tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post2212064404237264634..comments2024-03-28T12:43:07.327-04:00Comments on Dave Dubya's Freedom Rants: Promises, Promises...Dave Dubyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-43812070300774124642012-10-20T16:46:04.639-04:002012-10-20T16:46:04.639-04:00Free0352: "...this thing holding me down to t...<b>Free0352</b>: "<i>...this thing holding me down to the Earth right now? I'm sure thats quantifiable.</i>"<br /><br />Absolutely...but it hasn't <i>always</i> been.<br /><br /><br />"<i>I've never 'felt' the hand of God, and neither have you.</i>"<br /><br />You can only speak for yourself; not others. You have no idea what others have experienced.<br /><br /><br />"<i>Saying [spirituality and religious dogma is] different is a cop out...</i>"<br /><br />No...as previously mentioned, they're totally different. One's derived of the spirit; the other of the human mind.<br /><br /><br />"<i>...and I think I've CLEARLY established I don't put any stock what-so-ever in religion.</i>"<br /><br />Except, as I've mentioned at least twice (which you conveniently keep ignoring), your "religion" of libertarianism and its illusional tale of laissez-faire capitalism. That's <i>clearly</i> been established to work <i>only for</i> the benefit of the few -- yet you adamantly and feverishly continue to subscribe to it.<br /><br />That's called <i>blind faith</i>.<br /><br /><br />"<i>So really, please explain to me who these twisted people are fighting when they shoot rockets into people trying to buy food?</i>"<br /><br />In a nation invaded and occupied by foreign forces, savagery and lawlessness is exponentially increased. The same thing would occur here. <br /><br />In response to your question, however, I often wonder the <i>same thing</i> about a country that indiscriminately bombs a city and praises its ability to create "shock & awe". <br /><br />What kind of "twisted people" would do that? <br /><br /><br />"<i>The murderers who slaughter children in a market seem pretty legitimate to you...</i>"<br /><br />I've never made such a claim, although are we really sure <i>exactly</i> who attacked the shoppers in Jamilla Market, or are we just taking the government's word for it -- like you do with the mass murders on 9/11? <br /><br /><br />"<i>...so what does that say about your personal judgement of people?</i>"<br /><br />I've got you pegged, and I believe I'm <i>more than</i> accurate.<br /><br /><br />"<i>Firstly thats false...</i>"<br /><br />Then please...do me the honor of citing some. Just <i>one</i> would be sufficient.<br /><br /><br />"<i>...secondly there was an explosion and 300,000 pounds of steel hitting those buildings too, and in the case of tower 7 over a million tons of debris landing on it traveling at over 700 miles per hour...</i>"<br /><br />Even if your seat-of-the-pants exaggeration were accurate, none would explain the failure of <i>all the</i> primary interior support columns failing simultaneously and allowing a complete, unobstructed, free-fall. <br /><br />None.<br /><br /><br />"<i>If you call pushing paper fucking off.</i>"<br /><br />No, I call <i>keeping your browser open</i> and responding to message alerts throughout the workday, at taxpayer expense, "fucking off".<br /><br /><br />"<i>Oh and I guess for a guy old enough to have white hair you have some excuse for you gut.</i>"<br /><br />You <i>wish</i> you had as flat a stomach as I do. You don't now, and you never will. I'm <i>almost</i> twice your age. I would have been <i>totally embarrassed</i> if I was as "chunky" as you are when I was your age. I certainly would have done something about it.Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-1160069206242423162012-10-16T15:21:16.164-04:002012-10-16T15:21:16.164-04:00Oh and I guess for a guy old enough to have white ...Oh and I guess for a guy old enough to have white hair you have some excuse for you gut. Mine is smaller of course, but I'm only 33 ;)free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-23241706684926543242012-10-16T15:19:51.720-04:002012-10-16T15:19:51.720-04:00They seemed pretty legitimate to me
The murderers...<i>They seemed pretty legitimate to me</i><br /><br />The murderers who slaughter children in a market seem pretty legitimate to you so what does that say about your personal judgement of people?<br /><br /><i> Never in the history of modern highrise architecture has a building collapsed due to internal fire.</i><br /><br />Firstly thats false, secondly there was an explosion and 300,000 pounds of steel hitting those buildings too, and in the case of tower 7 over a million tons of debris landing on it traveling at over 700 miles per hour but hey... you spent an hour on the internet once and watched a video so I'm sure you know better.<br /><br /><i>So, is this an admission that you're fucking-off at the taxpayers' expense?</i><br /><br />If you call pushing paper fucking off. <br /><br /><i>I actually could. But you're not ready yet.</i><br /><br />Yeah right.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-46174575752114281672012-10-16T15:13:28.405-04:002012-10-16T15:13:28.405-04:00Like gravitation...or electromagnetism?
