PDA

View Full Version : Wacko Liberal Nobel Peace Prize Winner Tells SchoolChildren Desire to Kill Bush



TheDanold
07-24-2006, 03:16 PM
NOBEL peace laureate Betty Williams displayed a flash of her feisty Irish spirit yesterday, lashing out at US President George W.Bush during a speech to hundreds of schoolchildren.
"Right now, I would love to kill George Bush."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19902313-29677,00.html

The sad part is, they're just kids and so they clap to her words, thinking it's right because of her prestige for winning an award. Any wonder why Conservatives worry over lefties brainwashing kids with strong hate?
:(

Brent
07-24-2006, 11:18 PM
Right now, I would love to see Betty Williams HANG. :)

charver
07-25-2006, 03:48 AM
Betty Williams - "Right now, I would love to kill George Bush."


In summary - Woman says what rest of the world is thinking shock.

klaatu
07-25-2006, 04:44 AM
I admire Betty Williams for her accomplishments, a true hero in her rise from a normal woking woman to a Nobel winner. When you read this article I wonder ..., where does the "Kill bush" sentiment come from? Why not "kill terrorists" , arent they the one's who strap bombs around the bodies of their children and send them off to blow up malls? :confused:

Damocles
07-25-2006, 06:18 AM
It's because Bush causes them to blow up kids in Israel. See? Everything is Bush's fault...

charver
07-25-2006, 06:35 AM
I admire Betty Williams for her accomplishments, a true hero in her rise from a normal woking woman to a Nobel winner. When you read this article I wonder ..., where does the "Kill bush" sentiment come from? Why not "kill terrorists" , arent they the one's who strap bombs around the bodies of their children and send them off to blow up malls? :confused:

Oh come on, Mr K.

You don't just think the "kill Bush" sentiment was an off-hand comment, the like of which is uttered a million times a day about people who piss you off, rather than a heartfelt intention to execute another cove?

I suspect it was a slow news day.

OrnotBitwise
07-25-2006, 11:08 AM
I admire Betty Williams for her accomplishments, a true hero in her rise from a normal woking woman to a Nobel winner. When you read this article I wonder ..., where does the "Kill bush" sentiment come from? Why not "kill terrorists" , arent they the one's who strap bombs around the bodies of their children and send them off to blow up malls? :confused:
I often want to kill Bush. Literally. Worse than that, I want to smash his stupid fucking head in with a sledge hammer . . . AFTER I've taken out his knee caps and nuts, of course. I despise him for the immoral, greedy little fuckwad that he is.

It's perfectly natural to have such impulses, I think. What isn't natural is giving in to them.

I know perfectly well that my emotions are over the top where the Weed is concerned. I'd never do any such thing, nore would I condone having it done.

Do we know the context in which she made her remark? Not really. She did have this to say later, however:

I don't know how I ever got a Nobel Peace Prize, because when I see children die the anger in me is just beyond belief. It's our duty as human beings, whatever age we are, to become the protectors of human life.That doesn't sound to me as if she were advocating having Bush killed. Anger is one thing. Acting on that anger is something else again.

robdastud
07-25-2006, 11:58 AM
i see holyroller Klaatu is here... lol where you been??

TheDanold
07-25-2006, 01:48 PM
I often want to kill Bush. Literally. Worse than that, I want to smash his stupid fucking head in with a sledge hammer . . . AFTER I've taken out his knee caps and nuts, of course. I despise him for the immoral, greedy little fuckwad that he is.

It's perfectly natural to have such impulses, I think. What isn't natural is giving in to them.

I know perfectly well that my emotions are over the top where the Weed is concerned. I'd never do any such thing, nore would I condone having it done.

Do we know the context in which she made her remark? Not really. She did have this to say later, however:
That doesn't sound to me as if she were advocating having Bush killed. Anger is one thing. Acting on that anger is something else again.
I've wanted to slap some Leftoids, but I can't think of ever wanting to kill any of them. Mostly I never really give up the idea that they can be converted...because I was.

