|
|
 |
|
Getting Real : Faith No More
The Golden Compass | from jolifam77 - Saturday, December 08, 2007
accessed 2475 times Heard about this movie through yahoo.com. First thing that came to mind is thought provoking, since it has to do with Christianity and since Christians, e.g. in Iowa, are again making fusses about nothing to assert their existence and make life miserable for everyone and perhaps change things for the worse for the future. I don't read books or watch many movies, but apparently some dude named Philip Pullman has written a series of books to push his view that God is a sadist or something and ought to be killed. I think his is a noble and effective way to push a view and what's probably quite needed in this fucked up fanatical world, and kudos to pointing attention to the domineering sorts that aim to quell free speech and free will, etc.
Naturally, a subtle first impulse having been raised a Christian in cult no less, is a sort of revulsion at the thought of actually killing God. However on many a second-thoughts, I remember all that I've learned and realized since I left the cult 10 years ago, especially the realization that Christianity isn't The only worthwhile religion out there and a Christian convinced isn't necessarily any more "right" than a pagan convinced. The revulsion fades away, for example, when I consider how our European ancestors once believed in "many gods" and those gods often fought among themselves and with men, gods "died" and went to hell or hades, were promiscuous, fought wars, were evil, were good, were diverse at any rate. So the idea that man would wage a war with a god, even if he were the "one true God" wouldn't have been much of eye-raiser to our noble, ancient, pagan forbears.
The second thought this movie's bad rap by some Christians provoked in me is "boy do you guys always have to fuck things up for everyone?" For example, right now in Iowa, Christians are skewing the presidential contest by throwing their weight behind a nut job called Huckabee. Obviously Huckabee isn't the most qualified to be pres., but he's the most religious so that qualifies him somehow, never mind that he doesn't have historically firm views about the most pressing matters of the nation such as stopping the invasion of third world jungle people into the country wreaking havoc on the country or ending Government theft/taxation of those who actually work for a living, such as Ron Paul would do.
No. You say your an evangelical Christian and invoke God and suddenly nothing else matters other than duty to your God, so "vote as I say or you shall go to hell." I guess it serves the sheeple right, getting one tyrannical administration after another. In the name of freedom and actually having a say in where your hard-earned money goes or stays, it were better that Christianity end; and the same goes for all forms of modern-day fanaticism from "democratism" which lends credibility to wars for Bush's Jewish cronies to the religion of "diversity," which brings the threat of prison for believing and acting on the belief that this country was founded by and belongs exclusively to the white race. The fact that a modern day inquisition exists in this country is testament to fact that we are owned and run by some not-so-benign liberal authorities who serve as a front for an evil cabal that is out to destroy the country, the currency, our standard of living, and our heritage. At this point Ron Paul is our only hope. Nuff said. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Phoenixkidd
Monday, December 17, 2007 - 10:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
I liked the Golden Compass a lot, the imagery the storyline a little predictable but fun nonetheless...However I didn't like the names they gave to people and things such as "Demons" and "Dust"--As agnostic as I am today I still find the word, Demon, revolting and Dust makes me think of the letter, Diamonds of Dust.
Also the names of the people, Egyptians Tatars etc...Tatars were given a bad name when all they were doing was defending their homeland against Imperial Russia back in the 1700's...oh well
Great imagery and Nicole Kidman looks stunning.
I can see how Christian fundies would be up in arms though.
(reply to this comment)
|  From Big Sister
Saturday, December 22, 2007, 23:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Read the books. You will see that what you heard as demon is really daemon. Here from wikipedia is the difference:"The words daemon, dæmon, are Latinized spellings of the Greek δαίμων (daimon),[1] used purposely today to distinguish the daemons of Ancient Greek religion, good or malevolent "supernatural beings between mortals and gods, such as inferior divinities and ghosts of dead heroes" (see Plato's Symposium), from the Judeo-Christian usage demon, a malignant spirit that can seduce, afflict, or possess humans."
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | from jolifam67
Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 12:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
I donated $200 to Ron Paul today. Please donate now! https://www.ronpaul2008.com
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | From figaro
Sunday, December 16, 2007, 13:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
Even if I wanted Ron Paul to win (Which I don't) I wouldn't throw my money away by donating it to him. You can not buy votes and even if he makes the ten million dollar mark he is after he will not be one more vote closer to winning then he is now. He is not going to win, he has no chance. The only way I would want anyone to vote for him is if they would be otherwise voting for anyone other then Clinton. And I really hope he doesn't plan on joining the running as a third party independent, because all he will do is take needed votes away from whoever gets the democratic nomination and may cause us to have to endure another 4 to 8 years of republican rule.
The only good thing that I can see is that whoever wins HAS to be better then bush right? I mean, is there anyone who could possibly be WORSE? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From figaro
Sunday, December 16, 2007, 18:33
  (Agree/Disagree?)
You know, I could point out to you that you don't even know me, so there is no way you could know whether or not I am a loser, or I could point out how whether or not I am a loser doesn't actually have anything to do with if I am right or not, just like it didn't matter if the other girl was a "dyke" or not. I could also point out that, judging by the intelligence you have shown on this thread I probably have a much higher IQ then you. Or I could drop to your level of childish debating and call you names.
BUT, I think instead I'll just wait till the primaries are over and then we will see who is the worse "moron" the one who was right, or the one who threw away 200 bux!
PS. Grow up man, seriously!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From jolifam67
Wednesday, February 06, 2008, 11:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
I've been following the election very closely and have donated more than $700 to Ron Paul's campaign. I have never been more inspired, since listening to the guy on youtube and such. I don't care about whether he wins or loses. I've learned so much about politics and how corrupt things are in this country. For example, did you know the Federal Reserve ceased to publish the M3 figure, the only reliable guage of real inflation, possibly to hide the truth about that? I see no other valid explanation. This is just one of the many whistles Ron Paul is blowing. I've gained an understanding and appreciation for how the money system works, thanks to Ron Paul, particularly the fractional reserve system of banking. I now no longer trust banks at all, and will not keep my savings in bank deposits, only gold, silver, etc. It's a very sad day that the American public chose McAmnesty over Ron Paul. People just don't check the facts for themselves, and just base their thinking on what they see on TV. They get the government they deserve. I wash my hands. I have no sympathy for the stupid public, and have lost all hope for the political process.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From jolifam67
Wednesday, February 06, 2008, 18:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nut job theories huh? Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. I know you probably don't know the first thing about the document that defines our liberties. The things you just said are offensive. That's all. You seem like a shallow person, the kind I despise, the kind that is destroying this country...Do you even flinch a bit when considering things like the Patriot Act? how it legalizes wire taps, and basically give the government carte blanche to spy on us? How about when the army went in and around New Orleans, and disarmed citizens for miles around, leaving them defenseless in a time of greater peril then usual, when bands of thugs were more likely to take advantage of the lawlessness. How about Waco? There is stuff going on that infuriates and should infuriate every red blooded patriotic American. But you are obviously not one. I will give you one piece of advise, get rid of your TV. It serves no other purpose but to propagandize the sheep, and keep you sedated and addicted. It's just pure evil.(reply to this comment) |
| | From afflick
Wednesday, February 06, 2008, 13:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
I've been thinking the same thing (not about Ron Paul). In the past seven years, the greater American public has chosen to elect those who push agendas of hate and intolerance. Maybe that is the kind of country they are and they deserve the government they get.