You know ...<i>Like gravitation...or electromagnetism?</i><br /><br />You know this thing holding me down to the Earth right now? I'm sure thats quantifiable. On a lot of levels. Give me a break. I've never "felt" the hand of God, and neither have you.<br /><br />I can see why you'd want to change to subject away from agreeing with Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell to the war in Iraq. Standing with those cats can't be a comfortable position- especially for a liberal.<br /><br /><i> with me claiming they're distinctly different? I don't put an ounce of faith in religion -- political, or otherwise. How about you?</i><br /><br />Saying they are different is a cop out, and I think I've CLEARLY established I don't put any stock what-so-ever in religion.<br /><br /><i>Do you mean those defending their homeland...against foreign invaders and occupiers? Were there any women and children?</i><br /><br />Only shot men, holding weapons. Many of them weren't from either Iraq or Afghanistan, and the ones that were, were killing their own people. In droves. I wasn't occupying anybody, I was DEFENDING them- often side by side with people native to that country. I helped train the Iraqi Army that today does the job I used to do. The only women and children I saw killed (And I saw a lot) were killed by terrorists. Often execution style. Some freedom fighters... I'm not sure what freedoms you are fighting for when you line an entire family up against the wall in their own prayer room and spray 7.62x39 ammo into them, reload, and then headshot them just to make sure- but I guess in your sick book that qualifies. Shines some light onto your judgement.<br /><br />I'll tell you a fun story. I was stationed at JSS Sadr city in 2008-2009. Sadr City was the hottest part of the war in Iraq at that time. One day some nice insurgents filled a vehicle up with HME and detonated it in Jamilla Market, a place that on that time of day was rock concert crowded. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062401884.html" rel="nofollow">They killed 75 people instantly and wounded hundreds more, many of them children.</a> American troops were not in the market at the time, and were about a miles away, we having just left. Please explain to me who these "freedom fighters" were fighting exactly? The Iraqis had begged us to stay, as one Iraqi in the link said-<br /><br /><i>"This is one of the biggest mistakes the U.S. has made," said Kadhum Irboee al-Quraishi, a local leader in Sadr City who has worked closely with the Americans. "Assassinations will start again, and the terrorists are going to show that Iraqi forces are not capable of receiving responsibility."</i><br /><br />The truth is when we left, the people of Sadr City had lined the roads and waved goodbye to us with tears in their eyes and kept stopping our vehicles to give us gifts, and after the Jamilla bombing begged us to return. The showed up at FOB Taji and FOB Falcon where we were and literally begged <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=_SLysZdRKBk" rel="nofollow">my commander</a> to return and said they trusted us more than their own soldiers. But of course, we didn't, because we were not allowed by our government. So really, please explain to me who these twisted people are fighting when <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce-QykO61Ck" rel="nofollow">they shoot rockets into people trying to buy food?</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-16603803283777859312012-10-16T12:00:43.427-04:002012-10-16T12:00:43.427-04:00Free0352: "Not really, they're quacks.&qu...<b>Free0352</b>: "<i>Not really, they're quacks.</i>"<br /><br />and...<br /><br />"<i>You've never demolished a building, I have.</i>"<br /><br />They seemed pretty legitimate to me. They all graduated from fine schools and have degrees in their respective fields, plus their years of experience doesn't go without notice. Are they "quacks" because they disagree with the official storyline -- as incomplete and as botched as it was?<br /><br />I know, I've never demolished a building -- but several of those "quacks" (as you describe them) have. Do you have an undergraduate or graduate degree in structural engineering? Architecture? Mechanical engineering? How about physics?<br /><br />No...I didn't think so. (Those "quacks" do.) <br /><br /><br />"<i>Plain and simple people would have noticed the days of preparation that go into knocking a building down in a controlled fashion, and the 9-11 collapse was hardly controlled... hence why tower 7 came down.</i>"<br /><br />Not according to <i>a lot</i> of people -- those "quacks" included.<br /><br />Gee, I'm afraid to enter a highrise now. Never in the history of modern highrise architecture has a building collapsed due to internal fire. Never <i>before</i> that day, and <i>never</i> since. On 9/11, <i>three</i> buildings did.<br /><br />Have you ever taken a course in statistical probability? If so, what do you think are the chances of that? <br /><br /><br />"<i>You're letting your paranoia and loathing for government...</i>"<br /><br />That's like the pot calling the kettle black...<br /><br /><br />"<i>I've been doing this for nearly 15 years and frankly its not challenging any more because now I ride a desk.