Content should only open their mouth when there's a dick being stuck in it or to take a load. Your existence demonstrates AIDS has some positive benefit after all.
I see the hooked on phonics is actually working?
That’s called a fragmented sentence. Damn yer stupid. Possibly you can show me anywhere I said it was liberal’s fault?
It's become more than obvious that induction is barely comprehensible to you...this doesn't shock me.
you...are...a...fuckwit. “humourous” eh?…and can’t quite get the concept of a complete sentence down can you? Interesting you should talk about grammar…
Oh my, I said a bad word...should I wash my mouth out with soap now? Did I offend the sensitivities of some poor twit somewhere before he was about to behead a woman for infidelity? I'll rush right out to apologize...and tell him a porn peddling leftist on an adult webmaster board was looking out for his cultural sensitivities.
You should actually read what I write unless that's too difficult...I never made a statement anywhere about what bush is actually responsible for...other than his own decisions - like everyone else, just like Hussein made his, Hitler made his, berg made his, I make mine; it's called individual responsibility - a concept foreign to your excuse drive dogma.
Again, shouldn't you use you're obvious mental prowess and show me where I ever said liberals were to blame for the war in Iraq...do you actually read or just mumble your ideological idiocies out on cue?. You can't and won't because actually justifying a position that challenges your dogmatic ideology is alien to followers of their faith.

Lemme break it down for you scooter since you obviously have the inability to grasp it on yer own. I don't even like bush nor do I support the war in Iraq - no where have I ever said I support it or bush...you're presuming because that's what "followers" of dogma do when their worldview is challenged in a way they're unable to defend. Patriotism is nationalism for those without a historical connection to a land and both are idiotic. Liberals are fun because they do exactly what you've done - take the bait and behave like robots. Anyone that dare criticizes the superior "leftist" mentality must be a conservative and blame the liberals for everything. Maybe when whatever drug you're on at the moment wears off, you'll understand it's the same logic as jerry fallwell...it's presumptive, biased and true "prejudice"...But then again, there's nothing better than a slave who thinks he's free.

And oh yea - and as I've said before, the only difference between liberals and conservatives; conservatives are honest in their hypocrisy.
:salute:

Sorry to burst your bubble, aeon, but conservatives, are not honest about anything, let alone the hypocrasy part LOL

aeon, with respect to your public "school" ("free") education: you get what you pay for. I am sincerely sorry your parents didn't love you enough to pay for your education.

Do you gargle or spit...?



Last edited by aeon at May 15 2004, 01:13 PM

Joe I am not honest?

Joe I am not honest?[/b][/quote]
if you believe in what bush is doing to the country , then yes Mike unfortunatly you are not being honest with yourself... :D

However with that said, conservatism has it's place, I just think that this group of Neo cons are making conservative have a bad name...

I like to think of myself, as a progressive conservative. and wish that the true centrist groups could overcome the two party system we are struggling with.

I also wish that they would do away with that antiquated voting system known as the electoral college, so that america can truely be what it was meant to be.... THE LAND OF THE FREE and a truley capitalist society.

Hell Mike I bet if the facts of how the country was ran, was equal to the theorys in wich it was founded under, that we may actually think along the same lines covering a wide variety of subjects...

However this business that is going on now, with the words saying one thing and the actions saying another, are certainly NOT what the principles of the docterine known as the constitution of the UNITED STATES was founded on, or meant to uplhold. IMHO

if you believe in what bush is doing to the country , then yes Mike unfortunatly you are not being honest with yourself... :D

However with that said, conservatism has it's place, I just think that this group of Neo cons are making conservative have a bad name...

I like to think of myself, as a progressive conservative. and wish that the true centrist groups could overcome the two party system we are struggling with.

I also wish that they would do away with that antiquated voting system known as the electoral college, so that america can truely be what it was meant to be.... THE LAND OF THE FREE and a truley capitalist society.

