Rating: 1
That's the problem with creationists, They never have a good argument against evolution, Only that the data is not 100% complete. Because evolutionists are the only people that really care for PROOF, they can use that against us and we cannot use it against them.

Because if they allowed us to they would realize that their beliefs are based on nothing but speculation and fantasy.


RE: ...
By Duwelon on 5/23/2008 11:25:35 PM , Rating: 3
If you had proof it wouldn't be called a theory, smart guy.


RE: ...
By SlyNine on 5/23/2008 11:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
People just choose to ignore the proof so they can go on living with their beliefs. Genius.


RE: ...
By Duwelon on 5/23/2008 11:39:16 PM , Rating: 3
Oh this is fun, i wanna play too:

No, people use an observation of true science to pretend something else isn't true, so they can go about feeling better that there is nothing to believe in.


RE: ...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/2008 1:25:35 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Everything in science is a theory, from the theory of gravity to the "theory" that the sun warms the earth.


Really ? I'm pretty sure gravity has been upgraded to a scientific LAW. Not just a theory anymore.


RE: ...
By michael67 on 5/24/2008 7:17:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really ? I'm pretty sure gravity has been upgraded to a scientific LAW. Not just a theory anymore.

No Newtons law is after Einstein's theory bin proven right downgraded to a formula to calculate how gravity works on earth but Einstein's theory is still not complete

Newtons law is roughly the same as what you do when calculating circles you use 3.1415 instead of using the complete pi Nr, and it will giving you big anouge margin of error for normal use.

But Einstein's theory is still a theory, and properly will also be proven wrong over time as whit Newtons law, even do both are/ware still brilliant steps forward in understanding how the universe works.

A easy to read book about the universe and gravity is simon singh's book "big bang" its easy to read book over the theory but also gives a good insight how science theory and believes works and evolves from the first time people looked up to the sky and wondered what it was.
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Origin-Universe-P-S...


RE: ...
By sqrt1 on 5/24/2008 12:47:02 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder, have you actually spent any time studying what creationists believe?

It might surprise you that they have always believed in:
1) Natural selection
2) Mutations
3) New species form as a result of 1 and 2

Their main argument is that Mutations (along with Natural Selection) are purely destructive forces. This is not to say that mutations cannot be beneficial, just that information/functionality cannot be created via such means.


RE: ...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/2008 1:22:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm going to assume by your statements that you are a religious person?...


I'm not religious and I also believe macro-evolution is a crock. Wales that " evolve " into birds ? Birds that become a monkey that becomes a man ? Just.. please.

Darwin was a true scientist. Not the dogmatic masses that cling to his theory in light of ever increasing evidence and proof that life is more than bones. There are hundreds and thousands of complex biological, biochemical, electrical, and biomechanical systems in place that make us and other animals what we are. And they all could not have simply fallen into place or mutually " evolved " together into one consistent working unit all at the same time and in the exact right order. Had Darwin been alive today, he would be the FIRST one to revise his theory.

Also a scientific majority accepting a theory does not make it a fact. Remember there was a scientific majority that supported global warming as well. And 30 years before that, the scientific majority accepted the " fact " that we were on the verge of a major population threatening new Ice Age.

Scientist are human too. Nobody wants to believe their lifespan is but a meager speck in the hourglass of time. And yet they constantly seek to quantify mysteries that are millions and millions of years before our comprehension. Frankly I rather see where were going then struggle to see our past.

I grow weary of these debates. To quote some guy more famous than me " why can't a man just be a man ? "


RE: ...
By MrBungle123 on 5/25/2008 10:37:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not religious and I also believe macro-evolution is a crock. Wales that " evolve " into birds ? Birds that become a monkey that becomes a man ? Just.. please.


Nothing in the theory of evolution suggests that birds are descended from whales, nor are humans descended from monkeys. Thank you for further exposing your ignorance on the topic.


RE: ...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/2008 2:19:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nothing in the theory of evolution suggests that


Thats fine because I wasn't speaking about the " theory of evolution " was I ? I said MACRO evolution.

quote:
Thank you for further exposing your ignorance on the topic.


