Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Imagine no John Lennon
I know I'll probably be impaled with a trident for that title, but man wouldn't things be good if he never existed.
Apparently John Lennon is a sacred cow; you can't say a bad thing about him or you can expect and angry mob ofLeninists Lennonists to mow you down.
The other day in History class we were playing this card game where you'd get asked a question and each student answered it in front of the class. My card read "What are the top three problems with teenagers today?"
My response was something like, "One, the worsening relationships between teens and their parents. Two, the rise in teenage Commies. Three, Obesity."
Mistake number one. I said something bad about Communism. One girl responded almost defensively asking for proof.
I said, "How about the shirts they wear? John Lennon. Che Guevara. I'm seeing a lot of those now."
Mistake number two. I said something bad about John Lennon.
One student, angered by the comment (because John Lennon is untouchable apparently) told me John Lennon wasn't a Commie. And went on about some end to Communism in Russia that I had heard nothing about so I completely disregarded as bullcrap.
I said, "Come on, haven't you seen the lyrics for imagine? Imagine no possessions? Imagine no religion? That's Communist."
Another student ticked about my comments said, "Communism isn't bad, it's just so awesome that no one's been able to pull it off."
I can't tell you how frustrating it is to make sure the class of 2008 isn't brainwashed with Marxism. And God forbid I tell the truth about John Lennon, and what he really believed in.
I don't know what this country is coming to. People in this country really think Communism can work! So I've decided to debunk Communism in just a couple of sentences in a way that can't be refuted.
People are motivated by money, not the common good. It's part of our human nature and it cannot be changed. Without motivation no one prospers. Don't believe me? Take a look at North Korea, or Cuba. Full of starving peasants. Even North Korea's nuclear program would have been considered low-tech in the 40's. Why? No motivation. People won't strive to make things better when helping the common good as the only reward. People strive to make things better when they can get money out of it.
And that's the facts. The ideology is fundamentally flawed. So don't give me this BS that it's the dictators fault they couldn't make communism good. The problem starts with the theory. Karl Marx was wrong, and John Lennon was wrong. Plain and simple.
Apparently John Lennon is a sacred cow; you can't say a bad thing about him or you can expect and angry mob of
The other day in History class we were playing this card game where you'd get asked a question and each student answered it in front of the class. My card read "What are the top three problems with teenagers today?"
My response was something like, "One, the worsening relationships between teens and their parents. Two, the rise in teenage Commies. Three, Obesity."
Mistake number one. I said something bad about Communism. One girl responded almost defensively asking for proof.
I said, "How about the shirts they wear? John Lennon. Che Guevara. I'm seeing a lot of those now."
Mistake number two. I said something bad about John Lennon.
One student, angered by the comment (because John Lennon is untouchable apparently) told me John Lennon wasn't a Commie. And went on about some end to Communism in Russia that I had heard nothing about so I completely disregarded as bullcrap.
I said, "Come on, haven't you seen the lyrics for imagine? Imagine no possessions? Imagine no religion? That's Communist."
Another student ticked about my comments said, "Communism isn't bad, it's just so awesome that no one's been able to pull it off."
I can't tell you how frustrating it is to make sure the class of 2008 isn't brainwashed with Marxism. And God forbid I tell the truth about John Lennon, and what he really believed in.
I don't know what this country is coming to. People in this country really think Communism can work! So I've decided to debunk Communism in just a couple of sentences in a way that can't be refuted.
People are motivated by money, not the common good. It's part of our human nature and it cannot be changed. Without motivation no one prospers. Don't believe me? Take a look at North Korea, or Cuba. Full of starving peasants. Even North Korea's nuclear program would have been considered low-tech in the 40's. Why? No motivation. People won't strive to make things better when helping the common good as the only reward. People strive to make things better when they can get money out of it.
And that's the facts. The ideology is fundamentally flawed. So don't give me this BS that it's the dictators fault they couldn't make communism good. The problem starts with the theory. Karl Marx was wrong, and John Lennon was wrong. Plain and simple.
# posted by Cody O'Connor @ 10/17/2006 06:33:00 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Why is it every single idea that seems a little bit "communist" to you, is bad? If we Imagine no religion and no possessions, we are imagining a world with PEACE becaue there wouldn't be anything to kill each other over. It's not a literal proposition because obviously it doesn't work in execution. But why do you label people with those ideals as dispicable human beings? Just because you agree with them doesn't make you an evil dictator, and I believe that's the main reason communism has such a bad wrap. John Lennon, as well as Che Guevara, are historical and revolutionary icons and are known all over the world. They stand for qualities and ideals (even if, in the case of Che, they don't have a...well, clean record) that people aspire to have themselves---to speak out and be heard, to make a difference, to spark the spread of ideas that people haven't ever considered before.
The problem is not with your classmates, it's with your inability to understand that concept.
The problem is not with your classmates, it's with your inability to understand that concept.
Allisoni said...
"Why is it every single idea that seems a little bit "communist" to you, is bad? If we Imagine no religion and no possessions, we are imagining a world with PEACE becaue there wouldn't be anything to kill each other over."
You may want to read that over. Though I think it's funny how far people will go to defend Lennon.
A world withoug religion and possessions is Communism. You can have peace without implimenting such a horrible ideology. And yes, everything about Communism is bad. Everything.
"It's not a literal proposition because obviously it doesn't work in execution."
Obviously. But it's what he and so many other ill-informed masses want. They want something that doesn't work. Communism never works because it is fundamentally flawed and goes against human nature.
"John Lennon, as well as Che Guevara, are historical and revolutionary icons and are known all over the world. They stand for qualities and ideals (even if, in the case of Che, they don't have a...well, clean record)"
I would expect you would defend John Lennon, but Che? My God.
"The problem is not with your classmates, it's with your inability to understand that concept."
Yeah, there must be something horribly wrong with me. I think Communism is wrong. What a radical position for me to take.
Here's something to take a look at.
In John Lennon's own words he says Imagine is "an anti-religious, anti-nationalistic, anti-conventional, anti-capitalistic song, but because it's sugar-coated, it's accepted."
But again, Lennon is untouchable. The more truth I give people, the more irrational and angry they become.
"Why is it every single idea that seems a little bit "communist" to you, is bad? If we Imagine no religion and no possessions, we are imagining a world with PEACE becaue there wouldn't be anything to kill each other over."
You may want to read that over. Though I think it's funny how far people will go to defend Lennon.
A world withoug religion and possessions is Communism. You can have peace without implimenting such a horrible ideology. And yes, everything about Communism is bad. Everything.
"It's not a literal proposition because obviously it doesn't work in execution."
Obviously. But it's what he and so many other ill-informed masses want. They want something that doesn't work. Communism never works because it is fundamentally flawed and goes against human nature.
"John Lennon, as well as Che Guevara, are historical and revolutionary icons and are known all over the world. They stand for qualities and ideals (even if, in the case of Che, they don't have a...well, clean record)"
I would expect you would defend John Lennon, but Che? My God.
"The problem is not with your classmates, it's with your inability to understand that concept."
Yeah, there must be something horribly wrong with me. I think Communism is wrong. What a radical position for me to take.
Here's something to take a look at.
In John Lennon's own words he says Imagine is "an anti-religious, anti-nationalistic, anti-conventional, anti-capitalistic song, but because it's sugar-coated, it's accepted."
But again, Lennon is untouchable. The more truth I give people, the more irrational and angry they become.
I just really don't understand why you're such a hater. Are you concerned that John Lennon's fans are going to overturn the government and become communist dictators?
I wasn't "defending" Che Guevara, I acknowledged his wrongdoings right in my comment. His life is fascinating to me, and I think I stated why he is an icon to the rest of the world. And maybe rather than bashing someone who didn't have anything to do with the US and is no longer alive, or bashing a singer from a different country, we should be looking at the people in power currently and in our own country who are destroying AMERICAN ideals. Right now "horrible ideology" is playing a major part in the world. And guess who decided to impliment it? Oh yeah, our president. But wait, you're a supporter of that. So I still stand my ground in saying that your classmates are not the ones who need to open their eyes.
I wasn't "defending" Che Guevara, I acknowledged his wrongdoings right in my comment. His life is fascinating to me, and I think I stated why he is an icon to the rest of the world. And maybe rather than bashing someone who didn't have anything to do with the US and is no longer alive, or bashing a singer from a different country, we should be looking at the people in power currently and in our own country who are destroying AMERICAN ideals. Right now "horrible ideology" is playing a major part in the world. And guess who decided to impliment it? Oh yeah, our president. But wait, you're a supporter of that. So I still stand my ground in saying that your classmates are not the ones who need to open their eyes.
I'm not goig into this arguement again. Communism is wrong. Look at history for God's sake. Russia? Cuba? Korea? If you think that people being starved to the point of eating thier own children is a good system to live under then fine. I'm afraid I don't agree though. I'm not going to bother arguing it past this point either. History backs me up and what backs you commies up? Theories. I'm not concerned with false theories, I'm concerned with REAL LIFE.
# posted by 
: 10/17/2006 9:09 PM
: 10/17/2006 9:09 PM
And good post Cody. About time someone called Lennon on that. No one wants to for some reason. He IS a communist and he needs to be taken to task for it.
# posted by : 10/17/2006 9:09 PM
: 10/17/2006 9:09 PM
Concerned Capitalists like myself care. I don't want a bunch of Socialist-liberal-Commies ruining our amazing economy. If people think John Lennon was right, it's just a slippery slope to Marxism. Something made out to be dreamy by Lennon.
Lennon is still relevant because people are still following his "teachings". In fact more people are jumping on the bandwagon as the years go by, and I won't allow it.
Lennon is still relevant because people are still following his "teachings". In fact more people are jumping on the bandwagon as the years go by, and I won't allow it.
Cody O. said... Concerned Capitalists like myself care. I don't want a bunch of Socialist-liberal-Commies ruining our amazing economy.
We don't have an "amazing economy". I debunked that lie in the thread for your "Dow Breaks Records at Nearly 12,000" post. As for all your other points... I agree with everything allisoni said.
Cody O. Said... In fact more people are jumping on the bandwagon as the years go by, and I won't allow it.
What, are you advocating a return to McCarthyism? Personally I hate what the United State's Communism paranoia has resulted in. The US butting it's nose in other country's affairs due to our hatred of Communism has had disastrous results...
Afghanistan: a Tale of never ending Tragedy (excerpt) On April 27, 1978, in the wake a huge demonstration in front of the presidential palace, the army came to the support of the people and after a brief battle with the presidential guard, the government was deposed. The military officers then released jailed Marxist leaders and invited their party to form the government.
Without question, this appeared to be a genuinely popular government... [but the USA, due to it's extreme paranoia regarding all things communist, worked to overthrow the Marxist goverment]
[When the US succeeded in overthrowing the Marxist Afgan government the Soviet Union sent troops to counter the US trained and funded mujahedeen.]
The advent of Soviet troops on Afghan soil tragically set the stage for the eventual destruction of the country. Zbigniew Brzezinski, president Carter's National Security Advisor, afterwards bragged that he had convinced Carter to authorize the CIA to set a trap for the Russian bear and to give the USSR the taste of a Vietnam war. Brzezinski saw this as a golden opportunity to fire up the zeal of the most reactionary Muslim fanatics -- to have them declare a jihad on the atheist infidels who defiled Afghan soil -- and to not only expel them but to pursue them and "liberate" the Muslim-majority areas of the USSR. And for the next 10 years, with an expenditure of billions of dollars from the USA and Saudi Arabia, and with the recruitment of thousands of non-Afghan Muslims into the jihad (including Osama bin Laden), this army of religious zealots laid waste to the land and people of Afghanistan.