Hell Mike I bet if the facts of how the country was ran, was equal to the theorys in wich it was founded under, that we may actually think along the same lines covering a wide variety of subjects...

However this business that is going on now, with the words saying one thing and the actions saying another, are certainly NOT what the principles of the docterine known as the constitution of the UNITED STATES was founded on, or meant to uplhold. IMHO[/b][/quote]
HAHAHA - when it comes to the check book...all those beliefs are qualified...I love it!

if you believe in what bush is doing to the country , then yes Mike unfortunatly you are not being honest with yourself... :D

However with that said, conservatism has it's place, I just think that this group of Neo cons are making conservative have a bad name...

I like to think of myself, as a progressive conservative. and wish that the true centrist groups could overcome the two party system we are struggling with.

I also wish that they would do away with that antiquated voting system known as the electoral college, so that america can truely be what it was meant to be.... THE LAND OF THE FREE and a truley capitalist society.

Hell Mike I bet if the facts of how the country was ran, was equal to the theorys in wich it was founded under, that we may actually think along the same lines covering a wide variety of subjects...

However this business that is going on now, with the words saying one thing and the actions saying another, are certainly NOT what the principles of the docterine known as the constitution of the UNITED STATES was founded on, or meant to uplhold. IMHO[/b][/quote]
Joe I think you may want to go over your history books again.

True democracy, the general masses controling others is something that scared our Founding Fathers.

You know that majority of people in this world, and unfortunately in this country are uneducated morons.

Look around. Do you really want to live in a nation where simple majority rules??

While I am not a fan of Bush's domestic policy, I do not think what he has tried to accomplish in foreign policy was some kind of sneaky way to get his friends more money.

I think Bush was effected by 9-11 and decided the existing peice meal strategy with terrorism was not working. So he has tried bold action.

The funny thing is by true definitions its Bush who is the progressive President. He has taken decades of US foreign policy and turned it on its ear.

The sad fact is the liberals think Bush is evil and would condem Bus hfor saving a baby from being run over by a bus. This has hampered the war, and the reaction at home.

Terrorists CANNOT defeat us, only our lack of will to see things through can defeat us.

Right now, it looks like we are waivering.

The US has become a soft, fat, lazy, push over country. We can defeat any army in the field, but we cannot burden combat that is messy, and lasts more then a few months. This is very troubling to me....

well said mike, I do however disagree, and yes I do belive in mankind to do the right thing more times than not, so that could be why I think that a simple majority rules system is the only true non partisan system that we can use..

Bush did send only his cronies to get the spoils of war, and yes... we are waivering, as thwe 9- 11 effect has not been forgoten, it just can not be used to blind us anylonger, so as we see more of the truth behind the man that is GW coming forward, then of course his aprroval ratings will continue to drop. So rejoice, as someone with a better econimic agenda is on the way in!!! :D

Mike ... Bush may in fact have turned years of foreign policy on its ear, but calling it progressive is unmitigated horseshit.

In my "uneducated morons" opinion (that's what you thnk of everyone who doesn't think just like you, isn't it?), Bush has cobbled together a number of failed 19th and 20th century ideas (colonialism or it's cultural cousin, neocolonialism; conventional military operations against gurellia forces).

The bold action taken as a result of 9/11 - the invasion of Afghanistan - was the only course of action that could be taken. Regardless of the mantra of the ignorant and the bobblheads, John Kerry would have done it, Hillary Clinton would have done it, Al Gore would have done it, Teddy Fucking Kennedy would have done it. You've got to get out to the lunatic fringe (Kuccinich?) before it is reasonable to assume there would have been any waffling. And yeah ... the Taliban are gone for now.

When the history of the war on terror is written, the war in Iraq will be regarded as a collossal mistake. I think George Bush will be regarded in history as Churchillian ... as in Galopoli. Brave, bold action indeed - but a futile sacrifce for no practical gain.

Hey aeon, how much of the world have you seen?

I want to know how much experience you have of life outside the USA?

