[cpbell0033944]

Interesting style and cute image! 8)

[cpbell0033944]

Marvelous – I love the way you faded the bottom of the image. 8)

[cpbell0033944]

That was certainly not the perception which I was trying to create. 
Then again, I always see the two faces and never see the vase.  🙂

[img=http://imageshack.us/thumbnmail.png]

Tschuss!
Hunter

It's great stuff, but I think you've cut the back of the elbow off the edge of the page, which causes the illusion.

[cpbell0033944]

Um, the burden is on you to show that McCain is buddy-buddy with them.  You're the one making the assertion that McCain's relationship with these two guys is akin to Obama's documented,

This I have already done.  McCain called Parsley a special advisor, and has appeared on stage at at least one capaign rally with Hagee.  The video evidence of the latter is out there.  Perhaps Obama's links with the undeniably odious Wright go back further in time, but McCain is or has been involved with three controversial figures compared to one in the case of Obama.  With all due respect, I find the fact that I, as a curius Brit with no stake and no right to vote in November heard of these important people influencing the GOPs' nominees' background before you, a politically-interested American rather baffling and worrying.  Surely it's a good idea to make sure that you know who you're voting for?  I don't know which, if any news shows and cable channels you watch and which online news sites you visit, but your situation appears to me as symptomatic of the pro-GOP bias or wariness of displeasing the party on behalf of American news media.  You can lob all the brickbats you want at MSNBC and Olbermann, but I learned of these people's existence by watching excerpts from Countdown on YouTube.  I then researched them on the net to ensure that I wasn't relying on one (supposedly biased) source.

BTW, on the subject of bias, I am incredulous as to how Fox News gets-away with calling itself "Fair and Balanced" when any reasonably impartial observer with common sense can see that they are pro-Republican and generally right-of-centre.  Not that I disagree with that, I just think they should be open and honest.  It's also amusing that Bill O'Reilly calls the Factor "The No-Spin Zone" when he spins more than a Shane Warne flipper (look it up, non-cricket fans! :D).

[cpbell0033944]

I looked up Parsley after you mentioned him, and he doesn't claim the US was founded to destroy Islam, he claims that Ferdinand and Isabella financed Columbus in order to gather resources to smash Islam – thus the Western Hemisphere was first explored for the purpose of smashing Islam.  Which is at least partly accurate.

Wrong – he explicitely says that America was founded to crush Islam, then uses (as you said) the Columbus argument to justify it.  This is utterly illogical as, of course, the United States was founded by people very much removed in time, geography and philosophy from Columbus and his royal backers.  To me, this error causes his argument to fall apart.  Yes, Columbus may have had the financial conquest of Islam as an objective, but that was when he and his supporters thought he was discovering a western route to the Far East, not the continent of America.  The Founding Fathers stated categorically that they had nothing against Islam (Treaty of Tripoli), and, as Parsley is referring to the USA in his remarks as opposed to a theoretical Columbus-inspired nation, he is plain wrong.

Secondly, my Hitler comparison hinges not on whether we are dealing with an ethnicity or religion, (why can't conservatives bear to admit that Islam is a religion as much as Christianity?  Why this meaningless word "worldview"?) but on the demonising of a huge number of people based on the actions of a few of them.  Also, it seems that you are saying that all Parsley wants to do is go forth and spread the word of the Lord and the Good Book and thereby convert all those sinful brown people to the white man's God.  C'mon; do you really believe that?

These are his words:

"I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."

He's talking about waging a war that would make the current mess in Iraq look like a dispute over a minor car shunt in a parking lot.  He's talking about killing Muslims because they're Muslims, just as Hitler killed Jews because they were Jews.  Do you not see the similarity?

Lastly, how do you know the extent to which McCain knows them?  Are you a friend of McCain?  He calls Parsley his "spiritual advisor" and has embraced Hagee on a campaign stage.  He hasn't just bumped into them once or twice in his local Starbucks; they're friends.  Do you call someone you hardly know an "advisor" or put your arm round the shoulders of someone you barely recognise?  I'm not saying he's known them as long as Obama knew Wright, but McCain seems to have been pretty close to these guys and has not censured either since Hagee retracted his apology.