What you said does explain to me why so many tens of millions perished under Socialism/Communism in the last century, from a supposedly peace-loving, humanitarian philosophy...

robdastud
07-25-2006, 01:55 PM
I've wanted to slap some Leftoids, but I can't think of ever wanting to kill any of them. Mostly I never really give up the idea that they can be converted...because I was.

What you said does explain to me why so many tens of millions perished under Socialism/Communism in the last century, from a supposedly peace-loving, humanitarian philosophy...


Maineman ring a bell dano?? LOL

OrnotBitwise
07-25-2006, 01:57 PM
I've wanted to slap some Leftoids, but I can't think of ever wanting to kill any of them. Mostly I never really give up the idea that they can be converted...because I was.

What you said does explain to me why so many tens of millions perished under Socialism/Communism in the last century, from a supposedly peace-loving, humanitarian philosophy...
LMAO! So, Saint Dano never feels even the slightest urge to smash someone's stupid head in, eh? Yeah, right. I believe that like I believe in the Tooth Fairy.

:pke:

As I say, such impulses are perfectly natural. My guess is that everyone has them. The key word is impulses, however. The single most important, and sometimes most difficult, part of growing up is learning to overcome one's impulses. To redirect and sublimate them where necessary. That's natural and normal for human beings. For all social animals more complex than insects, in fact.

This is exactly why objectivism/atomism does not work. They procede from an incorrect assumption about human nature. Specifically, that it is somehow the natural state of the individual to be able to work his or her will without hindrance from society.

robdastud
07-25-2006, 01:58 PM
dano is to temper like i am to bipolar. LOL.

TheDanold
07-25-2006, 02:37 PM
LMAO! So, Saint Dano never feels even the slightest urge to smash someone's stupid head in, eh? Yeah, right. I believe that like I believe in the Tooth Fairy.
I never said I was a saint, just that I don't have impulses to kill anyone, I think as a kid sure, teenager (lefty teenager definetely) but you grow out of that. Have I felt like kicking someone's ass, sure, but killing them never comes into my mind, sorry.



As I say, such impulses are perfectly natural. My guess is that everyone has them. The key word is impulses, however. The single most important, and sometimes most difficult, part of growing up is learning to overcome one's impulses. To redirect and sublimate them where necessary. That's natural and normal for human beings. For all social animals more complex than insects, in fact.

This is exactly why objectivism/atomism does not work. They procede from an incorrect assumption about human nature. Specifically, that it is somehow the natural state of the individual to be able to work his or her will without hindrance from society.
Yet many people are individuals and don't need to depend on society, moreover you persist in this fallacy that strong society = strong government.
Out where I live in the country, people are very friendly, watch out for each other's property, do deeds for each other like some repairs or grass mowing...yet we are mostly anti big government.

The bottom line is that you are free to grow government dependence as much as you want in San Fran, individualists and Libertarians don't mind that. But you lefties seem unwilling to let individuals be on their own in other parts of America.

OrnotBitwise
07-25-2006, 03:02 PM
I never said I was a saint, just that I don't have impulses to kill anyone, I think as a kid sure, teenager (lefty teenager definetely) but you grow out of that. Have I felt like kicking someone's ass, sure, but killing them never comes into my mind, sorry.
No offense but I think that's bullshit. You're lying either to yourself or to us. I don't care much either way, you understand. I'm merely stating the obvious.

Yet many people are individuals and don't need to depend on society, moreover you persist in this fallacy that strong society = strong government.

Out where I live in the country, people are very friendly, watch out for each other's property, do deeds for each other like some repairs or grass mowing...yet we are mostly anti big government.

The bottom line is that you are free to grow government dependence as much as you want in San Fran, individualists and Libertarians don't mind that. But you lefties seem unwilling to let individuals be on their own in other parts of America.
Everyone depends on society. Even you. If you think you don't then you're deluding yourself again.