Of course, this is a cynical view and I truly do hope things turn around as the U.S. has so much to lose and so little to gain from their current foreign/domestic policies.
So optimism or cynacism. I guess it's not my problem anymore.(reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam67
Sunday, December 16, 2007, 21:32
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Maybe I'm just totally disallusional, but unless we support Ron Paul, those bucks we are so afraid of "throwing away" will be soon be worthless! Ron Paul will put an end to inflation. He has my vote.
As for you and your IQ, it just may be higher than mine. However, the fact that you are a die-hard liberal probably has something to do with how much television you watch or rags you read. Watch out for that stuff. It turns your brain to mush and then all that IQ is wasted. And you just become a pawn of the main-stream-media (MSM). We call you guys losers or sheeple.
Death to the corporate media I say, and let the people awake from their stupor.
And all the neocons out there, don't think just because you voted for Bush, you're a conservative. You ain't. Bush is a liberal in conservative clothing, same goes for Romney, G'llani, and all the other bozo republicans I don't care to mention.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From jolifam67
Tuesday, December 18, 2007, 16:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
stop and consider this. It was a tiny minority of the colonists who fought for independence. If such a minority of revolutionaries will rise in the quest for independence from this squelching political correctness and forced mud tide that's choking us to death and killing our future, count on it that I will be at the fore front. The Ron Paul Revolution is only a glimpse of the outrage that Americans are beginning to feel. It only takes small but resolute group to change the destiny of a nation. The nation has to change or it will soon collapse. I'll either be here to see it change, or leave the minute before it collapses. Either way, my a$$ is covered.(reply to this comment) |
| | From figaro
Tuesday, December 18, 2007, 16:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
I will never argue that you are right in the fact that we desperately need change, and real change not just little shit. And when the right person at the right time with the right plan to bring about that change comes along I will be there to support that person all the way. But that person is not Ron Paul, and that plan is not yours, and the time is not now. For why the time is not now refer to my comment about the house on fire, the reasons for the rest should be obvious!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Monday, December 17, 2007, 06:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Bush is no liberal. He's more conservative than me. He's the one that wanted the Congress to vote on a Federal Marriage Amendment (which I'm against because of the harm it would do and because I believe regulating marriage is not in the Fed's powers and is a state issue).
He's the one who kept the tax cuts going while he waged two wars. Yeah, I know he said he'd cut taxes when he first ran in 2000, but there are some things that are more important, like funding a war instead of almost doubling the National Debt! If you ask me, that is not a smart move.
Bush is a fiscal conservative who doesn't seem to mind illegals sneaking across the border, or businesses hiring them. I'm a fiscal conservative too, but if we are willing to let illegals get jobs because it's good for business, we are sending the wrong message. They're not supposed to be here! They don't pay taxes! They broke the law! And Mr. Bush, if you're reading this- WE NEED A FENCE ON THE MEXICAN BORDER!
Romney is a different story. You may be right on him. The only way to find out if he's a real Conservative or not is to put him in the White House. Is that a chance you're willing to take? :-)
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From figaro
Wednesday, December 26, 2007, 13:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ok, so it is not in the Oxford dictionary. However, the word "word" in the Oxford dictionary is described as: 1 [C] a single unit of language which means sth and can be spoken or written: 2 [C] a thing that you say; a remark or statement: 4 [sing.] a piece of information or news
So since it is something that is said, written and understood by people who speak the English and considered by many authorities to be a word then it qualifies as a word per (My interpretation of)the Oxfords definition of "word"!
=P(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From figaro
Wednesday, December 26, 2007, 14:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Said, written and understood by many people who speak the English language' is not quite justification enough for this elitist."
You're absolutely right, if thats all it took then any word that some group of ghetto high school drop outs use would be then considered an actual word, but the fact that it is used in every dictionary I have looked it up in other then the oxford one does.
I honestly don't care though, I was just fucking with whoever said that. =P(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From conan
Monday, December 17, 2007, 13:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sammy, "What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul!"(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From figaro
Tuesday, December 18, 2007, 09:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hey moron, he didn't say the minute men should do it or that the government shouldn't. He just said that violators should be shot on sight!
And just because (according to you, but I really doubt that) the KKK was the first to start a border watch does not mean anyone who believes there should be one is a KKK member or sympathizers. By your logic every border crossing agent and law enforcement officer is a clansmen. You're a moron!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Tuesday, December 18, 2007, 12:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
You doubt it because that is not what I said (should I start adding "moron" to every disagreement I have with you as well?) I said they were ONE OF the first to start a border watch. My source is the Southern Poverty Law Center and I see no reason why they would lie about the KKK doing border watches.
Now, here's my problem with shooting violators on sight. It will only keep the poor and needy out of the US. The gangs, drug dealers, and terrorists will simply use others as mules. Innocents will die, while the guilty continue their partying ways in Mexico. That is not justice.
Another problem is that it would be difficult to enforce. Securing the border with soldiers or police will cost much more money over the years than any fence would. Plus, it would be very controversial. You know and I know that there are peaceniks and liberals everywhere in this country that would cringe at the thought of an intruder being shot on sight as they try to run across the border. And I'm not sure the idea would have that much support among the Conservative movement either. It does seem cruel to shoot someone on sight without giving them their proper rights (trial by jury of your peers, innocence until proven guilty in a court of law, etc.), but I do realise that it probably happens in many countries around the world. That doesn't necessarily make it okay.