Thank you for being another dillweed who blindly calls anyone who doesn't agree with you 'ignorant'.


RE: ...
By michael67 on 5/26/2008 11:08:08 AM , Rating: 1
Resent studies about birds suggest strongly that they are descendants from dinosauruses.

Edonky file: ed2k://|file|BBC.Horizon.-.2007-03-13.-.My.Pet. Dinosaur.DVB.XviD-MVGroup.[tvu.org.ru].avi|78250393 6|0B365FDD55F40C4E09878DE8A9F18028|/

But you my dear sir imho your a complete ignorant idiot and doesnt have the faintest idea how science is working.
And using words like complex biological, biochemical, electrical, and biomechanical systems doesn't make you any smarter not even on the surface.
quote:
Had Darwin been alive today, he would be the FIRST one to revise his theory.

Yeah he would have had to ad devolution to his theory


RE: ...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/2008 2:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Resent studies about birds suggest strongly that they are descendants from dinosauruses.


So now " strongly suggests " is good enough to call it a fact ?

quote:
But you my dear sir imho your a complete ignorant idiot and doesnt have the faintest idea how science is working.


Besides there were flying dinosaurs. We know that for a fact. For species of dinosaurs to become present day birds is entirely possible, dare I say probable. How am I being ignorant ? This is not an example of MACRO evolution.

I'm getting tired of your bigotry on this topic sir. You have already labeled everyone in my country a selfish warmonger who causes all of the worlds problems. Now you go out of your way to make billigrent claims about my beliefs and intelligence. If I was from Holland or somewhere else in Europe, you would not behave this way to me. Your a bigot.

quote:
And using words like complex biological, biochemical, electrical, and biomechanical systems doesn't make you any smarter not even on the surface.


And using words like idiot and 'dinosauruses' doesn't make you look especially smarter either.


RE: ...
By michael67 on 5/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By onelittleindian on 5/27/2008 1:43:03 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
ware a animal that has the potential of 5 year old is considered worth having
A chimp doesn't have the potential of a five year old. A kid can grow up -- but a monkey stays a monkey all its life.

They're ANIMALS. Get a freakin' clue.


Now if only...
By Justin Case on 5/23/2008 12:41:39 PM , Rating: 5
Now if only the majority of humans in the world had the same status and the same quality of life as European chimps...




RE: Now if only...
By geddarkstorm on 5/23/2008 12:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
So sadly true.


RE: Now if only...
By Ringold on 5/23/2008 5:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
$8000 / $30 = 267

Allow me the assumption that another 100m people get thrown back to living on less than $1/day due to global commodity inflation, since 100m already have been.

That means the average European ape enjoys monthly spending 267 times the average buying power of a billion human beings. Not allowing me the above assumptions, it's still 800 million or so people. (Well, assuming 8k is the average upkeep for European apes and not just 'Matthew')

What a wonderful world!


RE: Now if only...
By MrBungle123 on 5/23/2008 8:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
You know if Barack Obama sees this he'll propose a tax on rich monkeys and promise to put the procedes toward free veterinary coverage for empoverished zoo animals...


RE: Now if only...
By Justin Case on 5/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Now if only...
By Justin Case on 5/23/2008 9:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
Before someone calls me a racist, I'm talking about this monkey:

http://www.popular-pics.com/pictures.aspx?photoid=...


RE: Now if only...
By Ringold on 5/24/2008 3:07:49 AM , Rating: 4
You whine about inequality in the world, and then whine about the US President who has done more for Africa than probably any previous President, and who's commitment to free trade, which is the most effective way to pull a country up from poverty, is one of his few good consistent qualities?

No, I won't call you a racist, just extremely inconsistent. :P


RE: Now if only...
By Justin Case on 5/24/2008 2:43:48 PM , Rating: 1
Are the walls of your reality distortion field getting close enough for you to touch them yet?