Human beings are social animals. We do not and can not live for long outside of a society. Why do you think that solitary confinement is considered torture in most parts of the world?

All humans are always interdependent. Our societies are founded on a specialization of labor that simply isn't possible without some kind of formalized, centralized decision making mechanism -- e.g. government.

We do differ from most social animals in the diversity of individual preferences and personalities we exhibit. I think that's probably inevitable given our intelligence. But your loathing for what you call "dependence" is silly and misplaced.

TheDanold
07-25-2006, 03:20 PM
No offense but I think that's bullshit. You're lying either to yourself or to us. I don't care much either way, you understand. I'm merely stating the obvious.
How on earth would you know the extremities of my thoughts?
Let's try this a different way.
If you were to piss off some jock in school, most likely he would beat you up but NEVER think to kill you. Most people would actually.
If you were to piss off some wimpy loner in school who dresses in black, most likely he would never beat you up (because he can't) but store up the hate and imagine (and possibly enact) killing you in a painful way.

I'm not afraid to get in a fight and when I have I feel jes fine after punching some fuck in the head a few times, I just don't feel any desire to have to go beyond that.



Everyone depends on society. Even you. If you think you don't then you're deluding yourself again.
I depend on others to provide me goods and services in exchange for my cash. It is nice to have others as friends and maybe more. All of which is in the context of freedom, which is still possible in a FREE society.
But for fucks sakes, get it through your head that society does NOT equal government. I have given you examples of where it doesn't, pay attention.



Human beings are social animals. We do not and can not live for long outside of a society. Why do you think that solitary confinement is considered torture in most parts of the world?
Again society != government. Also I have to laugh because solitary confinement restricts MANY freedoms, far beyond interraction with society.
Bad example.



All humans are always interdependent. Our societies are founded on a specialization of labor that simply isn't possible without some kind of formalized, centralized decision making mechanism -- e.g. government.
Well early history of America proves you wrong, there was plenty of society and very little government - and what little government there was certainly made no decisions in regard to labor.

"If we were directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we would soon want for bread." – Thomas Jefferson



We do differ from most social animals in the diversity of individual preferences and personalities we exhibit. I think that's probably inevitable given our intelligence. But your loathing for what you call "dependence" is silly and misplaced.
So do elephants, so do wolves, so do any social animals. What makes humans unique (and more dominant) is dexterity in hand usage (ability to use tools) and higher intelligence, NOT socialness.
I loathe forcing me to be responsible for others dependence, which is EXACTLY what you do when you have government dole out more social welfare.
And yes I think people/families/neighborhoods are much safer/happier and prosperous with less dependence - you have only to look at Liberal Democrat run inner cities to see that.

Don't you ever stop and say:
"I live in San Fran, where we are caring and spend the most on helping the homeless of any city, yet we have the biggest amount of homeless per capita. Gee maybe somewhere we fucked up bad."
It's like blinding yourself to everyday evidence...

OrnotBitwise
07-25-2006, 05:21 PM
How on earth would you know the extremities of my thoughts?
Let's try this a different way.
If you were to piss off some jock in school, most likely he would beat you up but NEVER think to kill you. Most people would actually.No, that's not necessarily true. I submit that the urge to commit great bodily harm and/or murder is perfectly natural and happens to everyone at some point or another. It is likely almost immediately suppressed again since we all know that doing so would be wrong but the urge is often there.

My point is simply that if the impulse is not acted upon there's no harm and no foul. Someone who finds those impulses increasing or intruding on their day-to-day life probably ought to look into therapy, but that's another matter

If you were to piss off some wimpy loner in school who dresses in black, most likely he would never beat you up (because he can't) but store up the hate and imagine (and possibly enact) killing you in a painful way.
I don't buy that generalization. Certainly the person with the greater burden of reppressed anger and bitterness is probably going to be the one with the more vivid phantasies of revenge, but even that's largely speculative. And I don't buy either of the stereotypes you've trotted out there.

