He was just on Best *** Sports Show Period last night, and frightningly unfunny.

That's really interesting. I was in a play back in 1980 (my high school "Senior Play") called, "Deadwood Dick, or The Game of Gold". Sounds much different from the one you were in, though! It was a melodrama, where the villain (me, as the character of Blackman Redburn - boy, there's a character name with a hint of race - though unintended) is booed, and the heroes are cheered.

The fact that most of the most edgy humor is Blazing Saddles was written by his co-writer, Richard Pryor, may have had something to do with that.

As for the rest of this, I'd just remind everyone of one fundamental truth:

Terrorism is about creating fear. When you allow the Muslim Terrorist to make you afraid of all Muslims, you hand him his victory.

I didn't know Pryor was a cowriter, that explains a lot of the jokes.

Pryor was a genius, his stand up works today just as well as when he did it.

When Muslims think everyone is against them the terrorist win.

Oh, and by the way... before we get TOO high and mighty about people attacking civilians.

Remember that we committed genocidal warfare against the native Americans (including one of the earliest uses of biological warfare against civilians), burned an entire city of civilians alive in the fire bombing of Dresden, and are the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons in war at all and, in doing so, killed two entire cities of civilians.

War comes about when people start believing that *their* atrocities are okay while others' aren't. Dehumanizing the enemy is a always an important first step in that.

We? A couple things there slick. First off the actions against the indians took place at a different time and was, from a modern perspective, terrible in many cases. The idea of using small pox intentially was evil, more so than the Spanish unintential spread of disease to reallllly wipe out a people. It does NOT justify the actions of islamic terrorist.

The bombing of Dresden was done by the British and was greatly in response to Nazi Germany bombing London, you know, a city full of civilians, over an extended period of time. We, the US, as allies of course supported the bombing. The targets were industrial and the workers behind the war effort. A lot of the damage resulted from horrific fires afterward. Of course the number of those stated killed was only about 220,000 more than actually were and what is considered accurate today by everyone except those using Dresden as an excuse, seemingly, for the terrorist to attack civilians.

We were the only country at the end of WW2 with the capability of using nuclear weapons. Do you think the Nazi's would have hesitated to use them? How about the Japanese? Would you have prefered a land invasion of Japan which likely would have resulted in a million combat deaths and countless more (okay, likely countable) suicides as was seen in Okinawa? Do you think that the terrorist would hesitate to use nuc weapons if they had them? Seemingly you would support them to do so in response to the bombing of Japan. Do you realize that between 80 and 100,000 people were killed in one raid in Tokyo with traditional bombs? More than the nucs killed (just not as sexy) by the way in a single bombing (initial) and the Japanese leadership did not give a crap at all because theirs was a victory or death stand. Getting them to surrender saved lives and thank goodness because the Japanese are good people. By the way both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were significant military targets and not just a pack of civilians as you imply.

You don't know history nor do you understand what little you have heard about. I also do not appreciate your excusing 'their' atrocities by pointing a finger at different situations and in the case of the indians, who you seem to think were all peace loving folks who just wanted to make blankets and jewelry and were not at times warriors themselves against other tribes and settlers, a different historical time. What next? You going to compare us to the Persians or Huns?