I don't think anyone is implying that it changes anything. Surely they're just raising the question about whether or not the two situations are related? It's entirely possible.

And how is it liberal idiocy to report the news of a rather unlikely and interesting coincidence?

I don't think anyone is implying that it changes anything. Surely they're just raising the question about whether or not the two situations are related? It's entirely possible.

And how is it liberal idiocy to report the news of a rather unlikely and interesting coincidence?[/b][/quote]
amen!

all the precursors of Rome's collapse,
the signs on the wall are there
;-((((

Joe,
I lived in 4 countries:
USSR, Austria, Italy, USA
and when I say LIVE,
I meant I had to work and make a living, unlike tourists don't have to worry about.

How many countries besides Australia you TRULY lived in?

Joe,
I lived in 4 countries:
USSR, Austria, Italy, USA
and when I say LIVE,
I meant I had to work and make a living, unlike tourists don't have to worry about.

How many countries besides Australia you TRULY lived in?[/b][/quote]
It's true I've only really lived in Australia. However I lived out of a bag every day for six months as a backpacked my way around the world in 1998. And that's staying in youth hostel dorms, not expensive hotel rooms. Altogether, I've seen twenty-nine countries and spent almost two years of my life doing it.

Living in one country you see one side, travelling through it you see another. They are different experiences. There are things you discover as a traveller that locals never do. Why? Because when you live in a place you take it for granted and don't spend time exploring it. Sometimes you see things clearer from the outside looking in and vice versa.

Besides Serge, I'm much younger than you. I can only imagine the places I will have seen by the time I'm your age.

How much of the world had you seen at 34?

Joe, sorry to rain on your parade, but your are NOT MUCH YOUNGER than me,
you are only 13 years younger
;-)))

by 34 I've seen:
USSR and 7 of it's satelite republics, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Italy, Israel, Canada and few islands, and 28 states in the Union, not much.

The only excuse I had was:
I was 22 years old when I came and finding myself/proper work/business was very high on my agenda, I didn't have the bank acount or back pack to rely upon. Me and my shadow were my only earthly posessions.

Don't get me wrong, I do not play down your experiences,
just pointing out the obvious:
I am in MUCH better shape to throw stones at those who never left their counties,
and I chose not to. If you think about for a second,
Hieronymous Bosch NEVER left his VILLAGE,
and did it stop HIS creativity?

http://www.abcgallery.com/B/bosch/bosch.html

I wish ALL of us had 1/100 of the vision of the world he did. So far,
only Liberals and Bush haters see the world with Bosch's eyes
;-))
and 100%, not 1/100th
;-))



http://www.abcgallery.com/B/bosch/bosch62.jpg

Sure it didn't stop his creativity but creativity is not something you learn, it is something that is in you from birth.

He may have been a great artist but that doesn't mean he was necessarily intelligent, sophisticated or interesting. If he never left his village he was probably pretty dull. I've always found the most uninteresting people are the ones who never travel.

Sure it didn't stop his creativity but creativity is not something you learn, it is something that is in you from birth.

He may have been a great artist but that doesn't mean he was necessarily intelligent, sophisticated or interesting. If he never left his village he was probably pretty dull. I've always found the most uninteresting people are the ones who never travel.[/b][/quote]
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/bosch.html

"Hieronymous Bosch produced some of the most inventive fantasy paintings that have ever existed. His obsessive and nightmarish vision has its antecedents in the Gothic twilight world of the late Middle Ages and, although the allegorical medieval world view is now lost, there have been many recent attempts to 'read' his pictures, not least by those who have attempted to interpret Bosch by dream analysis. The Garden of Earthly Delights demonstrates Bosch's dazzling ability to build up a hugely detailed landscape through a series of bizarre exaggerations and distortions. The complete work consists of four paintings on a series of folding panels; the outer panel reveals the Third Day of Creation when closed. Inside, The Garden of Earthly Delights is flanked on the left by the Garden of Eden and on the right by Hell. A wild sexual orgy features in the central panel, where lust is shown to be the cause of man's downfall. There are over a thousand figures in this work altogether. Standing alone in its lifetime, Bosch's work has a timeless and modern quality that greatly endeared him to Surrealists in the twentieth century."