As far as my KKK comment is concerned, all I was try to do was point out to Jolifam67 that his argument is similar to the argument the KKK used. Maybe I missed the mark. If so, I do apologise. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From jolifam67
Thursday, December 20, 2007, 21:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
The First Amendment, while at the same time being the only thing that stands between me and prison or worse for speaking out against our Liberal overlords, is in actuality nearly irrelevant nowadays. At the time that it was introduced there was no mass media, no de facto mandate to be "politically correct" as it is nowadays when speaking in public, no trillion dollar government that hounds its citizens, no income tax that that takes 2 out of every 5 dollars you earn, slaves had no rights, women had no "suffrage," so you see when you invoke "the First Amendment" you are really doing so speciously. The fact is the founding fathers would quickly abolish the authority and power of the liberal media tycoons who one way or another, through taxes, or moral pressure, order us to pay for African and Mexican healthcare, an expense in which we really have no say. To say that it is their "First Amendment right" to propagandize to us this way is just ridiculous. You are either really stupid, have no sense of history and the meaning of ideological legacies and their relevance in today's world, or you know exactly what you are doing in using lip service to things you actually don't believe in yourself, just like a lawyer, preacher, or politician.(reply to this comment) |
| | From 2ndlife
Saturday, December 22, 2007, 13:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
we in the USA need stop complaining so much about the mexicans coming over, atleast we're better off then Europe with all the arabs, turks, and indians coming over and out breeding them, living off childrens money and wellfair and opening saying that they are going to take over and make europe a muslim area in 20 years. At least the mexicans are peaceful for the most part and are more compatilbe with our culitar, even if they become the majority what the worst that could happen, the Taco becomes our national dish?
by the way i know there are many words spelled wrong, spell check dosnt work on this site and I was educated in TF so make fun of it if you want I dont care.(reply to this comment) |
| | From 2ndlife
Saturday, December 22, 2007, 13:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
we in the USA need stop complaining so much about the mexicans coming over, atleast we're better off then Europe with all the arabs, turks, and indians coming over and out breeding them, living off childrens money and wellfair and opening saying that they are going to take over and make europe a muslim area in 20 years. At least the mexicans are peaceful for the most part and are more compatilbe with our culitar, even if they become the majority what the worst that could happen, the Taco becomes our national dish?
by the way i know there are many words spelled wrong, spell check dosnt work on this site and I was educated in TF so make fun of it if you want I dont care.(reply to this comment) |
| | From conan
Saturday, December 22, 2007, 14:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
"We in the USA need to stop complaining so much about the Mexicans coming over. At least we're better off than Europe with all the Arabs, Turks, and Indians coming over and out-breeding them, living off children's welfare and openly saying that they are going to take over and make Europe a Muslim area in 20 years. At least the Mexicans are peaceful for the most part and are more compatible with out culture. Even if they become the majority, what's the worst that could happen? The taco becomes our national dish?
By the way, I know there are many words spelled wrong. Spell check doesn't work on this site and I was (not) educated in TF, so make fun of it if you want. I don't care."
Okay, now that I've made some sense of your comment, I can rebut it easier without having to worry about inaccuracies. I'm curious as to where you are hearing that the 'Arabs, Turks and Indians' are openly saying that they will make Europe a Muslim area in 20 years? Is that something you imagine them as having said? Also, you know that the vast majority of Indians are in fact NOT Muslim, right?
At least the Mexicans are peaceful? I'm assuming you mean Mexican immigrants, and if so, peaceful in comparison to whom? To the Arabs, Turks, and Indians who are violently fucking their wives and having kids over in old Europe? Violence is synonymous with humanity no matter which culture your family originated from, and there are as many violent Mexican gangs and deaths as there are 'Middle Eastern' as far as immigrants in their new lands are concerned. I'm assuming you have extensively studied the topic as you are so full of information and facts and figures on the subject, but I'm pretty sure you're grossly misinformed.
Oh, and I don't think Americans 'complain' about Mexican immigrants so much as we complain that we need immigration reform. That goes for immigrants of any nation. Remember, all 'Americans' began as immigrants and immigration is what makes America the diverse nation it is. The issue is about illegal immigrants and their potential to mooch off of the American taxpayer illegally and their potential to 'steal' American jobs. And yes, there is the issue of unregistered, illegals committing crimes and then being difficult to track down or be held accountable for their actions as they are often deported only to sneak right back in and commit similar atrocities. Those are the issues I care about more than the taco becoming our national dish.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From figaro
Tuesday, December 18, 2007, 13:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
". Innocents will die, while the guilty continue their partying ways in Mexico. That is not justice. "
So, the people who are breaking the law and entering our country illegally are innocent? Plus, if they are in Mexico they aren't breaking any laws except maybe Mexican laws, and thats for the Mexican government to deal with. we are talking about border jumpers here.
"Securing the border with soldiers or police will cost much more money over the years than any fence would." (but it would also be effective!)
But we should waste money by giving them "trial by jury of your peers, innocence until proven guilty in a court of law," when they were caught in the act? That doesn't seem to make much sense. they are obviously not innocent because they're mere presence proves them guilty!
You know, you sit there and whine about how we shouldn't elect a democrat because they will increase taxes, but then you talk about how we need to do this and that that we aren't doing now. You want to have all these government services, but you don't want to pay for them, because that is after all, what taxes are. Us paying for the services of the government, if we don't pay for them then we don't get them.
"You know and I know that there are peaceniks and liberals everywhere in this country that would cringe at the thought "
Fuck them! Neither of us said it actually WOULD happen, just that in our opinions it SHOULD!
"It does seem cruel to shoot someone on sight without giving them their proper rights "
They gave up those rights when they broke the law. Just like I can kill someone in self defense without giving them a trail because they are breaking the law and trying to kill me.
Finally, you think that the cost of securing the border with the only thing that will work, SOLDIERS, is going to be costly, but the cost to our economy of us NOT doing it is FAR FAR worse. These border jumpers are costing billions of our tax dollars, and costing billions in decreased wages for the working American and legal immigrants. Plus it just isn't fair to those who DID wait there turn and come here legally.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Tuesday, December 18, 2007, 14:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
By "innocent", I meant those crossing the border who are not drug runners, gang members, human trafficking, etc.