RE: Now if only...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/24/2008 3:01:58 PM , Rating: 5
Ringold is correct. Read this article by Bob Geldof, who points out some of the many ways Bush has done far more to benefit the African people than another other president of the past 50 years:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717...

quote:
It is some story. And I have always wondered why it was never told properly to the American people...It was, for example, Bush who initiated the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief...The U.S. also contributes one-third of the money for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria...It contributes 50% of all food aid...On a seven-day trip through Africa, Bush announced a fantastic new $350 million fund for other neglected tropical diseases that can be easily eradicated; a program to distribute 5.2 million mosquito nets to Tanzanian kids; and contracts worth around $1.2 billion in Tanzania and Ghana from the Millennium Challenge Account, another initiative of the Bush Administration.


RE: Now if only...
By Justin Case on 5/24/2008 9:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
He's certainly made them a lot richer when their wealth is measured in dollars. He should also take credit for doubling the wealth of everyone with a bank account in euros.

I had no idea you were such a fan of Bob Geldof. Note taken. In any case, what does that article have to do with free trade?

Considering that just about every president in the past 50 years actually funded proxy wars in Africa (sometimes both sides, after the USSR went bankrupt), simply doing nothing would "help them more". And "nothing" is pretty close to what he did (Darfur, anyone?), probably because he was too busy screwing up other parts of the world, such as Iraq and... the US.


RE: Now if only...
By Ringold on 5/25/2008 4:37:59 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
He's certainly made them a lot richer when their wealth is measured in dollars. He should also take credit for doubling the wealth of everyone with a bank account in euros.


Such things are indicated using purchasing power parity, which largely eliminates the importance of currency values.

Second of all, the Euro is a new-born currency. It's also a rather bad time to do comparisons; we lead the EU business cycle on average by six months. Therefore, we have cut rates while their own remain high. That's one source of devaluation. A second is that the Federal Reserve has a dual mandate; it must protect employment as well as battle inflation. The ECB has a single primary mandate: price stability. There are pros and cons to both approaches, but your mischaraterization of the whole thing so far leads me to suspect I'd be wasting my time there.

Further, just in case other liberals have some misunderstanding of how it works: The President has nothing to do with the dollar. The dollar theoretically is in the hands of Treasury, but in reality it is the Federal Reserve who influences rates and thus, to a large degree, exchange rates. The Federal Reserve is an non-partisan independent agency. Bernanke does not consult Bush, Republicans, or anyone else before making any decision.

quote:
In any case, what does that article have to do with free trade?


He said nothing about free trade, that was only one element of my post. Free trade should be a non-issue; it's been established as a positive since at least 1776, if not earlier by pre-classical writers. At the latest, Ricardo. Go ahead though, argue the Earth is flat while you're at it if you want to take on free trade.

quote:
(Darfur, anyone?)


Some of things Saddam did make Darfur look like Disneyland. That you would even bring up Darfur while other atrocities take place around the continent of arguably much greater scale also indicate possible lack of knowledge about what is even going on over there. We did, at least, push some sanctions on Sudan, though a lot of Security Council resolutions were blocked by China and Russia. Meanwhile, European firms seem to be doing business as usual with Sudan. Our pressure on Sudan has probably been the strongest of any nation in the world. What would you have us do further? Send in the Marine corps?

Let me tell you what would happen after we sent in the Marines. Iraq 2.0. Chaos. Squabbling ethnic groups, political affiliations, and then Al Qaeda would swarm in, happy as could be to have a third front.

Just about everything that can be done about Darfur has been done.

quote:
Considering that just about every president in the past 50 years actually funded proxy wars in Africa


So you bring up past alledged crimes. Thats deflecting the point.

Indeed, thats what your entire post was. Smoke screen.


RE: Now if only...
By Justin Case on 5/25/2008 2:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
Is that what you're smoking? Screen? Must be powerful stuff, to give you such a, shall we say, neoconic view of reality.

Unless you're posting from a different planet, of course. But even then, it seems that the SETI has to go on...


RE: Now if only...
By michael67 on 5/25/2008 2:33:19 AM , Rating: 2
Are you talking a bout same President that will only give aid to countries and organizations that stop the free condoms programs and promote not having sex as the way of stopping the disease of spreading ?

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/12/Perspective/HIV_...
quote:
These are the real-life consequences in Bush's war of ideology. The PAI report puts Bush on notice; if changes aren't made we must presume that he cares more about gaining a political edge than African lives.