Hardly a description of a dull person.
Joe, HOW the hell did he imagine those orgy scenes without EVER been exposed to ANYTHING in the small Dutch village he lived in 15th Century????

and if this doesn't convince you,
I'll quote the Holy Bible:
Eyes they have but they can see not,
ears they have but they can hear not.
Being around the world a few times STILL doesn't assure one to really SEE and HEAR things.

And here is another example of somebody who never left his country:
Amerigo Vespucci,
who discovered America without EVER setting foot on it.
Columbus, who did set his foot in America, thought he was in India...
whicj just confirms what I just said.

Serge, I hate to confuse you but that is a description of his ART, not him as a person.

It is a mistake to confuse the two.

Serge, I hate to confuse you but that is a description of his ART, not him as a person.

It is a mistake to confuse the two.[/b][/quote]
alas, I can't find more about him as a PERSON,
but I'll dig deeper.

I am glad you completelly bought my Bible and Amerigo Vespucci arguments,
2 out of 3 isn't bad for my batting average
;-)))

I guess the Bosch personality argument will never be resolved..
from:
http://www.tabula-rasa.info/DarkAges/Bosch.html

"Nothing of his personality survives, except in his paintings. "\

;-(((

Considering what you've posted - prolly not nearly as well as you. The places I've been in Europe are essentially US travel resorts & I don't consider South American resorts to be "seeing the world". I'm not a big fan of leisure traveling anyway. I'm still in the "work" mode of life and don't really like taking the time nor energy - I have other more important goals at the moment.

That has little to no bearing on the fact I never said I blame liberals or any of my points questioning your positions. I don't care about understanding other cultures, anymore than they care about me. The notion that experiencing other cultures would in someway change my positions of innate cynicism is presumptive at best.

The track is open here and the weather is finally nice/dry enough for some good practice runs, so replies will either be stoned drunk or not at all for the next few days.

Answer me please. Kthxbai.

I don't think anyone is implying that it changes anything. Surely they're just raising the question about whether or not the two situations are related? It's entirely possible.

And how is it liberal idiocy to report the news of a rather unlikely and interesting coincidence?[/b][/quote]
Read the thread first...joe said every death in Iraq is bush's fault - I wasn't mentioning the coincidence.

I'm sure some white supremacist groups have my email address - that could be an incredibly interesting "coincidence" given the right situation. I've joined some of their forums to argue and laugh at their ramblings before.

Joe didn't mention anything about that until later in the thread. Your reply was either directed at the article, or at Serge or Joe's posts (the only other replies in the thread before yours).

Serge: "looks like coinsedence to me... "

Joe: " Coincidence? ahaahahahahaaha! Yeah, right! I'm going to give away my email address to someone and see if it ends up being used by Osama Bin Laden."

Serge thinks it looks like coincidence. Joe disagrees.

You: "...and this changes the fact that a group of camel jockey's are responsible for killing him in what way? Fuckin' more liberal idiocy - blame everyone and everything cept the person(s) responsible. A philosophy of total irresponsibility, denial and excuses."

So where exactly did anyone suggest it changes anything about who was responsible? And where is the liberal idiocy. If you'd be so kind as to point it out for me.

Do you actually know what a universal statement is? It's an absolutely unjustifiable assertion of faith...no different than religious mandates.

and always remember to:
http://home.sc.rr.com/jbernick/diversity.jpg

Universal statements are innately flawed...the logic of followers looking for the easy way to understand something - when someone tells you "every/all/never/always" those are called universals...and just like the faithful, they assume and prescribe devoid consistant justification. Universals imply absolute validity, particulars imply a potential level of soundness - two different criteria.

