Fuck You, George

[PornoDoggy]

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America


When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. --And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

--John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

[mikeyddddd]

http://duffmaru.freeservers.com/bushidiot.jpg

[Almighty Colin]

:salute:

[Red]

Happy Independence Day :salute:

[grimm]

land that I love... stand beside her.. and guide her...


Rove Talked But Did Not Tattle, Attorney Says
The Bush advisor spoke with a Time reporter days before a CIA
operative was outed.

By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — Karl Rove, one of President Bush's closest advisors,
spoke with a Time magazine reporter days before the name of a CIA
operative surfaced in the press, but did not leak the confidential
information, a lawyer for Rove said Saturday in a new admission in the
case.

Rove spoke to Time reporter Matthew Cooper in July 2003, before a
syndicated column revealed the identity of operative Valerie Plame,
the wife of Bush administration critic and former U.S. Ambassador
Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Cooper is one of two reporters who has been held in contempt of court
for not cooperating with a federal investigation into who leaked
Plame's identity. Although Wilson once said he suspected that Rove had
played a role in destroying his wife's CIA cover, the White House
dismissed questions about Rove's actions as "totally ridiculous."

In confirming the conversation between Rove and Cooper, Rove's
attorney, Robert Luskin, emphasized that the presidential advisor did
not reveal any secrets. But the disclosure raised new questions about
Rove and the precise role of the White House in the apparent national
security breach as Cooper and another reporter, Judith Miller of the
New York Times, faced imminent jail terms.

Time Inc., under pressure from a federal judge and over Cooper's
objections, turned over e-mail records and other internal documents to
a special prosecutor Friday, identifying sources that Cooper used to
report and write on the politically charged case. A Time spokeswoman
declined to say Saturday whether Rove was among sources mentioned in
the documents.

Cooper and Miller could be jailed as soon as Wednesday for refusing to
cooperate in the investigation. Time, which was separately held in
contempt in the case, said that it hoped its cooperation meant that
Cooper would not be incarcerated.

Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff and longtime political strategist,
testified before a grand jury investigating the Plame case on three
occasions. His latest appearance was in October 2004, about the same
time the prosecutor investigating the case said his probe was complete
with the exception of testimony from Cooper and Miller.

Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald is investigating the alleged
outing of Plame by Robert Novak, a columnist and CNN pundit, on July
14, 2003. Some suspect that the White House leaked her name in
retaliation for a July 6, 2003, op-ed piece in the New York Times
written by Wilson, her husband. He accused the administration of
twisting intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Fitzgerald interviewed many other White House officials and
journalists, including Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Although
Novak was the first to publish Plame's name, Fitzgerald has indicated
that whoever leaked the information to Novak also might have revealed
her identity to other journalists. That could constitute separate
violations of a federal law that protects the identity of undercover
CIA personnel.

Prosecutions are rare, however, because they require showing that the
leak was intentionally disclosed and that the person leaking the
information knew the government was trying to conceal it.

Fitzgerald asked Cooper and Time for documents and testimony relating
to conversations Cooper had with official sources about Wilson, Plame
or her ties to the CIA in the period before the publication of Novak's
column. Cooper wrote about the case on Time's website after the Novak
column appeared.

Luskin, Rove's attorney, acknowledged in an interview Saturday that
Cooper and Rove had spoken days before Novak's column, in a
conversation that was initiated by Cooper.

"What I can tell you is that Cooper called Rove during that week
between the Wilson article and the Novak article, but that Karl
absolutely did not identify Valerie Plame," Luskin said. "He did not
disclose any confidential information about anybody to Cooper or to
anybody else."

Luskin said he would not "characterize the substance of the
conversation," which was covered in the testimony Rove provided to the
grand jury investigating the leak. "The folks in Fitzgerald's office
have asked us not to talk about what Karl has had to say," Luskin
said.

Luskin said Rove had been assured by prosecutors that he was not a
target of the investigation. "We were advised recently that his status
has not changed," he added.