Central Asia specialist Ahmed Rashid wrote: "With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence] who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war, waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals, from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan’s fight between 1982-1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad". The CIA covertly trained and sponsored these warriors. It should be understood that Afghan people don't have a history of being religious zealots. To create the CIA-desired jihad required the recruitment of Arab, Egyptian, and Pakistani extremists -- so the fundamentalism that emerged in Afghanistan is a CIA construct. Although Ronald Reagan referred to the mujahedeen as "freedom fighters", they committed horrific atrocities and were terrorists of the first order.
If we are to learn anything from the Afghanistan tragedy, it is important to understand that if the USA had left the Marxist Taraki government alone, there would have been no army of mujahedeen, no Soviet intervention, no war that destroyed Afghanistan, no Osama bin Laden, and no September 11 tragedy in the USA. (9/18/2006. John Ryan, Political Affairs.net)
We don't have an "amazing economy". I debunked that lie in the thread for your "Dow Breaks Records at Nearly 12,000" post. As for all your other points... I agree with everything allisoni said.
Cody O. Said... In fact more people are jumping on the bandwagon as the years go by, and I won't allow it.
What, are you advocating a return to McCarthyism? Personally I hate what the United State's Communism paranoia has resulted in. The US butting it's nose in other country's affairs due to our hatred of Communism has had disastrous results...
Afghanistan: a Tale of never ending Tragedy (excerpt) On April 27, 1978, in the wake a huge demonstration in front of the presidential palace, the army came to the support of the people and after a brief battle with the presidential guard, the government was deposed. The military officers then released jailed Marxist leaders and invited their party to form the government.
Without question, this appeared to be a genuinely popular government... [but the USA, due to it's extreme paranoia regarding all things communist, worked to overthrow the Marxist goverment]
[When the US succeeded in overthrowing the Marxist Afgan government the Soviet Union sent troops to counter the US trained and funded mujahedeen.]
The advent of Soviet troops on Afghan soil tragically set the stage for the eventual destruction of the country. Zbigniew Brzezinski, president Carter's National Security Advisor, afterwards bragged that he had convinced Carter to authorize the CIA to set a trap for the Russian bear and to give the USSR the taste of a Vietnam war. Brzezinski saw this as a golden opportunity to fire up the zeal of the most reactionary Muslim fanatics -- to have them declare a jihad on the atheist infidels who defiled Afghan soil -- and to not only expel them but to pursue them and "liberate" the Muslim-majority areas of the USSR. And for the next 10 years, with an expenditure of billions of dollars from the USA and Saudi Arabia, and with the recruitment of thousands of non-Afghan Muslims into the jihad (including Osama bin Laden), this army of religious zealots laid waste to the land and people of Afghanistan.
Central Asia specialist Ahmed Rashid wrote: "With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence] who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war, waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals, from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan’s fight between 1982-1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad". The CIA covertly trained and sponsored these warriors. It should be understood that Afghan people don't have a history of being religious zealots. To create the CIA-desired jihad required the recruitment of Arab, Egyptian, and Pakistani extremists -- so the fundamentalism that emerged in Afghanistan is a CIA construct. Although Ronald Reagan referred to the mujahedeen as "freedom fighters", they committed horrific atrocities and were terrorists of the first order.
If we are to learn anything from the Afghanistan tragedy, it is important to understand that if the USA had left the Marxist Taraki government alone, there would have been no army of mujahedeen, no Soviet intervention, no war that destroyed Afghanistan, no Osama bin Laden, and no September 11 tragedy in the USA. (9/18/2006. John Ryan, Political Affairs.net)
Oh, and I have nothing but respect and admiration for Mr. Lennon, a celebrity who used his status for good, unlike most celebrities today. He faced deportation by the US government due to his anti-Vietnam war views. Yet, even with these very serious consequences looming over him, he continued to follow his conscience and speak out against our senseless involvement in Vietnam.
Most people know that those on the right hate anyone who advocates for peace. I find your attacks on Mr. Lennon shameful. For anyone interested in the full story I suggest checking out the new documentary, "The U.S. vs. John Lennon".
John Lennon and the Politics of Deportation (excerpt) The new documentary "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" tells the story of Lennon's transformation from loveable moptop to antiwar activist, and recounts the facts about Richard Nixon's campaign to deport him in 1972 in an effort to silence him as a voice of the peace movement.
The story of Nixon versus Lennon ended, of course, with Nixon leaving the White House, and Lennon staying in the USA. But Lennon was not only world-famous; although he was a "foreigner", he was a white man from Britain. What if he had been a dark-skinned man from a Muslim country? The George W. Bush administration has gone far beyond Nixon in using immigration law to prevent critics of U.S. policy from entering the country, and to get rid of noncitizens whom the White House doesn't like.
The big issue behind the story of "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" is White House abuse of power, especially the power to deport radicals, activists and critics of the president. The question is what we can do to fight that kind of abuse of power today. Some people say "we need a new John Lennon to lead the fight". But Lennon himself had a much better answer, which, typically, he put into a song: "Power to the people." The only real solution to abuse of power at the top is to strengthen democracy at the bottom, to help mobilize ordinary people to fight for their rights -- including the rights of noncitizens. Even though John Lennon was one of the most famous people in the world, and a person with plenty money for lawyers, he needed a lot of help to win his case. Today's targets of the Bush administration immigration service need a lot more help -- and it's up to those of us who have the rights of citizenship to provide it. (11/19/2006. Jon Wiener, Truthdig)
Most people know that those on the right hate anyone who advocates for peace. I find your attacks on Mr. Lennon shameful. For anyone interested in the full story I suggest checking out the new documentary, "The U.S. vs. John Lennon".
John Lennon and the Politics of Deportation (excerpt) The new documentary "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" tells the story of Lennon's transformation from loveable moptop to antiwar activist, and recounts the facts about Richard Nixon's campaign to deport him in 1972 in an effort to silence him as a voice of the peace movement.
The story of Nixon versus Lennon ended, of course, with Nixon leaving the White House, and Lennon staying in the USA. But Lennon was not only world-famous; although he was a "foreigner", he was a white man from Britain. What if he had been a dark-skinned man from a Muslim country? The George W. Bush administration has gone far beyond Nixon in using immigration law to prevent critics of U.S. policy from entering the country, and to get rid of noncitizens whom the White House doesn't like.
The big issue behind the story of "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" is White House abuse of power, especially the power to deport radicals, activists and critics of the president. The question is what we can do to fight that kind of abuse of power today. Some people say "we need a new John Lennon to lead the fight". But Lennon himself had a much better answer, which, typically, he put into a song: "Power to the people." The only real solution to abuse of power at the top is to strengthen democracy at the bottom, to help mobilize ordinary people to fight for their rights -- including the rights of noncitizens. Even though John Lennon was one of the most famous people in the world, and a person with plenty money for lawyers, he needed a lot of help to win his case. Today's targets of the Bush administration immigration service need a lot more help -- and it's up to those of us who have the rights of citizenship to provide it. (11/19/2006. Jon Wiener, Truthdig)
I don't know why they got so offended. It doesn't work, just look at history. Did the U.S.S.R do well? I think not.
dervish, stop twisting the debate. No one is going to read all that, and even if they did it would be irrelevent.
# posted by : 10/19/2006 5:50 PM
: 10/19/2006 5:50 PM
I'm not "twisting the debate", my posts concerned Communism and John Lennon, which is what I thought we were discussing. How is that irrelevant? How could you know it was irrelevant since you just admitted you didn't read it? If you don't wish to comment on what I say -- don't. Your attacks are irrelevant to the discussion.
BTW seeing as how much you dislike reading why don't you go play a video game instead of READING a blog?
BTW seeing as how much you dislike reading why don't you go play a video game instead of READING a blog?
Cody,
Excellent post. It's frightening that so many of America's kids have been brainwashed and have NO CLUE how horrible communism is. I think a little field trip to HAVANA would help them understand, what do you think? Make your buddies live there a few weeks and then see what their thoughts are after that?
As for Lennon, I personally am a fan. Politically, the guy was naive, moronic and out of touch with reality. But musically, he was an absolute genius, a man before his time. The problem is when people mistake his musical talent for being a human visionary.
Excellent post. It's frightening that so many of America's kids have been brainwashed and have NO CLUE how horrible communism is. I think a little field trip to HAVANA would help them understand, what do you think? Make your buddies live there a few weeks and then see what their thoughts are after that?
As for Lennon, I personally am a fan. Politically, the guy was naive, moronic and out of touch with reality. But musically, he was an absolute genius, a man before his time. The problem is when people mistake his musical talent for being a human visionary.
Allison,
Your "imagining" is admirable, and such a world would be nice. But it will NEVER, EVER, EVER happen. So why imagine it? What good is that doing anyone? How about we work out some REAL problems and quit living in an alternate reality?
Striving for a goal (like world peace) that we have no hope of achieving only leaves us vulnerable to those who frankly don't care about that goal. Maybe if we recognized reality we'd be a little less tolerant of those who are intent on destroying others.
Your "imagining" is admirable, and such a world would be nice. But it will NEVER, EVER, EVER happen. So why imagine it? What good is that doing anyone? How about we work out some REAL problems and quit living in an alternate reality?
Striving for a goal (like world peace) that we have no hope of achieving only leaves us vulnerable to those who frankly don't care about that goal. Maybe if we recognized reality we'd be a little less tolerant of those who are intent on destroying others.
BTW seeing as how much you dislike reading why don't you go play a video game instead of READING a blog?
Oh please, are we going to go back to this childish debate? I get As on my Advanced Placement English essays ok? I don't "hate" reading. I hate bullshit.
Oh please, are we going to go back to this childish debate? I get As on my Advanced Placement English essays ok? I don't "hate" reading. I hate bullshit.
# posted by : 10/20/2006 3:04 PM
: 10/20/2006 3:04 PM
Robert M. Said... Oh please, are we going to go back to this childish debate? I get As on my Advanced Placement English essays ok? I don't "hate" reading. I hate bullshit.
More bragging about your supposed high intelligence? Isn't THAT a bit childish? And incredibly hard to believe. How is your claim to have received "A"s relevant to the discussion? As for your final claim, I don't buy it. All anyone has to do is take a look at your blog to see that you love it.
Also, I consider it extremely rude to reply to another poster's comment -- and call it bullshit -- WITHOUT EVEN READING IT.
John The Patriot said... Your "imagining" is admirable, and such a world be nice. But it will NEVER, EVER, EVER happen. So why imagine it? What good is that doing anyone? How about we work out some REAL problems and quit living in an alternate reality?
No, there will never be complete world peace, but we CAN work towards making it more peaceful... this song was meant to get people thinking about these things. How could anyone be AGAINST that? The song isn't about Communism! It only asks the listener to IMAGINE no religion or possessions. To my knowledge John Lennon never gave up his possessions or joined a communist commune. Just the opposite, he was a very successful capitalist.
War is VERY profitable -- as all bush cronies with Iraq contracts know. Which is why Republicans hate anyone who advocates for peace.
