Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 ... Last
[#] Mon Oct 20 2014 10:25:31 EDT from the_mgt @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

The bitter sweetest irony is that your state maintains no-flight lists for people, on reasons such as "he once had a beard" or "he sat next to a muslim", but somehow everybody who comes from an ebola infested country gets a warm welcome. This whole focus on internet observation and data has made the state agencies blind for real threats. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2747965/I-ve-never-seen-Border-Patrol-Filmmaker-shows-Ebola-infected-ISIS-terrorist-sneak-Lake-Erie-Canada-Cleveland-RICIN-Rock-Roll-Hall-Fame.html

The first time I heard that people who caught an ebola infection in Africa were flown out of Africa, I instantly had scenes from "12 Monkeys" on my mind. Every single state in the world is capable of looking away from any starvation, genocide, environmental catastrophe all of the time, but then one "good guy" catches a highly infective disease and they are all like "well, fly them over, we can perfectly control it."

And we can clearly see that not every hospital nurse or doctor is capable of doing the right thing when some person with such an infection shows up.



[#] Tue Oct 21 2014 10:23:04 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

And if "they" try to shut down the internet, there is a literal army


"They" are already trying to do so. The takeover of ICANN/IANA by the UN is certainly intended to allow terrorist-controlled nations to shut down "blasphemous" sites. It's a very slippery slope from that point on.

[#] Tue Oct 21 2014 10:51:17 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Oct 21 2014 7:23am from IGnatius T Foobar @uncnsrd (Uncensored) in Politics
& Propaganda>
And if "they" try to shut down the internet, there is a literal army



"They" are already trying to do so. The takeover of ICANN/IANA by the

UN is certainly intended to allow terrorist-controlled nations to shut

down "blasphemous" sites. It's a very slippery slope from that point

on.



Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Over the years I have lost count of the times folks have said "the internet is over." Beginning with the introduction of the web back when everyone was using telnet or ssh to get online through university sites or "borrowed" .com sites and from there using ftp, gopher or WAIS to grab files, and telnet/ssh to visit other locations.
When the web (and browsers) came along, all the "veterans" yelled "the internet is over." It wasn't. It changed. I can agree that it may not have completely been for the better, but there are parts of the change that are good; parts not so good.
As far as ICANN/IANA being run by the UN or by the lib-tards in DC, I'm trying to discern the difference and finding that difficult. Of course, it is still possible in the US to change our leadership through the ballot box, but fears arise about how the efficacy of *that* will stand the test of time.

The 2014 elections are exactly two weeks from today.

I am expecting a ground-swell of disgust with Obama to sweep many new Conservative (or at least not DemonCraps) into the House and the Senate.

As things appear today, here's my prediction:

a) in the House, a net gain of 8 to 15 seats for the Republicans.
b) in the Senate, a net gain of 7 to 12 seats for the Republicans.

The People are *that* fed up.
The People have finally come to realize that the asshole in the White House was a ****huge**** mistake.
The People have come to the understanding that there is a huge difference between Liberalism and what today's demonCraps like to call "liberalism." And never they twain shall meet.
To the point that:
If JFK were running today, he'd have to be a Republican.
If Nixon were running today, he'd have to be a DemonCrap.

My heavens; how things they be a'changin'!

[#] Tue Oct 21 2014 11:54:24 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


What difference does it make if the Americans take control of both houses of Congress? They're still not going to have the two thirds majority they need to override a veto.

Shithead will continue legislating by executive order.

[#] Wed Oct 22 2014 01:14:26 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Oct 21 2014 8:54am from IGnatius T Foobar @uncnsrd (Uncensored) in Politics
& Propaganda>

What difference does it make if the Americans take control of both
houses of Congress? They're still not going to have the two thirds
majority they need to override a veto.

Shithead will continue legislating by executive order.



It will keep the finger of blame pointed right at the DemonCrap White House and help ensure that Hitlery's campaign will be doomed out the door.

[#] Sun Oct 26 2014 00:11:51 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

You're assuming that races are decided by informed voters.

[#] Fri Oct 31 2014 07:50:34 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


I just sent a flaming Tweet directly to the Pope. This may be a new low.
:)

(He said something stupid and I felt obligated to call him on the carpet for it.)

[#] Fri Oct 31 2014 09:07:51 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Ohhh, do tell. We need to know why the Vatican sent their minions after you. I would say "why you were stuck
by lightening" but I don't think that will happen.

[#] Fri Oct 31 2014 10:57:41 EDT from vince-q @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

2014-10-31 07:50 from IGnatius T Foobar @uncnsrd

I just sent a flaming Tweet directly to the Pope. This may be a new

low.
:)

(He said something stupid and I felt obligated to call him on the
carpet for it.)



I'm curious - which Pope Frank-ism was it *this* time?
Oh, the man is almost assuredly well-meaning; which makes me wonder why he reminds me of Dan Quayle....

[#] Fri Oct 31 2014 10:57:23 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


He said "Caring for the poor does not make you a communist."

This is stupid. Caring for the poor does *not* make you a communist. Caring for the poor using money seized from other people against their will *does* make you a communist.

I don't care if he's the global leader of a group that adds proprietary extensions to Christianity. He said something stupid and I told him so.