Remember, the automechanic that talks about things I could never understand, the electrician, the carpenter, the guy working in a factory are all sheep...because they dont' see the "truth" of the universal's like the "enlightened" do...

If you don't agree with "christianity" you're evil and unsaved...you don't agree with a political doctrine created by someone else that people follow...you're a sheep too...just like I "have to" blame liberals and support bush - I didn't assert the universal...just pointed it out - but by doing so...I'm not "enlightened" and I don't care to be...

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who think they are free."
-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

best qoute of all time... ;)





Last edited by aeon at May 17 2004, 01:11 PM

You completely avoided my question. I'll point out again that Joe hadn't said that until after your first reply. It's just that you strike me as the kind of person that loves to fling around political terms, but it seems like you don't understand them.

What was your statement in reply to? Again, where was the liberal idiocy?

The idiocy is the implied assumption a coincidence is something more than that as was so clearly shown by certain responses.

Because there's some remote connection that doesn't change the fact that those "sand niggers/camel jockeys/freedom fighters/resistence fighthers"...took a human being who wasn't in a uniform, didn't shoot at them, used a knife and sawed his head off. That is no one's fault but their own.

Baiting some idealogue into a losing debate doesn't change that fact. I've answered you're question by the actual piss match...you should read and re-read it. Because someone responded like an idiot to the "bait" isn't my fault - nor is every death in Iraq Bush's fault...check out the point about liberals responding like robots...and calling a person who openly claims themself a liberal isn't slinging terms in the least. Now it's time for you to use the 1300 or so cc's of space between yers ears.



Last edited by aeon at May 17 2004, 05:55 PM

"Eagles may soar but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines"

"Eagles may soar but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines"[/b][/quote]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com...day_bei111.jpg
one can only hope for hemophilia...

be a good boy and say "kill the Jews and imperialist crusaders and daddy will take you for a nice ice cream"



Last edited by aeon at May 17 2004, 05:42 PM

Sand and ice cream don't mix...

now you understand why Israel is so important with actual refrigerators. :okthumb:

Uhh, so you completely rule out the possibility that it is more than a coincidence? Isn't that a little narrow minded? What if he was co-operating with Zacarias Moussaoui and he was killed by AQ because they thought he had spilled the beans after being detained?

Is that situation so unbelievable?

Did I say that - just like did I say the war in Iraq was the liberal's fault ? I said a coincidence is just a coincidence...until there's something to show it's more. I didn't imply it meant anything other than that - other's did.

Coincidence isn't causation nor is it correlation.

and even assuming you're "conspiracy"...how does that change the fact that those individuals killed him?



Last edited by aeon at May 17 2004, 06:18 PM

So, discussing the possibility that it's more than a coincidence is liberal idiocy? I'm just trying to figure out what exactly you called liberal idiocty. Was it the article, or was it Joe's first reply, and why?

No you're not. I've already made it clear...

Trying to look for reasons to shift the blame from the murderer that severed the guy's head is the liberal idiocy. It's looking for reason's to not realize it was murder and somehow "caused"...which is why it's so easy to bait some people - it is no one else's responsibility...the coincidence is just fodder for conspiratorial minds. Just like the religious who think a person was healed after they "pray". But shit...some terrorist that had access to his university had his password - prolly half the people in the computer science's department at my school had my password - they hacked for fun...it could be he was on bin laden's payroll...or mossad...or CIA, or IRA - hell even delta force, an overweight navy seal, he could have been jordanian intelligence - could be's...I "could" win the lottery tomorrow...

George Bush didn't kill that man...unless he speaks arabic. That's the point as well as looking for any coincidence to prove an agenda or platform is wrong. That's called propoganda.

BTW - go look at "white identity/racialists" forums...you'll see all kinds of "coincidences" when a Jewish or black prosecutor pursues one of their fellow believers for breaking the law...but of course - that "coincidence" is absurd...but this isn't.



Last edited by aeon at May 17 2004, 06:42 PM