"It is certainly my understanding that Karl has testified absolutely
truthfully about all his conversations about everybody that he has
been asked about during that week," Luskin added. "Nobody has
suggested to us ever that they think that there are any problems about
whether they think he is being candid."

But Newsweek magazine reported on its website Saturday that Rove was
one of Cooper's sources identified in notes that Time turned over to
Fitzgerald. And separately, MSNBC political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell
said in a taped TV program that he had information indicating Rove was
one of Cooper's sources. O'Donnell's comments were made in a segment
of "The McLaughlin Group" that was set to air in Los Angeles on PBS
Saturday night.

Cooper's lawyer, Richard Sauber, declined to discuss Rove's role in
Cooper's work, saying in response to an e-mail message, "We're not
going to discuss one way or another what the [documents turned over by
Time] say."

In court papers filed Friday arguing against his possible confinement,
Cooper's lawyers said if he were to break promises of confidentiality,
"his ability to continue as an effective reporter would be seriously
jeopardized."

In letters to the court accompanying his plea, fellow journalists
discussed this principle.

"Journalists must honor their promises which protect the bad along
with the good," said Margaret Carlson, a Time columnist and colleague
of Cooper. "We can't separate them like the darks and the whites in
the laundry."

[grimm]

on this celebration of our country's status and history, Voltaire might say

"Ordinarily there is no comparison between the crimes of the great who
are always ambitious, and the crimes of the people who always want, and
can want only liberty and equality. These two sentiments, Liberty and
Equality, do not lead direct to calumny, rapine, assassination,
poisoning, the devastation of one's neighbours' lands, etc.; but
ambitious might and the mania for power plunge into all these crimes
whatever be the time, whatever be the place."

[ThrobX]

Originally posted by grimm@Jul 4 2005, 10:47 AM
Rove Talked But Did Not Tattle, Attorney Says
The Bush advisor spoke with a Time reporter days before a CIA
operative was outed.
Plausible deniability. What a shocker. <_<

[PornoDoggy]

Grandma's got her new dress on
There's fresh flower's on grandpa's grave
And junior smells of aftershave
Oh boy, hey hey
It's a national holiday

Everything's ready for the big parade
The mayor's got his place in the shade
But we can't wait 'til the sun goes down
To lie on a hill at the edge of town
While a presidential proclamation
Is blasting out across the nation
And Mad Dog and his band of jerks
Are lighting off the fireworks
Oh boy, hey hey
It's a national holiday

So let's all sing the national anthem
Free the hostages, pay the ransom
Raise the flag, lower the taxes
Band the bomb and bury the hatchet

The chiefs of staff called a session
Called for an end to armed aggression
They're easing up on covert actions
Appeasing all opposing faction
They communicated with the communists
Pacified the pacifists
Stopped all pain, stopped all sorrow
Real life shall resume tomorrow
Oh boy, hey hey
It's a national holiday

Copyright 1989 by Mambadadi Music, I.R.S. Music, Inc., BMI

[aeon]

Happy 4th!
http://cameltoe.bolt.com/images/GodHatesAmerica.jpg

:salute:

[Defiant]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jul 3 2005, 11:17 AM
... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...
We are getting there again, where such actions may be neccessary to re-instate our Republic.


"Those who are willing to sacrifice freedoms for security deserve, and shall have, neither."
- Ben Franklin

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty; When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
- Thomas Jefferson

Isn't the current government requiring us to sacrifice freedoms for "security"?
Do you think the current government fears the people of America?
How afraid of the current government are YOU?

[PornoDoggy]

We are getting there again, where such actions may be necessary to re-instate our Republic.

Bullshit. If you are talking about action outside the normal participation in public affairs - I say bullshit.

There are lots of things going on that I don't care for. I'm not particularly overwhelmed with traditional Republican values (as exemplified by the Supreme Court decision allowing a government entity to seize private property and turn it over for commercial development). The ideology of the neo-cons and the Republicangelicals is completely repugnant to me.