Fact is that MCain, Obama and Hillary have all given you poor folks who have to choose your next C-in-C ample reasons to elect someone other than them.  Each has goofed, as you lot would say, and none looks likely to trouble Washington, Lincoln or Teddy Rooseveldt in the annals of great Presidents.  I just cannot see how electing another Republican hawk (who breezily admits being an economics dunce)and who has an association with extreme preachers who inspire as much hatred as any mad mullah is a good idea at any time, let alone now.

[cpbell0033944]

Happy birthday to Bass! 8)

[cpbell0033944]

Stunning morph – some of the best abs and bis I've ever seen in a morphed photo. 😮 8)

[cpbell0033944]

I know the one of which you speak, it was taken by Michael Neveaux of Ironman magazine.  It can be found on her website, along with several others of her.  8)

Source: http://www.repsfitness.com/site/marjo-pics.html

Wow – thanks Alex – CptMatt, you are absolutely right; that's a very hot picture and is a very good advert for FBBing the right way.

I should also perhaps respond to MuskelGroethe by saying that I agree that, in normal life, people shouldn't order others to shape their bodies in any particular way.  Once someone submits themseves to judges at a contest, however, they must expect their physiques to be graded on the basis of certain criteria; therefore one is, effectively being told how it should be done.  If the individual competitor dosn't like the judging criteria, let them switch federations.  The same applies to men and women.  I would like to remind everyone that I did state in my previous post that I disliked the current male physique from an aesthetic standpoint just as much as the female from an aesthetic and/or sexual view.  I am not saying that grace and sculpting the ideal body for the indiividuals' own height and proportions should be the goal for women, whilst leaving the men alone to strive for hugeness only, I am advocating the "Greek Deity" ideal, to steal from CaptMatt, for both men and women. 

I really do think that BBing, and especially FBBing, will polarise sooner rather than later.  In one direction will go federations, competitors and fans who go for the "biggest is best" philosophy.  They will always be in a minority as the resultant physiques will be aspirational for only a minuscule fraction of the population; probably even only a minority of those who are into the gym lifestyle.  In the opposite direction, I predict there will be a modest but significant growth in the direction of a more holistic approach, with symmetry, balance and shape as prorities and ultimate size as being less important.  Obviously, if two competitors' physiques are felt to be equally pleasing to the eye, and the routines show-off those physiques well, then the larger and/or better conditioned of the two should win, but aesthetics should, in this philosophical direction, be the main priority.

[cpbell0033944]

OK, number one, there is no McCain equivalent of Wright.  Obama spent 20 years attending Wright's church, took his kids to Wright's church, and even named his book after one of his pastor's favorite phrases.

So when people try to liken that to some guy who's merely endorsed McCain, well, McCain needs to get about 65,000,000 to endorse him, and so he ain't gonna be all that picky.  Neither will the Democrat nominee.

(And not for nothing, but I'd be surprised if a majority of Americans disagreed with the notion that the world would be a better place without Islam.)

Parsley is factually wrong, BTW, when he states that the US was founded to destroy Islam:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has itself no character of emnity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war or any act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

(Source: Treaty of Tripoli, June 1797).

Secondly, don't Parsley's sentiments remind you just a teeny little bit of Hitler and the Nazi party on the subject of Judaism circa 1933-1945?  I can well understand the sentiment of the US population in wishing that Islam didn't exist, but since when did any supposedly civilised nation justify going-off on a killing spree (don't tell me that genocide wasn't want Parsley inferred – how else do you end Islam?) by saying that they're reacting to the emotions and fear of the people?  That stuff might happen in the Third World, but the Leaders of the Free World doing it?  You might as well call the US a totalitarian military state and have done with it.

McCain also aligned himself with the late Jerry Falwell.  Forget Obama's tie-pin; that guy was seriously anti-American.

There may be no single McCain equivalent of Wright, but combine Parsley, Hagee and Falwell and the resultant recipe is just as poisonous.

Oh, and Hagee didn't just endorse McCain.  He's not just a name on a list.  McCain had him on stage with him.  Hagee retracted his comments about New Orleans, the restated them, and McCain didn't disown the guy.  At least Obama disowned Wright, though far too late.

[cpbell0033944]

Excellent post TC2, couldn't have said it better – it's all about balance.  8)

FYI – beside Colette Guimond and Renne Tonney, for me the first one that comes to mind as a poster child of FBBing gone bad is Nicole Bass.

Long term using of gear will not do a body good.  >:(

I think the less said about Nicole Bass the better. 8)

[Author]

Posts