It has come to my attention(mostly because there have been a bunch of morons running around in stoopid orange t-shirts) that there is a group of religious fanatics(more or less) converting people at hopkins high. They come regarding one "
seth", who is their "
leader". They've been running around with little cards, trying to get people to go to his seminar or something. I didn't go, because I really didn't think it was worth my time to be wasted on some re-born crack-whore who's finally found "
god" after taking serious head trauma or something. My advice? Well, there is only one thing to do in this situation... hassle these poor misguided/brainwashed fools. For all I care, they can go and drink the cyanide laced
kool-aid while the rest of us make fun of them.
-For the last few years Microsoft has been under fire for unifying Windows and Internet Explorer into one. First off I feel this is one of the best things Microsoft has ever done, it allows me much easier and faster access to the net so instead of having to launch Internet Explorer as a separate program wasting valuable seconds, I can just take an open folder, type in the URL, and go! Also another thing that pisses me off is that AOL claims its massive failure of Netscape is due to this. IT IS NOT DUE TO THIS but are due to Netscape?s massive dhtml incompatibilities causing it to SUCK. Also it could be that NS6 takes incredible amounts of your system recourses and overall slows your computer. There are other browsers such as Opera, which are decent but still suck compare to IE (Internet explorer). Some might say they suck BECAUSE Ie has taken all of their business, but I call this blasphemy. All it takes is one good programmer and correct incentive to create a good program. The simple answer is their trying to please idiots and end up with software with all kinds of stupid functions that no one ever uses or overall makes it harder fo
- The Security Systems Standards and Certification Act which is currently in the house being debated wants to make it so that everyday beloved objects now become evil and make us folow strict guide lines and want all media files to require tags saying that they are legal. They want new computers produced to have ROM pervention software hard wired in. This brings me to my point. I SHOULD BE ABLE TO BREAK THE LAW IF I FEEL IT TO BE RIGHT. This is not to meen that I should not pay the punishment for breaking the law but I should have the option. Also, this would over complicate many everyday activites and overall stoping all progress society would ever make.
POINT of Converstation: They say they are loosing millions of dolars to the internet. But their not loosing any from me for if it were not for the internet I would never listen to their music in the first place and it would just end up hurting them more than it already is.
JUST STOP THE IDOCY, FIND A BETTER WAY TO PERVENT PIRACY SUCH AS LOWERING PRICES or EARN MONEY FROM CONCERTS OR THE TMBG WAY OF DOING JINGLES. EITHER WAY IM NOT PAYING FOR MY MUSIC UNLESS IT IS SOMTHING I FEEL INCREADABLY WORTH IT (ie: bjork's verspertine)
I am going through a bit of a personal ordeal at the moment and may not write or work on the page for a bit
I insulted both of you two and yet you both fail to respond and try and discredit any of my logic or statements. So please, please respond to what I said then I can find the numerous logistical errors in your rebutts and then mock you some more, cause it is getting really old to say horrible crap and then go unchecked with out you trying to prove falisies. Respond quickly!!
I know that I have always felt good about myself for one good reason and that is that I am somewhat masculine. God gave me at least that one gift, but as I look back on life and reflect is being straight really a gift?
Everyone makes the assumption that effeminate men are nicer than masculine and typical men, so throughout my article I will as will make that assumption. What that assumption means though is that effeminate men are already better than mascline men in their emotional life and personal life. But the other part about effeminate men is they are now the ones who are working out and getting into shape at the fitness gyms. This means when walking down a street and you notice someone completely buff, you are going to think wow that guy is gay. This gives effeminate men even more of an advatage in life and that is that they can kick our asses, while at the same time looking good and not being incredibly overweight. And then as a good girl friend that I know "All gay men are hot." Since effeminate men aren't neccarily gay, but for the most part effeminate men look gay.
So my problem is that all women now want effeminate men and it is pissing the hell out of me. Men aren't supposed to look pretty and be so effeminate, they are supposed to get the money in the family and be gruff. This doesn't mean be asswholes, but they shouldn't have to be all cute and so on. Just look at all the new models - not a single fucking hair on their entire body NO ME FUCKING GUSTA. This is just my rave because I have always thought I was better than the little girly boys and now I have to question that idea.