But their time will pass. It always has before.

They are not going to be able to maintain the coalition that's elected Bush twice for too awful long. Shit, Bush has got a real problem on his hands just with the nomination of a Supreme Court justice - and the Democrats are barely relevant to the problem. Pick one the Republicangelicals support, and he could drive a lot of the Brooks Brothers/Armani crowd into supporting a moderate Democrat. Pick a nominee that the Pharisees don't feel meets the appropriate standards of faithfulness and piety, and it will take more than making homasexshuals the new niggers to win.

So leave the talk of the need for revolution to the wackos - just need to stay active, be patient, and the pendulum will swing back again.

[aeon]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Jul 4 2005, 07:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Jul 4 2005, 07:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Bullshit. If you are talking about action outside the normal participation in public affairs - I say bullshit..[/b]
Look at PD - getting all feisty...
<!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Jul 4 2005, 07:23 PM
So leave the talk of the need for revolution to the wackos[/quote]
All empires eventually fall. It's interesting to see the people in the US avoiding this reality. The idea that 500 years from now the USA will be nothing more than a chapter in a history book repulses people.

[Defiant]

I'm not advocating the violent overthrow of the government. I am just mentioning that it isn't something to completely rule out, should circumstances warrant it. Yes, we should take to the polls and vote... but are our votes actually being counted accurately?


http://skippyandscooter.com/stickers/MB00029.jpg

http://skippyandscooter.com/stickers/MB00067.jpg

http://skippyandscooter.com/stickers/MB00127.jpg

http://skippyandscooter.com/stickers/MB00204.jpg

http://skippyandscooter.com/stickers/MB00316.jpg

http://skippyandscooter.com/stickers/MB00374.jpg

http://skippyandscooter.com/stickers/MB00389.jpg

http://skippyandscooter.com/stickers/MB00392.jpg

[aeon]

Originally posted by Defiant@Jul 4 2005, 07:48 PM
I'm not advocating the violent overthrow of the government. I am just mentioning that it isn't something to completely rule out, should circumstances warrant it. Yes, we should take to the polls and vote... but are our votes actually being counted accurately?


http://skippyandscooter.com/stickers/MB00029.jpg

http://skippyandscooter.com/stickers/MB00067.jpg

http://skippyandscooter.com/stickers/MB00127.jpg

http://skippyandscooter.com/stickers/MB00204.jpg

http://skippyandscooter.com/stickers/MB00316.jpg

http://skippyandscooter.com/stickers/MB00374.jpg

http://skippyandscooter.com/stickers/MB00389.jpg

http://skippyandscooter.com/stickers/MB00392.jpg
You're not a revolutionary. You're a faggot on a message board.

The only revolution you'd support is whining to the waitress at the International House Of Pancakes that you're eggs aren't right.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by aeon@Jul 5 2005, 12:00 AM
You're not a revolutionary. You're a faggot on a message board.

The only revolution you'd support is whining to the waitress at the International House Of Pancakes that you're eggs aren't right.
I'm just someone that does not trust the government, especially when they appear to keep seizing more and more power every day.

[PornoDoggy]

Defiant, I supose I could look around on the net and copy my own collection of bumper stickers to compete with yours, but I don't have the time or see the point. I suspect are votes are being counted as accurately as possible, given that humans are doing it. There is undoubtedly some fraud, there are some shaky tactics - there always has been and always will be.

I doubt very seriously that it's much better or worse than it was in 1960, when Nixon was encouraged to pull a Gore and sue over blatantly tampered results in Illinois and Chicago. He declined to do so. Whether he declined to do so because he was a great patriot who didn't want to divide the nation, or because he knew how fucking vulnerable to the same charges he was in Ohio & Indiana (I think), is a matter of interpretation.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jul 5 2005, 12:10 AM
Defiant, I supose I could look around on the net and copy my own collection of bumper stickers to compete with yours, but I don't have the time or see the point. I suspect are votes are being counted as accurately as possible, given that humans are doing it. There is undoubtedly some fraud, there are some shaky tactics - there always has been and always will be.