Dude, whatever happens, American law and justice still remain. Otherwise those responsible for enforcing our border could grab someone they don't like for whatever reason and would like to see killed. Then all they'd have to do is drive them to the border, and make it appear that they were trying to cross our border illegally. Then fire away. But if that person has their fair day in court, then the door would not be opened for this kind of conduct. Yes, their prescence would make them guilty, but the police, army, or border patrol do not decide that. Ever. This is America, and the accused will always have the right to their day in court! That is all.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From figaro
Tuesday, December 18, 2007, 15:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
"By "innocent", I meant those crossing the border who are not drug runners, gang members, human trafficking, etc. "
See you seem to be getting confused here. Let me explain it very simply. ANYONE who illegally crosses the border is guilty, not innocent. They don't have to be bringing drugs, humans, guns, bombs, gangs or what the hell ever with them to be breaking the law!
"Otherwise those responsible for enforcing our border could grab someone they don't like for whatever reason and would like to see killed. Then all they'd have to do is drive them to the border, and make it appear that they were trying to cross our border illegally. Then fire away."
Dude, that is the dumbest argument I have ever heard! You must really live in fear all day from what COULD be!
Any police officer can do that anyway. Just pull the guy out of his car, take him out of the view of his dash cam if he has one, scream "PUT THE GUN DOWN" and fire away, making sure to plant a gun on him afterwards. Hell, if they wanted to kill someone that badly why make all that paper work,m why not just run up to the guy at night and stab him in the back and make it look like a mugging gone bad. If someone wants someone else dead they are going to do it one way or another. The point is, there is possibilities for abusing ones authority and power EVERYWHERE. If we didn't appoint anyone to a position because they COULD abuse their power we would have no government and anarchy would reign.
Seriously man, do you even THINK about what you say?(reply to this comment) |
| | From figaro
Sunday, December 16, 2007, 22:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually I am not a die hard liberal. I am not even a die hard democrat. I happen to seriously disagree with many things that the left wing stands for, and very much agree with some of the things the right wing stands for. The difference in me is exactly the opposite of what your telling me to watch out for! That is that I read books, newspapers of all types and sides, I watch all the media and not just one side, I am very informed when I make a decision and I make up my own mind instead of going along with what other people say. That is much much more then I can say for most people on BOTH sides! So I am far far from a sheeple! (yes, we use that term a lot too)
You really do assume a lot!(reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam67
Monday, December 17, 2007, 16:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
there's no such thing as "fair and balanced" in today's media. All newspapers and TV stations are owned by the same few corporations. You are seriously deluded my friend. Get some help. Read up on what Ron Paul and some bloggers at the "fringe" are saying. The majority is seriously wrong. Read the writing on the wall. This is 1984 come true.(reply to this comment) |
| | From figaro
Tuesday, December 18, 2007, 00:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
GOD you're stupid. I never said any media was fair and balanced. I said MY judgments are, because I do not only listen to one side. I listen to both sides and make up my own mind. You think I don't know about who owns what? You think I am unaware of the fact that Rupert Murdoch is trying to buy up every media source he can so he can use it to influence us to how he wants us to think? (and succeeding)
Seriously man, there is nothing you can tell me that I do not already know. I am not some idiot who doesn't do their research, I make informed decisions. And just because the majority is seriously wrong, doesn't mean you aren't too! (reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam67
Tuesday, December 18, 2007, 16:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
You, my friend, are not as strong as you think. Even I do not trust myself. For that reason I do not own a TV. I do not read newspapers PERIOD, even though as I go to work, newspaper guys are trying to hand out their daily rag for free. Won't do it. The newspapers are DESIGNED to suck you in and change your mind, even the minds of those who consciously KNOW what's going on. Newspapers push ideas by omission, through images, subliminal messages, you name it. It's a science. That's why I deliberately avoid the brainwashing at all costs. I only scan headlines from Yahoo once a day and read random bloggers who I like. That's about it.(reply to this comment) |
| | From figaro
Tuesday, December 18, 2007, 16:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
WOW. So your pretty much admitting that you are completely ignorant and that you actually have NO idea whats going on in the world! That explains a lot.
And again, you do not know me, I am a very very strong person. Just because you are not doesn't mean no one is.
That being said I realize that I am arguing with someone who has no idea what so ever what he is talking about, its like debating the stock market with a 3rd grader. I will no longer be replying to you. You are the poster child for the blind leading the blind!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From figaro
Thursday, December 20, 2007, 16:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hey retard, you didn't say any of that. let me quote EXACTLY what you said "I ONLY scan headlines from YAHOO once a day and read random bloggers who I like. THATS ABOUT IT." You said THAT IS ALL! So if that is all you read then there is no way you could really know what is going on in the world. But now you realize what you said shows what an ignorant moron you are, so you're changing your story thinking its better to contradict yourself then to prove yourself wrong.
I have 2 more points to make on this subject.
1. If you "read random bloggers who I like" then you are the one who is really letting his judgment and opinions be swayed by the views and opinions of others, and of the media to which you subscribe. You are only reading the opinions, "facts", and views of those who believe and see things the same way you do. So how can you think that you are seeing the full picture? If you really think that then you are SERIOUSLY delusional! (Which we all came to the conclusion that you are a while ago, you even said it yourself)
2. NO, I do not consider just anything from the internet a legitimate news source! On the internet anything can be written or broad casted without any monitoring or quality control. There is no commission keeping an eye on everything and making sure that only the truth is being told. legitimate news sources like CNN and the New York times have an army of fact checkers and everything that goes into print or is broad casted must be proven to be true and by law must be unbiased. They have sources that can be checked and verified. Your little internet sites don't have any of those things! They can say any stupid, biased, unfounded bullshit they want without any fear of reprisal. I suppose you would consider these sites "legitimate news sources" too!
http://www.elvislives.net/
or
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/news/headlines_from_tomorrow/36
You're a complete moron. Why don't you go catch a ride with a comet and save us your idiocy.(reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam67
Thursday, December 20, 2007, 18:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
I feel sorry for you. So many precious brain cells are being lost or atrophied to CNN's daze. If you think the mainstream media has it right all the time, think again. Remember the Jena 6 and all the assumptions the media made about the case leading us to believe that all those events, the noose, the party, etc. were all connected to this 6 on 1 black on white pummeling? It's come out by and by that the story the mainstream media has crafted for us is highly misleading if not flat out lies. http://patterico.com/2007/09/22/la-times-distorts-facts-of-jena-6-case/. The media continually covers up black on white crime (60000 white women a year raped by blacks yearly), and makes a ruckus over any white on black crime. The media is not to be trusted. I take everything I hear from the mainstream media, as well as any one else, with quite a few grains of salt, and double check facts myself. But I especially do not trust the major news networks for the very reason that can be oh-so-convincing, and then you find out later you've been had.
