Terrorism in Charleston, SC

[Deleted member 848]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZwooSiHr8A

 

[HighlandHomie]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZwooSiHr8A

I haven't followed this whole thread, but scoff at the fact that somehow Reza Aslan is being referenced in it. He's one of the biggest clowns, feeding the morons who listen to him with BS.

 

[♪alt13]

1)So if nationalism is conclusively evil, are we to banish this social construct into the abyss, and wipe out national borders across the planet?




2)In other news, sky is blue.



3)Yaa, God will punish the Unbelievers who are rampantly trying to kill Muhammad and his followers. How evil of Him.

4)Here's a Sura in response to yours:

2:61

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَالَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالنَّصَارَىٰ وَالصَّابِئِينَ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا فَلَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ وَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ

Those who believe [in you, i.e. Muslims], and those who are Jewish, and Christian, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the last day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.



5)The handling of prisoners of war/war-ethics by the Prophet Muhammad in his era was far morally superior w.r.t. today's standards than any other regime of that era, bar-none.



6)Seeing as political ideologies, nationalism, and religion all bring forth intrinsic evil in your eyes, are we to simply cast them away?

1) Unfortunately nations seem unavoidable at this juncture in history. One day I very much hope we can wipe out national borders across the planet.

2)Don't be flip. That **** is happening at least partly because of nasty passages in the Quran.

3)It had nothing to do with what is plain as day in the passage though did it? "the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority"

4)Again, I do not believe in God. This offers me no comfort nor does it make up for the Books nastier parts.

5)So the ethics of the Quran are good because they were more ethical than others 1400 years ago? That's a pretty horrible argument to use in defense of the Quran.

6)Wo, I didn't say intrinsically evil. I said that some ideologies, some texts, are evil. I don't think a belief in basic human rights is evil. Can we cast the nasty ones away? I would hate to see anyone commit such a forceful act. I do think that people should call it out when they see it. I think we shouldn't be any less critical of religion than we would be of another ideology.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I haven't followed this whole thread, but scoff at the fact that somehow Reza Aslan is being referenced in it. He's one of the biggest clowns, feeding the morons who listen to him with BS.

Lets hear some specific critiques from things he says in the clip posted.

1) Unfortunately nations seem unavoidable at this juncture in history. One day I very much hope we can wipe out national borders across the planet.

While 'borders' in and of themselves could be eliminated someday (pipe dream) the impression that the entire world will be one single society, comprised of one single set of cultural idols, symbols, language, and beliefs is simply highly unlikely (and in my opinion) damaging. Pluralism, and the growing heterogeneity of the world (as long as its existence is perpetuated and respected) stands as one of the most promising aspects of modern civilization in my opinion, along with the opinions of many.

2)Don't be flip. That **** is happening at least partly because of nasty passages in the Quran.

Don't be flip. That **** is happening because the Middle East is far and beyond the most economically, politically, and culturally instable region in the world.

3)It had nothing to do with what is plain as day in the passage though did it? "the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority"

The point you're trying to make is vague. Not sure I know what you're implying.

4)Again, I do not believe in God. This offers me no comfort nor does it make up for the Books nastier parts.

It doesn't matter. All that it is mentioning is what God's final judgement might become. Muslims are told to leave the punishing and the judgement to God, to protect themselves against aggressors, and otherwise treat their fellow humans kindly. Do you think God's actions are cruel? It doesn't ****ing matter-- because the judgement of a human by humans is categorically non-Islamic, and that's a widely-accepted stance.

5)So the ethics of the Quran are good because they were more ethical than others 1400 years ago? That's a pretty horrible argument to use in defense of the Quran.

Actually, it isn't.

6)Wo, I didn't say intrinsically evil. I said that some ideologies, some texts, are evil.

So what is your subjective metric for determining whether something is evil or not?

I don't think a belief in basic human rights is evil. Can we cast the nasty ones away? I would hate to see anyone commit such a forceful act. I do think that people should call it out when they see it. I think we shouldn't be any less critical of religion than we would be of another ideology.