</i>"<br /><br />So, is this an admission that you're fucking-off at the taxpayers' expense? <br /><br /><br />"<i>...you're such an early riser and everything, I'm sure you could all show us a thing or two in the humble leg infantry.</i>"<br /><br />I actually could. But you're not ready yet.<br /><br /><br />"<i>That is assuming of course you could get your fat ass out of your mom's basement.</i><br /><br />You've obviously never bothered to check my picture in my profile. I'd hardly be considered a "fat ass". But, I remember seeing a couple of pictures of you on your now vanquished blog. If I recall, you're sort of chunky. You better amp-up your workout regimen. What you're doing isn't working. <br /><br />Hey, could you excuse me while I wipe the grease off my fingers after eating this bag of Cheetos. Plus, I need to turn on some more lights -- it's really getting dark down here. <b>;-)</b>Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-86440690373863514712012-10-16T11:58:54.498-04:002012-10-16T11:58:54.498-04:00Free0352: "A sure way to see if nothing is th...<b>Free0352</b>: "<i>A sure way to see if nothing is there, is to look and not find anything.</i>"<br /><br />Like gravitation...or electromagnetism?<br /><br />Is it possible we <i>just</i> haven't figured a way to measure it yet? Food for thought...<br /><br /><br />"<i>Nah, just not going to bullshit you.</i>"<br /><br />Why change now?<br /><br />By the way, I'm <i>still</i> waiting for your "evidence and data".<br /><br /><br />"<i>Trust me, if there is a hell and I go there I'll be surrounded by all the people I shot.</i>"<br /><br />Do you mean those defending their homeland...against foreign invaders and occupiers? Were there any women and children?<br /><br /><br />"<i>When it comes to religion or 'Spirituality' as you refer to it...</i>"<br /><br />That's where your whole rant started, isn't it, with me claiming they're distinctly different? I don't put an ounce of faith in religion -- political, or otherwise. How about you?<br /><br /><br />"<i>[O]n this we agree, you do demonstrate 'un-knowing' which is a slightly nicer way of saying ignorant.</i>"<br /><br />No, it's more like "unknowable" -- at least in our physical form. Intuitively, I know it's right. It's like I <i>can't prove</i> "love" exists, either, but I know it's real. <br /><br />Tell me, have you ever loved someone? If so, how did you know? How did you measure it?<br /><br /><br />"<i>That's a little harsh on old George [Bush]...</i>"<br /><br />Why is that? You cited Chomsky as proof that 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, yet in the same interview he claimed that Bush <i>allowed</i> the attacks to occur. Why, now, do you consider Chomsky wrong?<br /><br />END OF PART I...PART II COMING...Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-78145722787407887222012-10-15T21:18:26.815-04:002012-10-15T21:18:26.815-04:00As for my military career, I can blog twice as muc...As for my military career, I can blog twice as much standing on my head. I've been doing this for nearly 15 years and frankly its not challenging any more because now I ride a desk. My days in the field are sadly behind me, as I'm at that super fun administrative portion of my career which blows goats. My platoon sergeant time is all done and the Army won't let me have anymore, and I wouldn't lead troops again forever till I picked up 1SG... if I got lucky enough to be selected. Being the assistant Operations NCO and Intel Fusion guy sucks ass. I'm cool off it, so I'm out by next year. I liked being a squad leader, and wish I could have done that job for 30 years... but thats just not how the Infantry works. All those field grade officers need NCO bitches, and thats just how it goes unless I qualified for Delta which I freely admit I did not. I wish the Army didn't work this way, but it does and the contract world awaits. The private sector doesn't pay what it once did, but they still need guys with my skillsets. And of course, the pay is still a little better ;) <br /><br />Oh as for the PT, come on down to Ft Riley Jeff, you're such an early riser and everything, I'm sure you could all show us a thing or two in the humble leg infantry. That is assuming of course you could get your fat ass out of your mom's basement.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-5877096362771856552012-10-15T21:13:57.499-04:002012-10-15T21:13:57.499-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-53703109617314364002012-10-15T18:00:56.040-04:002012-10-15T18:00:56.040-04:00Dave Dubya: "I agree -- I've had my doubt...<b>Dave Dubya</b>: "<i>I agree -- I've had my doubts at times. As far as Free0352, though...