The media is flagrantly criminal in it's broadcasting the lie that every one is equal and in its demonizing of dissenters both accidental (Trent Lott, James Watson..) and deliberate. The aim is to get whites so trusting that they let their guard down around blacks and mestizos. Then those same whites are surprized when they find themselves beaten, raped, or killed. It's a virtual genocide I tell you. People like Wolf Blitzer and Paula Zahn ought to be caged up for life; they are flat out evil.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from channel four UK NOW
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 14:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
there is a Doc called 'end of the world cult' 10pm channel four UK
Should be good!
(reply to this comment)
| from clark
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 10:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
Weren't this "white race" ALL immigrants at one time? The only people this country "belongs" to are the Native Americans.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | from vacuous
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 07:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
The adds and pictures with sage looking armoured polar bears roaring and talking and fighting really gives me an incentive to see more.
(reply to this comment)
| from Dissonant
Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 09:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
If I had a golden compass, I would melt it down and make a golden calf out of it. Or maybe I would have it turned into a set of gold fronts so I could be ghetto-fabulous.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from figaro
Monday, December 10, 2007 - 19:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
I disagree, I think that Clinton or Giuliani are our only hopes. They both have their down falls, but far less dangerous to this country and our society then any of the others.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from jolifam67
Monday, December 10, 2007 - 18:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
If you value your freedom and your future you will donate to Ron Paul: http://www.teaparty07.com/
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | From figaro
Wednesday, December 12, 2007, 16:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
THANK YOU!!! Exactly what I have been screaming this whole time. Yea Clinton may seem (to some people) soft on military, and when she was president last time (lets face it, she was the president, Bill was just the charming smile) the military budget might have gone down and we didn't have as big an army as we do now but, there is WAY more to this country then the military! Why have a huge bad ass military if we don't have a country to defend with it? And the way the economy is going right now, the military is ALL that will be left if we don't get Clinton in the white house!
As for Ron Paul... The thing about him is that he actually says that he plans to get rid of all gift, income, death, estate, and property tax! Thats pretty much ALL the taxes that WE pay except sales tax! Now that may sound like a great idea but if you think about it, its not. If we get rid of all that then where will all the money come from to fund things like military and health care. (Side note, I think its really funny when people talk about how we need to have a stronger military with better benefits and a strong health care system but yet they also say they want tax cuts, you can't say we need more and better but pay less to get it, doesn't work that way, sorry!) {that was directed towards Sammy boy and his above reply to my comment}
Anyway, my point is, as much as we don't like paying them, we need taxes! Now Texas has the second highest property tax in the country, so that could be lowered a bit, and some other things like death tax and estate tax and gift tax could be dropped, but we can not have a government without tax. So this means that either:
A. Ron Paul knows this and is only saying that he will get rid of taxes to gain support, and has no intentions to make good on his promises (Would a politician do that? Surely not, not a republican, they don't lie do they? but but.. they're the GOOD ol' party!?!?!)
or
B. Ron Paul DOESN'T realize this and is completely delusional in thinking that he can really get rid of taxes but yet still somehow run a functional government.
Either way he is NOT the person to vote for! Vote Clinton!!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From smashingrrl
Wednesday, December 12, 2007, 19:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thank You. I find it amazing how many people who've never worn a uniform bash the Clinton's for their supposedly poor record with the military. I served under the damn Clintons. You know what? I never had to fight a bullshit war and watch my friends die for someone else's greed. We did fight a war under the Clintons. Remember the Balkans? We lost not ONE, not ONE fucking American servicemember. The military had EVERYTHING it needed to fight that war including the help and support of our Allies.
I served in the goddam sandbox before this bullshit war but didn't have to watch contractors (mercenaries) unaccountable to any laws doing the same job and being paid in a month what I couldn't make in a year.
The whole idea that the Clintons were somehow bad for the military is fucking right wing bullshit spread by blowhards like Limbaugh. Blowhards who themselves never fucking served, seem to know a whole lot about the military. The whole myth of the Clintons somehow being bad for the military is based mostly on two things: Clinton, at the beginning of his term, tried to change the policy on gays serving. Clinton dodged the draft. At least he didn't dodge for a fucking anal cyst (Limbaugh), have daddy buy his way into a champaign unit (Bush), or receive five deferments (Cheney). The paperwork on which mysteriously went missing (Bush and Cheney).
Some actual facts:
As First Lady, Clinton led efforts to call attention to and force the VA to recognize Gulf War syndrom.
It was Bill Clinton’s military that won in Afghanistan and in Iraq. What? You think that military was built overnight? No baby, it takes a little longer than that. It's Bush's fuck-ups that are destroying the military, cutting VA benefits and cheating the military out of their bonuses
Clinton's military made mince meat out of our enemies... twice .
Hillary Clinton is currently LEADING the fight to increase my GI bill, housing benefits, small business loans and medical benefits and cut the bloody red tape required to receive benefits from the VA.
In 2000, Clinton gave us the highest pay raise in 18 years. 4.8% in 2000, right before he left office. The years before that, the average increase was 3.5. That by the way, was higher than any given by the elder Bush.
He increased the bonus allowance to 60K. Yes, this again was in Jan 2000. Yes, before Sept 11th when you pretend he was trying so hard to destroy the military.
What has Bush done?
Besides sending us to die in a pointless war to die.
Patients at Walter Reed now have to pay for their own meals.
Disabled Vets now have a co-pay on their benefits.
Veterans who, due to injury in that war, cannot complete their service have collections agencies trying to recoup their bonuses.
The proposed annual pay raise for 2007 from your dear Bush? 2.2 measly percent the smallest since the original Bush. Oh, guess who was trying to fight that and get it raised.....Clinton and Kerry. Bush threatened to Veto anything higher than 3%.