We won't cast "the nasty ones away" largely because some of the most beautiful, selfless things ever seen, witnessed, or even imagined by society were done by those with faith. Faith has a place because it has an extensive history of bringing out the absolute best in people. Unfortunately, it also has a history of being harnessed by those to construct oppressive regimes. If you're fine without it, I really don't give a ****, because that's the feeling I get from my connection with God/the religious scriptures I study. As long as you aren't harming me, or robbing me of my deserved freedoms you can believe (or not believe) whatever the hell you want. However, I myself am a better person because of the faith I have. Many across the globe feel similarly. Organized religion likely isn't going anywhere-- and faith will be a present phenomenon until the end of human time.

 

[♪alt13]

Lets hear some specific critiques from things he says in the clip posted.



While 'borders' in and of themselves could be eliminated someday (pipe dream) the impression that the entire world will be one single society, comprised of one single set of cultural idols, symbols, language, and beliefs is simply highly unlikely (and in my opinion) damaging. Pluralism, and the growing heterogeneity of the world (as long as its existence is perpetuated and respected) stands as one of the most promising aspects of modern civilization in my opinion, along with the opinions of many.

Where did I advocate for bold? You keep trying to impose upon me things that you disagree with. Just because I disagree with you on some things does not mean I disagree with you on all. For me the lack of "single set of cultural idols, symbols, language, and beliefs" is not a justification for nations(in any organized sense). Maybe we disagree about that but I never called for such a homogenous society(s) and I agree that would be harmful. I have no xenophobic hatred of other languages. In fact I think it is a shame we are losing so many. I don't care about cultural idols. Whatever floats your boat. Have a god. Have a unicorn. But if your god or unicorn or the book that contains their doctrine advocates for you to do ****ed up **** I'm gunna tell you that your god is evil. Symbols are also cool(see note in handle). I think that all of these human idiosyncrasies are compatible with a border-less nation-less(again the organized sense, the sense we usually mean when we say nationalism)planet.

Don't be flip. That **** is happening because the Middle East is far and beyond the most economically, politically, and culturally instable region in the world.

For the third time. I concede the geo-political problems of the middle-east. It is not the whole story though. The middle-east is a house that is on fire and Islam is the gas cans stored in the basement. It takes an already ****ty situation and makes it worse. You can disagree with me on the latter part but know that I agree with you about the former.

The point you're trying to make is vague. Not sure I know what you're implying.

Really? I don't see how you can't see that it gives a reason for destroying the unbelievers within the verse.

It doesn't matter. All that it is mentioning is what God's final judgement might become. Muslims are told to leave the punishing and the judgement to God, to protect themselves against aggressors, and otherwise treat their fellow humans kindly. Do you think God's actions are cruel? It doesn't ****ing matter-- because the judgement of a human by humans is categorically non-Islamic, and that's a widely-accepted stance.

Widely accepted? You mean by you and Reza Aslan? It never calls for the killing of humans by other humans for offensive things the former did? Is that not judgement. Is the killing a release so that the person can be judged by god?

Actually, it isn't.

Yes it is a horrible argument. It is 2015. An ideology that was ethical for its time isn't ethical now by default of being forward thinking hundreds of years ago.

So what is your subjective metric for determining whether something is evil or not?

If it advocates for evil **** it is evil. Killing the 'other than' is about as evil as it gets.

We won't cast "the nasty ones away" largely because some of the most beautiful, selfless things ever seen, witnessed, or even imagined by society were done by those with faith. Faith has a place because it has an extensive history of bringing out the absolute best in people. Unfortunately, it also has a history of being harnessed by those to construct oppressive regimes. If you're fine without it, I really don't give a ****, because that's the feeling I get from my connection with God/the religious scriptures I study. As long as you aren't harming me, or robbing me of my deserved freedoms you can believe (or not believe) whatever the hell you want. However, I myself am a better person because of the faith I have. Many across the globe feel similarly. Organized religion likely isn't going anywhere-- and faith will be a present phenomenon until the end of human time.

Don't conflate my concern with your and other holy books with an outright attack on faith. It's true I find it to be odd but in and of itself I don't find faith to be particularly dangerous. My concern is with the nasty things that gods sometimes say, and the people that act on those things. Still though as much as I'm opposed to people advocating for this and other religious texts I will never stand in their way of doing so. I will not, however, give religion a place of privilege from which to preach immune to the standards we hold every other ideology and organization to.

