Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:03 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2742 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 110  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
pedro1 wrote:
Spacebro

Nice to see you still fighting the fight. :|

Could you please post a copy of " Separation between church and state " in ANY official document that is recognized by the USA ? ie. Bill of Rights , Constitution , Official letters to Congress , etc.

You won't find it anywhere other than in papers by Thomas Jefferson and / or James Madison and a handful of other polititions. There are references from around the world on the TERM / PHRASE dating back 1000's of years.

It's just a interpetational phrase used by some to create fear in others. :lol:


Hey pedro1, good to see you. As for "fighting the good fight", yes, I'm still countering baddy's one track mind train of thought. I think he's pissed at me, but oh well. He's an adult and should be able to take it as well as dish it out. I don't expect any of this to change anybody's mind, but I'm bored and have some time on my hands at the moment so, what the Hell....Whenever somebody openly and frequently bashes a politition that not only won an election by a fairly wide margin, but also has a relatively high approval rating (47% isn't bad considering 2 wars, a tanked economy, and a weak counter message to the opposition. Bush's was in the mid-twenties when he left and they were master's of counter messaging).

Anyways, this is a worthy discussion in regards to separation of church and state. Even if we will never change the world, I'm always curious to see where people stand on this issue.

As far as official usage of the separation of church and state.......

From The US Constitution -

"Article the third ...... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I believe this to be official, even if it is worded different than the term "Separation of Church and State". I interpret this as meaning the same thing. Especially the part I highlighted in italics.

What are your thoughts about official uses of "In God We Trust" - as seen on all US currency, "So Help You God" - as used in every legal swearing in, "One Nation Under God" - as used in the pledge of allegiance, the public display's of "The 10 Commandments" on publicly tax funded buildings, prayor in school ect? Do you agree or disagree with these uses?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:09 pm
Posts: 994
Location: Magicians' Quarters on the Counterweight Continent, wawawa.lspace....org
Here is my quick and curt answer to the (false) religious signs: no go, non-school etc. An abom'inable outrage.

Therewith infinite variety gets crushed down to just only one perspective and what for a sort.... :|

_________________
Ga na het werk and wirk
bring a thing into effect tha' is
Leave madchic to hau' cuisine
HyFlyRadio alongside chap


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:09 pm
Posts: 994
Location: Magicians' Quarters on the Counterweight Continent, wawawa.lspace....org
Every Earth-born should make its own phoughts about faith.

I eg have found my ideas about gods ...maybe that we have to become one of those. Is this spooky enough? shiver me timbre, is it fresh outside or wo... Brrrilliant

_________________
Ga na het werk and wirk
bring a thing into effect tha' is
Leave madchic to hau' cuisine
HyFlyRadio alongside chap


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
In case there are any doubts about Ron Pauls true intentions about war, I'm bring this thread back to up for conversation.

The truth about Ron Paul....

Ron Paul Supports Pro-war Pro-bailout......
http://disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/708 ... t_Buddies/

http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums ... 87214.aspx

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/05/1 ... -is-a-Nazi


I urge everyone to start at the begining of this thread. There is a lot of information.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1844
Gee, I sure miss ol' Rincewind. Whatever happened to that guy?

He was so much more interesting than all the misinformed opinion warriors here. Boring!

Frank would have chose Rincewind over any of 'em.

Bet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
I take it that you opted not to watch this video and hear Ron Pauls statement, right from his own mouth.

Ron Paul Supports Pro-war Pro-bailout......
http://disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/708 ... t_Buddies/


Ron Paul is pro-war. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Look who he supports.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
This topic has become relevent again. See above...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3609
Location: Vancouver, BC
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
I take it that you opted not to watch this video and hear Ron Pauls statement, right from his own mouth.

Ron Paul Supports Pro-war Pro-bailout......
http://disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/708 ... t_Buddies/


Ron Paul is pro-war. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Look who he supports.


SPACEBROTHER wrote:
This topic has become relevent again. See above...


No, the topic isn't relevant again, nor was it ever. Your above link doesn't show Ron Paul stating ANYTHING even remotely relating to supporting a "Pro-war Pro-bailout." And I'm positive most, if not all of your other links are complete BS too.

:roll:

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:41 pm
Posts: 15000
It really doesn't matter. He's not going to win. It's going to be one of these other doofuses (doofusi?) and Obama will probably win again. Or not. I don't care.