Yeah Bush cares really for Africa.

I would also gugest of reading this page: http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/foreign_aid.html

quote:
The USA is only the worlds' biggest giver because it is rich. In terms of generosity and altruism, the USA is the most stingy and self-interested giver in the developed world:

"[Americans] are regularly told by politicians and the media, that America is the world's most generous nation. This is one of the most conventional pieces of 'knowledgeable ignorance'. According to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US gave between $6 and $15 billion in foreign aid in the period between 1995 and 1999. In absolute terms, Japan gives more than the US, between $9 and $15 billion in the same period. But the absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%. The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share"


RE: Now if only...
By michael67 on 5/25/2008 3:32:52 AM , Rating: 2
Also some information to think about: http://www.vox-populi.org/digest/faid_3.html
quote:
Overestimation

The feeling that the US spends too much on foreign aid seems to rest on an extreme overestimation of how much the US government spends on foreign aid. PIPA's July 2000 poll asked respondents to estimate how much of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. They were told that they could answer in fractions of a percent as well as whole percentage points, thus implying that the amount could be quite low. Nonetheless, the median estimate was 20% of the federal budget, 20 times the actual amount of approximately 1%.

quote:
when respondents were asked "to imagine the US economy and the European Union economy as if they were one big economy," and then to think about the relative shares of development aid to poor countries given by the US and Europe, the median respondent estimated that the US gives 60% and the European Union 40% (PIPA, February-April 1998). When asked what they thought it should be, the median respondent wanted a 50-50 split, with the US and Europe sharing the burden equally. (In reality, based on 1996 figures from the OECD, the US gave only 22% while the EU countries gave 78%.)


RE: Now if only...
By Ringold on 5/25/2008 4:48:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The USA is only the worlds' biggest giver because it is rich. In terms of generosity and altruism, the USA is the most stingy and self-interested giver in the developed world:


Thank you for providing worthless links that admit that the United States gives more than any other nation and yet still manages to bitch about it.

Attitudes like yours are precisely why people like me think our foreign aid budget should be roughly this big: $0.

America is so hated by some trolls, Catch 22 applies to everything.


RE: Now if only...
By michael67 on 5/25/2008 6:31:17 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah your country gives more then mine a bout 2x more only there lives about 15 times more people in yours.
So how gives the US more, based on there GDP

If GDP is calculated to the federal budget the foreign aid budget would go up from 1% to 10% if they would pay as mouths as my country "Holland"

And my intention was really not to troll ore offend you but to show the numbers and the miss conception that the US gives loads of money to aid


RE: Now if only...
By Strunf on 5/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Now if only...
By Justin Case on 5/24/2008 3:44:47 PM , Rating: 1
The obvious solution is for the people in those places to start eating obese Americans.


riiiight
By FingerMeElmo87 on 5/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: riiiight
By FingerMeElmo87 on 5/23/2008 11:06:30 AM , Rating: 1
so that explains how Schwarzenegger became Goerner of California


RE: riiiight
By porkpie on 5/23/2008 12:03:35 PM , Rating: 2
It also explains the various spelling, grammar, and capitalization errors in your one-line post.


RE: riiiight
By FITCamaro on 5/23/2008 1:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
Owned.


RE: riiiight
By michael67 on 5/25/2008 6:49:00 AM , Rating: 2
No offence meant but have you ever tried posting in a other languages than your own.
Its always easy to criticise other peoples mistakes in a foreign languish if you properly cant do it your self in a other.


RE: riiiight
By mindless1 on 5/26/2008 7:48:35 AM , Rating: 2
Why no offense? If they make the comment intent on offense, they show that they feel it is an acceptible way to act.

I'd love to follow around one of the spelling Nazi some day and criticize the way they walk, the combing of their hair, their pronunciation, etc. Nitpicking about some imperfection is as pathetic as it gets, spelling errors included. It is rude, uncivilized, and disgustingly subjective.


RE: riiiight
By michael67 on 5/26/2008 12:23:50 PM , Rating: 2
Because that would lower me to there level, and i have learned if you talk to other people whit respect (even if they don't give it) they are more willing to learn ore hear you side of the argument, how rude they even ware.