 

[HighlandHomie]

Lets hear some specific critiques from things he says in the clip posted.

I didn't listen, and the quote in the title is plenty of evidence. I only know of him through his public quarrels with Sam Harris. Aslan consistently misrepresents Harris' views, and sometimes flat out lies, in order to manipulate his followers. Harris is one of the best living American thinkers, and it's a shame the money hungry pig Aslan is corrupting Harris' message to people.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I didn't listen, and the quote in the title is plenty of evidence. I only know of him through his public quarrels with Sam Harris. Aslan consistently misrepresents Harris' views, and sometimes flat out lies, in order to manipulate his followers. Harris is one of the best living American thinkers, and it's a shame the money hungry pig Aslan is corrupting Harris' message to people.

Ha, totally guessed it. Best American thinkers? Lmfao. Noam Chomsky made him look like a total moron (as have many others before him). Dude is out of touch, out of tune. Sorry. Meanwhile, Aslan's books are being distributed around government correspondents and diplomas who deal with the Middle East.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Where did I advocate for bold? You keep trying to impose upon me things that you disagree with.

All you'll have to be more clear with what you mean by anti-nationalism then, because that's not a big conclusion for me to jump to (I see you've elaborated on it later in this post).

Just because I disagree with you on some things does not mean I disagree with you on all. For me the lack of "single set of cultural idols, symbols, language, and beliefs" is not a justification for nations(in any organized sense). Maybe we disagree about that but I never called for such a homogenous society(s) and I agree that would be harmful. I have no xenophobic hatred of other languages. In fact I think it is a shame we are losing so many. I don't care about cultural idols. Whatever floats your boat. Have a god. Have a unicorn. But if your god or unicorn or the book that contains their doctrine advocates for you to do ****ed up **** I'm gunna tell you that your god is evil.

What ****ed up **** are we advocated to be doing? I've already gone, in depth, with regard to the context surrounding God instructing Muhammad to kill the Pagans that were coming to Medina to slay his entire village. Did you read the post at all? It's a very reasonable explanation as to why the instructions were given. Is it evil that God told me dude that some people will burn in hell for not believing in God? Maybe-- but it's also a great incentive for His children to try and behave justly. Only God knows what will actually happen in the afterlife, or during the Day of Judgement.

Symbols are also cool(see note in handle). I think that all of these human idiosyncrasies are compatible with a border-less nation-less(again the organized sense, the sense we usually mean when we say nationalism)planet.

I think it's a much more complex phenomenon that would have an extensive list of benefits and drawbacks, with it being impossible to know as to whether the pros or the cons would prevail over time.

For the third time. I concede the geo-political problems of the middle-east. It is not the whole story though. The middle-east is a house that is on fire and Islam is the gas cans stored in the basement. It takes an already ****ty situation and makes it worse. You can disagree with me on the latter part but know that I agree with you about the former.

And for the third time, I'm just making the point that the choice of gas cans is irrelevant, because if it wasn't Islam it would be nationalism, or political ideology. THUS, it is the geo-political backdrop that is most important-- otherwise, nothing would be set ablaze. Feel free to disagree.

Really? I don't see how you can't see that it gives a reason for destroying the unbelievers within the verse.

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...harleston-SC&p=1066858&viewfull=1#post1066858

Widely accepted? You mean by you and Reza Aslan? It never calls for the killing of humans by other humans for offensive things the former did? Is that not judgement. Is the killing a release so that the person can be judged by god?

Nope, I mean by essential the majority of the practicers of the faith over a ~1400 year history. Look into it if you don't believe me-- it's similar to other faiths, where adherents are all aware of the fact that only God can judge humans on the Day of Judgement, and only He is ultimately aware of the final criteria.

Yes it is a horrible argument. It is 2015. An ideology that was ethical for its time isn't ethical now by default of being forward thinking hundreds of years ago.