_________________
One of the sanest, surest, and most generous joys of life comes from being happy over the good fortune of others.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
calvin2hikers wrote:
It really doesn't matter. He's not going to win. It's going to be one of these other doofuses (doofusi?) and Obama will probably win again. Or not. I don't care.

Doophi,plural for doofuss. :mrgreen:

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:40 am
Posts: 3493
Location: The Blue Light
calvin2hikers wrote:
It really doesn't matter. He's not going to win. It's going to be one of these other doofuses (doofusi?) and Obama will probably win again. Or not. I don't care.


It scares me that Rick Santorum could be nominated. I think that would be enough to get people in both parties motivated to put Obama back in office.

_________________
Country music + Black music = Rock and Roll


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
sabrinaIII wrote:
calvin2hikers wrote:
It really doesn't matter. He's not going to win. It's going to be one of these other doofuses (doofusi?) and Obama will probably win again. Or not. I don't care.


It scares me that Rick Santorum could be nominated. I think that would be enough to get people in both parties motivated to put Obama back in office.

That would scares the beejesus outta' most everyone down my way. Grassroot anti-Santorum rally city,man!
That man is sick. IMO

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
sabrinaIII wrote:
calvin2hikers wrote:
It really doesn't matter. He's not going to win. It's going to be one of these other doofuses (doofusi?) and Obama will probably win again. Or not. I don't care.


It scares me that Rick Santorum could be nominated. I think that would be enough to get people in both parties motivated to put Obama back in office.


I think that unless there is a serious economic downturn plunging the stock market back below 10,000 points, or if a war against Iran is waged, Obama should win easily. Santorum, with the help of the Evangelical endorsement is a frieghtening proposition.

Ultimately, as Calvin said, it doesn't matter. Ron Paul is dead in the water. His supporters on the other hand, will ride that Titanic all the way to the sea floor.

I shouldn't care, but I'm a moderate person who is living in what may be the most Conservative region in America. Ironic how it happens to be in a blue state. I've encountered my share of militia types, like the one infamously known for a domestic act of violence against a gov't building, resulting in the deaths of children in a day center because they hate anyone who is Left of extreme right.


which brings me to...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Disco Boy wrote:
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
I take it that you opted not to watch this video and hear Ron Pauls statement, right from his own mouth.

Ron Paul Supports Pro-war Pro-bailout......
http://disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/708 ... t_Buddies/


Ron Paul is pro-war. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Look who he supports.


SPACEBROTHER wrote:
This topic has become relevent again. See above...


No, the topic isn't relevant again, nor was it ever. Your above link doesn't show Ron Paul stating ANYTHING even remotely relating to supporting a "Pro-war Pro-bailout." And I'm positive most, if not all of your other links are complete BS too.

:roll:


Seeing as how you've been chiming in lately, first off,

How's it going Disco Boy. We've both been on this forum for close to the same amount of time, unless you had an account pre crash. This account that I use is the only one I've ever had, so I came in several months after your current account. I can't recall ever having the pleasure of having a conversation with you directly over the past 6 some-odd years until now. There are a few I folks here who I haven't really interacted with, likely because besides the interest in Zappa's music is the only common interest. Regardless, it's cool when more people engage in a conversation, whether it's an issue that is agreed/disagreed upon.

About this issue, in regards to Ron Paul, you discount my links as being bullshit. Fair enough, if you've actually taken the time to read the articles or watch the videos.

There really is only one source anybody needs to read about Ron Paul, and that is his actual voting record.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ro ... gress.html

On that page, click the sub links. As an example, check out H.R.2159. There you will find the bill, completely free of all politically biased rhetoric. This example reads like this...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.AMDT.312 (A011)
Amends: H.R.2159
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (offered 9/3/1997)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment, printed as amendment No. 32 in the Congressional Record of July 16, 1997, to prohibit the use of funds appropriated in the bill for Family Planning, birth control or abortion.

STATUS:
9/3/1997 1:49pm:Amendment (A011) offered by Mr. Paul. 9/4/1997 1:44pm:On agreeing to the Paul amendment (A011) Failed by recorded vote: 147 - 278 (Roll no. 358)
.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In this example, it's perfectly clear that Ron Paul wants to defund Planned Parenthood, an organization that provides health services the the nations poorest women. From this information, I can deduce a couple of points. The first is that Ron Paul wants the government to dictate to a woman what she can and can't do with her own vagina and that it specifically targets those women who are in most need, and in most cases, PP clinics are mainly located near people who tend to live in area's that are predominantly poor and minority. That opens this issue beyond simple health care to up to a deeper racism level.