John The Patriot said... But musically, he was an absolute genius...
Which explains the following...
From Wikipedia: Imagine is widely considered as one of the greatest songs of all time. In 2003, Rolling Stone magazine voted "Imagine" the third greatest song of all time. The lyrics were thought to be inspired solely by Lennon's hopes for a more peaceful world. (end wikipedia entry)
John The Patriot said... Politically, the guy was naive, moronic and out of touch with reality.
I think the Neo-con's bungled war in Iraq proves who is out of touch with reality. As is anyone who believe we should "stay the course".
More bragging about your supposed high intelligence? Isn't THAT a bit childish? And incredibly hard to believe. How is your claim to have received "A"s relevant to the discussion? As for your final claim, I don't buy it. All anyone has to do is take a look at your blog to see that you love it.
Also, I consider it extremely rude to reply to another poster's comment -- and call it bullshit -- WITHOUT EVEN READING IT.
John The Patriot said... Your "imagining" is admirable, and such a world be nice. But it will NEVER, EVER, EVER happen. So why imagine it? What good is that doing anyone? How about we work out some REAL problems and quit living in an alternate reality?
No, there will never be complete world peace, but we CAN work towards making it more peaceful... this song was meant to get people thinking about these things. How could anyone be AGAINST that? The song isn't about Communism! It only asks the listener to IMAGINE no religion or possessions. To my knowledge John Lennon never gave up his possessions or joined a communist commune. Just the opposite, he was a very successful capitalist.
War is VERY profitable -- as all bush cronies with Iraq contracts know. Which is why Republicans hate anyone who advocates for peace.
John The Patriot said... But musically, he was an absolute genius...
Which explains the following...
From Wikipedia: Imagine is widely considered as one of the greatest songs of all time. In 2003, Rolling Stone magazine voted "Imagine" the third greatest song of all time. The lyrics were thought to be inspired solely by Lennon's hopes for a more peaceful world. (end wikipedia entry)
John The Patriot said... Politically, the guy was naive, moronic and out of touch with reality.
I think the Neo-con's bungled war in Iraq proves who is out of touch with reality. As is anyone who believe we should "stay the course".
More bragging about your supposed high intelligence? Isn't THAT a bit childish? And incredibly hard to believe. How is your claim to have received "A"s relevant to the discussion? As for your final claim, I don't buy it. All anyone has to do is take a look at your blog to see that you love it.
Dervish I don't think you realize how little I care whether you believe me or not.
Dervish I don't think you realize how little I care whether you believe me or not.
# posted by : 10/21/2006 5:17 PM
: 10/21/2006 5:17 PM
Oh and interesting of you to try and make this about the war. Too bad this ins't what this post is about. Cody is being really tolerant with you. I'd kick you out for pulling this bull.
# posted by : 10/21/2006 5:18 PM
: 10/21/2006 5:18 PM
Robert M. Said... Dervish I don't think you realize how little I care whether you believe me or not.
So why do you continue with these ridiculous claims of superior intelligence? Sounds like you do care -- otherwise you'd stop trying to convince me.
Robert M. Said... Oh and interesting of you to try and make this about the war. Too bad this ins't what this post is about. Cody is being really tolerant with you. I'd kick you out for pulling this bull.
You're referring to TWO LINES from my previous post! In any case, John Lennon protested the Vietnam war. If he were alive today I know he would be against this war. So you can stuff your comments.
Also, of the 6 times you've posted to this thread -- so far only 2 of those posts dealt with Cody's topic. If he kicks anyone out I think it should be you.
So why do you continue with these ridiculous claims of superior intelligence? Sounds like you do care -- otherwise you'd stop trying to convince me.
Robert M. Said... Oh and interesting of you to try and make this about the war. Too bad this ins't what this post is about. Cody is being really tolerant with you. I'd kick you out for pulling this bull.
You're referring to TWO LINES from my previous post! In any case, John Lennon protested the Vietnam war. If he were alive today I know he would be against this war. So you can stuff your comments.
Also, of the 6 times you've posted to this thread -- so far only 2 of those posts dealt with Cody's topic. If he kicks anyone out I think it should be you.
So why do you continue with these ridiculous claims of superior intelligence? Sounds like you do care -- otherwise you'd stop trying to convince me.
I never said superior. I never said I was smarter than you. You however continue to insult my intellegence. I think it is childish.
You're referring to TWO LINES from my previous post! In any case, John Lennon protested the Vietnam war. If he were alive today I know he would be against this war. So you can stuff your comments.
Nice. Real nice. If all Democrats are as nice as you it's hard to see why anyone votes for them.
I never said superior. I never said I was smarter than you. You however continue to insult my intellegence. I think it is childish.
You're referring to TWO LINES from my previous post! In any case, John Lennon protested the Vietnam war. If he were alive today I know he would be against this war. So you can stuff your comments.
Nice. Real nice. If all Democrats are as nice as you it's hard to see why anyone votes for them.
# posted by : 10/22/2006 9:38 PM
: 10/22/2006 9:38 PM
Sorry I haven't been around this week guys, my computer was being fixed. But I'm back now.
Let me first say that I refuse to censor my own blog's comment section, so nobody is getting booted for speaking their mind no matter how wrong, hostile, or irrelevent it may be.
Second, I am not a McCarthyist. I don't believe people who disagree with me should be thrown in jail. That is however a growing Conservative and Liberal trait. Throw your opponents in jail. I believe in helping people from this dangerous ideology one by one by giving them the truth. If they don't change, I'll be scared as hell, but that won't make me buy fascism.
Third. Dervish, you were talking about "codewords" recently. I have a feeling "peace" is John Lennon's sugarcoated codeword for Communism. Pay attention to the lyrics, read the quote I posted earlier. The guy's a Commie.
The song isn't about peace, it's about how he ignorantly thinks Communism will bring about peace.
Don't be mistaken, I want peace as much as anyone else, but Communism? Not so much.
Can't there be peace witout Communism?
Let me first say that I refuse to censor my own blog's comment section, so nobody is getting booted for speaking their mind no matter how wrong, hostile, or irrelevent it may be.
Second, I am not a McCarthyist. I don't believe people who disagree with me should be thrown in jail. That is however a growing Conservative and Liberal trait. Throw your opponents in jail. I believe in helping people from this dangerous ideology one by one by giving them the truth. If they don't change, I'll be scared as hell, but that won't make me buy fascism.
Third. Dervish, you were talking about "codewords" recently. I have a feeling "peace" is John Lennon's sugarcoated codeword for Communism. Pay attention to the lyrics, read the quote I posted earlier. The guy's a Commie.
The song isn't about peace, it's about how he ignorantly thinks Communism will bring about peace.
Don't be mistaken, I want peace as much as anyone else, but Communism? Not so much.
Can't there be peace witout Communism?
Cody O. Said... I am not a McCarthyist. I don't believe people who disagree with me should be thrown in jail. That is however a growing Conservative and Liberal trait. I believe in helping people from this dangerous ideology one by one by giving them the truth. If they don't change, I'll be scared as hell, but that won't make me buy fascism.
But you originally said you "would not allow it". Now you're saying you'd "allow" people to think for themselves. Which is it? As far as I can see, it's only the Republicans who are saying that Liberals should be arrested (or hung) for treason (simply for disagreeing with this administration). I think some Republicans belong in jail, but ONLY because they've BROKEN THE LAW (there should be a TRIAL first, of course).
You say you won't buy into fascism, but you (on your old blog) supported bush's illegal wiretapping. Unless you've changed your mind, I'd guess that you also support the fascist Military Commissions Bill. According to the ACLU, "This legislation gives the president new unchecked powers to detain, abuse, and try people at Guantanamo Bay and other government facilities around the world".
From Media Matters: The [Military Commissions Bill] allows the president to imprison forever, without trial... lawful permanent residents of the United States. Think we're exaggerating? Think the bill goes after only terrorists or people who support them? Think again. The bill's suspension of access to habeas corpus explicitly applies only to "aliens", which it defines as non-citizens -- in other words, legal permanent residents of the United States -- but the Bush administration has taken the position that it can detain anyone -- anyone, U.S. citizens included -- by, in its sole discretion, labeling that person an enemy combatant.
How is this possible? Here's what the bill says: "No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination".
In other words, under this bill, the president or his designee can simply decide that someone poses a threat, call them an unlawful enemy combatant, and lock them away. Yes, they are entitled to a determination by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal of whether they in fact meet the definition of unlawful enemy combatant. But the law doesn't impose a time limit. The government could simply postpone that hearing indefinitely, and the detainee would have the status of "awaiting such determination", and not be given access to federal court. (9/29/2006. Marcia Kuntz and Jamison Foser)
This bill makes me scared as hell. How are people who think Communism might be a good idea a threat? Do you really think that there is a chance that the US could go Communist?? You're "scared as hell" about something that has a next to ZERO probability of happening, but the fact that the president can lock people up indefinitely without charges doesn't concern you??!
Cody O Said... Dervish, you were talking about "codewords" recently. I have a feeling "peace" is John Lennon's sugarcoated codeword for Communism. Pay attention to the lyrics, read the quote I posted earlier. The guy's a Commie.
In your opinion. I disagree. I googled for some analysis on this song, but wasn't able to find anything which stated that Lennon wrote this song intending it to promote Communism. But this is your theory -- so why didn't you provide any facts to back up your claim? As I pointed out, Mr. Lennon never joined a commune. He never gave up his material wealth. Not much of a Communist, if you ask me.
Cody Said... The song isn't about peace, it's about how he ignorantly thinks Communism will bring about peace.
Baloney. This is YOUR THEORY. Why didn't you give any examples of the many times Mr. Lennon spoke favorably of, or demonstrated for, Communism? Maybe because you couldn't find any? I looked and I couldn't. Until then I ain't buying your theory.
Not that it would make any difference to me anyway. It's just a song. As Allisoni pointed out -- what difference does it make if he was a Communist (and I don't think he was)? People can't enjoy it without being converted?
Cody O. Said... Don't be mistaken, I want peace as much as anyone else, but Communism? Not so much.
Nope. I don't believe you. You support bush's agenda of perpetual war. This is an EXTREMELY dangerous ideology IMO.
Perpetual War: Many critics suggest that the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States were all that was needed as a pretense for the U.S. government to launch an "eternal" War on Terrorism. These critics consider themselves confirmed by the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Report that labeled the U.S. War on Terrorism as a "long war". Support for this theory is also found in the fact that terrorism is a tactic, not a physical target to be fought and which can be defeated.
Some analysts, such as Noam Chomsky, posit that a state of perpetual war is an aid to (and is promoted by) the powerful members of dominant political and economic classes, helping maintain their positions of economic and political superiority. (end wikipedia entry excerpt)
Cody O. Said... Can't there be peace without Communism?
I doubt it. Not that I think there could be peace with it. There are many dangerous ideologies propelling the world towards more and more violence. Radical Islam and Neoconservatism are the two of the most dangerous ideologies the world has ever seen.
But you originally said you "would not allow it". Now you're saying you'd "allow" people to think for themselves. Which is it? As far as I can see, it's only the Republicans who are saying that Liberals should be arrested (or hung) for treason (simply for disagreeing with this administration). I think some Republicans belong in jail, but ONLY because they've BROKEN THE LAW (there should be a TRIAL first, of course).