[#] Fri Oct 31 2014 10:59:29 EDT from vince-q @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


This is stupid. Caring for the poor does *not* make you a communist.

Caring for the poor using money seized from other people against their

will *does* make you a communist.


"From each according to their means.
To each according to their needs."

Karl Marx, right?
Wrong. It is from the 4th century Rule for Monastic Orders (St. Benedict).

[#] Fri Oct 31 2014 11:16:04 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

But God speaks through the pope so maybe God told him to say it.

[#] Fri Oct 31 2014 11:35:49 EDT from DemonStalker @ Dog Pound BBS II

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Oct 31 2014 11:16am from zooer @uncnsrd (Uncensored) in Politics & Propaganda>

But God speaks through the pope so maybe God told him to say it.


That only works if the Pope is speaking "ex-Cathedra."
That has only happened, if memory serves, twice since Papal "infallability" was proclaimed as a Doctrine at Vatican I.

And it actually may only have been once: the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary (often confused, even by some Catholics, with the "Virgin Birth of Christ").

[#] Fri Oct 31 2014 14:24:42 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That has only happened, if memory serves, twice since Papal
"infallability" was proclaimed as a Doctrine at Vatican I.

...and IGnored by us protestants and evangelicals :)

The point is, he made a deliberately disingenuous remark, one that is commonly made by people with socialist/Marxist tendencies. Altruism is compassionate; pretty much everyone except Ayn Rand agrees on that. What he did was to blur the line between giving your *own* money to the poor, and giving SOMEONE ELSE'S money to the poor.

When someone makes a comment like that in a public forum, they get called on it. I don't care what major religion he oversees.

[#] Fri Oct 31 2014 16:14:08 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Early Christianity, one might notice, is very communistic in nature.

[#] Fri Oct 31 2014 17:16:11 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Oct 31 2014 1:14pm from fleeb @uncnsrd (Uncensored) in Politics & Propaganda>


Early Christianity, one might notice, is very communistic in nature.




Monastic Christianity remains so to this day. And that includes women religious in convents.

[#] Fri Oct 31 2014 17:25:36 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

The problem with Communism is that those of us who lived through the era of the USSR equate, falsely, their governmental/social system with Communism. It was anything *but*. It was a totalitarian socialist nationalist regime that ruled from fear, and not the mutual regard for one's fellow man that a true communist society requires.

And therein lies the other problem.

Communism is great - on paper. But (and this is a *huge* 'but') it does not, in the parlance of the geeks, scale upward.

If the social unit gets much beyond 100 participants it starts to fail. And the larger the community the quicker the failure.

That's why monasteries succeed, convents succeed, but nation-states fail when attempting to implement a communist system.

Has nothing to do with anything but the simple fact that once a social group gets large enough, petty jealousies and competition start to pull the group apart until the group succumbs to the inevitability of re-introducing the Profit Motive. And given just a short bit more time, that once communist group will be capitalist. Capitalism, with all of its faults, scales upward without limit. And in the process *encourages* competition and debate which, in turn, demands a social structure wherein the members can participate toward their own future with equal voice.

Communism, on the other hand, when attempting to scale upward, requires force to keep the members "in line."

Bottom line? Capitalistic social growth engenders democracy; communism, as it grows, engenders dictatorship.

THAT is the problem with communism.

[#] Sat Nov 01 2014 00:19:43 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

It can scale, but not as a system of government. Remember when Bill Gates said that open source was communist? His intention was a smear campaign, but he was unintentionally correct. Lots of people contributing, lots of people participating, lots of people enjoying the benefits. But that's because the cost of sharing software is zero. If I have a loaf of bread and you redistribute it to others, I can't feed my family. But if I have a piece of software and everyone gets a copy, I still have it and can still use 100% of it.

Over time, though, words end up having different meanings, particularly in politics where there is a whole lot of disingenuity involved. "Liberal" is supposed to invoke freedom, but in these modern times it invokes socialism, particularly in the US (which is why, having soiled that word, the socialists now call themselves "progressives"). The same is true for "communism." Even though they have the same root, "commune" "communion" "community" and "communism" all evoke completely different connotations.

Yes, the political stylings of despots like Nikita Khrushchev and Barack Obama would be more appropriately called "
socialist" or "Marxist" -- but the idea of true libertarians winning back the word "liberal" is about as likely as technology enthusiasts winning back "hacker."

[#] Wed Nov 05 2014 06:57:18 EST from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

NY-Governor -- 14,016 of 14,998 precincts reporting (93%)
Andrew Cuomo [Dem] [I] 1,789,866 54% (X)
Rob Astorino [GOP] 1,341,633 40%
Howie Hawkins [Grn] 166,479 5%
Steven Cohn [Oth] 4,312 0%
Michael McDermott [Lib] 14,232 0%

I can't believe the green party did so well. I watched a little of the debate. The green party is hard/far
left. "Government is the problem, the only solution is more government."

I figure why the green party did so well is that the democrat was guaranteed a win and the dissatisfied
democrats felt safe in voting green.

The libertarian didn't do well at the debate.

[#] Wed Nov 05 2014 08:49:22 EST from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


We got rid of our democrat and replaced him with a republican. Let's see if anything actually changes.

Go to page: First ... 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 ... Last