</i>"<br /><br />Now I'm having second thoughts...again. <b>;-)</b> Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-30069455051415263932012-10-15T13:01:20.882-04:002012-10-15T13:01:20.882-04:00Look Jeff, if you want to have a conversation abou...Look Jeff, if you want to have a conversation about the mistakes made prior to 9-11, so be it. There is a lot to talk about. I know when the USMC kicked off Operation Andean Initiative and Andean Action back in 99-2000 time frame, especially after the Cole bombing a lot of us were like "HEY THIS BIN LADEN GUY!!! What about him?" and the powers that be were like "Yeah, yeah, but the commies!" I mean after the 79 hostage crisis, about a hundred plane hijackings in the 80s, the Intifada, the WTC bombing, the Africa embassies, the Cole and on and on, you'd think they'd have learned. But it took 9-11 to pound it home. That's pitiful, but that's they way it is. And now there are we voices who are saying "Iran, Iran, its Iran guys! Do something!" and they're calling us crazy warmongers again, just like they said that about us in 2000 with Afghanistan.<br /><br />Guess some people never learn. Spotting radical Islamists bent on violence isn't hard, but denial has been a US strategy since after Vietnam and some institutional inertia is hard or impossible to change without a sledgehammer like 9-11. So don't think our government, military, or intelligence community is as all knowing as you give them credit for being. In my experience they are usually the LAST to get it.<br /><br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-39860947582389822032012-10-15T12:47:04.193-04:002012-10-15T12:47:04.193-04:00Look, the defense and intelligence community just ...Look, the defense and intelligence community just didn't take Al'Queda seriously. Should they have? Yes, with 20/20 hindsight we see that now. And they truly didn't. I was doing counter terror work from the beginning of my military career and guess what? The principle focus and scary boogie man of terrorism prior to 9-11 was communist backed drug narco-terrorists from South America. Even after the first WTC bombing, the embassies in Africa, and the USS Cole. Was that stupid? Yes. Was it negligent? Yes. Was it deliberate? No. There was a lot of institutional inertia after the cold war to fear communists more so that Islamic radicals. It was they enemy they knew and feared. They just didn't take 13th century people living in caves as a serious threat, even after they had fought Israel to a stand still and beat the Russians. I don't know for the life of me why that was, but it is what was going on. Of course now, we forgot communism and drug trafficers all together and are laser focused on Islamic Radicalism, which indeed makes sense. However, with the rise of the Mexican cartels especially the Zetas -who we trained to stop drug cartels back in the 90s when they were Mexican Special Forces, face palm- we might want to keep an eye on that too now. Just say'n. I'm not a fan of the drug war by any stretch of the imagination, but I along with pretty much anyone with any sense is anti-Zetas. Read up on them, and you'll see what I mean. Their human trafficing alone is reason enough to take a close interest in seeing them die.<br /><br /><i>which has convinced you "terrorism" is under every rock and behind every bush?</i><br /><br />Every rock and bush? Really? Care to over state my position for me? On terrorism I'm moderate guy. I think you can tell from this thread I'm not fan of religion, but I don't see mainstream Islam as being any more kooky that any other religion- and I have many muslim friends. In fact one of the reasons I'm such a hawk when it comes to authentic terrorists is because of how absolutely vicious they are <i>towards their fellow Muslims.</i> Fact is, groups like Al'Queda and Islamic Jihad (which is part of AQ now anyway) have killed by far more Muslims than we EVER have let alone Americans. They are a very credible threat to everybody who doesn't subscribe to their very radical interpretation of the Koran which is rejected by nearly every Muslim scholar known to man. You can't really make the argument that they target Americans because -Americans are bad- when they are targeting people of all faiths in places like Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Australia, Germany, England, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Russia, and the people of every last Islamic country and most of Africa.<br /><br />These folks are nuts. You can't reason or compromise with them. You just have to kill them. Thats the only way.<br /><br /><i>The people interviewed in that film are</i><br /><br />Not really, they're quacks. Again. Not. One. Peer Reviewed Paper. Not one. In over a decade. Reason being they don't have a scientific leg to stand on. That is not an accident, and its not a conspiracy. Nuff said. The reason your "sources" are marginalized is because their conclusions are laughable, both from a common sense stand point and a scientific one. It can't stand up to review. You've never demolished a building, I have. Plain and simple people would have noticed the days of preparation that go into knocking a building down in a controlled fashion, and the 9-11 collapse was hardly controlled... hence why tower 7 came down. You're letting your paranoia and loathing for government get in the way, or maybe not. Perhaps you're just a legend in your own mind and like to think you're smarter than all the "sheeple" out there who "accept the corporate line," but in reality you just look like an idiot. You sound like someone who insists you got an alien anal probefree0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-63327599029097863802012-10-15T12:46:48.969-04:002012-10-15T12:46:48.969-04:00you already claimed you had "evidence and dat...