Scripture is given contextually to a group of followers in order for them to adjust their livelihoods, and act in ways that best represent what they think living a life devoted to God should be like. It's a good argument because the introduction of many policies, and morals in the Quran far exceeded those of the texts of the other two Abrahamic faiths. It is then up to the followers to progress with these morals, and continue to build on this devotion to God as the centuries progress. The revelations God would give to a modern-day Muhammad would differ strongly to a Muhammad of the 7th century, because humanity is simply different nowadays. It is up to the practicers of Islam to consistently progress while maintaining what they perceive to be the morals of utmost important with regards to their faith in God.

Islam did a fantastic job with this throughout the Golden Age, and has unfortunately reversed the progress it's made in recent years.

You fundamentally misunderstand how religious people extract ideology from religious texts.

Your biggest problem is that you have blanket generalizations of people from a faith of 1.6 billion, and assume them all to make the same assumptions homogeneously. A lot of points you've made has essentially been generalizations. You assume that all Muslims take every word of the Quran literally, void of any context whatsoever. This is simply incorrect-- it is true in some very powerful circles of Islam, sure. But there is a difference between some and all.

If it advocates for evil **** it is evil. Killing the 'other than' is about as evil as it gets.

In the times of the Civil War, people on both sides would use the same book (the Bible) and quote the same verses to justify and nullify the allowed practice of slavery. How could this be possible!?! Again, you are misunderstanding the process of how people get meaning from religious scripture.

Don't conflate my concern with your and other holy books with an outright attack on faith. It's true I find it to be odd but in and of itself I don't find faith to be particularly dangerous. My concern is with the nasty things that gods sometimes say, and the people that act on those things. Still though as much as I'm opposed to people advocating for this and other religious texts I will never stand in their way of doing so. I will not, however, give religion a place of privilege from which to preach immune to the standards we hold every other ideology and organization to.

People put into religious scripture just as much as they draw out of it. If you are a backwards wahhabist extreme orthodox muslim? There's plenty you could come up with in the Quran. If you're a staunch feminist environmentalist muslim? There's plenty you could come up with in the Quran to support your views.

And of course-- religion should not have immunity from critique. I don't think anyone is saying so. However, it's of utmost importance that we ensure the critique is legitimate, and not stained with political propaganda that results in the undeserving loss of rights and status from very friendly, loving citizens.

 

[moevillini]

32.7833° N, 79.9333° W


(just in case anybody's lost...)

 

[Siro]

Harris is one of the best living American thinkers, and it's a shame the money hungry pig Aslan is corrupting Harris' message to people.

Haha. Said like a child who just discovered atheism. I bet The God Delusion is one of the greatest works of philosophy, right? It reminds me of myself a couple of decades ago.

Cute.

 

[♪alt13]

What ****ed up **** are we advocated to be doing? I've already gone, in depth, with regard to the context surrounding God instructing Muhammad to kill the Pagans that were coming to Medina to slay his entire village. Did you read the post at all? It's a very reasonable explanation as to why the instructions were given. Is it evil that God told me dude that some people will burn in hell for not believing in God? Maybe-- but it's also a great incentive for His children to try and behave justly. Only God knows what will actually happen in the afterlife, or during the Day of Judgement.

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...harleston-SC&p=1066858&viewfull=1#post1066858

I read it, didn't buy the explanation. If let's say an American political party said "let's kill the Jihadists that are trying to kill us, for they aren't Christians" The threat to all Muslims that follows the comma would not be lost on you.

Further is it not true that after this Muhammad told the muslims to go out and capture the Pagans and offer them conversion to Islam or death? It seems to me that as the context grows the story gets worse.

And for the third time, I'm just making the point that the choice of gas cans is irrelevant, because if it wasn't Islam it would be nationalism, or political ideology. THUS, it is the geo-political backdrop that is most important-- otherwise, nothing would be set ablaze. Feel free to disagree.

So let's not criticize racist nationalism when it pops up because if it wasn't racist nationalism it would have been something else. This sort of nationalism would have the same effects as another ideology so let's not worry about it. Let's not hold the ideology as having any responsibility.

Nope, I mean by essential the majority of the practicers of the faith over a ~1400 year history. Look into it if you don't believe me-- it's similar to other faiths, where adherents are all aware of the fact that only God can judge humans on the Day of Judgement, and only He is ultimately aware of the final criteria.