And telling some one he is stupid hurts a lot less then showing them how are stupid and ignorant they are in a polite way.

Over at overclockers.com there was a nice 3 part peace over just this.
Lunatics Running The Asylum: a series on why people are such loons on the Internet
http://www.overclockers.com/tips01331/
http://www.overclockers.com/tips01332/
http://www.overclockers.com/tips01333/


RE: riiiight
By William Gaatjes on 5/27/2008 7:31:51 AM , Rating: 2
I enjoyed that article at overclockers very much. WYSIWYG indeed :)

How about : WYPIHYT

What You Post Is How You Think.

Shows much about the intelligence of some people...

No use of valid arguments just using foul language or dumb expressions.

I totally agree with you

:)


RE: riiiight
By mindless1 on 5/27/2008 4:55:50 PM , Rating: 2
While this is true, there is more than one thing that can be taught. Some people go around complaining about everything largely because they see no resistance to their juvenile behavior. Being patient with them is a good way to keep their attention on the topic, but a bad way to reinforce the idea that their behavior was accepted.

I don't necessarily feel that offending someone is lowering yourself, some people will be offended no matter what your goal might be and especially when someone has an illogical opinion on a topic, it is common to cause offense merely by stating what seem to be objective facts.

Consider a somewhat different, yet somewhat parallel scenario of a police officer and someone breaking the law (committing an offense). Until the law was broken, everything was civil. After the law is broken the police officer is, by our society's standards, empowered to forcibly, offensively apprehend the law breaker. The distinction is who deviates from the intellectual discourse and what needs to happen in order to reinforce the idea that it is not something that should happen.


RE: riiiight
By Justin Case on 5/23/2008 12:40:09 PM , Rating: 5
I can safely say that you don't share 100% of my DNA.


RE: riiiight
By geddarkstorm on 5/23/2008 12:57:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, probably only 99.99%.


RE: riiiight
By FingerMeElmo87 on 5/23/2008 2:32:14 PM , Rating: 1
bastards


RE: riiiight
By Maximilian on 5/25/2008 8:39:52 AM , Rating: 2
Apes are not human.

Grammar nazis should be hung drawn and quartered then fed to the ape in question to help with its upkeep, noone will miss them, people may miss the ape.


RE: riiiight
By James Wood Carter on 5/25/2008 2:38:22 PM , Rating: 1
for your information no humans have 100% alike in DNA. everyone differs in its DNA construct. Human in my opinion no different from apes in the sense that they are all created by nature. They might not be human but they are species we share natures gift with (thats untill we eventually wipe them out.
Its obsurd how you cassify as human ... mute, disabled are humans aswell and therefore your comment is rather ignorant.
Human is just a definition for a species but they sure share similar human characteristics such as social structure and communication.


RE: riiiight
By William Gaatjes on 5/27/2008 7:44:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
for your information no humans have 100% alike in DNA. everyone differs in its DNA construct.


Indeed. If we where 100% alike in dna we would be called clones.

quote:
Its obsurd how you cassify as human ... mute, disabled are humans aswell and therefore your comment is rather ignorant. Human is just a definition for a species but they sure share similar human characteristics such as social structure and communication.


Indeed. Some humans define themselfs as human because they think altruistic behaviour is only found in humans.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEENNGG !

Altruistic behaviour is a common trait with animals.

However no animal in the world can be as cruel as a human being can be. Humans are the only beings that can enjoy hurting or destroying something. Not because of some prime instinct, no just because they can.

Would be fun if you would ask the chimp to be called human and the chimp would reply : "No thanks you guys are way too savage ! Let me and my fellow chimps just live in the forrest. Too bad you destroyed the forrest in your greed"


Heston is spinning in his grave.
By Desslok on 5/23/2008 10:49:27 AM , Rating: 5
"Get your hands off of her you DAMN dirty ape!!"




RE: Heston is spinning in his grave.
By BMFPitt on 5/23/2008 11:00:52 AM , Rating: 3
They're gonna take our jorbs!!!


RE: Heston is spinning in his grave.
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/23/2008 11:06:00 AM , Rating: 5
Dey took er jerbs!