He's destroyed the active duty and guard military. We couldn't, at this point, repel an invasion by Bulgaria.(reply to this comment) |
| | From figaro
Wednesday, December 12, 2007, 19:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
This reminds me of a point I wanted to make but forgot, and this is:
You may call Clinton "weak on military" but you know, how bad ass do we really need to be? We have been the world super power for how long? Our military will shred any country that dares appose us. I mean, we could get rid of half our navy and still not need to worry for a second. Clinton isn't weak on military, she just realizes that our military is totally overkill! Honestly we are better off with an adequate military and spending all that extra money on the economy or on health care or education or SOMETHING that will be more beneficial to the country/society. I mean, unless we are planning on taking on the entire world, we can make some cut backs on our military. I don't mean pay the soldiers less, or to give them less armor on their vehicles, I'm talking about spending billions on fighter jets that 90% of which will never see action, I mean, when was the last time we required more then 5% of our air force power? Or for that matter our navy? We spend so much money on these ships, planes, jets, missiles, subs, torpedoes, and really do we need any more then we have? I mean, we spend billions just training people how to use these things, and practicing. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From jolifam67
Wednesday, December 12, 2007, 18:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
You obviously don't know about Ron Paul and have not heard his message. Whether or not Paul is right about the causes of the current economic malaise is besides the point. The fact of the matter is he is the ONLY one proposing serious reforms. Washington is knee-deep in corruption, the country is overrun with wetbacks, crime is everywhere, people are scared, and their money is being devalued by the FED that keeps printing paper money like there's no tomorrow, to pay for overseas missions that have zero benefit for Americans, and to benefit God knows which tiny group of big-nosed schemers. That money is coming straight out of your pocket and into theirs. That is the reality that no one seems to grasp, principally because things like inflation act slowly, but the end is just as lethal. And by the way, I don't understand someone who has any kind of enthusiasm for person like Hillary Clinton. It's just beyond me.(reply to this comment) |
| | From figaro
Wednesday, December 12, 2007, 20:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
" The fact of the matter is he is the ONLY one proposing serious reforms. Washington is knee-deep in corruption, the country is overrun with wetbacks, crime is everywhere, people are scared, and their money is being devalued by the FED that keeps printing paper money like there's no tomorrow, to pay for overseas missions that have zero benefit for Americans, and to benefit God knows which tiny group of big-nosed schemers. That money is coming straight out of your pocket and into theirs. That is the reality that no one seems to grasp, principally because things like inflation act slowly, but the end is just as lethal."
Well I won't argue with you on that one. But I honestly don't think that he would be able to do it no matter how hard he tries. Government corruption is unavoidable, when you have this much money floating around and people with this much power then ther's just no way to really stop it. And even if he tried he just wouldn't be successful. Right now, with the country in as bad shape as it's in we don't need a dream chaser, we need someone who is down to earth with realistic ideas and goals. Someone with REAL solutions to VERY real problems. We need someone who can get something done and soon, even if he gave this mission of his all he had it would take too long, we need resolutions NOW!
Think of it like this, the country is a house that has bad wiring and has caught fire. You don't try to rewire the house until you put out the fire. Thats the way I look at it, we need someone who will take care of the "NOW" and then once its going smooth like it was with the last Clinton, before bush fucked everything to hell, THEN we can look at the "THEN"!(reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam67
Wednesday, December 12, 2007, 21:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Perhaps so. And I'm glad you agree the country is getting more unpleasant by the day. However, I don't trust any of the other candidates, mainly because they are not acknowledging the travesty that is occurring (other than Tancredo). The problem is, if drastic changes do not take place soon, changes will come about through organic means. For example "La raza" might become opportunistic and replace all American flags with Mexican flags in Cali, while the whites out there either smile and play along or run for the hills (or just killed on the streets). I believe Pat Buchanan is right. If something doesn't change quickly, the country's going to break apart at the seams. There will be a breaking point also for regular whites. At the point where taxes become overwhelming with no concomitant return in the form of infrastructure maintenance or social services for the elderly etc., instead all the money being siphoned off into inflation, wars, Mexico or illegals.(reply to this comment) |
| | From smashingrrl
Wednesday, December 12, 2007, 22:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wow. Don't even know where to fucking start. But now I understand how you couldn't have this discussion without throwing in the "dyke" comment.
Tancredo? Are you fucking kidding me? Yeah, you're right. Obviously people are crossing the border to raise their flags and murder people in the streets. It couldn't possibly be that they see no other way of feeding their families and giving their children even the slimmest shot at a better life. Yup. They're here to take over. I'm so glad you pointed it out. I thought those guys at the Home Depot were just looking for work. Glad someone's paying attention.
Taxes. Yeah, it sucks when the money you earn is taken from you before you ever see it. Maybe you're right. We don't really need those roads. Education? Nah, fuck that. Fuck it, just have the kids work instead of going to school. Police? Well, without them thar mexican- illegal-lesbian-white folk killin'-flag raisin'degenerates crossin owr border; there really ain't no problem fer the white folk. So who needs them cops. Firefighters, ambulances, hospitals? Nah, buy a damn hose and some bandaids with that tax cut and you should be fine. Air traffic control....fuck that. Them planes can see eachother right? Just have them roll down a window and holler. Then they can avoid eachother. Military? Fuck that. Obviously, mercenaries are much more useful. That way, all the whites can hire their own to keep those damn mexicans out...unless the lawn needs to be mowed. Get lost in the woods while you're hunting those damn illegals? Shoulda bought a compass huh? Find your own way out fuckwit unless you can hire those mercenaries for that too. Don't really need that FEC either. Hell, I'm sure companies will just start being honest with their stockholders. You're investments will be just fine. Grandma can't work anymore, her complany folded and there went her pension? What? You can't afford to take care of her? Well, shit, she's old anyway. Bullet's the cheapest way. Oh, call those mercenaries....they should be good at that.
I think I can pay some of my money in taxes. Yeah, it would be fucking awesome if the government wasted a whole lot less of it. The alternative seems a little less pleasant though. (reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam67
Thursday, December 13, 2007, 17:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes. I think we'll do just fine without government services. Free market will fill in the gaps as needed minus the beurocracy. All the government has done is create a giant teet for the poor of the world to come over and suck on. And I don't need them to mow my lawn either. I wouldn't want one Mexican within a mile from where I live. In fact, I've moved twice in the past few years to different far sides of town to get away from the damn mestizos and Indians. And the inner city obviously is a no-go zone for uh obvious reasons.