If Ron Paul spent a fraction of the amount of time and energy trying to defund, say oil subsidies, which are essentially food stamps for billionaires (very expensive food stamps) as he (and the rest of the Republican party) do to those who have little or nothing (including the pot to piss in), then I would reconsider my views on his economic stance. He doesn't so, use that information in any way you please, or don't use it. At least there is still freedom of choice in that regards, unlike the impoverished, mainly minority women who won't be able to have prenatal care covered. On social issues, I couldn't disagree with Ron Paul more.

Anyways, good to converse with you Disco Boy. We probably agree on a lot more than we disagree on. If you find the raw, untampered and unbiased information of Ron Pauls voting record acceptable, as found in the sublinks located here, http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ro ... gress.html , then it's not suprising that all of my Ron Paul links are all BS to you.

-edit
I left the link to RPs donor list out of this post (which can be located elsewhere in this thread), many of which fully contradict his super pac talking points and rhetoric and won't matter.

Anybody who has the time, or even remotely gives a rats ass, I highly recomend a little research Ron Pauls voting record found here...
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ro ... gress.html

Numbers and raw data don't lie. Book/numbers cookers and revisionist histAryians do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3609
Location: Vancouver, BC
SPACEBROTHER,

I'm perfectly aware Ron Paul is religious and pro-life. And like I said before, I don't agree with everything he believes in. While I doubt he'd make things easier for pro-choice supporters, what you don't seem to understand, is that he's ok with people with opposing views and isn't going to aggressively pursue legislation for his aforementioned beliefs. Out of the links you've provided (especially, this one: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/912300/posts), there technically aren't any pro-life bills like you've claimed (I've gone over this already). Also, several descriptions of these and other bills listed on the site ( http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ro ... gress.html ) are the interpretation of the opposing party supporters and not necessarily the actual description of the bills themselves...hence my "BS" response to many of these links.

Secondly, Ron Paul is not a racist. If that was true, the mainstream media would've already eaten him alive...

Lastly, the main reason I support Ron Paul is because he's the ONLY candidate in favour of ending these illegal, undeclared wars in the Middle East, that are ONLY about making oil tycoons, bankers, the stock market, weaponry manufacturers, etc., wealthier, through oil control & war-profiteering. But of course, most people either don't realize this or deny it and will state it's really about "protecting Americans from anti-American sentiment and terrorism." Or about "protecting the public in the Middle East from Iran." This, despite the fact that Iran isn't a major threat whatsoever, since their army isn't even larger enough to pull off the things that many of the warmongers claim they can. Not to mention that there isn't enough evidence showing that they have or will even start building a nuclear weapon - which btw, isn't necessarily a bad thing, since many other nations in that region and other parts of the world, have larger armies and far more nuclear weapons but yet, the US doesn't kick in their front doors, do they?

What it comes down to is this: if ANYONE votes for ANY other candidate but Ron Paul, then your tax dollars will continue being spent ($300 million+ per day) illogically and illegally and hence things are more than likely going to get perpetually worse...

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Quoted from another thread because Ron Paul deserves his own conversation...

Ronny's Noomies wrote:
I give credit to RP for being consistent with his message. I like his "protecting basic rights" approach. He seems like a likable guy for the most part.

But, IMO, for better or worse he's always going to have a problem gathering enough of a following to make a difference.

And more important, to me anyway, he's never believably explained his newsletters from the 90s (The Ron Paul Report, Political Report, Survival Report, etc.), many of which contained some pretty reprehensible racist, homophobic and other hate based statements. How can anyone support someone like that?



Ron Paul talks about protecting basic human rights, but then votes to take them away. His voting record in regards to womens health issues only serves to strip away rights. This is legislation that Ron Paul authored and introduced...

H.R.1095

H.R.777

H.R.1548

H.AMDT.1003 (A024)

H.AMDT.380 (A022)

H.AMDT.312 (A011)

H.R.4984


Women aren't the only demographic whose rights he wants to strip...

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/dav ... -poor-peop

"Do you advocate getting rid of the minimum wage, would that create more jobs?" Politico's John Harris asked Paul during Wednesday's Republican presidential debate.

"Absolutely," Paul declared. "It would help the poor people who need jobs..."

...just how the exactly the fuck are lower pay wages to poor people supposed to help them out Mr Paul? Less food on the table to feed their children makes their lives easier? Less money for medicine? Less money for gas and groceries makes their lives easier? How about having to work 4 jobs at 80+ hours a week for 50 cents an hour? That will improve the lives of poor families? WTF?