<i> you already claimed you had "evidence and data"</i><br /><br />Your ADMITTED lack of evidence IS data. A sure way to see if nothing is there, is to look and not find anything.<br /><br /><i> After all, you're the one with the closed mind.</i><br /><br />The advocate of religion (no cop outs with "spiritual" its the same thing) talking to the atheist about an open mind. How bout you open YOUR mind to the possibility (and in reality fact) that ghosts, goblins and invisible men in the sky with 10 rules are just figments of the imagination.<br /><br /><i>Yet you feel a need to get angry about this.</i><br /><br />Nah, just not going to bullshit you. <br /><br /><i>just may be ramifications for all the injustice you've supported and murder you've committed?</i><br /><br />Trust me, if there is a hell and I go there I'll be surrounded by all the people I shot.<br /><br /><i>I hardly think so.</i><br /><br />Yeah, because those I mentioned are just huge fans of atheism **rolling eyes**<br /><br /><i>To equate their brand of religious fanaticism and trickery with my belief in a spiritual dimension, would be like you saying you're like me because we both enjoy drinking a cold beer once in awhile</i><br /><br />In that regard we are alike cause I like beer. Of course if I were anti-beer the way I am atheist then we would not be alike in that regard. When it comes to religion or "Spirituality" as you refer to it, you and old Pat Robertson are two peas in a pod selling the same bullshit. The difference between you is like Coke to Pepsi.<br /><br /><i>My faith comes down to the unknowing; thus the term "faith"</i><br /><br />on this we agree, you do demonstrate "un-knowing" which is a slightly nicer way of saying ignorant. Whats sad is its <i>willful</i> ignorance.<br /><br /><i>George Bush? He allowed it to occur.</i><br /><br />Thats a little harsh on old George and while we're at it Clinton too. Look, I'm not a big fan of either Bush Presidency but I know what happened with Al'Queda. I guess you could say they "allowed" it to happen and cast it in the worst possible light, but then you'd have to say FDR "allowed" Pear Harbor to happen. <br /><br />.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-64708414336819817142012-10-15T07:02:50.281-04:002012-10-15T07:02:50.281-04:00Dave Dubya: "There's no reason to doubt ...<b>Dave Dubya</b>: "<i>There's no reason to doubt they contract propaganda mercenaries. After all, they use every other dirty trick in the book.</i>"<br /><br />and...<br /><br />"<i>Although I wouldn't be surprised if they have popped in on occasion if only for sport. F&B appears most like a professional propaganda mercenary.</i>"<br /><br />I agree -- I've had my doubts at times. As far as Free0352, though, he's just a typical military wannabe with an over-inflated ego. He's undoubtedly goldbricking while his underlings are "falling out" doing jumping-jacks or digging latrines. You'll always notice he only comments during the week -- never on weekends.<br /><br />He's spending <i>your</i> tax dollars while at the same time railing against government waste.<br /><br />He's the epitome of hypocrisy.Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-59357053050537906072012-10-14T13:49:19.689-04:002012-10-14T13:49:19.689-04:00Wease,
Thanks for that one. As we know the Right i...Wease,<br />Thanks for that one. As we know the Right is fond of military mercenaries. There's no reason to doubt they contract propaganda mercenaries. After all, they use every other dirty trick in the book.<br /><br />Just go to Mother Jones, FAIR, and Media Matters to see their work. They're not fooling anyone, of course, at least at those high information sites. Their damage is done at corporate media and other sites.<br /><br />Who knows, maybe some of the posters here are paid, but I doubt it. Our guys are likely true believers, rather than paid propaganda mercenaries. Although I wouldn't be surprised if they have popped in on occasion if only for sport. F&B appears most like a professional propaganda mercenary.<br /><br />If so, I'm flattered.<br /><br />Otherwise I don't think my meager blog would draw their attention. Maybe for the less than bright trainees or wannabes... ;-)<br /><br />That's what most of them sound like anyway.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-90646010735563212292012-10-14T13:02:03.931-04:002012-10-14T13:02:03.931-04:00Nice article about the people paid to derail discu...Nice article about the people paid to derail discussions on blogs and forums.<br /><br />"I Was a Paid Internet Shill"<br />http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread826545/pg1Weaseldoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12657976442272800800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-54973957479559928582012-10-13T08:55:29.097-04:002012-10-13T08:55:29.097-04:00PART II...