There's nothing in Islam that calls for the stoning of homosexuals for instance? To you that may not be casting judgement but to me it very much is. Please do not reply by pointing out Christian and Jewish texts that say the same thing. I think it is equally evil regardless of which Abrahamic faith it comes from.

Scripture is given contextually to a group of followers in order for them to adjust their livelihoods, and act in ways that best represent what they think living a life devoted to God should be like. It's a good argument because the introduction of many policies, and morals in the Quran far exceeded those of the texts of the other two Abrahamic faiths. It is then up to the followers to progress with these morals, and continue to build on this devotion to God as the centuries progress.

It is a poor argument because I have already pointed out that the scriptures of the other two Abrahamic faiths are horrifying. You will not convince me that the Quran and Hadiths are benevolent by saying they are more so than Bible or Torah.

The revelations God would give to a modern-day Muhammad would differ strongly to a Muhammad of the 7th century, because humanity is simply different nowadays. It is up to the practicers of Islam to consistently progress while maintaining what they perceive to be the morals of utmost important with regards to their faith in God.

I find this hard to swallow. Correct me if I am wrong but is it not the premise of the Quran that God was speaking through Muhammad,that while there had been previous prophets that Muhammad would be the last and the Quran the final 'word'? Don't Muslims regularly point out that unlike the Bible the Quran is unadulterated and entirely authentic?

Islam did a fantastic job with this throughout the Golden Age, and has unfortunately reversed the progress it's made in recent years.

I take absolutely no issue with Algebra.

You fundamentally misunderstand how religious people extract ideology from religious texts.

Your biggest problem is that you have blanket generalizations of people from a faith of 1.6 billion, and assume them all to make the same assumptions homogeneously. A lot of points you've made has essentially been generalizations. You assume that all Muslims take every word of the Quran literally, void of any context whatsoever. This is simply incorrect-- it is true in some very powerful circles of Islam, sure. But there is a difference between some and all.

People put into religious scripture just as much as they draw out of it. If you are a backwards wahhabist extreme orthodox muslim? There's plenty you could come up with in the Quran. If you're a staunch feminist environmentalist muslim? There's plenty you could come up with in the Quran to support your views.

In the times of the Civil War, people on both sides would use the same book (the Bible) and quote the same verses to justify and nullify the allowed practice of slavery. How could this be possible!?! Again, you are misunderstanding the process of how people get meaning from religious scripture.

No I understand, but it is important to remember that I called the texts(and their promotion to gospel) evil not the people. I understand that people have their own interpretations. That some people will focus on the deplorable parts of the bible or the Quran and others won't. This doesn't mean these books are less guilty. It means that the average person is inherently more moral than their faith.

And of course-- religion should not have immunity from critique. I don't think anyone is saying so. However, it's of utmost importance that we ensure the critique is legitimate, and not stained with political propaganda that results in the undeserving loss of rights and status from very friendly, loving citizens.

I believe my critique to be valid and anyone that would call for the loss of rights and status of people because of their particular faith would get a much harsher critique from me. These kind of statements(like the one you ended with) are designed to shelter religion from critique. You know very well I am strident in my position on the the absolute protection of the rights of all individuals including Muslims. In fact much of my harsh feelings towards Islam are rooted in its sanction of violence and subjugation of the 'other'.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I didn't listen, and the quote in the title is plenty of evidence. I only know of him through his public quarrels with Sam Harris. Aslan consistently misrepresents Harris' views, and sometimes flat out lies, in order to manipulate his followers. Harris is one of the best living American thinkers, and it's a shame the money hungry pig Aslan is corrupting Harris' message to people.

 

[moevillini]

Interesting to learn the history of developments with the Confederate flag situation at the state capitol building...

The politics of the flag are complicated in South Carolina. A November poll from Winthrop University found that 73% of whites in the state want the flag to remain where it is. The same poll reported that 61% of blacks want it taken down.

"If we look at what the Confederate flag meant in the past, you can't help but feel negative thoughts, especially now," said 24-year-old Meghan Delaney. "It should have been taken down a long time ago. If not now, when?"