You say you won't buy into fascism, but you (on your old blog) supported bush's illegal wiretapping. Unless you've changed your mind, I'd guess that you also support the fascist Military Commissions Bill. According to the ACLU, "This legislation gives the president new unchecked powers to detain, abuse, and try people at Guantanamo Bay and other government facilities around the world".
From Media Matters: The [Military Commissions Bill] allows the president to imprison forever, without trial... lawful permanent residents of the United States. Think we're exaggerating? Think the bill goes after only terrorists or people who support them? Think again. The bill's suspension of access to habeas corpus explicitly applies only to "aliens", which it defines as non-citizens -- in other words, legal permanent residents of the United States -- but the Bush administration has taken the position that it can detain anyone -- anyone, U.S. citizens included -- by, in its sole discretion, labeling that person an enemy combatant.
How is this possible? Here's what the bill says: "No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination".
In other words, under this bill, the president or his designee can simply decide that someone poses a threat, call them an unlawful enemy combatant, and lock them away. Yes, they are entitled to a determination by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal of whether they in fact meet the definition of unlawful enemy combatant. But the law doesn't impose a time limit. The government could simply postpone that hearing indefinitely, and the detainee would have the status of "awaiting such determination", and not be given access to federal court. (9/29/2006. Marcia Kuntz and Jamison Foser)
This bill makes me scared as hell. How are people who think Communism might be a good idea a threat? Do you really think that there is a chance that the US could go Communist?? You're "scared as hell" about something that has a next to ZERO probability of happening, but the fact that the president can lock people up indefinitely without charges doesn't concern you??!
Cody O Said... Dervish, you were talking about "codewords" recently. I have a feeling "peace" is John Lennon's sugarcoated codeword for Communism. Pay attention to the lyrics, read the quote I posted earlier. The guy's a Commie.
In your opinion. I disagree. I googled for some analysis on this song, but wasn't able to find anything which stated that Lennon wrote this song intending it to promote Communism. But this is your theory -- so why didn't you provide any facts to back up your claim? As I pointed out, Mr. Lennon never joined a commune. He never gave up his material wealth. Not much of a Communist, if you ask me.
Cody Said... The song isn't about peace, it's about how he ignorantly thinks Communism will bring about peace.
Baloney. This is YOUR THEORY. Why didn't you give any examples of the many times Mr. Lennon spoke favorably of, or demonstrated for, Communism? Maybe because you couldn't find any? I looked and I couldn't. Until then I ain't buying your theory.
Not that it would make any difference to me anyway. It's just a song. As Allisoni pointed out -- what difference does it make if he was a Communist (and I don't think he was)? People can't enjoy it without being converted?
Cody O. Said... Don't be mistaken, I want peace as much as anyone else, but Communism? Not so much.
Nope. I don't believe you. You support bush's agenda of perpetual war. This is an EXTREMELY dangerous ideology IMO.
Perpetual War: Many critics suggest that the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States were all that was needed as a pretense for the U.S. government to launch an "eternal" War on Terrorism. These critics consider themselves confirmed by the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Report that labeled the U.S. War on Terrorism as a "long war". Support for this theory is also found in the fact that terrorism is a tactic, not a physical target to be fought and which can be defeated.
Some analysts, such as Noam Chomsky, posit that a state of perpetual war is an aid to (and is promoted by) the powerful members of dominant political and economic classes, helping maintain their positions of economic and political superiority. (end wikipedia entry excerpt)
Cody O. Said... Can't there be peace without Communism?
I doubt it. Not that I think there could be peace with it. There are many dangerous ideologies propelling the world towards more and more violence. Radical Islam and Neoconservatism are the two of the most dangerous ideologies the world has ever seen.
Dervish said...
"But you originally said you "would not allow it". Now you're saying you'd "allow" people to think for themselves. Which is it?"
Semantics. When I said I wouldn't allow it, I meant they would get a talking to, not get shackled.
"As far as I can see, it's only the Republicans who are saying that Liberals should be arrested (or hung) for treason (simply for disagreeing with this administration). I think some Republicans belong in jail, but ONLY because they've BROKEN THE LAW (there should be a TRIAL first, of course)."
Conservatives somehow think Liberals are breaking the law just like Liberals think Conservatives are breaking the law. For the most part they're both wrong. And there's a difference between disagreeing with someone and knowing they did something illegal. Illegal acts are a whole different discussion. There are Democrats and Republicans saying we should throw eachother in jail just because of the things they believe in.
"You say you won't buy into fascism, but you (on your old blog) supported bush's illegal wiretapping."
I still have no problem with spying on terrorists. If it were anything else I'd be against it but it's not.
"Unless you've changed your mind, I'd guess that you also support the fascist Military Commissions Bill. According to the ACLU, "This legislation gives the president new unchecked powers to detain, abuse, and try people at Guantanamo Bay and other government facilities around the world"."
The Guantanamo Bay torture argument is completely fabricated by Liberal hacks like yourself. Try giving me real facts about Bush abusing his power. I'm sure they're there, and I'll agree it's wrong.
"Nope. I don't believe you. You support bush's agenda of perpetual war. This is an EXTREMELY dangerous ideology IMO."
Sometimes peace makes war and war makes peace, sometimes it doesn't. Vietnam and Somalia? Wars that made us no more peaceful with our enemies. Iraq? A little different. We have a purpose to be there. We have goals and if we succeed, the outcome will be great. Bush could do a bit better, but his heart's in the right place.
"I doubt it."
Sure...I bet the thousands who died under Stalin would agree with you completely.
"But you originally said you "would not allow it". Now you're saying you'd "allow" people to think for themselves. Which is it?"
Semantics. When I said I wouldn't allow it, I meant they would get a talking to, not get shackled.
"As far as I can see, it's only the Republicans who are saying that Liberals should be arrested (or hung) for treason (simply for disagreeing with this administration). I think some Republicans belong in jail, but ONLY because they've BROKEN THE LAW (there should be a TRIAL first, of course)."
Conservatives somehow think Liberals are breaking the law just like Liberals think Conservatives are breaking the law. For the most part they're both wrong. And there's a difference between disagreeing with someone and knowing they did something illegal. Illegal acts are a whole different discussion. There are Democrats and Republicans saying we should throw eachother in jail just because of the things they believe in.
"You say you won't buy into fascism, but you (on your old blog) supported bush's illegal wiretapping."
I still have no problem with spying on terrorists. If it were anything else I'd be against it but it's not.
"Unless you've changed your mind, I'd guess that you also support the fascist Military Commissions Bill. According to the ACLU, "This legislation gives the president new unchecked powers to detain, abuse, and try people at Guantanamo Bay and other government facilities around the world"."
The Guantanamo Bay torture argument is completely fabricated by Liberal hacks like yourself. Try giving me real facts about Bush abusing his power. I'm sure they're there, and I'll agree it's wrong.
"Nope. I don't believe you. You support bush's agenda of perpetual war. This is an EXTREMELY dangerous ideology IMO."
Sometimes peace makes war and war makes peace, sometimes it doesn't. Vietnam and Somalia? Wars that made us no more peaceful with our enemies. Iraq? A little different. We have a purpose to be there. We have goals and if we succeed, the outcome will be great. Bush could do a bit better, but his heart's in the right place.
"I doubt it."
Sure...I bet the thousands who died under Stalin would agree with you completely.
Perpetual war? NO one has that idealogy. That's rather a bold assumption. Just because he doesn't support cutting and running at the first hint of trouble. You know something funny dervish, you and other liberals are using the exact, and I mean word for word, exact same arguments the anti-war people of the 1860s and 1940s did. I guess you'd have disagreed with stopping Lee and Hitler too.
# posted by : 10/25/2006 2:54 PM
: 10/25/2006 2:54 PM
Could you answer the following question (which you skipped) from my last post?
I googled for some analysis on this song, but wasn't able to find anything which stated that Lennon wrote this song intending it to promote Communism. But this is your theory -- so why didn't you provide any facts to back up your claim? As I pointed out, Mr. Lennon never joined a commune. He never gave up his material wealth. Not much of a Communist, if you ask me.
How can you say that it is a FACT Mr. Lennon wrote this song to promote Communism when you can't or won't provide any evidence to back this up?!
Cody O. Said... Semantics. When I said I wouldn't allow it, I meant they would get a talking to, not get shackled.
Well, if I were one of the people you gave me a "talking to", and you told me that you "wouldn't allow" me to continue believing as I do -- my response would be *insert rude comment here*.
Cody Said... just like Liberals think Conservatives are breaking the law.
Liberals think Conservatives are breaking the law?! What about Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Bob Ney, Tom Delay, David Safavian, Jack Abramoff and others????
Cody O. Said... There are Democrats and Republicans saying we should throw each other in jail just because of the things they believe in.
There are Republicans saying these things. I am not aware of any Liberals saying similar things.
Cody O. Said... I still have no problem with spying on terrorists. If it were anything else I'd be against it but it's not.
And you know this how? bush assured you and you trust him implicity -- is that how? Well, you deciding to trust him, that's your decision... but I don't. And we shouldn't have to take him at his word -- because of a certain concept from our Constitution known as "checks and balances".
bush doesn't believe in Checks and Balances and apparently neither do you. Well, that's just too bad for both of you. The Constitution is the law of the land -- it doesn't matter if you don't agree with it, you still have to follow it (or are supposed to).
Cody O. Said... The Guantanamo Bay torture argument is completely fabricated by Liberal hacks like yourself. Try giving me real facts about Bush abusing his power. I'm sure they're there, and I'll agree it's wrong.
I didn't "fabricate" squat. I draw my conclusions based on articles from sources I trust. Like the ACLU and Amnesty International.
Anyway, I asked you about the Military Commissions Bill, not torture at Gitmo. The bill gives the president the power to detain ANYONE indefinitely (which was explained in the article I posted). You may trust that he won't abuse these powers, but again, what about CHECKS AND BALANCES?! We shouldn't have to trust him not to abuse these new powers! That isn't the way things work in the United States! (or they wouldn't work that way if we didn't have a president who thought he was above the law.)
Cody O. Said... Sometimes peace makes war and war makes peace, sometimes it doesn't. Vietnam and Somalia? Wars that made us no more peaceful with our enemies. Iraq? A little different. We have a purpose to be there. We have goals and if we succeed, the outcome will be great. Bush could do a bit better, but his heart's in the right place.
Sometimes we have no choice but to fight, but this isn't one of those cases. This was a war of choice. There is no purpose for our being there! Unless it is to make terrorism worse, which is what is happening. bush's heart is NOT in the right place. If so he would have made sure that the war had been conducted competently, instead of 100 percent incompetently. The only logical conclusion you can arrive at is that he doesn't want us to win.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion, but our mission is Somalia was a success (as I explained in the thread to your ironically titled "Focusing in on the Truth" post). Vietnam was a war against Communism -- but it sounds like you are saying it was a mistake? You aren't one of those people who think we should have stayed until we won?
Cody O. Said... Sure...I bet the thousands who died under Stalin would agree with you completely.
You only responded to the first sentence from my comment. What about the second sentence which changes the meaning 100 percent?? I'm not a Communist. I've never defended Communism here or anywhere. I know you'd love it if I were, because then you'd be able to slam me for my beliefs -- but I'm not. Sorry.
I googled for some analysis on this song, but wasn't able to find anything which stated that Lennon wrote this song intending it to promote Communism. But this is your theory -- so why didn't you provide any facts to back up your claim? As I pointed out, Mr. Lennon never joined a commune. He never gave up his material wealth. Not much of a Communist, if you ask me.