One thing you forget, is that People create wealth. Hard work translates directly into a better living standard for all. Without the government to give out handouts and encourage non-productivity by penalizing with high taxes any one who wants to work a little extra, people will work harder and the result will be a better living standard for everyone. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From jolifam67
Friday, December 14, 2007, 22:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Free market does not equal NAFTA. A market can be "free" and still respect its borders. Business are not free to break the law and hire illegals. It is your argument that is flawed my friend. The fact that you assign the moniker "special interest groupie" to someone who advocates the constitution and national sovereignty shows just how off kilter general thinking has become, if you are representative of the majority that is. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From figaro
Friday, December 14, 2007, 13:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
You know, you are a walking contradiction! You say "every dollar donated is a raised clenched fist at the establishment"
and "Yes. I think we'll do just fine without government services"! BUT THEN you say we NEED the government to keep out the Mexicans and we need cops to keep the Mexicans and blacks at bay! As AndyH also stated already, "It's funny how you sing praises to the free market, but protest the free market importing cheap labor from Mexico" You don't want freedom, you want freedom for whites and the Mexicans and blacks to get the scraps.
Now I really do understand you wanting jobs to stay in America, and to keep the demand and pay for workers high, which can not happen if illegals will work for next to nothing and take all the jobs forcing us to work for far less then we are worth if we want to be able to work at all. I understand all this. I even understand your hatred for wetbacks and niggers, I really do. I also understand that not all Mexicans are wetbacks, and not all blacks are niggers. I also understand that you want to stop giving hand outs to lazy minorities that refuse to work and expect us to pay for them and their hoards of bastard children with our hard earned tax dollars. But its just not that simple, and your idea of a solution is self contradicting, unrealistic, and potentially suppressive of people who may actually want to be hard working productive members of society! Basically, it's not the answer, and neither is Ron Paul!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From steam
Thursday, December 13, 2007, 07:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
10% real inflation? How long has this been going on. If that is compounding (which it would be if year over year the inflation rate is that average), my dollar buys what about 37 cents did in 1997. Does that sound right to you? If we go back to 1990 20 cents would by what a dollar does now. Or 8 cents on the dollar back to 1980. Use a little common sense with numbers, and if someone throws out a number that make no sense question if they know what they are talking about in general.(reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam67
Thursday, December 13, 2007, 17:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's true for at least the last couple of years. I know my cup of coffee has gone from 90c to 1.09 in just two years :)
Beginning of the century, when we were on the gold standard, a gold ounce was $20. Now it's $800. Do the math. I've already decided buying bank CD's right now is pointless. I'm pissed that money market returns aren't even keeping up with inflation. I will be investing anything I save into education or gold.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From jolifam67
Wednesday, December 12, 2007, 19:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
let's see, Nixon takes us off the Gold standard, the 70's comes and with it comes "stagflation." Let's see further back fractional reserve banking, where holdings are no longer backed 100% by a stored commodity (like gold), is introduced and suddenly we have thing like the Great Depression. The fact of the matter is putting your faith in paper money backed the word of the government is risky. Especially when the government loses the faith of the people. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From AndyH
Wednesday, December 12, 2007, 16:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
They will never go back to the gold standard, and speaking of gold, what about gold as an investment vehicle? It performs against inflation.
Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas but nobody takes him seriously. It will take another depression before we rethink our economic policy. I respect your optimism though, let me know how that works out for you. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From smashingrrl
Wednesday, December 12, 2007, 19:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
Um. That's really hardly a bet. There kinda already is a war. Look Ron Paul's great to have around. He's a throwback to true conservatism ....Goldwater, Teddy Roosevelt. It's a nice little memory before the Party was hijacked by christianists, the southern strategy, compassionate conservatism, and the shear lunacy that's become synonymous with the GOP. But he's got as much chance of winning the presidency as a cute little boy has of maintaining his virginity around republicans and priests. So support him all you want. Please do. The more votes he gets, the more likely someone in the GOP might notice how far off the cliff they've tread. But don't hold your breath. Fuckabee's probably ending up as your nominee. No matter how pathetic, limp-dicked and wimpy the democrat running against him....he's still going down in flames.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From jolifam67
Wednesday, December 12, 2007, 22:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
Excuse my ignorance...and actually no, it's the other way around, the impressionable are voting by TV talking points. And in order to herd those couch potatoes into the Paul herd, it's going to take some theatrics, such as the kind of entertaining fodder you seem to be capable of supplying at a moments notice.
As for Owamabama man. Seriously, the day that _groid becomes the focal point of our government is the day American politics becomes unrecognizable, and probably pretty uncomfortable for a lot of people, not that you care. Either way the elections go, we're in for some very bitterly amusing, if predictably miserable times. I guess as long as you get your gay parades and police protection...(reply to this comment) |
| | From figaro
Thursday, December 13, 2007, 06:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Its really sad that you felt you had to resort to bashing her sexual preference! Is that really the only ammo you had left? Argue the facts or at least opinions of the topic, but don't go completely off topic to the only place that you feel better then her (even though you're not, by a long shot)
Why do people always try to win an argument by attacking the other persons character instead of attacking their facts, or opinions? What happened to winning the old fashioned way, by proving the other person wrong? Why do we instead just try to make the other person look foolish in any way you can, so therefore they MUST be wrong even though it has NOTHING to do with whats being argued?
And whats with the lesbian bashing? They make you feel a little inadequate? Afraid a woman might be better at being a man then you? Personally, I LOVE lesbians, as long as they aren't man haters!
Disappointing man, seriously!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From figaro
Thursday, December 13, 2007, 12:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
Your welcome. My exwife room mated with a girl who was into other girls several months ago, and she had a lesbian friend who would come over all the time. Now this girl was a VERY macho butch dyke, which is fine with me. I am not interested in trying to get in on her girl on girl action or anything, its whatever right? WRONG! She was the biggest man hatter, treated me like I was some sort of child raping Berg prodigy, just because I have a (really small) cock! And I barely ever even spoke to the bitch either.