Freeo0352: "As I said, when you h...PART II...<br /><br /><b>Freeo0352</b>: "<i>As I said, when you have a consensus on plain evidence between myself, George Bush, Barack Obama and Noam Chomsky...</i>"<br /><br />George Bush? He allowed it to occur. Chomsky even noted <i>that</i>. Barack Obama? He protects the linage of corporatists, just as the next corporatist president will protect him. As far as Noam Chomsky, although he's a brilliant linguist, philosopher and historian, he's certainly not a structural engineer, physicist, chemist, mechanical engineer, or a highrise architect. The people interviewed in that film are. Also, to espouse anything <i>other than</i> the "official" government storyline right now would be suicidal for people in prominent positions and careers. Anyone who proposes any alternative scenario is sought out and browbeaten by the corporate mainstream media, or sufficiently marginalized. I'm sure Chomsky would prefer to avoid the ridicule. He still has many books he wants to write and sell. <br /><br /><br />"<i>...it shouldn't be too hard to figure out who is playing with the full deck in this conversation and who is the slave to a faith belief.</i>"<br /><br />Like <i>your</i> slavery to the military-industrial-security complex, which has convinced you "terrorism" is under every rock and behind every bush? Do you mean <i>that</i> faith belief? Or do you mean your libertarian religion of laying prostrate at the alter of unrestrained free-markets? <br /><br />Which one?Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-20395908171985047472012-10-13T08:50:28.390-04:002012-10-13T08:50:28.390-04:00Free0352: "You cannot be called upon to prove...<b>Free0352</b>: "<i>You cannot be called upon to prove a negative. That's logic 101 guy. You're making a falsification...</i>"<br /><br />But you already claimed you had "evidence and data" that proves the nonexistence of a spiritual life. I'm only asking for that proof (which you offered and <i>are not</i> able to provide, after all). <i>That</i> was the whole point. <br /><br /><br />"<i>Ignorance is bliss, at least with you Jeff.</i>"<br /><br />Actually, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say <i>you're</i> the one that's ignorant? After all, <i>you're</i> the one with the closed mind.<br /><br /><br />"<i>I don't care in the least and you have every right to be wrong.</i>"<br /><br />Yet you feel a need to get angry about this. That's really interesting. Is it because you're worried if I'm right, and you're wrong, that there <i>just may</i> be ramifications for all the injustice you've supported and murder you've committed?<br /><br /><br />"<i>I told you what I think of religion and spirituality when you suggested or implied, myself and the Libertarian Party, were part of or at least allied with the religious right.</i>"<br /><br />As I already corrected you, I never said, or even indicated, that the libertarian movement was allied with the religious right. Go back into the thread and you'll find it was someone else. But, as we've seen many times previously, you have a reading comprehension challenge. If you'll recall, I only made the claim that there's a difference between religious dogma and spirituality. Your explosive rant started from there.<br /><br /><br />"<i>Can you imagine Billy Graham, George W. Bush or Pat Robertson's reaction to my side of this argument? Clearly, they would be on YOUR side which makes your side closer to them than mine.</i>"<br /><br />I hardly think so. They're all free-market "faith" believers like yourself; believers that laissez faire capitalism is the modern world's panacea for everything. To equate their brand of religious fanaticism and trickery with my belief in a spiritual dimension, would be like you saying you're like <i>me</i> because we both enjoy drinking a cold beer once in awhile. That's <i>hardly</i> a basis to claim similarity.<br /><br />My faith comes down to the unknowing; thus the term "faith". Yet, <i>your</i> faith is based upon something within the physical world that has never worked, doesn't exist anywhere <i>in the</i> world, and only works in theory (if at all). So it would appear it's <i>your</i> faith that is blind. If the best you can say about spirituality is that it's not provable, what does it say about your "faith" which <i>has been</i> proven <i>not</i> to work?<br /><br />My faith <i>may</i> be blind, but <i>yours</i> is deaf, dumb, and stupid.<br /><br />PART II COMING UP...Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-43895086444700528022012-10-12T21:43:15.249-04:002012-10-12T21:43:15.249-04:00That's your "evidence and data"?!?! ...<i>That's your "evidence and data"?!?! C'mon, you can do better than that...</i><br /><br />Talk about a flawed premise. You cannot be called upon to prove a negative. That's logic 101 guy. You're making a falsification (There is a [God]) and I am the one asking for evidence. You have none. You have faith, and faith as I have said is antilogic. You replied there is something beyond sense and logic. That's laughable on its face.<br /><br /><i> I never claimed such nonsense.</i><br /><br />You've claimed nothing BUT nonsense and substituted faith as evidence.<br /><br /><i>It certainly makes me happy.</i><br /><br />Ignorance is bliss, at least with you Jeff.