How can you say that it is a FACT Mr. Lennon wrote this song to promote Communism when you can't or won't provide any evidence to back this up?!
Cody O. Said... Semantics. When I said I wouldn't allow it, I meant they would get a talking to, not get shackled.
Well, if I were one of the people you gave me a "talking to", and you told me that you "wouldn't allow" me to continue believing as I do -- my response would be *insert rude comment here*.
Cody Said... just like Liberals think Conservatives are breaking the law.
Liberals think Conservatives are breaking the law?! What about Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Bob Ney, Tom Delay, David Safavian, Jack Abramoff and others????
Cody O. Said... There are Democrats and Republicans saying we should throw each other in jail just because of the things they believe in.
There are Republicans saying these things. I am not aware of any Liberals saying similar things.
Cody O. Said... I still have no problem with spying on terrorists. If it were anything else I'd be against it but it's not.
And you know this how? bush assured you and you trust him implicity -- is that how? Well, you deciding to trust him, that's your decision... but I don't. And we shouldn't have to take him at his word -- because of a certain concept from our Constitution known as "checks and balances".
bush doesn't believe in Checks and Balances and apparently neither do you. Well, that's just too bad for both of you. The Constitution is the law of the land -- it doesn't matter if you don't agree with it, you still have to follow it (or are supposed to).
Cody O. Said... The Guantanamo Bay torture argument is completely fabricated by Liberal hacks like yourself. Try giving me real facts about Bush abusing his power. I'm sure they're there, and I'll agree it's wrong.
I didn't "fabricate" squat. I draw my conclusions based on articles from sources I trust. Like the ACLU and Amnesty International.
Anyway, I asked you about the Military Commissions Bill, not torture at Gitmo. The bill gives the president the power to detain ANYONE indefinitely (which was explained in the article I posted). You may trust that he won't abuse these powers, but again, what about CHECKS AND BALANCES?! We shouldn't have to trust him not to abuse these new powers! That isn't the way things work in the United States! (or they wouldn't work that way if we didn't have a president who thought he was above the law.)
Cody O. Said... Sometimes peace makes war and war makes peace, sometimes it doesn't. Vietnam and Somalia? Wars that made us no more peaceful with our enemies. Iraq? A little different. We have a purpose to be there. We have goals and if we succeed, the outcome will be great. Bush could do a bit better, but his heart's in the right place.
Sometimes we have no choice but to fight, but this isn't one of those cases. This was a war of choice. There is no purpose for our being there! Unless it is to make terrorism worse, which is what is happening. bush's heart is NOT in the right place. If so he would have made sure that the war had been conducted competently, instead of 100 percent incompetently. The only logical conclusion you can arrive at is that he doesn't want us to win.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion, but our mission is Somalia was a success (as I explained in the thread to your ironically titled "Focusing in on the Truth" post). Vietnam was a war against Communism -- but it sounds like you are saying it was a mistake? You aren't one of those people who think we should have stayed until we won?
Cody O. Said... Sure...I bet the thousands who died under Stalin would agree with you completely.
You only responded to the first sentence from my comment. What about the second sentence which changes the meaning 100 percent?? I'm not a Communist. I've never defended Communism here or anywhere. I know you'd love it if I were, because then you'd be able to slam me for my beliefs -- but I'm not. Sorry.
Robert M. said... Perpetual war? NO one has that idealogy. That's rather a bold assumption. Just because he doesn't support cutting and running at the first hint of trouble. You know something funny dervish, you and other liberals are using the exact, and I mean word for word, exact same arguments the anti-war people of the 1860s and 1940s did. I guess you'd have disagreed with stopping Lee and Hitler too.
Nobody has that idealogy? Don't give me that bull! Ever since the cold war ended Republicans have been itching for something to take it's place. The war on terrorism will never be "won", and that is just how the Republicans want it. This never ending war will allow Republicans to use fearmongering to stay in power indefinitely (or, at least, that is the plan). It will also make them EXTREMELY wealthy, as they funnel more and more taxpayer dollars into the military industrial complex.
What's this about cutting and running at the "first hint" of trouble? That is too hilarious. The "first hint" of trouble occured YEARS ago! What about PDB which warned us that al Qaeda was determined to strike within the US? Wasn't that a "hint" that there might be trouble? If bush is so serious about protecting the US why didn't he act then, instead of ignoring the "hint"?
As for your BS WWII comparison: In your analogy is Osama Hitler? If so, why did bush let "Hitler" go at Tora Bora? Seems to me like it is bush who disagrees with stopping "Hitler". FDR certainly never said that he "wasn't that concerned" about Hitler. In fact, it was W's grandfather, Prescott Bush, who was one of the biggest Nazi appeasers in the run up to WWII.
I can't comment on stopping "Lee" because I don't know what "Lee" you're referring to. The emperor of Japan during WWII was Hirohito. The commander of the Japanese feet which attacked Pearl Harbor was Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. Maybe you mean Musso-Lee-ni?
Nobody has that idealogy? Don't give me that bull! Ever since the cold war ended Republicans have been itching for something to take it's place. The war on terrorism will never be "won", and that is just how the Republicans want it. This never ending war will allow Republicans to use fearmongering to stay in power indefinitely (or, at least, that is the plan). It will also make them EXTREMELY wealthy, as they funnel more and more taxpayer dollars into the military industrial complex.
What's this about cutting and running at the "first hint" of trouble? That is too hilarious. The "first hint" of trouble occured YEARS ago! What about PDB which warned us that al Qaeda was determined to strike within the US? Wasn't that a "hint" that there might be trouble? If bush is so serious about protecting the US why didn't he act then, instead of ignoring the "hint"?
As for your BS WWII comparison: In your analogy is Osama Hitler? If so, why did bush let "Hitler" go at Tora Bora? Seems to me like it is bush who disagrees with stopping "Hitler". FDR certainly never said that he "wasn't that concerned" about Hitler. In fact, it was W's grandfather, Prescott Bush, who was one of the biggest Nazi appeasers in the run up to WWII.
I can't comment on stopping "Lee" because I don't know what "Lee" you're referring to. The emperor of Japan during WWII was Hirohito. The commander of the Japanese feet which attacked Pearl Harbor was Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. Maybe you mean Musso-Lee-ni?
I can't comment on stopping "Lee" because I don't know what "Lee" you're referring to. The emperor of Japan during WWII was Hirohito. The commander of the Japanese feet which attacked Pearl Harbor was Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. Maybe you mean Musso-Lee-ni?
Wow. Actually I meant General Robert E. Lee. Evil dude who from about 1861-1865 tried to, oh you know, secede from the US so he could own slaves. Why don't you go back and read my comment where I mentioned the 1860s? You think you made me look stupid in your last comment? Well guess what? It backfired.
Wow. Actually I meant General Robert E. Lee. Evil dude who from about 1861-1865 tried to, oh you know, secede from the US so he could own slaves. Why don't you go back and read my comment where I mentioned the 1860s? You think you made me look stupid in your last comment? Well guess what? It backfired.
# posted by : 10/26/2006 1:23 PM
: 10/26/2006 1:23 PM
Though technically I suppose I should be saying Jefferson Davis, not Lee, since he was the leader of the CSA and Lee only a General. Still, my point is the same, if you don't know who he was, it's not me who looks stupid ok?
# posted by : 10/26/2006 1:43 PM
: 10/26/2006 1:43 PM
I thought we were talking about WWII. I don't believe I made myself look stupid by not being able to guess who you were talking about. I certainly know who he was, but didn't know he was universally known as "evil".
I looked up Robert E. Lee on Wikipedia -- not because I didn't know who he was -- but because I wanted to see if I could find any evidence of his being "evil" (big proponent of slavery, known for his cruelty, etc..)
From Wikipedia: Lee privately ridiculed the Confederacy in letters in early 1861, denouncing secession as "revolution" and a betrayal of the efforts of the Founders. Lee resisted calls by some officers to reject surrender and allow small units to melt away into the mountains, setting up a lengthy guerrilla war. He insisted the war was over and energetically campaigned for inter-sectional reconciliation. "So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South". (end Wikipedia entry)
I don't know. He was on the wrong side, but was he "evil"? I think more people would disagree with your use of that word than would agree with it.
That's all you choose to respond to? And it took you 2 posts? You accuse me of attempting to make you look stupid, but the only portion of my post you respond to is the one with which you think you can make ME look stupid. Why is that?
I looked up Robert E. Lee on Wikipedia -- not because I didn't know who he was -- but because I wanted to see if I could find any evidence of his being "evil" (big proponent of slavery, known for his cruelty, etc..)
From Wikipedia: Lee privately ridiculed the Confederacy in letters in early 1861, denouncing secession as "revolution" and a betrayal of the efforts of the Founders. Lee resisted calls by some officers to reject surrender and allow small units to melt away into the mountains, setting up a lengthy guerrilla war. He insisted the war was over and energetically campaigned for inter-sectional reconciliation. "So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South". (end Wikipedia entry)
I don't know. He was on the wrong side, but was he "evil"? I think more people would disagree with your use of that word than would agree with it.
That's all you choose to respond to? And it took you 2 posts? You accuse me of attempting to make you look stupid, but the only portion of my post you respond to is the one with which you think you can make ME look stupid. Why is that?
thought we were talking about WWII. I don't believe I made myself look stupid by not being able to guess who you were talking about.
Guess? I said 1860s. Who did you think I was reffering to? You are so childish do you know that? Instead of just admitting that you didn't read my comment correctly, you go to Wikipedia and try to prove that a racist general of the Confederacy wasn't evil? That's just sad and childish. Grow up a little.
Guess? I said 1860s. Who did you think I was reffering to? You are so childish do you know that? Instead of just admitting that you didn't read my comment correctly, you go to Wikipedia and try to prove that a racist general of the Confederacy wasn't evil? That's just sad and childish. Grow up a little.
# posted by : 10/26/2006 4:43 PM
: 10/26/2006 4:43 PM
I don't get him some times, Robby. I think he will disagree with everything you or I say just for the sake of it. I could make a pro-choice post today and he'd find some disagreement, just because he's that radically partisan. Or he's only some loser being paid to piss people off. Who knows.
I just think it shows something that's all. This "open-minded" Democrat is now defending the LEAD GENERAL of the CSA, the most pro-slavery group in existance simply because I said he was evil. Which he was. I suppose he may not consider killing hundreds of thousands of Americans and enslaving people based on thier race evil, but I certinally do. And he calls Republicans racist. It's funny really.
But yeah who knows, and really who cares? His comments are good for a laugh but not much else.
But yeah who knows, and really who cares? His comments are good for a laugh but not much else.
# posted by : 10/26/2006 7:35 PM
: 10/26/2006 7:35 PM
Robert M. Said... Guess? I said 1860s. Who did you think I was reffering to?
How should I know?? How does my not being able to guess who you were referring to make me childish? I didn't think about it for too long -- as I said, I thought you were making a WWII analogy -- which is what's in vogue with your party at the moment. Anway, YOU'RE accusing ME of misreading a post?
Me: I'm not a communist.
cody: commie.
robert m: he certainly is.
I wasn't "defending" anyone. Why don't you stop lying about what I believe to try and make me look bad? I'm a Communist. I defend mass murdering evil racists. I'm "radically partisan". I'm being paid to post on your blog. How ridiculous. And childish. Why don't YOU grow up?