In regards to Ron Pauls racist letters, his supporters don't care. Anybody who mentions or criticises them are a part of the media conspiracy 9/11 inside job. :mrgreen:

Image

Ron Paul = another anti-labor, racist, anti-women warmongering asshole. A vote against womens rights is a vote for war against women.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1844
You sho does hates Rons Pauls, SpaceBro.

Why you such a hater?

A woman might have a right to the fate of her future and a right to plan her family and a right to end her fetus if she fits fit.

But the government doesn't owe it to her. No way in Hell does the government owe her a goddamn thing. I don't see how the government paying for a poor person's abortion is even tolerable...they are paying to kill their own future citizens. Why would they want to do that? So there isn't so too many of a certain social class?

Or race?

Did any of those sponsered bills that are linked to here actually pass?

No...because most folks are still unaware of their own responsibilities when it comes to having families. They can't hear of not having the government help them out and pay for it.

To hash-over leaflets not written by Dr. Paul and claim it as some sort of evidence of an irrational hatered for races other than his own, and to claim that Dr. Paul has some sort of malice towards women because he doesn't want the government to have to pay for terminating their pregnanacies, attaches an air of frightened desperation to such posts as what we see here with SpaceBro's postings...unlimited shit-slinging by a person frightened of life without a humungous government teat.

Just take it easy there, SpaceBro. Dr. Paul is a respectable physician and representative. He's sworn to cause not harm.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3609
Location: Vancouver, BC
SPACEBROTHER,

You really have to stop this nonsense. Seriously. Especially your links that are misleading and misinterpretate things beyond belief.

And concerning some of you here that still think Ron Paul is a racist because of certain comments made in his newsletters roughly 20 years ago: what you don't realize, is that much of the time he relied on ghost writers/editors to keep in line with his philosophy and hence was let down by them. Ron Paul didn't write those particular statements himself. The ONLY thing that Ron Paul is guilty of here, is not micro-managing or reading/finding out about them sooner.

Btw, Dr. Paul delivered 4,000+ children, of which 1/3 were of colour...and many of them were during the height of segregation.

And do you guys honestly think if he actually was a racist, that the mainstream media wouldn't have eaten him alive already?

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:04 pm
Posts: 2863
Location: Chicago, sort of.
Come on DB. RP published the newsletters with his name on the masthead. He's responsible for the content. They were HIS publications and appeared part of his PR plan. In public life it matters when you put your name on something.

RP is a mixed bag of traits and qualities. The newsletters are the worst side of him, IMO.

_________________
Everytime we picked a booger we'd flip it on this one winduh. Every night we'd contribute, 2, 3, 4 boogers. We had to use a putty knife, man, to get them damn things off the winduh. There was some goober ones that weren't even hard...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
Did he change his mind as we all do sometimes or did he just change his tune for the times? Ron Paul sounds OK now,but when I listen to his kid Rand.....well that's a whole other ballgame.But I wouldn't think the nut fell to far from the tree.Please don't take it all wrong what I'm sayin' is show me.SP comes up with links and it's like Diezil Dummy,Darn Accordians,Arch Obolar,Apotheosis,sayin "that wasn't me someone was useing my computer without my permission!" It's always someone elses fault that he's a bigot.See what I'm getting at here? It's politics and it gets dirty.Nobody's right when everybody's wrong,kinda thang.I know I should keep my yap shut about politics and religion,but I'm also curious as to what's what and how it got that way...... :| I'm still neutral as to who has my vote.The one's that have to yell at me don't get it and the one's that go pssst over here this is the truth,don't get it.I believe both sides and the independents,all want someone we're proud of and look up to.It ain't never gonna happen,were human beings. :|

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3609
Location: Vancouver, BC
Ronny's Noomies wrote:
Come on DB. RP published the newsletters with his name on the masthead. He's responsible for the content. They were HIS publications and appeared part of his PR plan. In public life it matters when you put your name on something.

RP is a mixed bag of traits and qualities. The newsletters are the worst side of him, IMO.


Unless he's lying, the ONLY thing he's guilty of is not micro-managing or reading/finding out about them sooner. In fact, he claims he didn't even find out until about 10 years later. And that's because he trusted whomever he hired to ghost-write/edit these particular newsletters...and hence didn't think they would betray him.

Makes sense to me.