I doubt very seriously that it's much better or worse than it was in 1960, when Nixon was encouraged to pull a Gore and sue over blatantly tampered results in Illinois and Chicago. He declined to do so. Whether he declined to do so because he was a great patriot who didn't want to divide the nation, or because he knew how fucking vulnerable to the same charges he was in Ohio & Indiana (I think), is a matter of interpretation.
Actually, I was just looking to see who made a certain quote that had been rolling around in my head for a while, and came across a site with a whole bunch of bumper stickers that Red and I really liked. I was just sharing some that seemed appropriate.
For the most part, I agree with you on the vote counting. Sometimes the count is inaccurate due to honest mistakes and sometimes it is due to corruption. It probably does all work out in the end, and thank God we still have the Electoral College instead of just going with the total vote numbers.
I do, however, believe that the spirit of the Constitution is no longer alive, or at best is in a vegetative state and on life-support.

[ThrobX]

Originally posted by Defiant@Jul 4 2005, 08:29 PM
thank God we still have the Electoral College instead of just going with the total vote numbers.
The Electoral College is totally outdated. It was perfect for when the nation had very few educated people and large masses of uneducated morons, but...

er, never mind.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by ThrobX+Jul 5 2005, 12:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ThrobX @ Jul 5 2005, 12:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Defiant@Jul 4 2005, 08:29 PM
thank God we still have the Electoral College instead of just going with the total vote numbers.
The Electoral College is totally outdated. It was perfect for when the nation had very few educated people and large masses of uneducated morons, but...

er, never mind. [/b][/quote]
The purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent one densely populated area of the country from being able to dictate who the President will be to the rest of the country.

[PornoDoggy]

I have to admit I get a little uneasy when I hear people make statements like "the spirit of the Constitution is no longer alive, or at best is in a vegetative state and on life-support."

It's the kind of statement my paternal Grandfather would make when he was preparing to go off on a rant about the jew Roosevelt and his attempt to turn America into a communist state.

It's the kind of statement my maternal Grandfather would have made when he was preparing to talk about taking God out of schools and letting the niggers in.

The debates that rage today are little different than the ones that have raged throughout the history of this country. The whole "if you don't support the war you are a traitor" routine was played out ad naseum during my lifetime, during Korea, during WWI, and most wars prior. Security vs civil liberties has repeated itself over and over for 200 years. Concern about the dangers presented by immigrants spawned an entire political party in the 1840s, aptly named the No-Nothings. The homosexual agenda arguement is a rerun of the Knee-grow agenda almost verbatim; the liberal activist judges routine has been played out for 70 fucking years minimum (I think the John Birch Society has a copyright on the phrase).

The most onerous aspects of the Patriot Act don't hold a candle to what Lincoln did during the Civil War. The detention of Arabs after 9/11 is nothing compared to the interment camps of WWII. George Bush and the neo-cons have wet dreams about having a Secretary of State the equivlent of Wilson's AG Palmer, who would have deported his mother as a communist if she wore a red hat two days in a row.. The spirit of the constitution is alive and doing well. There are more threats to it now than at some times in our history, but nothing along the scale that took place in the 1870-1890 (and lasted until the 1950s), for example.

Dangerous things happening? Sure - but this country has lurched right (or left) before, and will do so again.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by aeon@Jul 4 2005, 11:00 PM
You're not a revolutionary. You're a faggot on a message board.

The only revolution you'd support is whining to the waitress at the International House Of Pancakes that you're eggs aren't right.
So what does that make you? The tough guy who has to prove how macho you are by baiting fags so no one will figure out he has wet dreams about his own father?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jul 5 2005, 03:16 AM
I have to admit I get a little uneasy when I hear people make statements like "the spirit of the Constitution is no longer alive, or at best is in a vegetative state and on life-support."