Robert M. Said... And he calls Republicans racist.
Some are. Not all are. Those who aren't should be aware that the Republican party does pander to their racist and bigoted elements.
Racism and the Republican Party In 1968, Richard Nixon ran for president on the basis of his "southern strategy", which was a thinly disguised appeal to racism. ... In the following decades, the Republican Party worked to expand its right-wing base by cultivating alongside racist forces the most reactionary forms of Christian fundamentalism. There was and remains a large degree of overlap between these components of the most active elements of the Republican Party's base.
Racism... remains one of the political weapons of an American ruling class... of which George W. Bush is a particularly disgusting representative. (10/9/2005. freespeech.org)
Robert M. Said... I suppose he may not consider killing hundreds of thousands of Americans...evil, but I certinally do
Seeing as bush is repsonsible for 650,000+ Iraqi deaths you must agree that he qualifies for one of the most evil leaders the world has ever seen.
How should I know?? How does my not being able to guess who you were referring to make me childish? I didn't think about it for too long -- as I said, I thought you were making a WWII analogy -- which is what's in vogue with your party at the moment. Anway, YOU'RE accusing ME of misreading a post?
Me: I'm not a communist.
cody: commie.
robert m: he certainly is.
I wasn't "defending" anyone. Why don't you stop lying about what I believe to try and make me look bad? I'm a Communist. I defend mass murdering evil racists. I'm "radically partisan". I'm being paid to post on your blog. How ridiculous. And childish. Why don't YOU grow up?
Robert M. Said... And he calls Republicans racist.
Some are. Not all are. Those who aren't should be aware that the Republican party does pander to their racist and bigoted elements.
Racism and the Republican Party In 1968, Richard Nixon ran for president on the basis of his "southern strategy", which was a thinly disguised appeal to racism. ... In the following decades, the Republican Party worked to expand its right-wing base by cultivating alongside racist forces the most reactionary forms of Christian fundamentalism. There was and remains a large degree of overlap between these components of the most active elements of the Republican Party's base.
Racism... remains one of the political weapons of an American ruling class... of which George W. Bush is a particularly disgusting representative. (10/9/2005. freespeech.org)
Robert M. Said... I suppose he may not consider killing hundreds of thousands of Americans...evil, but I certinally do
Seeing as bush is repsonsible for 650,000+ Iraqi deaths you must agree that he qualifies for one of the most evil leaders the world has ever seen.
"Seeing as bush is repsonsible for 650,000+ Iraqi deaths"
where the hell did that number come from? If you're talking about that new and probably inaccurate poll, you musn't forget the little fact that 70% of Iraqi's killed were killed by Islamic terrorists, not us. You've got your numbers wrong.
where the hell did that number come from? If you're talking about that new and probably inaccurate poll, you musn't forget the little fact that 70% of Iraqi's killed were killed by Islamic terrorists, not us. You've got your numbers wrong.
but really, does every post have to turn into an Iraq debate? We were talking about Communism. If you get too off topic I'll just stop replying to your comments.
He's lying. There haven't been 650,000 deaths. If you're gonna lie dervish please do it right.
# posted by : 10/27/2006 10:04 AM
: 10/27/2006 10:04 AM
Cody O. Said... If you get too off topic I'll just stop replying to your comments.
I'm off topic?! Why is it then that of my entire post both of you only chose to respond to the part where I didn't guess Robert M. was referring to Robert E. Lee? Why, even though I posted it TWICE, did you not respond to my on-topic question concerning what John Lennon himself intended the song to be about? Did he intend it to be a song promoting Communism? You may THINK so, but were is your PROOF?
I can't get you to respond when I am on topic, so I don't know what your threat amounts to.
Robert M. Said... There haven't been 650,000 deaths
The 650,000 figure it is the median number. The study places the number of deaths at between 400,000 and 900,000. According to a CNN article, "Professionals familiar with such research [say] that the survey's methodology is sound". It does not matter how they died -- George bush started this war, therefore he is responsible for all deaths that result from it.
Robert M. said... He's lying.
I'm lying? That's the best you can do? Sorry, you can't disprove a scientific study which used sound methodology simply by saying it's a lie.
Robert M. Said... If you're gonna lie dervish please do it right.
If you're gonna lie why don't YOU do it right? You forgot the part where you explain (lie about) why my figure is wrong.
Robert M. Said... 70% of Iraqi's killed were killed by Islamic terrorists, not us.
According to the study, "coalition forces accounted for 31 percent of the dead", so your 70 percent figure is actually close to being accurate. However, your conclusion that these deaths can all be attributed to "Islamic terrorists" is not. The majority of those deaths are due to sectarian violence, not "Islamic terrorists".
Anyway, where the hell did you get your 70 percent figure from? The study? Either you accept it as a valid study or you don't. If you don't you can't use figures FROM THE STUDY to prove me wrong.
I'm off topic?! Why is it then that of my entire post both of you only chose to respond to the part where I didn't guess Robert M. was referring to Robert E. Lee? Why, even though I posted it TWICE, did you not respond to my on-topic question concerning what John Lennon himself intended the song to be about? Did he intend it to be a song promoting Communism? You may THINK so, but were is your PROOF?
I can't get you to respond when I am on topic, so I don't know what your threat amounts to.
Robert M. Said... There haven't been 650,000 deaths
The 650,000 figure it is the median number. The study places the number of deaths at between 400,000 and 900,000. According to a CNN article, "Professionals familiar with such research [say] that the survey's methodology is sound". It does not matter how they died -- George bush started this war, therefore he is responsible for all deaths that result from it.
Robert M. said... He's lying.
I'm lying? That's the best you can do? Sorry, you can't disprove a scientific study which used sound methodology simply by saying it's a lie.
Robert M. Said... If you're gonna lie dervish please do it right.
If you're gonna lie why don't YOU do it right? You forgot the part where you explain (lie about) why my figure is wrong.
Robert M. Said... 70% of Iraqi's killed were killed by Islamic terrorists, not us.
According to the study, "coalition forces accounted for 31 percent of the dead", so your 70 percent figure is actually close to being accurate. However, your conclusion that these deaths can all be attributed to "Islamic terrorists" is not. The majority of those deaths are due to sectarian violence, not "Islamic terrorists".
Anyway, where the hell did you get your 70 percent figure from? The study? Either you accept it as a valid study or you don't. If you don't you can't use figures FROM THE STUDY to prove me wrong.
Robert M. Said... 70% of Iraqi's killed were killed by Islamic terrorists, not us...Anyway, where the hell did you get your 70 percent figure from? The study? Either you accept it as a valid study or you don't. If you don't you can't use figures FROM THE STUDY to prove me wrong.
Er, I never said this. I don't even know what study you're talking about.
Er, I never said this. I don't even know what study you're talking about.
# posted by : 10/27/2006 6:50 PM
: 10/27/2006 6:50 PM
"Did he intend it to be a song promoting Communism? You may THINK so, but were is your PROOF?"
Unless he was high on LSD I'm quite positive he meant for it to sound Communist. I can extract no other ideology from the song. No religion, no possesions, not countries. You tell me what that's supposed to mean?
"Anyway, where the hell did you get your 70 percent figure from? The study? Either you accept it as a valid study or you don't. If you don't you can't use figures FROM THE STUDY to prove me wrong."
Just making sure you didn't misinterprate the study. But yes, I think studies on wars usually are innacurate, especially while the war is still going on. The numbers could be better, or they could be worse, who knows?
Let me also say that if I were president we would have secured the Iraqi borders and broken the country into three parts a long time ago.
Unless he was high on LSD I'm quite positive he meant for it to sound Communist. I can extract no other ideology from the song. No religion, no possesions, not countries. You tell me what that's supposed to mean?
"Anyway, where the hell did you get your 70 percent figure from? The study? Either you accept it as a valid study or you don't. If you don't you can't use figures FROM THE STUDY to prove me wrong."
Just making sure you didn't misinterprate the study. But yes, I think studies on wars usually are innacurate, especially while the war is still going on. The numbers could be better, or they could be worse, who knows?
Let me also say that if I were president we would have secured the Iraqi borders and broken the country into three parts a long time ago.
Cody O. Said... Unless he was high on LSD I'm quite positive he meant for it to sound Communist. I can extract no other ideology from the song. No religion, no possesions, no countries. You tell me what that's supposed to mean?
That human beings kill each other over these things in great numbers. We can do better. That's it. A simple message. Communism doesn't need to enter the picture. Anyway, you're giving me your opinion again, which isn't proof.
Cody Said... The numbers could be better, or they could be worse, who knows?
Experts. You're not an expert, are you?
From Wikipedia: Lila Guterman, writing for The Columbia Journalism Review interviewed about ten biostatisticians and mortality experts regarding their views on the study. She wrote that "not one of them took issue with the study's methods or its conclusions".
Over the last 25 years, this sort of methodology has been used more and more often, especially by relief agencies in times of emergency," said Dr. David Rush, a professor and epidemiologist at Tufts University in Boston.
Cody O. Said... Let me also say that if I were president we would have secured the Iraqi borders and broken the country into three parts a long time ago.
Of course I wouldn't have invaded to begin with, but now that we're there that is the plan I would go with. BTW, Peter Galbraith was the first to suggest partitioning the country. Several Democrats has also put forth similar plans.
Robert M. Said... Er, I never said this. I don't even know what study you're talking about.
So how, exactly, did you determine that a study you never even heard of is a lie? I think it's clear that you'll disbelieve anything that disagrees with what bush is telling you. Immediately. You didn't even know what I was talking about and already you're calling me a liar.
That human beings kill each other over these things in great numbers. We can do better. That's it. A simple message. Communism doesn't need to enter the picture. Anyway, you're giving me your opinion again, which isn't proof.
Cody Said... The numbers could be better, or they could be worse, who knows?
Experts. You're not an expert, are you?
From Wikipedia: Lila Guterman, writing for The Columbia Journalism Review interviewed about ten biostatisticians and mortality experts regarding their views on the study. She wrote that "not one of them took issue with the study's methods or its conclusions".
Over the last 25 years, this sort of methodology has been used more and more often, especially by relief agencies in times of emergency," said Dr. David Rush, a professor and epidemiologist at Tufts University in Boston.
Cody O. Said... Let me also say that if I were president we would have secured the Iraqi borders and broken the country into three parts a long time ago.
Of course I wouldn't have invaded to begin with, but now that we're there that is the plan I would go with. BTW, Peter Galbraith was the first to suggest partitioning the country. Several Democrats has also put forth similar plans.
Robert M. Said... Er, I never said this. I don't even know what study you're talking about.
So how, exactly, did you determine that a study you never even heard of is a lie? I think it's clear that you'll disbelieve anything that disagrees with what bush is telling you. Immediately. You didn't even know what I was talking about and already you're calling me a liar.
So how, exactly, did you determine that a study you never even heard of is a lie? I think it's clear that you'll disbelieve anything that disagrees with what bush is telling you. Immediately. You didn't even know what I was talking about and already you're calling me a liar.
You're MISQOUTING ME. I NEVER said that qoute. You DIDN'T READ my comments. Stop accusing me of things I didn't do. CODY said that and I want you to check it, see that HE said it not me, and I want an apology for calling me a liar right now.