I was one of those geeky loners for a while. Then, like many such, I discovered a social life late in high school and on into college. That's a fairly common pattern, I believe. Bullies, however, often find there's little redemption waiting for them in adult life. That too is another thread for another day though.

I'm not afraid to get in a fight and when I have I feel jes fine after punching some fuck in the head a few times, I just don't feel any desire to have to go beyond that.
Whoopie. This demonstrates what, exactly? That beating people up is good for you? There are other ways of dealing with anger and frustration. Myself, I've managed to completely avoid all physical altercation since high school. No, wait: I got whacked on the head at a demonstration in college. Sophomore year. So, since then.

I depend on others to provide me goods and services in exchange for my cash. It is nice to have others as friends and maybe more. All of which is in the context of freedom, which is still possible in a FREE society.
But for fucks sakes, get it through your head that society does NOT equal government. I have given you examples of where it doesn't, pay attention.

I never once said that society and government are the same thing. Pay attention yourself. I said that government is a necessary part of society. No government = no society more complex than a hunter-gatherer band. Actually, not even that, since most of those are more heirarchical than we used to think.


Again society != government. Also I have to laugh because solitary confinement restricts MANY freedoms, far beyond interraction with society.
Bad example.

1) :readit: I said "torture." Not simply restricting freedom. It is widely considered torture because isolation from others, in and of itself, is painful to most people.

2) Any sort of incarceration restricts the freedoms you allude to. Only solitary confinement is a priori abusive.


Well early history of America proves you wrong, there was plenty of society and very little government - and what little government there was certainly made no decisions in regard to labor.

Nice try, but no. First, the period you cite lasted a very short time. A single generation, at best. Which, by the way, many of the framers expected. Second, it was a very unusual time in that there was an open frontier into which the disaffected could emigrate. That was due to the fact that most of the first American nations had already crumbled from disease. Heck, the original 13 colonies were still sparsely enough settled that the frontier was hardly even necessary.

You sound like a Maoist, advocating continuous revolution to prevent society from evolving in a way you don't like.


"If we were directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we would soon want for bread." – Thomas Jefferson


So do elephants, so do wolves, so do any social animals. What makes humans unique (and more dominant) is dexterity in hand usage (ability to use tools) and higher intelligence, NOT socialness.
Dead wrong. Without our complex social structures there would be only the most limited range for our intelligence to play.

Why do you think that society *always* tends toward greater centralization and complexity? It's not an accident, you know. Neither is it an aberration. It is the natural course for all human societies. We're most comfortable with a complex, tightly organized society because that's the way we've evolved. It's a survival trait.


I loathe forcing me to be responsible for others dependence, which is EXACTLY what you do when you have government dole out more social welfare.
Tough. So you're an extremist. So am I, though in other directions. Society doesn't owe us anything in that regard. It's prudent to allow anti-social types like yourself to live and thrive: one never knows when that too might become a survival trait.

And yes I think people/families/neighborhoods are much safer/happier and prosperous with less dependence - you have only to look at Liberal Democrat run inner cities to see that.
Your aversion to "dependence" is pretty funny. I'd much rather live in most inner cities than some hick town full of ignorant, self-righteous stump humpers. I actually like diversity. I like variety. I also like convience, come to that.

So, a certain number of people become (what you call) "dependent" on the government. So what? It's kind of sad when it happens, but it's thankfully rare. The number of people benefited by such programs vastly outweighs the number harmed.


Don't you ever stop and say:
"I live in San Fran, where we are caring and spend the most on helping the homeless of any city, yet we have the biggest amount of homeless per capita. Gee maybe somewhere we fucked up bad."
It's like blinding yourself to everyday evidence...We *don't* spend the most on helping the homeless. That's media hype. San Francisco, too, has become something of a magnet for homeless people because other, more insular communities force them out. If they were not able to do that -- if you were forced to carry your weight -- we wouldn't have to carry it for you.