It's the kind of statement my paternal Grandfather would make when he was preparing to go off on a rant about the jew Roosevelt and his attempt to turn America into a communist state.

It's the kind of statement my maternal Grandfather would have made when he was preparing to talk about taking God out of schools and letting the niggers in.

The debates that rage today are little different than the ones that have raged throughout the history of this country. The whole "if you don't support the war you are a traitor" routine was played out ad naseum during my lifetime, during Korea, during WWI, and most wars prior. Security vs civil liberties has repeated itself over and over for 200 years. Concern about the dangers presented by immigrants spawned an entire political party in the 1840s, aptly named the No-Nothings. The homosexual agenda arguement is a rerun of the Knee-grow agenda almost verbatim; the liberal activist judges routine has been played out for 70 fucking years minimum (I think the John Birch Society has a copyright on the phrase).

The most onerous aspects of the Patriot Act don't hold a candle to what Lincoln did during the Civil War. The detention of Arabs after 9/11 is nothing compared to the interment camps of WWII. George Bush and the neo-cons have wet dreams about having a Secretary of State the equivlent of Wilson's AG Palmer, who would have deported his mother as a communist if she wore a red hat two days in a row.. The spirit of the constitution is alive and doing well. There are more threats to it now than at some times in our history, but nothing along the scale that took place in the 1870-1890 (and lasted until the 1950s), for example.

Dangerous things happening? Sure - but this country has lurched right (or left) before, and will do so again.
PD for president!

[PornoDoggy]

I would appoint George Carlin to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.

[aeon]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jul 5 2005, 12:20 AM
So what does that make you?
It makes me the person who, in some ways, is glad the prodigal son's in office. The thought of your kids/grandkids spilling their innards in some shithole desert makes me giggle like a schoolgirl who just discovered vibrators. Patriotism makes my physically ill. The only difference between patriotism and nationalism is a historical tie to a land. Both are absurdities that do nothing but perpetuate the conflicts you claim to disagree with. If it wasn’t for these idiotic force fed concepts of patriotism and nationalism most wars would be avoided.

The more of you dipshit flag-wavers on the left and right that meet IED's, the better off the world is.

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by aeon@Jul 5 2005, 03:04 PM
If it wasn’t for these idiotic force fed concepts of patriotism and nationalism most wars would be avoided.
Add in religion, and I'll agree with you that most wars wouldn't happen.

Not all, but most.

[aeon]

Originally posted by Dravyk+Jul 5 2005, 12:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dravyk @ Jul 5 2005, 12:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-aeon@Jul 5 2005, 03:04 PM
If it wasn’t for these idiotic force fed concepts of patriotism and nationalism most wars would be avoided.
Add in religion, and I'll agree with you that most wars wouldn't happen.

Not all, but most.[/b][/quote]
Agreed, but if you notice that religion tends to be a necessary and in many ways tantamount to a sufficient condition of patriotism/nationalism. The motivation may not be overtly "spiritual" but the justification tends to be symbiotic with theology. War/conflicts are necessarily defined as “good vs. evil”, which superficially looks like a secular metaethical position but the semantics frame the position within the realm of theological metaphysics, namely the divine command theory.

In recent history, the only conflicts that have been devoid of some theological base have been those engaged in by socialist/communist movements. If you take into account the comparative/universalist views of people like Eliade it can be argued that even secular actions have had an element of the "sacred" regardless of their lack of defined theological doctrine.

[ThrobX]

Good post, Aeon, but how about I simplify things a bit...

Religion is 100% bullshit.

[BillPMB]

Yeap, Religion is about 100% bullshit. But, most will agree that religion drives alot of desicion simply because most of the people are simple folks that can be driven like sheep behind bigger ideas than they're capable of thinking.