You're MISQOUTING ME. I NEVER said that qoute. You DIDN'T READ my comments. Stop accusing me of things I didn't do. CODY said that and I want you to check it, see that HE said it not me, and I want an apology for calling me a liar right now.
# posted by : 10/28/2006 10:52 AM
: 10/28/2006 10:52 AM
"That human beings kill each other over these things in great numbers. We can do better. That's it. A simple message. Communism doesn't need to enter the picture. Anyway, you're giving me your opinion again, which isn't proof."
So I could write a song called "I hate W-Dervish" and claim the song is meant to be about compassion and that would ivalidate your opinion on it? Hardly. It is perfectly fine for each person to critique another in their own way.
For example, I could say I'm a nice guy. You may disagree. How do you tell who is right? Sometimes how you view yourself and your work is wrong. You have a bias, and you could be deluded. It is quite possible for an outside opinion to be right, simply by looking at the facts and using logic to extrapolate an answer.
So I could write a song called "I hate W-Dervish" and claim the song is meant to be about compassion and that would ivalidate your opinion on it? Hardly. It is perfectly fine for each person to critique another in their own way.
For example, I could say I'm a nice guy. You may disagree. How do you tell who is right? Sometimes how you view yourself and your work is wrong. You have a bias, and you could be deluded. It is quite possible for an outside opinion to be right, simply by looking at the facts and using logic to extrapolate an answer.
Robert M. Said... You're MISQOUTING ME. I NEVER said that qoute. You DIDN'T READ my comments. Stop accusing me of things I didn't do. CODY said that and I want you to check it, see that HE said it not me, and I want an apology for calling me a liar right now.
You said, and I quote, "He's lying. There haven't been 650,000 deaths. If you're gonna lie dervish please do it right".
YOU called ME a liar. I want an apology from YOU. Right now.
Something Cody said -- I did accidently put your name in front of it -- but I didn't call you a liar in my response to that quote. I called you a liar for WHAT YOU SAID.
I called you a liar when you said I lied about how many Iraqis have been killed. The number was from a VALID study. I didn't just make it up. So you can stop trying to twist the debate.
Cody O. Said... So I could write a song called "I hate W-Dervish" and claim the song is meant to be about compassion and that would ivalidate your opinion on it? Hardly. It is perfectly fine for each person to critique another in their own way.
The word "Communism" (or any variant of it) is NOT IN THE SONG! Whereas with your song the word "hate" is right in the title! Your argument doesn't hold up. YOU just want to THINK it's about Communism. That doesn't mean John Lennon intended it to be about Communism.
Cody O. Said... It is quite possible for an outside opinion to be right, simply by looking at the facts and using logic to extrapolate an answer.
Or by guessing. Which is what you're doing. If you're going to denouce someone for being an "ignorant Communist" you need more proof than "sounds like he's describing Communism -- therefore he is".
Your proof: Sounds like he's describing communism (opinion).
My proof: the word "communism" never appears in the song. John Lennon never said the song was about communism. (both FACTS)
Conclusion: You're wrong because facts trump opinion.
I think you need to issue an apolgy for slandering Mr. Lennon.
You said, and I quote, "He's lying. There haven't been 650,000 deaths. If you're gonna lie dervish please do it right".
YOU called ME a liar. I want an apology from YOU. Right now.
Something Cody said -- I did accidently put your name in front of it -- but I didn't call you a liar in my response to that quote. I called you a liar for WHAT YOU SAID.
I called you a liar when you said I lied about how many Iraqis have been killed. The number was from a VALID study. I didn't just make it up. So you can stop trying to twist the debate.
Cody O. Said... So I could write a song called "I hate W-Dervish" and claim the song is meant to be about compassion and that would ivalidate your opinion on it? Hardly. It is perfectly fine for each person to critique another in their own way.
The word "Communism" (or any variant of it) is NOT IN THE SONG! Whereas with your song the word "hate" is right in the title! Your argument doesn't hold up. YOU just want to THINK it's about Communism. That doesn't mean John Lennon intended it to be about Communism.
Cody O. Said... It is quite possible for an outside opinion to be right, simply by looking at the facts and using logic to extrapolate an answer.
Or by guessing. Which is what you're doing. If you're going to denouce someone for being an "ignorant Communist" you need more proof than "sounds like he's describing Communism -- therefore he is".
Your proof: Sounds like he's describing communism (opinion).
My proof: the word "communism" never appears in the song. John Lennon never said the song was about communism. (both FACTS)
Conclusion: You're wrong because facts trump opinion.
I think you need to issue an apolgy for slandering Mr. Lennon.
Something Cody said -- I did accidently put your name in front of it
That's as much of an admition as I'll ever get from a liberal I suppose.
That's as much of an admition as I'll ever get from a liberal I suppose.
# posted by : 10/28/2006 2:28 PM
: 10/28/2006 2:28 PM
What about you admitting that I'm not making up numbers when it comes to Iraqi deaths? You said I lied about this. What about the apology you owe me??
"The word "Communism" (or any variant of it)"
So? Just about every ideological Communist idea is mentioned in it.
"Your proof: Sounds like he's describing communism (opinion).
My proof: the word "communism" never appears in the song. John Lennon never said the song was about communism. (both FACTS)"
My opinions are based on facts. As I've said, the lyrics describe Communism even if the word itself is absent.
Also, if you read my first comment, you'd again be able to extrapolate only one answer. Communism.
In John Lennon's own words he says Imagine is "an anti-religious, anti-nationalistic, anti-conventional, anti-capitalistic song, but because it's sugar-coated, it's accepted."
I don't think he's talking about the barter system as an alternative to capitalism.
So? Just about every ideological Communist idea is mentioned in it.
"Your proof: Sounds like he's describing communism (opinion).
My proof: the word "communism" never appears in the song. John Lennon never said the song was about communism. (both FACTS)"
My opinions are based on facts. As I've said, the lyrics describe Communism even if the word itself is absent.
Also, if you read my first comment, you'd again be able to extrapolate only one answer. Communism.
In John Lennon's own words he says Imagine is "an anti-religious, anti-nationalistic, anti-conventional, anti-capitalistic song, but because it's sugar-coated, it's accepted."
I don't think he's talking about the barter system as an alternative to capitalism.
What about you admitting that I'm not making up numbers when it comes to Iraqi deaths? You said I lied about this. What about the apology you owe me??
That's not something you can prove dervish. However the transcript of this comment stream proves you wrong without doubt. Hell will freeze over before I apologize for calling you on your lies.
That's not something you can prove dervish. However the transcript of this comment stream proves you wrong without doubt. Hell will freeze over before I apologize for calling you on your lies.
# posted by : 10/28/2006 5:17 PM
: 10/28/2006 5:17 PM
Cody O. Said... I don't think he's talking about the barter system as an alternative to capitalism.
The song isn't advocating a change of economic systems. You're reading way too much into it.
You can make anti-religious remarks and still be religious. You can make anti-capitalistic remarks and still be a capitialist. I think there are HUGE problems with organized religion. But I consider myself a Christian. I think Capitalism has flaws. Which is why I support a regulated market and not a "free" market. But I wouldn't switch to another system.
Your arguement just doesn't hold up -- for the reasons I previous pointed out. You haven't been able to present any proof that Lennon intended this song to be about Communism, except for your opinion. Opinions don't equal fact. Sorry.
Cody O. Said... Also, if you read my first comment, you'd again be able to extrapolate only one answer. Communism.
That isn't the answer I've "extrapolated". You may think that John Lennon was ignorant, but I admire him for his political activism. And I'm not a Communist, no matter what you might say.
Robert M. said... That's not something you can prove dervish.
Of course I can prove it! I gave you the link!
Robert M. Said... However the transcript of this comment stream proves you wrong without doubt.
It does not.
Robert M. Said... Hell will freeze over before I apologize for calling you on your lies.
That's nice. Except I didn't lie -- you did.
The song isn't advocating a change of economic systems. You're reading way too much into it.
You can make anti-religious remarks and still be religious. You can make anti-capitalistic remarks and still be a capitialist. I think there are HUGE problems with organized religion. But I consider myself a Christian. I think Capitalism has flaws. Which is why I support a regulated market and not a "free" market. But I wouldn't switch to another system.
Your arguement just doesn't hold up -- for the reasons I previous pointed out. You haven't been able to present any proof that Lennon intended this song to be about Communism, except for your opinion. Opinions don't equal fact. Sorry.
Cody O. Said... Also, if you read my first comment, you'd again be able to extrapolate only one answer. Communism.
That isn't the answer I've "extrapolated". You may think that John Lennon was ignorant, but I admire him for his political activism. And I'm not a Communist, no matter what you might say.
Robert M. said... That's not something you can prove dervish.
Of course I can prove it! I gave you the link!
Robert M. Said... However the transcript of this comment stream proves you wrong without doubt.
It does not.
Robert M. Said... Hell will freeze over before I apologize for calling you on your lies.
That's nice. Except I didn't lie -- you did.
Robert M. Said... However the transcript of this comment stream proves you wrong without doubt.
dervish said...It does not.
What the hell? You already ADMITTED that you misqouted me!
Right here: dervish said: "Something Cody said -- I did accidently put your name in front of it "
How can you deny that? I mean seriously here. I can't help but laugh when you admit to something, then deny it, then say there's no proof when we can look it up anytime we want. Are you insane? And it's so trivial. Why don't you just say, "I misqouted you, sorry" and move on. Am I to take it that you just want to argue so much you'll argue in the face of the facts over something so trivial?
dervish said...It does not.
What the hell? You already ADMITTED that you misqouted me!
Right here: dervish said: "Something Cody said -- I did accidently put your name in front of it "
How can you deny that? I mean seriously here. I can't help but laugh when you admit to something, then deny it, then say there's no proof when we can look it up anytime we want. Are you insane? And it's so trivial. Why don't you just say, "I misqouted you, sorry" and move on. Am I to take it that you just want to argue so much you'll argue in the face of the facts over something so trivial?
# posted by : 10/28/2006 11:26 PM
: 10/28/2006 11:26 PM
We're still on this?! When you said, "However the transcript of this comment stream proves you wrong without doubt" I thought you were talking about my claim regarding how many Iraqi's had died. Why were you talking about my being "proven wrong" regarding a misquote I already acknowledged??
You're not going to get a "sorry" out of me. If I had attributed a quote to you which was something you strongly disagreed with -- that would be one thing, but that isn't what happened. Both you and Cody disagreed with my Iraqi death figures, and I got your quotes mixed up. But you were BOTH disagreeing with the SAME THING!
You didn't respond to anything else I said in my post, yet you're dragging this out for multiple posts even AFTER I said I made a mistake. If anyone is insane it's you.
Robert M. Said... Am I to take it that you just want to argue so much you'll argue in the face of the facts over something so trivial?
No. I wish you'd drop it already. But you refuse to, even AFTER I acknowledged my mistake. The quote above sounds like something I should be saying to you! What a weirdo.
You're not going to get a "sorry" out of me. If I had attributed a quote to you which was something you strongly disagreed with -- that would be one thing, but that isn't what happened. Both you and Cody disagreed with my Iraqi death figures, and I got your quotes mixed up. But you were BOTH disagreeing with the SAME THING!
You didn't respond to anything else I said in my post, yet you're dragging this out for multiple posts even AFTER I said I made a mistake. If anyone is insane it's you.
Robert M. Said... Am I to take it that you just want to argue so much you'll argue in the face of the facts over something so trivial?