Franson your recent statement declaring Andrew Jackson an equivant to Hitler was quite obsene and pussyish. What Jackson did was absolutely vital and if you are going to tell there was a better way to deal with the Indians I would like to hear it. But you probably preach love and peace but in this instance it would not have worked to the least, because the Americans would not have excepted sharing the land the stole from the Indians. I won't say that killing the Indians on the Trail of Tears was to humanitarian, but it was the only possilbe way of dealing with the situation that would allow the Indians to keep some culture and keep some land.
Firstly, if Abraham Lincoln really did issue an anti-Native American Proclamation as well, and it really did have the effect of destroying their people and their lifestyle, there was indeed a reason for it. Most of the tribes had (prior to the Emancipation Proclamation) sided with the Confederate States. Thus, they were part of the threat to the North and its armies. Would you refrain from shooting a Native American in favor of a Confederate soldier if they were both charging at you with swords drawn?
Secondly, Lincoln was no Hitler, nor was he a Stalin. If you want to attack a former President for damaging the Indian Nations and their cultures, why not Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson? As far as I can tell (again, refute me if I am incorrect), Lincoln did next to nothing compared to those two (who stole most Native American-controlled land in the Great Plains and moved almost every Native on the East Coast to Oklahoma Territory reservations, respectively).
Thirdly, Abraham Lincoln was a great man because he believed in reuniting the Union. He knew that if he did not do so, the still-fledgeling nation would fail, as two divided halves are much weaker than one united whole. If it weren't for Lincoln, none of the prosperity the nation witnessed from 1865 on would have come to fruition. Jesse, please respond to this, I'm interested to hear the logic behind your argument.
First off, I stated that Lincoln was intelligent in the way of war terms as the Emanipaction Proclamation satisfied the Union slave holding states, showed to France and the United Kingdom that the Union was still fully united, and to a very small extent weakened Southern economy during the war, but drastically helped in destroying the Southern economy in the Reconstruction years; therefore I said nothing that he was a good person, but a smart war strategist.
Second, in comparing Lincoln to Hitler that analogy was very off. Hitler was elected to bring the people out of a depression and he used the fear and anger against Jews and other people to help bring that economic change about. Lincoln on the otherhand didn't even face a depression so he couldn't have used the fear and anger of the Indians to have them and their buffalo killed. The analogy I think would be closer (eventhough incredibly incorrect still) to Stalin and the Stalinist purges that took place before the actual Holocaust itslef.
Lastly, No where can I find any source saying that Lincoln did put any bounty on the Indian's heads. Now if this was apart of the Homestead Act, which wasn't issued on the day of the Emancipation Proclamation, give me some proof. And if it was apart of the Emancipation Proclamation give me some proof by quoting the proclamation, and if it is in a different proclamation than the Emanicpation Proclamtion, but still issued that same day as you stated, give me proof of that proclamation and quote it for me. I want you to do this because I have no knowledge of what you said about the bounty, and I would enjoy for you to enlighten me - Por Favor!
First off I haven't had time to write due to personal reasons, secondly I've gotten 3 hours of sleep in the last 5 nights so forgive mew if this makes no sense at all.
I want to continue my speaking on the topic of Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln is to most Americans as Hitler still is to many Germans. I don't care what any of you say, but Abraham Lincoln was one of the evilest men of the 1800's. He may have freed the slaves but he also killed my people, the Native Americans in mass numbers. Not only did he put a bounty on every native Americans head the same day he signed the emancipation proclamation, but he also paid hunters to kill the buffalo. It was a "holocaust" in its own right. Now I ask you, was he a wonderful man? When your parents, teachers and pretty much everyone else have told you something it is always hard to accept it as an outright lie. But I ask you with all my heart, for the sake of history and the sake of the good name of my people realize what this man has done!
Signing off confused, tired and outright annoyed, Jesse Donat