<br /><br /><i> I'm perfectly satisfied with you being an atheist. Why would you care that I'm not? </i><br /><br />I don't care in the least and you have every right to be wrong. I'm tolerant of that completely. What I WILL NOT DO is lie to you and say I respect your belief. I don't. Tolerance and respect are not the same thing. Your faith belief has no impact on me at all. Therefore, knock yourself out. But since it came up, I told you what I think of religion and spirituality when you suggested or implied, myself and the Libertarian Party, were part of or at least allied with the religious right. Since more than 60% of Libertarians agree with me at least on this issue I think we can definitively establish that claim is emphatically wrong. Can you imagine Billy Graham, George W. Bush or Pat Robertson's reaction to my side of this argument? Clearly, they would be on YOUR side which makes your side closer to them than mine. In fact, you are the flip side to their coin.<br /><br /><i>Like the faith you have in the government's propaganda story-line?</i><br /><br />This one is the easiest of all to refute. As I said, when you have a consensus on plain evidence between myself, George Bush, Barack Obama and Noam Chomsky; and that consensus is Twoofers are wrong and possibly paranoid lunatics and least of all gullible and laughable fools and you find yourself on the other side of that consensus it shouldn't be too hard to figure out who is playing with the full deck in this conversation and who is the slave to a faith belief.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-41910198373603868462012-10-12T20:35:16.474-04:002012-10-12T20:35:16.474-04:00Free0352: "Self evident. YOUR lack of any pro...<b>Free0352</b>: "<i>Self evident. YOUR lack of any proof, proves MY point.</i>"<br /><br />Self evident? Possibly to you. "Your" self, but not evident to "my" self. I'm sorry, but it doesn't.<br /><br /><i>That's</i> your "evidence and data"?!?! C'mon, you can do better than that...<br /><br />Well, maybe I'm giving you too much credit.<br /><br /><br />"<i>There is zero evidence in any supernatural force.</i>"<br /><br />There is zero evidence in there being <i>no</i> supernatural force.<br /><br /><br />"<i>Conclusion - A supernatural force did not create nor influences existence.</i>"<br /><br />Your conclusion is not valid, simply because your premises are not.<br /><br /><br />"<i>And so goes it with miraculous free0352 water walking so too goes the theory...</i>"<br /><br />No, "water-walking" is a physical phenomenon. It can be substantiated and proven, or not proven, by the scientific method.<br /><br />You're bringing extraneous and unrelated subjects into the conversation. I never claimed such nonsense.<br /><br /><br />"<i>You're full of shit, right along with the Pope, David Miscavige, the Dali Lama and a thousand other witch doctors and related mystics of today and those handed down to us from history.</i>"<br /><br />Maybe...or <i>you</i> are.<br /><br /><br />"<i>Being 'open minded' in this regard does not make one intelligent, enlightened or wise. It simply makes you a fool...</i>"<br /><br />I don't think so, but I'll take my chances. It certainly makes me happy. <i>That's</i> what's important.<br /><br />Really, why would you care? I'm perfectly satisfied with you being an atheist. Why would you care that I'm not? <br /><br /><br />"<i>...and if you'll believe in that shit I hope you have some faith in the bridge I've got to sell you.</i>"<br /><br />Like the faith <i>you have</i> in the government's propaganda story-line?Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-83639776374695014572012-10-12T20:31:49.119-04:002012-10-12T20:31:49.119-04:00I mean, why do people do it? I think the answer is...<i> I mean, why do people do it? I think the answer is that they are afraid to assume total responsibility for their lives and as adults with an absence of parents</i><br /><br />Or also common, they simply learned it from Mom and Dad and never bothered to question it. However, since most people in life at one point or another will have a crisis of faith and fail that logical test- most of these "spiritual people" are of the weak minded variety. I suppose with little to no scientific context like people didn't have -in say 1300- it was a little more forgivable than in 2012. In today's modern age, it gets harder and harder to defend the faith. This is likely why in most civilized places the rolls of the religious thin more and more yearly, and in the truly savage and primitive bastions "spirituality" is still valued highly. <br /><br />It can be seen as a kind of societal evolution. The tribal parts of the world (example Africa and certain south Pacific islands) still worship the shamanistic totems of primitive man, and more developed countries subscribe largely to organized religion (example South America or the Mid East) while the most evolved societies (western Europe and the more developed Asian states) embrace atheism more and more.<br /><br />The conclusion being those of organized religion are simply behind the power curve and the mystical types (at least in western nations) are howling throwbacks to a darker era in human evolution. Jews, Christians, Buddhists for example are merely ignorant, sometimes hyper violent and often annoying. The folks who think rocks have healing powers or are one with Gaia, or worst of all on the annoying factor Wiccan are throwbacks who are de-evolving themselves but luckily as there numbers fade into history aren't taking many with them.