KAPT.KIIRK wrote:
Did he change his mind as we all do sometimes or did he just change his tune for the times? Ron Paul sounds OK now,but when I listen to his kid Rand.....well that's a whole other ballgame.But I wouldn't think the nut fell to far from the tree.Please don't take it all wrong what I'm sayin' is show me.SP comes up with links and it's like Diezil Dummy,Darn Accordians,Arch Obolar,Apotheosis,sayin "that wasn't me someone was useing my computer without my permission!" It's always someone elses fault that he's a bigot.See what I'm getting at here? It's politics and it gets dirty.Nobody's right when everybody's wrong,kinda thang.I know I should keep my yap shut about politics and religion,but I'm also curious as to what's what and how it got that way...... :| I'm still neutral as to who has my vote.The one's that have to yell at me don't get it and the one's that go pssst over here this is the truth,don't get it.I believe both sides and the independents,all want someone we're proud of and look up to.It ain't never gonna happen,were human beings. :|


I see your point.

But how I look at it is that when someone is consistent as hell and has no history of dishonesty, then I tend to believe that someone and see no reason why they would lie, especially when they're defending themself against horrible accusations.

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
Disco Boy wrote:
I see your point.
But how I look at it is that when someone is consistent as hell and has no history of dishonesty, then I tend to believe that someone and see no reason why they would lie, especially when they're defending themself against horrible accusations.

DB,I like RP but do you really see no reason to doubt? I mean your statement is eerily close to blind obedience,if I can put myself in that spot,I might. (lie) Who knows? That's about the crux of that biscuit,you seem like a really cool,caring dude,man,so I worry.....silly I know.But I think,in these politico's agenda there are some real lies behind every truth and visa-vesa. :|
I whole heartedly support your first points if it wasn't in politics.Believing in someone and people can change right? Ya thats cool.So,I guess that's the best way to explain how I view politics.Sounds too good,if your real.There's still 8 shopping months left before we vote so for my vote I'll take.....one unreleased copy of CSN&Y fighting in the dressing room at The Fillmore west! Mint condition. :wink: :mrgreen:

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
KAPT.KIIRK wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
I see your point.
But how I look at it is that when someone is consistent as hell and has no history of dishonesty, then I tend to believe that someone and see no reason why they would lie, especially when they're defending themself against horrible accusations.

DB,I like RP but do you really see no reason to doubt? I mean your statement is eerily close to blind obedience,if I can put myself in that spot,I might. (lie) Who knows? That's about the crux of that biscuit,you seem like a really cool,caring dude,man,so I worry.....silly I know.But I think,in these politico's agenda there are some real lies behind every truth and visa-vesa. :|
I whole heartedly support your first points if it wasn't in politics.Believing in someone and people can change right? Ya thats cool.So,I guess that's the best way to explain how I view politics.Sounds too good,if your real.There's still 8 shopping months left before we vote so for my vote I'll take.....one unreleased copy of CSN&Y fighting in the dressing room at The Fillmore west! Mint condition. :wink: :mrgreen:


Nice KAPT KIRK! Blind obedience is the perfect phrase here.

Ron Paul won't change shit because his campaign was DOA. Sayonara buddy.


.............................................

"We welcome the fact that jobs were created and unemployment declined," Romney said in a rapid-fire press release shortly after the jobs numbers were released. "Unfortunately, these numbers cannot hide the fact that President Obama's policies have prevented a true economic recovery."

In a broadcast interview, Newt Gingrich derided the positive jobs report as "irrelevant" and predicted that Obama was "not going to be able to go to the public and say, 'Look how successful I've been.' The most he'll be able to say is, 'I'm less destructive than I was a year ago.'"

Paul's response? Silence, even though he's campaigning in beleaguered Nevada, the state with the highest unemployment and foreclosure rates in America."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/03 ... s-20120203

...doesn't suprise me that Ron Paul had nothing to say about jobs, because after 40 years as a career politition, thats exactly how many jobs he created. Nothing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1844
If a holy man told you the elections were bogus, would you give the idea a thorough study?

http://www.youtube.com/user/mhfm1?v=OynCgwmD-HM&lr=1

Probably not, I presume...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1844
That SPACEBROTHER sho' does loves Obamas.

I think Frank said the N-word once, and got it on vinyl and it sold pretty good. Frank Zappa was a racist.

Empire makes it's own reality, SPACEBROTHER. Empire owns the airwaves, and everything else. The empire owns your mind.

You decide if it's real.

Deconstruct the dominant paradigm, SPACEBROTHER.

The truth will set you free, if you ever discover it.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2742 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 110  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group