For some whites, many of whom can trace their ancestry back to the Civil War, the flag represents heritage and pride.

"It's a symbol of family and my ancestors who defended the state from invasion. It was about standing up to a central government," said Chris Sullivan, who is a member of the Sons of the Confederacy. "The things that our ancestors fought for were not novel and they really are the same issues we have today."

https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/21/politics/south-carolina-confederate-flag-debate/

...The flag was raised at a monument to Confederate soldiers on the State House grounds, surrounded by an iron fence, as a compromise in 2000. For four decades before that, it flew atop the Capitol dome itself, under the American and state flags.

Lawmakers gathered in Columbia on Tuesday for a special budget session. Just adding the flag to the agenda would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate.

By law, removing the flag would also require a two-thirds vote, although U.S. Rep. James Clyburn has said that law could be overturned by simple majority.

The Post and Courier newspaper of Charleston started a count of where lawmakers stand on the flag. On Tuesday, votes to remove it were running about even with lawmakers who had yet to respond.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/south-carolina-anti-confederate-flag-protesters-rally-outside-capitol-n380236

Back in 2000, civil rights activists successfully lobbied to have a much larger Confederate flag removed from the Capitol dome. But there was a compromise. The South Carolina Heritage Act decreed that just about all other tributes to Confederate history would be virtually untouchable. The only way to change anything of that nature -- including the smaller flag that was erected on the State House lawn -- would be to gain the endorsement of two-thirds of lawmakers.

That's not likely here or in any other place where some have said for years that the flag is not about racism; it is about Southern pride and heritage.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/us/south-carolina-confederate-flag-still-flies/

 

[Stoked]

I can see both sides of this argument.

What I'd like to see happen is for it to be removed completely as a sign of good faith and compassion for those it truly does offend.

To me it is unfortunate that the rebel flag is not used more in a way to remind America of what we should never allow again. Not as a rallying symbol but as a warning.

 

[The Thriller]

Americans should learn from Germans. Germans still fly the Nazi flag under the current German national flag in Berlin. It's a source of national pride, states rights, and preserving their heritage. It's not a source of racism, division, or hatred. So I say Americans just copy what the Germans have done...

 

[♪alt13]

Americans should learn from Germans. Germans still fly the Nazi flag under the current German national flag in Berlin. It's a source of national pride, states rights, and preserving their heritage. It's not a source of racism, division, or hatred. So I say Americans just copy what the Germans have done...

The confederate flag isn't quite an American thing. It's a South thing. The confederate flag isn't flown in Philadelphia for instance.

 

[LogGrad98]

Americans should learn from Germans. Germans still fly the Nazi flag under the current German national flag in Berlin. It's a source of national pride, states rights, and preserving their heritage. It's not a source of racism, division, or hatred. So I say Americans just copy what the Germans have done...

Not sure what you mean by Nazi flag but the government here does not fly any flag with a swastika.

 

[The Thriller]

Not sure what you mean by Nazi flag but the government here does not fly any flag with a swastika.

Wait what???

They don't???

But why wouldn't they want to memorialize the sacrifices of those who fought in WWII? Why don't they want to celebrate the Nazis? They were merely fighting to restore German power and prestige after the French illegally imposed vicious and unrealistic tariffs onto them.

What have they done to the Nazi flag? And why? Isn't it a part of their history that they want to preserve???

 

[♪alt13]

Not sure what you mean by Nazi flag but the government here does not fly any flag with a swastika.

I think you need to take your sarcasm detector to the mechanic. Unless you totally got that and are just being sarcastic. Damn it! I really can't afford a mechanic right now.

 

[LogGrad98]

Wait what???

They don't???

But why wouldn't they want to memorialize the sacrifices of those who fought in WWII? Why don't they want to celebrate the Nazis? They were merely fighting to restore German power and prestige after the French illegally imposed vicious and unrealistic tariffs onto them.

What have they done to the Nazi flag? And why? Isn't it a part of their history that they want to preserve???

I think you need to take your sarcasm detector to the mechanic. Unless you totally got that and are just being sarcastic. Damn it! I really can't afford a mechanic right now.

OHHHHH, you were being sarcastic. Sorry I thought you were just being thriller.