So thats the type I am talking about when I say "man hater" I don't mean just because they won't let me in on their fun they must be a man hater and therefore I don't like them. This girl was so butch she would walk around "packing" as its called here. Its an insert able rubber cock that they can actually piss out of standing up!!! Thats some serious "I wanna be a man" shit!(reply to this comment) |
| | From smashingrrl
Thursday, December 13, 2007, 14:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think you may have just accomplished what the cult, my parents, ministers and the military all tried and failed to do....turn me straight. lol Yeah, there are psychos in every group. As my friend says whenever he encounters the queeny twinks with tweezed brows and wrists that couldn't hold a coffee cup steady....I may be gay but those are not my people. You're cock may be small (considering your commendable lack of insecurity, I doubt it)....just make sure you tell women it's very angry. (reply to this comment) |
| | From smashingrrl
Wednesday, December 12, 2007, 22:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
You know, I can't really excuse your ignorance but it's nothing to do with your spelling. When did who I fuck enter this debate? I realize you're trying to bait me into so stupid argument concerning my sexuality. It's pathetic and completely unnecessary. Gay parades? I'm not a fan. Police protection? If you're refering to hate crimes legislation, you're sorely mistaken in the belief that my orientation requires me to support it. I don't, for the record. I take issue with any law that polices not the action but the thought. But then, I guess that's inconvenient with the stereotype you've chosen to swallow. So who's the one allowing their beliefs to be swayed by talking points? Seems like you're it. I suppose the inability to base one's argument on the facts actually being debated must be constraining for you. Good idea. When you run out of talking points, ideas, facts, logic, reason, and intelligence; go for the low blow. How's that working out for you? (reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam67
Thursday, December 13, 2007, 18:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Facts are everywhere. People throw them around like pennies. It's pointless and goes nowhere to talk facts, when all you really want to do change your environment to your liking. I'm glad you don't support Hate Crime legislation. A so called "hate crime" is just the secular form of religious punishment. Punishing someone for thinking incorrectly smacks of everything this country worked for two hundred years to get away from. Somehow in the last half of the century we've regressed into it. And that is a dangerous state to be in. In Europe and Canada they are throwing folks in prison for years for merely questioning the holocaust. It's practically illegal to use the n-word. If you are a public figure and you use it, your whole life is destroyed.
And I don't have a problem with dykes--unless the get into politics. It's at that point that they try to change MY environment to THEIR liking and lessen the perceived discrimination they feel. Thus in order to "fight" against the majority of society which has "rejected" them, they have to side with minorities, special interests, plants, polar bears, potheads, and blacks and even try to get women on their side. It's why I don't watch the news. I can't stand all the whining. (reply to this comment) |
| | From smashingrrl
Thursday, December 13, 2007, 19:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
And yet, you do it so well....the whining, that is. I think I speak for everyone here when I tell you: You've bored us.
However, I'll save you some trouble. Don't vote for Paul. He's not your candidate. You'll only end up with a serious case of buyer's remorse. He's not on your side on any issue you've yet espoused. Neither is he a bigot. I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this but it's understandable why you're so confused given your phobia of evidence. You didn't have to announce your distaste for news. Your lack of familiarity with anything resembling the truth has proven that point already. Paul doesn't want to return the dollar to the gold standard for which you have such a hard-on. No sane person does. He's for legalization of pot...oops, that means potheads won't be jailed. He's actually extremely friendly to those evil gays, having voted against the constitutional ammendment to ban marriage and being a proponent of ending the don't ask, don't tell bullshit.
Paul is a libertarian. You are not. Libertarian creed: Your rights end at my nose. The minorities you so detest tend to love libertarians for that very reason. You're creed: Rights and laws should be bought by the highest bidder. What you want is a fascist. Fascism: The rule of the corporation, money and the favored ethnicity, culture, and race over all. Strong nationalism is at it's core. No, you won't find many people calling themselves fascists because it's become a slur and for good reason. However, everything you've proclaimed to be your core beliefs, reaks of it. It's hard to hide a pile of shit in your pants when all around you can smell the stench. Since you evidently didn't develop a distaste for bigotry, hatred of the weak, absolute greed, and oppression of those you feel beneath you, a libertarian is definantly NOT who you want ruling this nation. I'd recommend David Duke but he's not running. In his absence, Alan Keyes is your best bet.
Good luck avoiding those dirty mexicans. (reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam67
Friday, December 14, 2007, 22:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
We already live in a fascist country. Paul represents the middle. We have to get to the middle before we get back to the right. Also, Paul would be the last one, the last one to jail someone for their beliefs. Every other dirty politician running would cave into the least bit of pressure put on by the right or the left, because they're a bunch of whimps! At least with Paul, we know what to expect!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from fragiletiger
Monday, December 10, 2007 - 00:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
Weren't the white people, who 'founded' your country and thus earned the right of it exclusive use, extremly religious? Didn't they leave Europe, becuase it was too sinful?
I'm all for crazy dogma, but at least be consistent.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | From ironically
Monday, December 10, 2007, 21:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, they left because of religious persecution, and proceeded to execute people suspected of being a "witch" ...or people who were Quakers:
" Mary Barrett Dyer (c. 1611 – June 1, 1660) was an English Puritan turned Quaker who was hanged in Boston, Massachusetts for repeatedly defying a law banning Quakers from the colony. She is one of the four executed Quakers known as the Boston martyrs.
In 1637 Mary Dyer met Anne Hutchinson, who preached that God "spoke directly to individuals" rather than only through the clergy. Dyer joined with Hutchinson and became involved in what was called the "Antinomian heresy," [1] where they worked to organize groups of women and men to study the Bible in contravention of the theocratic law of the Massachusetts Bay Colony."
You can read more on that incident at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Dyer
Ironic how so may fanatics will fight what they see as religious persecution, but persecute others who dare try to have freedom of religion and don't pick theirs.
No freedom from the fanatics' religion. Only freedom to choose it, and if the fanatics gain enough power, there will be only one "choice" left.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | from I heard
Sunday, December 09, 2007 - 11:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
I seem to recall hearing that the author of the books had written them as a non/anti-religious response to the likes of Lord of the Rings and Narnia series which were written by openly Christian authors.
(reply to this comment)
| from exfamily
Sunday, December 09, 2007 - 11:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
I just found out about this film last week, and seeing that books are always better, I've been reading all three books this week and have nearly finished. It's really a great read, and I can see why some Christians are so mad about this being made into an attractive film. The books would probably have had a greater effect on me if I believed in the supernatural, and if I didn't know that his interpretation of the implications of quantum physics is somewhat based on speculation, but one must of course suspend one's disbelief when reading a work of fantasy, and it's well worth it.
Definitely recommended. (Though I hear the film is a bit rushed.)
(reply to this comment)
| from Samuel
Sunday, December 09, 2007 - 11:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
"jungle people"?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From jolifam67
Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 18:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
okay, an 'ism' then. Like egalitarianism, socialism, communism, etc.. I wonder if these aren't embryonic religions. For example, if communism had endured another 1000 years in Russia, would the people end up worshipping statues of Lenin and Stalin and praying to them for rain? I think that's how Buddhism developed anyways. One day we all might be praying to statues of Martin Luther King, the way things are going. It's situation truly out-of-hand here in the USA.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]