People will vote the wallet 99% of the time and their ideals the other 1%. They don't realize they're being fucked over constitutionality wise. They don't monitor the federal register, and they don't care. They have no motivation to do so.

We've got dark days on the horizon, as the Dubya juggernaut sends us back to the 40s-50s as the rest of the world laughs their asses off at us.

[ThrobX]

Exactly right, Bill. But at least we'll all be moral and we'll all go to heaven now.

[aeon]

Originally posted by ThrobX@Jul 5 2005, 09:19 PM
Religion is 100% bullshit.
I'd argue that. Organized religion is bullshit and a self-justifying authority just like governments, etc.,

Religion itself has been one of the most profound motivating factors in the evolution of human thought. Either pro or con, most all of the greatest thinkers have had some aspect of religion involved with their positions; overtly of implicitly

Without religion there would be no Anselm, Aquinas, Feuerbach, Hegel, Rosensweig, Berkeley, Buber, Kierkegaard, etc., That’s not even counting the number of scientific advancements discovered by the motivation to simply question established religious cosmology.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by aeon+Jul 6 2005, 11:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (aeon @ Jul 6 2005, 11:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ThrobX@Jul 5 2005, 09:19 PM
Religion is 100% bullshit.
I'd argue that. Organized religion is bullshit and a self-justifying authority just like governments, etc.,

Religion itself has been one of the most profound motivating factors in the evolution of human thought. Either pro or con, most all of the greatest thinkers have had some aspect of religion involved with their positions; overtly of implicitly

Without religion there would be no Anselm, Aquinas, Feuerbach, Hegel, Rosensweig, Berkeley, Buber, Kierkegaard, etc., That’s not even counting the number of scientific advancements discovered by the motivation to simply question established religious cosmology. [/b][/quote]


Aeon, you are correct about religion. It has been the impetus for society since the dawn of time.

Anyone check Aeon's IP? I figured he was in Scotland throwing Molotov cocktails!!

[aeon]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jul 6 2005, 08:44 AM
Anyone check Aeon's IP? I figured he was in Scotland throwing Molotov cocktails!!
I'm in Indiana practicing my aim with a Karl Rove poster.

[ThrobX]

Originally posted by aeon+Jul 6 2005, 08:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (aeon @ Jul 6 2005, 08:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ThrobX@Jul 5 2005, 09:19 PM
Religion is 100% bullshit.
I'd argue that. Organized religion is bullshit and a self-justifying authority just like governments, etc.,

Religion itself has been one of the most profound motivating factors in the evolution of human thought. Either pro or con, most all of the greatest thinkers have had some aspect of religion involved with their positions; overtly of implicitly

Without religion there would be no Anselm, Aquinas, Feuerbach, Hegel, Rosensweig, Berkeley, Buber, Kierkegaard, etc., That’s not even counting the number of scientific advancements discovered by the motivation to simply question established religious cosmology. [/b][/quote]
I stand by my opinion. Religion itself is 100% bullshit. While the concept has inspired a lot of great thought, I personally don't believe in an omniscient (or otherwise) creator. I think religion is simply a way to help people explain things they can't explain, and feel better about dying (i.e., they're going to a better place, rather than rotting into wormfood in the ground).

[aeon]

Originally posted by ThrobX@Jul 6 2005, 09:32 AM
I stand by my opinion. Religion itself is 100% bullshit. While the concept has inspired a lot of great thought, I personally don't believe in an omniscient (or otherwise) creator. I think religion is simply a way to help people explain things they can't explain, and feel better about dying (i.e., they're going to a better place, rather than rotting into wormfood in the ground).
Whether or not you believe in something has nothing to do with the fact of its influence. You can call it bullshit all you want based on your personal beliefs but the very fact that you call it bullshit indicates it's influence on your life & worldview. If it was irrelevant, the concept wouldn't' even be brought up.