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-65739052195892834772012-10-12T20:20:04.703-04:002012-10-12T20:20:04.703-04:00There is a fundamental difference between stars an...There is a fundamental difference between stars and God. Stars are real and people became curious about what they were and how they worked. Its a specific question, with a specific and very knowable answer. Once upon a time many cultures thought stars (especially the sun) <i>were gods</i> and only later we learn that these people were believing a lie and that the originators were not open minded spiritual people but literally just made that shit up, most likely to take advantage of people in some way.<br /><br />"Spirituality" is a very broad topic, that unlike stars or nuclear physics is filled not with nuclear fusion but pure bullshit. A good demonstration of that, is I don't have to convince people to have blind faith in the belief in either nuclear reaction or stars. I would for either God or some other flying spaghetti monster.<br /><br />Belief in spirituality is at heart a bastion of the mentally weak. I mean, why do people do it? I think the answer is that they are afraid to assume total responsibility for their lives and as adults with an absence of parents, choose instead a mythical supernatural force and pretend it watches over them just like mommy and daddy used to.<br /><br />Its like an invisible friend for insecure grown ups. Mostly harmless though occasionally catastrophic - but always pathetic.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-59616723573416221742012-10-12T19:06:54.526-04:002012-10-12T19:06:54.526-04:00It's pretty simple then. If Free0352 doesn'...It's pretty simple then. If Free0352 doesn't know about something, then he knows for a fact that it doesn't exist.<br /><br />Its science according to Free0352.<br /><br />Likewise, in 1800, no one knew that that stars were powered by nuclear reactions. that is undeniable Free0352 scientific proof, that stars were not powered by nuclear reactions in 1800.<br /><br />Now we know they are, so now it is true.<br /><br />See, your view remains reasonable Free, so long as our view is relative to your belief system.Weaseldoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12657976442272800800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-27759852914519443052012-10-12T16:16:59.294-04:002012-10-12T16:16:59.294-04:00Prove it.
Self evident. YOUR lack of any proof, ...<i>Prove it.</i><br /><br />Self evident. YOUR lack of any proof, proves MY point.<br /><br />Point 1 - Clearly existence exists.<br /><br />Point 2 - There is zero evidence in any supernatural force.<br /><br />Conclusion - A supernatural force did not create nor influences existence.<br /><br />I don't claim to hold the secrets of the universe or the meaning of life. However as I said, I am a smart enough person to realize <i>what the answer is not.</i><br /><br />If I told you I could walk on water, even if I <i>really believed it</i> and dared you to prove otherwise and you wouldn't need to. The answer is obvious. And so goes it with miraculous free0352 water walking so too goes the theory of ghosts, goblins, spirits, higher powers, and assorted silliness. Its the total <i>absence</i> of YOUR evidence that proves one and only one thing.<br /><br />You're full of shit, right along with the Pope, David Miscavige, the Dali Lama and a thousand other witch doctors and related mystics of today and those handed down to us from history. <br /><br />Being "open minded" in this regard does not make one intelligent, enlightened or wise. It simply makes you a fool, and if you'll believe in that shit I hope you have some faith in the bridge I've got to sell you.<br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-42180897873969113692012-10-12T15:51:45.580-04:002012-10-12T15:51:45.580-04:00"There are more things in heaven and earth, H..."There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."<br /><br />...or in any philosophy, or science.<br /><br />The black hole information paradox, parallel universes, dark matter, dark energy, eleven dimensions...<br /><br />Beyond my immediate and knowable experience, I'm certainly not going to make pronouncements about what is to be, or not to be.<br /><br />Who knows? There may be another version of me, who totally disagrees with this version of me.<br /><br />The mysteries beckon to the open, not the closed, minds.<br /><br />My "faith" tells me this. Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-14210872232263456622012-10-12T15:32:49.458-04:002012-10-12T15:32:49.458-04:00Free0352: "There IS NOTING [sic] beyond the p...<b>Free0352</b>: "<i>There IS NOTING [sic] beyond the physical realm. That is the point.</i>"<br /><br />Prove it.<br /><br />That's what I've asked for from you -- proof -- for <i>at least</i> three cycles of this conversation.<br /><br />Prove it to me. You said you have "evidence and data" (your words). <br /><br />Then show it to me.<br /><br />I'm waiting with amused anticipation...Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.com