No. I wish you'd drop it already. But you refuse to, even AFTER I acknowledged my mistake. The quote above sounds like something I should be saying to you! What a weirdo.
What was I supposed to think when you would not admit an evident fact? Not getting angry now are we?
# posted by : 10/29/2006 11:17 AM
: 10/29/2006 11:17 AM
Robert M. said... What was I supposed to think when you would not admit an evident fact? Not getting angry now are we?
What am I supposed to think when you get angry about a trivial mistake even after I acknowledge it? You're a weirdo -- that's your problem. Why should I be mad?
What am I supposed to think when you get angry about a trivial mistake even after I acknowledge it? You're a weirdo -- that's your problem. Why should I be mad?
That's real nice dervish. Whatever. I'm not even going to argue this anymore. You were wrong and you admitted it. There's nothing left to argue and calling me a wierdo won't change the fact that you were wrong and you're angry of that trivial fact.
# posted by : 10/29/2006 3:46 PM
: 10/29/2006 3:46 PM
I mixed up the quotes. I acknowledged my error. I was NOT "wrong". I NEVER admitted being "wrong". I made no mistakes regarding the facts I have presented in this debate. You're trying to twist the facts so it appears that you've won some serious argument we were having. How pathetic.
You accused me of admitting and then denying my error -- you claimed I did this was because was so desperate to continue the argument that I'd lie to do so. BALONEY you're the one who is dragging out this argument! I have no idea why, since You called it TRIVIAL. I agree, it is trivial -- so I don't understand why you became so outraged AFTER I acknowledged my mistake. In my book this behavior definitely qualifies you as being weird. Extremely weird.
You accused me of admitting and then denying my error -- you claimed I did this was because was so desperate to continue the argument that I'd lie to do so. BALONEY you're the one who is dragging out this argument! I have no idea why, since You called it TRIVIAL. I agree, it is trivial -- so I don't understand why you became so outraged AFTER I acknowledged my mistake. In my book this behavior definitely qualifies you as being weird. Extremely weird.
Ok, whatever. I don't really care all that much. No need to get angry. But I guess that's what you're good at.
# posted by : 10/29/2006 5:42 PM
: 10/29/2006 5:42 PM
Sure you don't care. Why did YOU get so angry then? Why did you DEMAND an apology over something you called "trivial"? I'd say that twisting the debate is what you're good at.
You were trying to make me look bad but only ended up making yourself look crazy.
You were trying to make me look bad but only ended up making yourself look crazy.
Cody O. Said... This is a really stupid debate.
I can't disagree.
Cody O. Said... Come on you two, you can do better than this.
Well, I know I could. If someone would actually respond to what I've written, instead of getting all worked up over a minor mistake.
I can't disagree.
Cody O. Said... Come on you two, you can do better than this.
Well, I know I could. If someone would actually respond to what I've written, instead of getting all worked up over a minor mistake.
This is a really stupid debate. Come on you two, you can do better than this.
I don't really see much point in it. At this point I'm just confused as to his position. I also pointed out that it was trivial and that I didn't care very much, and am not quite sure why it continues.
By the way, why don't YOU do better? You've said very little and I suspect that, like me, you just don't really care anymore and you'd be just as happy letting Mr. Dervish here rant himself out while we're on the newest post and happily ignoring whatever he says here.
I don't really see much point in it. At this point I'm just confused as to his position. I also pointed out that it was trivial and that I didn't care very much, and am not quite sure why it continues.
By the way, why don't YOU do better? You've said very little and I suspect that, like me, you just don't really care anymore and you'd be just as happy letting Mr. Dervish here rant himself out while we're on the newest post and happily ignoring whatever he says here.
# posted by : 10/30/2006 3:26 PM
: 10/30/2006 3:26 PM
Robert M. Said... I don't really see much point in it. At this point I'm just confused as to his position.
My position is that you're making a HUGE deal over a tiny error! I admitted it, and then, for some strange reason, you became EXTREMELY angry, and started spouting nonsense about my admitting the mistake and then denying it. Which never happened.
Robert M. I also pointed out that it was trivial and that I didn't care very much, and am not quite sure why it continues.
That's bull. It's continuing because you're STILL trying to make me look bad. Over a tiny error I already admitted to.
Robert M. Said... ...really care anymore and you'd be just as happy letting Mr. Dervish here rant himself out while we're on the newest post and happily ignoring whatever he says here.
I'm ranting? You're the one who refuses to let this drop. You just keep posting nonsense about how I'm admitting mistakes and then denying them just to keep the arguement going. That I'm "admitting" that I was "wrong". That I'm "angry". None of these allegations are true, of course. We could argue about the topic at hand, but for some strange reason you'd rather argue about nothing. Like I said before, what a weirdo!
My position is that you're making a HUGE deal over a tiny error! I admitted it, and then, for some strange reason, you became EXTREMELY angry, and started spouting nonsense about my admitting the mistake and then denying it. Which never happened.
Robert M. I also pointed out that it was trivial and that I didn't care very much, and am not quite sure why it continues.
That's bull. It's continuing because you're STILL trying to make me look bad. Over a tiny error I already admitted to.
Robert M. Said... ...really care anymore and you'd be just as happy letting Mr. Dervish here rant himself out while we're on the newest post and happily ignoring whatever he says here.
I'm ranting? You're the one who refuses to let this drop. You just keep posting nonsense about how I'm admitting mistakes and then denying them just to keep the arguement going. That I'm "admitting" that I was "wrong". That I'm "angry". None of these allegations are true, of course. We could argue about the topic at hand, but for some strange reason you'd rather argue about nothing. Like I said before, what a weirdo!
It seems I'm having my principles tested here. I'm left with the moral decision, should I start deleting posts, or pretend nothing's happening.
Here's my solution, I don't ban anybody, but I'll practice my own 1'st ammendment and say shut the f**k up about this. It's so trivial I don't even know what it's about anymore. Christ. I feel like I'm listenting to bickering schoolgirls.
Here's my solution, I don't ban anybody, but I'll practice my own 1'st ammendment and say shut the f**k up about this. It's so trivial I don't even know what it's about anymore. Christ. I feel like I'm listenting to bickering schoolgirls.
And I feel as though I'm listening to an overofficious camp consuler. Why don't I jsut tell you both where I want you to put your opinions and be done with it?
# posted by : 10/31/2006 3:07 PM
: 10/31/2006 3:07 PM
"Why don't I just tell you both where I want you to put your opinions and be done with it?"
Because all further posts in this thread will be deleted. I didn't want to do this, but I have no other options.
Because all further posts in this thread will be deleted. I didn't want to do this, but I have no other options.
Yes, and don't you know people are of exactly the same mindset as they were in medieval times? When they said "there will always be an emperor, we will always be serfs, the world is flat and the sun revolves around it". Still what we believe today, right? See how little the human condition has changed since then? Naah, humanity never evolves, progress never has to be stopped or slowed by reactionaries because human progress doesn't exist, right? I guess what they said about DaVinci's "flying machine" with the flapping wings was correct: "People aren't meant to fly, and the failure of your flying machine proves it!".
# posted by : 11/05/2006 4:59 PM
: 11/05/2006 4:59 PM
Communism isn't exactly progress. I'm not a reactionary, I'd love to see us make a few changes. Communism's not on that list though.
Brandon, yeah I'm imagining all the people all right. All the people who are dumb enough to buy into this ridiculous ideology. Their getting a bit annoying.
But, it's just another sign that proves me right on how polarized we are, and how it will keep on steadily progressing. The left will be Communists, and the right will be Fascists.
Fun.
Brandon, yeah I'm imagining all the people all right. All the people who are dumb enough to buy into this ridiculous ideology. Their getting a bit annoying.
But, it's just another sign that proves me right on how polarized we are, and how it will keep on steadily progressing. The left will be Communists, and the right will be Fascists.
Fun.
I shouldn't take a break from blogging, because I miss too many debates :P. I've heard that song, and I just think, wow, John Lennon was singing about no possesions while living the life of a multi millionaire. Why does that strike me as irony? Hmm. Communist activists are rarely willing to actually live the life they proclaim to be so wonderful.
why is the idea of sharing so offensive to so many right wing Americans?
Do you honestly still think the people who flew those planes into the World Trade center were jealous of your freedom?
Are you actually naive enough to think the war your country is embroiled in, and American children are dying over is about defending those freedoms?
You should really stop getting all your information from FOX news and Pat Robertson.
Do you honestly still think the people who flew those planes into the World Trade center were jealous of your freedom?
Are you actually naive enough to think the war your country is embroiled in, and American children are dying over is about defending those freedoms?
You should really stop getting all your information from FOX news and Pat Robertson.
# posted by : 7/19/2007 3:23 AM
: 7/19/2007 3:23 AM
Gee "Allison" I think the 100 million plus deaths caused by communism are more than ample to make anything associated with communism, well, bad. Consider the very appropriate ending credits of the Killing Fields set to "Imagine." For genocide is the ultimate price of such socialist "utopias." (People just keep refusing to acknowledge that the Nazis were socialists.) History has prooved this again and again. Don't think we need any more killings to proove it again. Duh. Sorry to burst your media Maintained hard left bubble. It was painful when mine broke too!
# posted by : 2/06/2008 7:34 PM
: 2/06/2008 7:34 PM
i know this was way back (like half way in the comments or so) and i am joining in late, i just wanted to point that ROBERT M who said Robert E. Lee was evil is very misled. while i do not support citing wikipedia as a source, dervish is correct about lee. he did not own a single slave other than one handed down by his grandmother, whom he kept because the slave was too old to live on his own. he led the confederates because he did not want to "betray" west virginia, his home state. lee didnt believe in slavery. so saying that lee was evil is a baseless comment and shows the ignorance of Robert M.
Robert M, i hope in the future you read your history before writing such stupid and outrageous claims.
and back to the original discussion... i dont want to sound like all of the "hippys" out there, but i wouldnt go as far to say lennon was a communist... he definitely had a liberal view, but i think he was more of a humanist. i know he doesnt have a clean record, but i think the idea of peace is attractive to people, which is why so many people listen to "imagine."
and i dont know why you hate communists so much and are determined to label lennon one. and even if he was, isnt he allowed to have his own opinions? i am pretty sure people would rather imagine a world of peace and love rather than live in the shit hole we do now...
as lennon once said, a dream you dream alone is only a dream, a dream you dream together is reality.
i know you will probably say to grow up and stop dreaming, but i would rather dream than live a nightmare.
peace y'all
Post a Comment
Robert M, i hope in the future you read your history before writing such stupid and outrageous claims.
and back to the original discussion... i dont want to sound like all of the "hippys" out there, but i wouldnt go as far to say lennon was a communist... he definitely had a liberal view, but i think he was more of a humanist. i know he doesnt have a clean record, but i think the idea of peace is attractive to people, which is why so many people listen to "imagine."
and i dont know why you hate communists so much and are determined to label lennon one. and even if he was, isnt he allowed to have his own opinions? i am pretty sure people would rather imagine a world of peace and love rather than live in the shit hole we do now...
as lennon once said, a dream you dream alone is only a dream, a dream you dream together is reality.
i know you will probably say to grow up and stop dreaming, but i would rather dream than live a nightmare.
peace y'all
# posted by : 8/06/2009 5:59 PM
: 8/06/2009 5:59 PM << Home