I'm an ardent agnostic. I refuse to be so presumptuous to make a decision either way but I would be remiss to discount the influence religion has & does have on my worldview.

let me add, I don't believe quantum cosmology - it's nothing more than creationism shrouded in scientific vernacular - something coming from nothing is acceptable when it's within scientific phraseology...but considering I wasn't there - I have no basis to say as a fact whether it's true. It's all a belief...you can have faith in a Bible/Torah/Qu'ran/Physics book....doesn't change the fact it's just faith.

[ThrobX]

Originally posted by aeon@Jul 6 2005, 09:48 AM
I'm an ardent agnostic. I refuse to be so presumptuous to make a decision either way but I would be remiss to discount the influence religion has & does have on my worldview.
Fair enough. I'll be the first one to admit that I could be wrong (agnosticism rears its head), but I have faith in the belief that there's nothing to have faith in. :D

I never questioned its influence. Note that I said that the concept of religion has inspired a lot of great thought. Conversely, it's also inspired a lot of smiling idiots with vapid thought

http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2004/2004-05/26-cruise-inside.jpg

and a lot of wars, but you take the good with the bad in this case, I guess, since religion ain't going away.

[grimm]

Originally posted by ThrobX+Jul 6 2005, 10:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ThrobX @ Jul 6 2005, 10:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-aeon@Jul 6 2005, 09:48 AM
I'm an ardent agnostic. I refuse to be so presumptuous to make a decision either way but I would be remiss to discount the influence religion has & does have on my worldview.
Fair enough. I'll be the first one to admit that I could be wrong (agnosticism rears its head), but I have faith in the belief that there's nothing to have faith in. :D

I never questioned its influence. Note that I said that the concept of religion has inspired a lot of great thought. Conversely, it's also inspired a lot of smiling idiots with vapid thought

http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2004/2004-05/26-cruise-inside.jpg

and a lot of wars, but you take the good with the bad in this case, I guess, since religion ain't going away. [/b][/quote]
hes fucking nuts


http://www.gawker.com/news/culture/movies-...view-111140.php (http://www.gawker.com/news/culture/movies-celebs/tom-cruise-marches-his-crazy-parade-to-the-view-111140.php)

[ThrobX]

Originally posted by grimm@Jul 6 2005, 01:43 PM
hes fucking nuts
Definitely, but he provides such good TV interviews. You never know what you'll get: Happy Monkey Tom jumping on future, or Inifinite Knowledge Tom lecturing about medical history. It's like crackerjacks, you never know what cheapass prize you'll get!

[aeon]

Originally posted by ThrobX+Jul 6 2005, 10:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ThrobX @ Jul 6 2005, 10:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-aeon@Jul 6 2005, 09:48 AM
I'm an ardent agnostic. I refuse to be so presumptuous to make a decision either way but I would be remiss to discount the influence religion has & does have on my worldview.
Fair enough. I'll be the first one to admit that I could be wrong (agnosticism rears its head), but I have faith in the belief that there's nothing to have faith in. :D

I never questioned its influence. Note that I said that the concept of religion has inspired a lot of great thought. Conversely, it's also inspired a lot of smiling idiots with vapid thought

http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2004/2004-05/26-cruise-inside.jpg

and a lot of wars, but you take the good with the bad in this case, I guess, since religion ain't going away.[/b][/quote]
I wouldn't even call scientology a religion. As far as I now it's lacking in both a cosmology and eschatology. It's like some over priced & glorified lie detector cult created by a half assed science fiction writer.

That being as it is, Tom Cruise is a fucking nutwad to the extreme. He had the perfect piece of ass and blew it. Nicole Kidman has caused many, many a happysock to come into existence.

[Vick]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jul 4 2005, 10:23 PM
the pendulum will swing back again.
Yep, it starting to get even a little too far right for my tastes in some areas

[Vick]

Originally posted by aeon@Jul 4 2005, 10:47 PM
All empires eventually fall. It's interesting to see the people in the US avoiding this reality. The idea that 500 years from now the USA will be nothing more than a chapter in a history book repulses people.
Yep
Ask Rome, Greece or Britian (am sure you can add quite a few more)

[aeon]

Originally posted by Vick@Jul 6 2005, 05:46 PM
Yep
Ask Rome, Greece or Britian (am sure you can add quite a few more)
Go away Vick - you long haired fucker. I’d get along with you so I’m forced to be all civil and shit. I prefer to beg for the majority of humanity's death. My jerk off material (http://www.crazedloner.com).

[EroticySteve]

Originally posted by aeon+Jul 6 2005, 03:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (aeon @ Jul 6 2005, 03:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by ThrobX@Jul 6 2005, 10:59 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-aeon@Jul 6 2005, 09:48 AM
I'm an ardent agnostic. I refuse to be so presumptuous to make a decision either way but I would be remiss to discount the influence religion has & does have on my worldview.
Fair enough. I'll be the first one to admit that I could be wrong (agnosticism rears its head), but I have faith in the belief that there's nothing to have faith in. :D

I never questioned its influence. Note that I said that the concept of religion has inspired a lot of great thought. Conversely, it's also inspired a lot of smiling idiots with vapid thought

http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2004/2004-05/26-cruise-inside.jpg

and a lot of wars, but you take the good with the bad in this case, I guess, since religion ain't going away.
I wouldn't even call scientology a religion. As far as I now it's lacking in both a cosmology and eschatology. It's like some over priced & glorified lie detector cult created by a half assed science fiction writer.

That being as it is, Tom Cruise is a fucking nutwad to the extreme. He had the perfect piece of ass and blew it. Nicole Kidman has caused many, many a happysock to come into existence. [/b][/quote]
Nicole Kidman was a much better option. Second to her Penelope Cruz was a great deal too. Katie Holmes not even a close third.

[Trev]

Originally posted by EroticySteve+Jul 7 2005, 07:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (EroticySteve @ Jul 7 2005, 07:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by aeon@Jul 6 2005, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by ThrobX@Jul 6 2005, 10:59 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-aeon@Jul 6 2005, 09:48 AM
I'm an ardent agnostic. I refuse to be so presumptuous to make a decision either way but I would be remiss to discount the influence religion has & does have on my worldview.
Fair enough. I'll be the first one to admit that I could be wrong (agnosticism rears its head), but I have faith in the belief that there's nothing to have faith in. :D

I never questioned its influence. Note that I said that the concept of religion has inspired a lot of great thought. Conversely, it's also inspired a lot of smiling idiots with vapid thought

http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2004/2004-05/26-cruise-inside.jpg

and a lot of wars, but you take the good with the bad in this case, I guess, since religion ain't going away.
I wouldn't even call scientology a religion. As far as I now it's lacking in both a cosmology and eschatology. It's like some over priced & glorified lie detector cult created by a half assed science fiction writer.

That being as it is, Tom Cruise is a fucking nutwad to the extreme. He had the perfect piece of ass and blew it. Nicole Kidman has caused many, many a happysock to come into existence.
Nicole Kidman was a much better option. Second to her Penelope Cruz was a great deal too. Katie Holmes not even a close third. [/b][/quote]
I need to start a poll after this!

[Carrie]

Originally posted by mikeyddddd@Jul 3 2005, 10:37 PM
http://duffmaru.freeservers.com/bushidiot.jpg
I love this picture, simply because it shows just who the real idiot is. (The person making the picture.)
America is a Republic, not a democracy.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled "hottest Tom hottie" debate.

[Trev]

Originally posted by Carrie+Jul 9 2005, 06:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Carrie @ Jul 9 2005, 06:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-mikeyddddd@Jul 3 2005, 10:37 PM
http://duffmaru.freeservers.com/bushidiot.jpg
I love this picture, simply because it shows just who the real idiot is. (The person making the picture.)
America is a Republic, not a democracy.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled "hottest Tom hottie" debate. [/b][/quote]
Nice to see you around these parts again Carrie :)